Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for August, 2010

Earlier this week, I was thinking about Obama and his apparent inability to act Presidential when it comes to addressing terrorism against this country and its citizens.  It always seems like it takes a while for him to say anything, and then when he does, it is either underwhelming, or I get the distinct impression that it pisses him off to actually have to address it and talk about being a bad thing for the believers in the Religion of [Flaming] Pieces™ to be so actively engaged in killing Americans.  The more I pondered this, the more I realized that this really wasn’t the only thing that seemed to make him irritable.  It also manifests itself when he is asked real questions.  Does anyone remember this moment?

But then, we’d seen this face before.

“Just trying to be left alone.”

Yeah.  You’re campaigning for a 24/7 job that inserts you squarely in a fishbowl, and you’re “just trying to be left alone.”  

Here’s a hint.  If you don’t want the responsibility, don’t ask for the job.

Of course, a year on the job hasn’t tempered his attitude any.

Whether it is an obvious irritation with the expectation that he break from his Christmas Vacation in the Hawaiian Islands to address the government’s astounding failure that almost allowed a Nigerian Jhadi to blow up his underwear, and the plane he was on over Detroit…

Or his inability to quit campaigning when the American People need to know that he is “on top” of an attack that can only be considered an act of terror…

[I can’t help but to wonder what the Medal of Honor winner he was shouting out to was thinking?]

To vacation after vacation after vacation.

The constant fickle finger of blame being pointed at Bush…no matter what the failure is, Obama “inherited it”.  Bush should count himself as the most effective President ever.   He managed to screw up everything so bad that the person who was destined to heal the holes in our souls, and stop the warming of the earth and the rise of the oceans couldn’t stop historic and unprecedented unemployment, despite the Chicago Messiah actually getting the obscene and reckless spendulous bill passed.  Obama cannot effectively meet the challenge of terrorism, despite the Apologize for America tour of 2009, no doubt because Bush so damaged our reputation with the world.  Obama couldn’t get his step to single-payer health care package passed when he wanted, despite his own party’s commanding majority in Congress, because that damn Bush had allowed the peasants to think for themselves.

It’s enough to make a world leader roll up his sleves…and hit the links.   A lot.  But no matter.  When a Republican President does it during a war on two fronts, it is “horribly insensitive” to the sacrifices that Americans are making.  When a Democrat does it, it is just a well-deserved respite from a difficult job fraught with innumerable difficulties inherited from a Republican predecessor.   These obstacles are so grueling that despite being on the Gulf Oil Spill “From Day ONE!!!11!!”, he had to vacation more than once, because an uncooperative federal judge refused to let his administration shut down an entire industry central to that region’s economy.  Thankfully, there were plenty of beaches far away from the Gulf Coast that he could escape to.

And now, as his malaise settles in over a country that struggles with unemployment and the looming threat of new taxes and regulations that will continue to squelch economic and employment growth for the foreseeable future, it appears that even his own base is giving him trouble, as indicated by his Designated Liar and Spinner, Robert Gibbs:

The White House is simmering with anger at criticism from liberals who say President Obama is more concerned with deal-making than ideological purity.

During an interview with The Hill in his West Wing office, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted liberal naysayers, whom he said would never regard anything the president did as good enough.

I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “I mean, it’s crazy.”
The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.”

Of those who complain that Obama caved to centrists on issues such as healthcare reform, Gibbs said: “They wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was President”.

And that malaise seems to be seeping into the rest of his administration.

It is a sad day.  A gifted talker, in love with himself finds that the job that appealed to his vanity doesn’t get done by offering well-delivered platitudes and condescending lectures.  We might yet see a phyrric victory from this.  The situation might get so bad that he will abdicate his duties in name as well as in spirit.   Then maybe we can get a capable, uncomplaining leader who really will inherit the result of his predecessor’s shortcomings…and apply the quiet competence of the American Exceptionalism the current pResident of the Oval Office lacks and so despises.  And Obama can go back to eating his waffle on the 19th Hole.

