Dennis Richardson would deal with same-sex marriage law more ethically & respectfully than John Kitzhaber ever has.

The Oregon Republican Governor candidate Richardson would honor the law Kitzhaber conspired to subvert.

Dennis Richardson thinks traditional marriage–one man and one woman–is the way biology, theology, anthropology and every other ology– defining our species since time immemorial dictates it should be. Still does, I’d wager. But the Republican gubernatorial candidate will do exactly opposite of what John Kitzhaber and his activist Attorney General handmaiden Ellen Rosenblum have not done: He will honor and defend the law.

Since the Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider state appeals to lower federal circuit court rulings upending traditional marriage laws, the battle over what marriage is and what combinations of people have the right to do it, could be over. Marriage outside the church soon will be a strictly secular government event, wholly uninformed by traditional values and religion. It will merely become a box that needs to be checked. A fee paid to the lady at the counter.

The court still has the ability to reconsider, but with Monday’s surprising announcement of no decision, it’s considered unlikely. In short, people of faith and moral rectitude must now render unto Caesar what is his: the state’s role in defining marriage.

Put another way, in the name of equality, we have now just detonated a nuclear bomb into what defines gender and those combining to make the most basic building block of society: a couple capable of coming together to create children to perpetuate society and humanity.

That ain’t dogma. It’s not bigotry. It’s just fact, based on, you know, science.

I mean, think about it: It takes some hubris, a good PR flak, years of diminishing the importance of God in the public square and a dumbed down education system to get millions of people to forsake biology for this point of view.  What’s next, no more male and female electrical implements?

But here we are.

Lunch box, religious, humble Democrats in Oregon want to know what a Governor Richardson–a whip smart, competent,  decent, church-going, social and fiscally conservative gentleman– would do when his argument loses in the arena of public debate. Would he do what Kitzhaber has done and ignore the will of the people? Would he collude with others to do an end run around Oregon law?

Dennis Richardson would honor the law. Uphold the law. Defend the law. Because that’s what we elect a governor to do. It’s been so long since we’ve had law abiding leader at Mahonia Hall that it’s hard to imagine what it must be like to have a governor act the way a governor should.

I believe Governor Richardson would deal with issues like this the same as Governor Scott Walker has when he heard about the Supreme Court non-decision this week:

No Title

@GovWalker’s office: In light of the action by #SCOTUS, Wisconsin will uphold the law as set by the federal Court of Appeals.

No Title

No Description

No Title

At least Scott Walker accepted today’s SCOTUS decision with grace. Unlike the whiny bitter loser governor of Oklahoma @GovMaryFallin

No Title

TY @ScottWalker for your call to respect our fellow citizens & your dignified leadership re: the freedom to marry in WI. #SCOTUS

This is the way a representative–a leader — of the people reacts.

Oregonians saw in real time the duplicity, collusion and unembarrassed nullification by Kitzhaber and Rosenblum of a constitutional amendment passed by an overwhelming number of Oregon voters defining marriage. Democrats have done the same with the death penalty, property rights and transportation issues before, that is when they’re not ramrodding  education and disastrous healthcare “reform” as part of the collective public enema.

These two (and their ilk) saw it as their legacy fight:  We’ll pretend it’s the same fight as black and white, but we’ll just fuzzy up the biology and human history and try to get everyone to believe the hype. 

And people did.

I’ve gotta go. Got IJR and radio duties to tend to, but I leave you with one question: Would you rather have a man of integrity in office, who promises to uphold the laws of the state of Oregon and who has demonstrated he has actually done this, or a man who has amply demonstrated he’ll ignore the law when he feels like it?

Whom do you trust, Oregon? The man who trusts you or the guy who has shown he doesn’t give a crap what you think?