American Law or International Law?

Today, I want to shed light on the work of the United Nations – not because I think the UN is a diabolical machine of the New World Order (although I do think that), but because more and more American jurisprudence is looking to international law to achieve radical change in American culture – the gay rights decision in the Lawrence case a few years ago is a perfect example of this judicial hubris: what Justices can’t establish through American precedents and state laws, they now reach across the oceans and grab from international law and treaties.

The latest threat comes from two UN-driven treaties that, to date, the United States has refused to sign. The first is the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the second is the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It’s true that few people take the United Nations seriously any more. But liberals know that not being taken seriously is actually a political asset. All they care about is manipulating democratic processes to get what they want – in this case, what liberals want is a continued assault on traditional American culture. Conservatives, on the other hand, what to keep the best of the culture we’ve nurtured for millennia.

We all see the world a certain way – that worldview is what we call our culture – and liberals tend to see the world way different than most Utahns. Today’s UN is a reflection of liberal counter-culture. These two treaties contain the following measures:

o Legalizing prostitution and elevating it to the status of a profession
o Diminishing the legal protection of freedom of conscience
o Diminishing parental guidance for teenagers’ emerging sexuality
o Promoting access to abortion, contraception, and other “medical” services for children without parental consent
o Promoting contraceptive use without regard to its social consequences
o Promoting abortion under the fiction of an international law mandate
o Demeaning traditional motherhood and those who support it
o Promoting professional child care for newborns
o Equating mild spanking of children by their parents with serious physical abuse
o Objecting to the influence of religion on society
o Objecting to the protection of the rights of religious minorities, and (believe it or not)
o Abolishing Mothers’ Day to combat “stereotypes”

Now Utah liberals, who always try to distance themselves from their big brothers and sisters nationwide, will discount these threats. They’ll say that none of this really matters for Utah even if those treaties do, in fact, contain those proposals. But here’s what they won’t tell you:

Should the President sign and the Senate ratify these treaties, family law in Utah will be in chaos. The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution makes such treaties the supreme law of the land – thus all inconsistent state laws would be void. Essentially, this effort would “federalize” all family law that, traditionally, has been left to each of the fifty states to decide for themselves. Acceptance of these UN treaties would lead to endless litigation in Utah to try to figure out whether particular existing state laws were, or were not, encompassed within the intent of these treaties.

That fact alone still makes the UN a matter for discussion in Utah.

I’m Paul Mero. Thanks for listening.

This entry was posted in Radio Commentaries. Bookmark the permalink.