Read Full Post »

I have been on “vacation” this week, which means I have been doing less at the office because I have been Dad full time.  I have been asked a few times why the Perry decision matters, and while I had been planning to write a post, discussing why it matters, and actually examining the philosophy of law question that it raises, but few seem to recognize, I realize that I have already written that post this week…

From The Hostages:

ya know, IMO, no one has yet given me a good, solid justification to be against gay marriage.

How does two people of the same sex wanting to be married affect my life in the least?

Because legalization = society’s approval, and I’m society, and I DO NOt approve.

Because it violates both centuries of civil legal jurisprudence, including contract law, and also violates our nation’s charter.

Because we already turn a blind eye to things that do nothing good for society, in an ongoing misapprehension that permissiveness is the same thing as freedom, and that it requires nothing of us.

___________________________________________

Because legalization = society’s approval, and I’m society, and I DO NOt approve.

not necessarily. Many things are legal that I disapprove of. Doesn’t change the fact that denying someone equal rights simply because you do not approve of whom they choose to sleep with, is bad law.

Because it violates both centuries of civil legal jurisprudence, including contract law,

so? Things don’t change? Societies don’t overturn bad laws when it becmes obvious that the law is bad? Prohibition??

and also violates our nation’s charter.

??? Really? Please to explain.

Because we already turn a blind eye to things that do nothing good for society,

But what about things that do nothing bad? Again, your disapproval does not automatically mean being gay is bad for society.

in an ongoing misapprehension that permissiveness is the same thing as freedom, and that it requires nothing of us.

So, instead, we should throw away our commitment to keeping the government out of our private lives in this one specific situation. And this is a conservative position how?

________________________________________________________________

not necessarily. Many things are legal that I disapprove of. Doesn’t change the fact that denying someone equal rights simply because you do not approve of whom they choose to sleep with, is bad law.

Marriage doesn’t regulate who people sleep with, and in many cases has almost nothing to do with that choice. Redefining a specific legal term, with defined rights and responsibilities so that people who are engaging in behavior that has nothing to do with those rights and responsibilities can pretend that they do because they can call it the same thing is a dubious pursuit for society or the Courts that are the final arbiter of its laws.

so? Things don’t change? Societies don’t overturn bad laws when it becmes obvious that the law is bad? Prohibition??

How is it obvious that the law is bad? I know that there was considerable “scientific” evidence presented in this case, but knowing how the arbiters of culture tend to see to it that “Science” presents whatever result they need to justify their policies (Globull warmening anyone), I think the jury is out on that. What this comes down to is changing the law based solely on what a vocal and sometimes militant minority WANTS. Once we do that, then all law becomes nothing more than what 50% + 1 want it to be.

??? Really? Please to explain.

Who do you think the “Creator”, “Nature’s God”, and “Divine Providence” referred to in the Declaration of Independence is? And what do you think happens when we no longer honor that sovereign by honoring his law?

But what about things that do nothing bad? Again, your disapproval does not automatically mean being gay is bad for society.

No. But I also missed the part where they perpetuate it, and promote those who do.

I did see various acts of selfishness, including deliberately having unprotected sex and giving blood because they thought the AIDS epidemic wasn’t getting enough attention or research dollars. But I guess a few prematurely dead hemopheliacs was a small price to pay for seeing to it that a disease that affects so few here in the states gets more medical research money than diseases that affect everyone.

So, instead, we should throw away our commitment to keeping the government out of our private lives in this one specific situation. And this is a conservative position how?

The government only believes in privacy when it protects the right of a woman to kill her child. It is very much involved in my life. It knows how much I make, the dividends my stocks pay me, the interest income on my bank account, what the make and model of my car is, and it didn’t consider me to be married, until I met the legal definition of it, and I got their permission in the form of a license. I think you’re confusing conservatism with libertarianism.

_________________________________________________________________

??? Really? Please to explain.

***

Who do you think the “Creator”, “Nature’s God”, and “Divine Providence” referred to in the Declaration of Independence is? And what do you think happens when we no longer honor that sovereign by honoring his law?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … [Not me…another response…BiW]

_______________________________________________________________

Redefining a specific legal term, with defined rights and responsibilities so that people who are engaging in behavior that has nothing to do with those rights and responsibilities can pretend that they do because they can call it the same thing is a dubious pursuit for society or the Courts that are the final arbiter of its laws.

How does telling two people who love each other that they cannot get married redefine anything other than conservatism? Why not tell ugly people they can’t marry? No one wants to see what they do behind closed doors, so therefore we should make it illegal for them to marry the person of their choice?

Who do you think the “Creator”, “Nature’s God”, and “Divine Providence” referred to in the Declaration of Independence is? And what do you think happens when we no longer honor that sovereign by honoring his law?

Well, denying people the right to their own happiness, of course. I respect your personal opinion regarding what the church says about homosexual behavior. But that’s where it should end. Taking that to the next level, where it denies people who disagree with you their rights is bad law, and, in my opinion, in direct conflict with the meaning of the words you reference.

No. But I also missed the part where they perpetuate it, and promote those who do.

Allowing free people to marry the person of their choosing is not promoting anything. It is, instead, not denying them equal rights as citizens of this country.

I did see various acts of selfishness, including deliberately having unprotected sex and giving blood because they thought the AIDS epidemic wasn’t getting enough attention or research dollars. But I guess a few prematurely dead hemopheliacs was a small price to pay for seeing to it that a disease that affects so few here in the states gets more medical research money than diseases that affect everyone.

It is against the law to intentionally engage in sex with the purpose of infecting someone with AIDS, correct? And, since I’m sure you give blood, you know what the restrictions are, as well as the testing that is done. This is a specious reason to not allow the majority of gay people, who do not do this, to marry.

And only gays get AIDS? Only gays engage in unsafe sex? So we should not allow anyone to get married who engages in anal sex, whether they are gay or straight, right? Or anyone who engages in one-night-stands or other unsafe sexual practices? How about straight couples who choose not have children? Isn’t the main reason, socially, for promoting marriage to procreate and perpetuate the species? Should infertile people not be allowed to marry?

it didn’t consider me to be married, until I met the legal definition of it, and I got their permission in the form of a license.

Laws change. Society matures. If they didn’t (and I know this is a rather liberal argument, but it makes sense to me) wouldn’t slavery still be legal?

I think you’re confusing conservatism with libertarianism.

No, not in the least. Conservatism is about small government and freedom, right? How can one reconcile that concept with denying another person equal rights simply based on their sexual preferences, as long as it is between two consenting adults?

____________________________________________________________________

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …

1. The bylaws don’t override the charter.

2. Laws are a reflection of a society’s morals. Those morals are informed by a set of values. The people who formed this nation incorporated the commonlaw of the country from which we came into our own jurisprudence. That commonlaw was informed by the judeo-christian ethic. (Google Lord Blackstone…he codified much of it, and was very much on the minds of the Founders).

3. You need to spend more time with the Federalist Papers. Their concern was specifically with the government giving official endorsement to a single sect of Christianity, not with having a common moral compass by which to define society’s values and laws.

4. Your implication doesn’t match the actions of the founders, the framers, or their successors up to about 1949, when Justice Hugo Black “Discovered” a wall between church and state, and then bastardized Jefferson’s meaning when he wrote it to the Danbury Baptists.

__________________________________________________________________________

Did any of our resident lawdogs comment on DrewM’s post at the mothership?

I just did, but it was more about his remarks on Hamilton failing to see the potential for abuse in the judiciary.

The best analysis I have seen thus far was this one at RedState:

http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2010/08/05/the-prop-8-decision-having-it-both-ways/

Although I think Drew actually started to touch the larger philosophy of law question that is apparently on no one’s radar right now.

_______________________________________________________________________

As a Californian, had Prop 8 failed and SSM been imposed by any means other than judicial fiat (or Newsome’s unlawful declaration), I’d have been OK with that.

But the problem here is that the will of the people has been repeatedly thwarted by a minority. And I don’t mean the gay community. I mean the political ruling class that knows better than the majority of the citizenry.

These decisions are always couched in the Constitutionality of the matter, but that fails to recognize that the ONLY thing that gives the Constitution its legitimacy is that a majority of the people support it.

If the Constitution is used or twisted, under the guise of “protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority” to a point where it becomes the tyranny of the minority, it loses any and all moral force. And no law without moral force will long stand on its legal strength.

**crossposted in the comments at Lex.

[Not me.]

-_____________________________________________________________________________

Thus proving that part of the group that always tries to tell us that we can’t legislate morality, wants to legislate morality.

Confusious was right. “May you live in interesting times” is about the worst curse there is.

____________________________________________________________________

BiW, my response is that ALL legislation is an attempt to legislate morality.

_____________________________________________________________________

And no law without moral force will long stand on its legal strength.

Whose morals? Yours? Mine? Or the judges’?

[Not Me]

___________________________________________________________________

AD, in that instance, by moral force, I mean that the majority of a population recognize the justice and propriety of a law. Not that they like it. Or even approve of it. But recognize it has a legitimacy. We are quickly leaving that consensus behind.

[Not Me]

______________________________________________________________________________

BiW, my response is that ALL legislation is an attempt to legislate morality.

You are correct, Grasshopper. The question becomes “Who’s Morality?”, as AD asks, somewhat facetiously, since the Judge’s morality doesn’t matter.

AD, in that instance, by moral force, I mean that the majority of a population recognize the justice and propriety of a law. Not that they like it. Or even approve of it. But recognize it has a legitimacy. We are quickly leaving that consensus behind.

*eyes B-rad suspiciously*
If you keep this up, I’mma gonna have to rethink your alleged shallowness.
You might be too good for Dolly.

It comes down to this: The more you separate the law from the reason for it, the more it becomes subjective and based on nothing other than what the whims of the most powerful are.

And the larger philosophy of law question is whether or not we are one nation under God. And if the answer is that we aren’t, then get comfortable with the idea of no longer being one nation, because there are a whole lot of people who won’t react well to being told by the Ruling Class that the law is only what they say it is, and that any other assumption that they have lived their lives based upon is nothing but a fiction maintained until the usurpation of power and insulation of it from the limitations of their consent is a lie.

____________________________________________________________________________

Jazz, the primary influence of the “one nation under God” part is that it recognizes that our rights come not from the government, but from higher entity. After that, you get into a whole mess of worms if you try to appeal to that higher authority as a basis for which morality to legislate.

[Not me]

______________________________________________________________________________

xbrad,
(Going down a rathole here): What kind of society (and/or legal system) do you have when “the majority of a population recognize the justice and propriety of a law. Not that they like it. Or even approve of it?? They “recognize the justice” but don’t approve of it (the law)? When your honor (which is conforming your actions to the commitment of your morals) is in conflict with your duty (which is conforming your actions to to the commitments you made to others) are in conflict, it is time to leave, or tear the system down and start over.

If a majority of the people don’t approve of the action, and make a law that says its not legal to perform the action, how is it “justice” to let other perform the action? Some people think it is okay to kill others just to take their flat screen TVs and such. Is it justice to let them do that, even though a majority of us disapprove of that action?

[Not Me]

_____________________________________________________________________________

After that, you get into a whole mess of worms if you try to appeal to that higher authority as a basis for which morality to legislate.

B-rad, our law was already based on that morality, and had been for centuries.

We may have broken political ties with England, but we kept and imported their law, and made it our own. The moral basis of it has been challenged now and again, but a systematic separation of the law from its moral basis didn’t gain real ground until the Everson case in 1949, and it has only gone downhill since. The left would have you believe that we have substitued much of our “moral law” with morality neutral law, but that is as big a lie as man-made global warming. There is nothing “neutral” about secular humanism, a fact accidentally recognized, but never returned to by the Court in Torcaso v. Watkins.

That moral consensus already impacted our law, and despite an unremitting attack on Chrisitianity since 1949 by the mechanisms of the very government it made possible, there is likely still a majority of people in this country who have based their existence on that underlying moral basis in the law.

_______________________________________________________________________

BiW, INAL.

what was Everson?

_______________________________________________________________________

Aside from the Prop 8 action, here’s what I think about same-sex marriage:

1) In theory, marriage is a religous concept, and since the primary religions all define marriage as one man and one woman, any other coupling is NOT a marriage.

2) I believe any couple should be able to have the same legal rights and responsibilites that I and my wife have, as a currently recognized married couple. The State should ignore all religous ceremonies and only acknowledge civil unions. Every couple should file a pre-nup civil union contract with the goverment when filing for “couple” status.

[Not me]

_____________________________________________________________________________________

what was Everson?

Its the case where Justice Black decided that the Constitution contained Jefferson’s phrase, “A wall of separation between church and state.”, the now famous cudgel used to attack any public display of Christianity that might otherwise be practiced by citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education

_______________________________________________________________________

I believe any couple should be able to have the same legal rights and responsibilites that I and my wife have, as a currently recognized married couple. The State should ignore all religous ceremonies and only acknowledge civil unions. Every couple should file a pre-nup civil union contract with the goverment when filing for “couple” status.

Some states have a civil union type law, including Washingtonistan and Californistan. As this particular donnybrook demonstrates, it wasn’t enough. A specific legal definition, which has been a cornerstone of commonlaw for more years than there have been Hostages, has to be co-opted so a particular group can have its ego stroked and pretend that it’s conduct is no different from that of others who enter into a particular institution.

As for de-legitimizing a long recognized institution (i.e. remove the force of law from it), the result is no different than that which the Court arrived at in Perry. Either we redefine something to placate a minority, or we de-legitimize a majority to placate a minority. Either way, a change in tradition, law, and society is made manifest based on the whims of a few, regardless of how a majority, and generations before them have chosen to live their lives.

And At Rutherford Lawson’s Blog:

Unless the Feds started forcing your church to marry gay people, homosexual marriage can never be equal to the marriage vows that go down in your church. Who cares if the government calls it marriage? People get married outside of Christianity all the time. Are not those marriages no more valid then homosexual ones?

The same Feds (and state authorities) who will ascribe motive to a crime based on nothing more than the identity of the alleged victim? Naw….that’s crazy talk!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

Marriage has a specific legal definition. It has had that definition for centuries. Google Lord Blackstone…Yale has all four of his “Commentaries of the Laws of England” online. Those laws are something we imported and retained, even when we rejected the crown. And it made no bones about what defined marriage. You will see that clearly in the subheading :Husband and Wife in the first volume.

And now, because people in California, a state which has a civil union type law on the books would not rest until that term was redefined to include something which marriage is not, we find ourselves in a unique place.
One of the better analyses that I read of Perry Decision was at RedState…http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2010/08/05/the-prop-8-decision-having-it-both-ways/
The author shows the double-mindedness of the Judge’s decision very plainly, but the money quote of the article was this:

This analysis also reveals why this is not, as some would have it, a libertarian, live-and-let-live decision at all. No liberty is at stake here, in the sense of preserving some activity from government sanction, and indeed few if any of the rights of property and contract are denied to domestic partners in California. Instead, what the plaintiffs in Perry seek is the government to help them obtain the affirmative social and cultural approval of their neighbors.

And that is it in a nutshell. Laws are a codification of the morals of the society they govern. The reason the redefinition of marriage matters to them so damn much is because they want the law, and thereby society, to approve and endorse their lifestyle. I have a right to not have to be compelled to accept their choices as normal, proper, or beneficial to society, and yet if this battle is lost, I can guarantee you that in 10 or 15 years, it will absolutely be about government attempting to define what the church does or does not grant its sanction to, because withholding it, or even speaking aloud the Bible’s condemnations of homosexuality will be hate crimes/civil rights violations/illegal thoughtspeak.

As a citizen of a nation that recognized God as a sovereign in its charter, and who has predicated my life and my family’s life upon that understanding, I have the right to not have my morality and my law redefined by an unelected member of the Federal Judiciary. My nation recognized a sovereign, and in so doing, honored HIM and HIS law in its own law.

If we as a nation are going to reject that law, then we who keep the same traditions and fundamental beliefs of the Founders and the Framers have a right to participate in that decision. The Judge in Perry denied that right to all of society.

This is not a civil rights issue…in the absence of ANY concrete scientific evidence that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic in which the person has no choice, like skin color or gender, it is nothing more than a small, vocal minority seeking to compel society’s approval of what they want for themselves. As such, it is the latest in a long running cultural battle not to determine if our laws will have a moral basis, but instead, WHOSE morals will provide that basis, and it is important enough to allow everyone who will be governed by the law to determine what it will be when it amounts to such a marked departure from what we have had.

That’s why it matters, DR.

__________________________________________________________________

Tex, I don’t understand how you can endow the Federal government with even the remotest amount of authority when it comes to what God wants.

Tex doesn’t have to. Others already did, long ago.

That would be why we have a Congressional Chaplin.

That would be why “In God We Trust” is stamped on our currency.

That would be why you find so many references to God on the architecture all over the Nation’s Capitol in D.C.

We don’t have to elect preachers and pastors, DR. I am a believer, and I don’t want that. That isn’t their role. What I do want is to have their hands untied. I want them to be able to be an influence in society again, not simply shoved off to these little boxes marked “Sunday Only”, and “Keep Inside The Church Walls”, and if you care about society, you want that too.

We aren’t better as a society because kids can’t pray before eating their school lunch, or before they take diploma in hand at their high school graduation, or before their football games.

We aren’t better as a society because we have had several generations “educated” with little or no reference to Christianity, and the role it had in bringing people to these shores, or its influence on the pivotal events that formed a new nation, and the first true cradle of liberty that man has lived under.

We aren’t better as a society because we belittle a traditional morality that served our forefathers as they built this country into a magnet for people from all over the world, warts, imperfections, and all. We aren’t better as a society because we took away shame, and embraced all manner of sin, and the human degredation that is the inevitable result.

We don’t have to be puritans, and I don’t know anyone who wants that, but the fiction that man can make his own destiny, without the recognition and guidance of HE whose providence guided the first hands here is not serving anyone, and it is no accident that for the first time in our nation’s history, there is a real potential for our kids to not live as well as we have. Doing what we have been doing isn’t getting it done, and sadly, our leadership reflects what we have become (No, that isn’t a good thing, R.).

We have the blueprint. We always have. But if we are not going to follow it, then we may as well not have it at all.

_______________________________________________________________________________

We aren’t better as a society because kids can’t pray before eating their school lunch

I beg to differ. As long as my tax dollars fund both your kids and my kids schooling, I don’t need prayer going on. You want your kid to pray at lunch time, put him in Catholic school or some other private sectarian institution.

[Not me]

___________________________________________________________________________

Rabbit is absolutely right on the gay marriage thing. Government has no place dictating to various religions how they should define marriage. That is completely within the prerogative of the particular religion. There are Christian churches willing to marry gay people … interesting, don’t you think?

When it comes to civil marriage, allowing it between a man and a man has zero impact on the legitimacy of hetero marriage. And let’s be careful about legal definitions BiW. There was a time in this country when in a number of states a black man could not marry a white woman. That time was not long ago by the way … 1967 if I’m not mistaken. In our enlightened age, we deemed that immoral. I submit that enlightenment is leading us to the conclusion that same sex couples can love each other as deeply as any hetero couple and deserve legal recognition of that commitment.

No one is asking for a re-write of the Bible. Your church doesn’t want to marry gays? They should not be compelled to.

[Not Me]

__________________________________________________________________________________

BiW, Tex,

Do you hear that buzzing sound? That drone? That is the sound of the flies that would exist if we put all of yesterday’s abortions in one dumpster. Sure, you could use a grain shovel to move the fingers and hands and heads to a more bug proof vessel, if only you could stomach moving the bodies in the same fashion the Nazis did.

Is there anything more vile, more sinful then the murder of defenseless human beings?

Abortion is not only endorsed by our government, but subsidized!

Laws are a codification of the morals of the society they govern?

I hope not!

However, if so, your thirst for a governmental hand in upholding expressions of your faith do nothing but endow the government with more street cred when it comes to the most depraved act a human being can take part in, infanticide.

Law should strive to reflect the collective morals of society. Leave it to the states to decide. Not judges. I agree with you there. I also think you make a good case with common law.

However, considering our government essentially eats babies, i can’t believe you can stomach it’s bad breath panting on your church.

[Not Me]

______________________________________________________________________

Rabbit, I lend absolutely no authority to the Federal Government when it comes to the issue of marriage. The government has no authority. Marriage will always be between one man and one woman.

What the instigators of gay marriage are doing is not asking for equal rights. The issue is not rights, because we already have equal rights. Any man may marry any woman in this country as long as she is not already married.

What gays are asking for is our compulsory acceptance of a redefinition of marriage between between same sex couples as equal. Since I believe holiness of marriage can only be ordained only by our Creator, I refuse to recognize the authority of our gov’t, for the federal gov’t is under the authority of God whether people like Rutherford like to admit it or not.

He’ll discover that the hard way one day.

[Not me]

_____________________________________________________________________

I beg to differ. As long as my tax dollars fund both your kids and my kids schooling, I don’t need prayer going on. You want your kid to pray at lunch time, put him in Catholic school or some other private sectarian institution.

I see. Freedom of religion except if you are somewhere where the law compells you to be.

Nope. No irony here.

________________________________________________________________________

You see this is where you go way off the reservation. Our government has NO business being guided by Christianity, any more than it should be guided by any other religious construct. A government wedded to Christian theology is just a kinder gentler form of Sharia law. That’s not what America is about.

Do you have any idea how much you sound like a six year old stamping his foot and screaming that the sky is red, merely because you wish it so? Rutherford, the history is there. It is unmistakable. You and the ones you sympathize with can stomp your feet and deny it until the tops of your heads are in danger of being blown off by your elevated blood pressure, but it cannot change history. As for the “no different than Sharia law” nonsense, such ignorance is really atmospheres below your intellect.

There are Christian churches willing to marry gay people … interesting, don’t you think?

You mean the “christian” churches that stick their fingers in their ears and say “Lalalalalalala I can’t hear you!” when you ask them point blank how they reconcile such a position with the explicit prohibions and condemnations of homosexuality found in both the Old and New Testaments? The churches that are one their way to becoming or already are nothing more than glorifies social clubs, preaching the gospel of “I’m OK, you’re OK” to congregations of itching ears? The “christian” churches which try very hard to avoid any mention of anything difficult, like God, because they might offend a parishioner and lose that member of the flock’s dollars?

When it comes to civil marriage, allowing it between a man and a man has zero impact on the legitimacy of hetero marriage.

Yes, it does. Giving it society’s imprimatur is no different than giving it mine, or Tex’s. If you had read the article I linked on Perry, or had read the Perry decision yourself, you would know that, and you would know that the judge in the Perry case knows that.

And let’s be careful about legal definitions BiW.

Yes, let’s. Afterall, we weren’t careful with the legal defintion of “privacy”, and as a result, it now means the right of a mother to kill her child.

There was a time in this country when in a number of states a black man could not marry a white woman. That time was not long ago by the way … 1967 if I’m not mistaken. In our enlightened age, we deemed that immoral. I submit that enlightenment is leading us to the conclusion that same sex couples can love each other as deeply as any hetero couple and deserve legal recognition of that commitment.

Sooooooo not the same thing and you should be ashamed of yourself for equating race with sexual preference, as it cheapens the sacrifice of everyone who fought to for the recognition of their rights regardless of race. Loving v Virgina was still about a right that we can all agree that we have…the right of a man to marry a woman, and vice versa.

You can submit whatever you like, but the fact remains, if we allow one unelected man or a small group of unelected people to decide that we are going to declare that all choices are equal, and that they are equal to unalienable rights on which our liberty is predicated, in the midst of legal decisions that by their own words clearly indicate that they are NOT, then you need to prepare yourself for what that means. I don’t think you have given that nearly enough thought.

_______________________________________________________________________

Abortion is not only endorsed by our government, but subsidized!

Laws are a codification of the morals of the society they govern?

And how did we end up with that law, DR?

It was a group of unelected judges, rallying around one unelected judge’s opinion which also discovered a “right” that was not plainly stated, and had no historical precedent, but was devined from penubras which even in the eyes of liberal legal scholars was nothing more than making shit up.

I hate that law, DR. I hate it with the heat of a thousand suns, and I speak against it at every opportunity. It is nothing less than a bigger injustice than slavery, and slavery, denies the victim of one of the most basic rights that our nation was founded upon. And it still is not worth throwing my government away. Governments, like people, make mistakes. And governments, like people, can see the errors of their ways. Sometimes they require conflicts to solve, like slavery. But it can happen. And in the case of abortion, is happening. The approval numbers for the practice are turning, and the single biggest group that is looking at that madness, and seeing it for the insanity that it is? Young people! The generation that embraced the eating of its young is reaping that reward, DR, and I fully expect that within another generation, that practice will have been fully recognized by society for what it is, and it will have been appropriately dealt with.

And DR? It wasn’t the secular voices who have been condemning the practice…it was the Christians.

However, considering our government essentially eats babies, i can’t believe you can stomach it’s bad breath panting on your church.

I don’t, but I do the heavy lifting that I can, and I expect God to do the rest…that is the essence of faith, and if it worked for Moses, it will work for me.

________________________________________________________________

I don’t for a minute pretend that this argument is over…

We have to let the Ninth Circus also get this wrong.

And then we will see if SCOTUS will play along with with this disenfranchisement of the people of California, and very likely, the rest of the nation as well.  I am more interested to see if they will even deign to recognize the true fundmental question underlying all of this.  I fear they won’t, and that as a result, we will all get to consider what that truely means at some point in the future, as we dine on the bitter truth that we will no longer be able to ignore.

Read Full Post »

I was flipping channels last night, and stopped on one of the cable channels that was showing ‘Chariots of Fire”.  Even after the passage or more years than I care to recall, that movie can still take me back.

Cut Scene One:  A tall, lanky, tow-headed ten-year old is spending a summer week staying with his grandparents in Waterford, Michigan.  He is delighted when, on a particularly hot summer afternoon, his Grandpa, the single greatest influence on his life, and the only man he ever feared disappointing, says “[his name for young Blackiswhite], let’s go to the movies!”

Young Blackiswhite is thrilled.  He climbs in the car, and together they drive over to the little theatre in Clarkston, right off of Dixie Highway, and Grandpa purchases two tickets for Chariots of Fire, a bucket of popcorn, and two drinks.  Young Blackiswhite is disappointed that they will not see the latest special effects extravaganza, but follows Grandpa into the darkened theatre and sits down.  Finally, the previews and PSAs are over, and young Blackiswhite watches the following unfold:

I admit it.  I was mesmerized.  The men on the screen were in a rare state of grace.  They were in that place that I think only runners can truly know, that feeling when you can be in a crowd, and yet feel completely alone, a kind of “in the world but not of it” state that once achieved, can never be adequately described.

It is a perfect summer memory.

Cut Scene Two:  Flash forward five years.  Blackiswhite has been running distance for about a year now.  He will never be the fastest.  He will never be the strongest.  And he will never have the best form.  Yet somehow, in the sticky cloying Michigan summer heat, and the crunching of the gravel beneath his feet on the miles of shoulder of road traversed, he has known joy.  He has had that perfect feeling of no cramps, no pain, just a feeling as if he could just run forever.  It is this feeling that will push him to do it when it is cold, when it is wet, when he knows he will cramp, and when he just doesn’t feel like running twelve miles.

He goes to a friend’s house to watch a movie, and that movie is “Chariots of Fire”.  And when it gets to the following scene, he looks to his friends who are not runners, and he sees no spark.  He knows that the scene does not resonate.

I can think of no other scene that conveys that “place” as well as this one.  I can think of few other moments in cinema that I have felt as much as I have seen.

Apropos of nothing.  I just wanted a break from politics.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts