I'm a very traditional Catholic, so there is no way anyone can accuse me of being soft on gay marriage. I believe in the sanctity of the marriage state, and that it only applies to the emotional and spiritual (notice I didn't include "financial" in that list?) bond between a man and a women.
However, gay marriage will become a reality in this nation... probably sooner rather than later, too. It is unavoidable, and the only variable is exactly when the liberal-leaning courts (including the Supreme Court) will make it legal across the country, just as they legalized and then institutionalized abortion over the last 35 years.
People who, for whatever reason, want to stop such an effort can ONLY do so by removing the government's ability to regulate ANY marriage via licensing. If people want to be "married", then it should be done within the guidelines of the couple's church, temple, mosque or local GLAAD chapter. The reasoning behind licensing marriage was to enforce the two-degree separation laws (couples must not be related closer than their great-grandparents) is now already covered by ALL State domestic protection regulations, so it is redundant and wasteful. With the number of people cohabiting outside of marriage AND raising children, concerns about genetic or blood-related conditions that could be passed from parent to child is also mute.
This should NOT be a pillar of the conservative movement in America... it is self-defeating to the stated goals of the movement. I have read far too many ultra-conservative experts who agree that there is NO BASIS for the denial of same-sex marriage constitutionally... because it isn't defined in any way, shape or form within the Constitution, thus making it a primary prerogative of either the People or the individual States (see the Tenth Amendment). What SHOULD be a huge factor in the conservative movement is removing the government's ability to regulate (and thus interfere) in the marriage of any two individuals.
Now, I know that the Catholic Church, and many other denominations and religions, have taken a very strong position in favor of mandating marriage as one-man-one-woman... but my conscience tells me that the greater evil is an over-reaching government openly advocating gay marriage, and not the watering-down of traditional Judeo-Christian values by keeping government out of the marriage area all together.
Just my opinion, though... I'd love to hear someone give me a rational Constitutional argument against gay marriage, because I have yet to hear one.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Trevor just wont give up ...
Lets talk "gay marriage" for a moment - more appropriately termed confederate marriage in my opinion.
Yesterday the New Jersey state senate voted down legislation that would of legalized same sex marriage. Funny enough multiple news agencies carried the story in the following way: "The initiative was narrowly defeated, losing by just 7 votes." What they fail to mention in that "narrow" loss is that there are a mere 28 senators total in that body and the measure lost 14-7. By my math a 2 to 1 margin is a shellacking. However ...
... the true front in this battle has been within the state of California. Or as Arnie would say, "Calee-fornee-ah." Several years ago the CA state legislature passed the legalization of gay marriage, which Swarchenegger swiftly vetoed. His veto was not overridden. In 2000 a binding CA ballot initiative defining marriage between 1 man and 1 woman passed by overwhelming margins. Pro homosexual-marriage activists then sued and the CA Supreme Court (of course) overruled the people's choice, revoking the initiative's legality. A few years later, in the most recent CA vote, another ballot initiative passed, Proposition 8. Having learned their lesson the pro traditional-marriage movement made this initiative an amendment to the CA state constitution - after all even the CA supreme court couldn't find it UNconstitutional then. As I mentioned, it passed. By narrower margins than the first time, but it passed nonetheless. The gay activists again sued - which left even left-wing scholars scratching their head as traditional marriage was now part of the state constitution. The CA high court finally capitulated ... there would be no gay marriage in California as long as the amendment stood. Well, another law suit has been filed. The only document supreme to a state constitution is of course the US Constitution. So now for the last time, in a couple months, the final word on the CA question will be authored. Only it wont just apply to California. This being the Supreme Court of the United States the ruling will apply to the entire nation. In one fell swoop all state laws from sea to shining sea that protect marriage could be summarily swept asunder. And as such we should all monitor this decision closely.
Now this part is particularly interesting. The pro gay marriage side pooled their various resources and got the legal "dream team" of both Ted Olson and David Boeis. If those names ring a vague bell, they should. These were the lead opposing Perry Mason's in the 2000 Bush vs Gore election case. Olson for Bush, Boeis for Gore. They have now teamed up on the side of confederate marriage. The queer part (forgive such an obvious pun), is that Olson became Bush's Solicitor General. Olson's wife, a prominent conservative author and television pundit, was ON THE PLANE that crashed into the PA field on 9/11. As you can imagine he, in his capacity as Solicitor General, provided much legal defense of GITMO, water boarding, etc for the Bush administration in the years he served. By all accounts the man is not only a brilliant lawyer but a rock-rib conservative / constructionist. No one can figure out why he would suddenly align himself with such a clearly non traditional and unconstitutional (in their aims) advocacy group.
At any rate, this will be the biggest case since DC vs Heller. I'll be eyeing it closely.
Yesterday the New Jersey state senate voted down legislation that would of legalized same sex marriage. Funny enough multiple news agencies carried the story in the following way: "The initiative was narrowly defeated, losing by just 7 votes." What they fail to mention in that "narrow" loss is that there are a mere 28 senators total in that body and the measure lost 14-7. By my math a 2 to 1 margin is a shellacking. However ...
... the true front in this battle has been within the state of California. Or as Arnie would say, "Calee-fornee-ah." Several years ago the CA state legislature passed the legalization of gay marriage, which Swarchenegger swiftly vetoed. His veto was not overridden. In 2000 a binding CA ballot initiative defining marriage between 1 man and 1 woman passed by overwhelming margins. Pro homosexual-marriage activists then sued and the CA Supreme Court (of course) overruled the people's choice, revoking the initiative's legality. A few years later, in the most recent CA vote, another ballot initiative passed, Proposition 8. Having learned their lesson the pro traditional-marriage movement made this initiative an amendment to the CA state constitution - after all even the CA supreme court couldn't find it UNconstitutional then. As I mentioned, it passed. By narrower margins than the first time, but it passed nonetheless. The gay activists again sued - which left even left-wing scholars scratching their head as traditional marriage was now part of the state constitution. The CA high court finally capitulated ... there would be no gay marriage in California as long as the amendment stood. Well, another law suit has been filed. The only document supreme to a state constitution is of course the US Constitution. So now for the last time, in a couple months, the final word on the CA question will be authored. Only it wont just apply to California. This being the Supreme Court of the United States the ruling will apply to the entire nation. In one fell swoop all state laws from sea to shining sea that protect marriage could be summarily swept asunder. And as such we should all monitor this decision closely.
Now this part is particularly interesting. The pro gay marriage side pooled their various resources and got the legal "dream team" of both Ted Olson and David Boeis. If those names ring a vague bell, they should. These were the lead opposing Perry Mason's in the 2000 Bush vs Gore election case. Olson for Bush, Boeis for Gore. They have now teamed up on the side of confederate marriage. The queer part (forgive such an obvious pun), is that Olson became Bush's Solicitor General. Olson's wife, a prominent conservative author and television pundit, was ON THE PLANE that crashed into the PA field on 9/11. As you can imagine he, in his capacity as Solicitor General, provided much legal defense of GITMO, water boarding, etc for the Bush administration in the years he served. By all accounts the man is not only a brilliant lawyer but a rock-rib conservative / constructionist. No one can figure out why he would suddenly align himself with such a clearly non traditional and unconstitutional (in their aims) advocacy group.
At any rate, this will be the biggest case since DC vs Heller. I'll be eyeing it closely.
It just keeps getting worse ...
There are at least 2,500 things wrong with the health care bill being jammed through congress (not so coincidentally that's roughly how many pages it is). But the simplest problem, a starting point if you will, is its' dishonest cost. As we have discussed here Obama, Reid and Pelosi knew full well that for public consumption they needed to hang a price tag on the bill of under a trillion dollars (for ten years). There's something about that number that gets even left of center voters to ask, "how much?" So they pulled a blatant gimmick that would cause both Boss Tweed and Huey P. Long to raise their glass of scotch in pride. They fed the CBO 10 years (2010-2019) worth of new tax revenue, but only 5 years worth of expenditures. In other words the taxes begin in 2010 (presuming it passes), yet the "benefits" do not begin to materialize until 2014. Its a clear manipulation of the bill's cost - 10 years worth of taxes to pay 5 years worth of benefits and presto, its cost is under a trillion bucks. Various respected think tanks like CATO & The American Enterprise Institute have scored a 10 year tax vs 10 year benefit cost ratio as high as $2.5 trillion.
At any rate, there is a more immediate problem here. Say it passes and the taxes begin to accumulate over the roughly 4 1/2 years before the benefits start. Are we to believe that the tax revenue over those first years is going to be "set aside?" Put in an Algorian "lock box?" Of course not. Just like Social Security it will end up in the general fund, and spent. So not only will they start immediately raising taxes to pay for services years away, the money will be used up before those services even begin!
Maybe this time, unlike nearly every other social program in the history of this nation, they will set the money aside ... and maybe Nancy Pelosi will end up as a Playboy centerfold of the month ... but I kind of doubt it.
At any rate, there is a more immediate problem here. Say it passes and the taxes begin to accumulate over the roughly 4 1/2 years before the benefits start. Are we to believe that the tax revenue over those first years is going to be "set aside?" Put in an Algorian "lock box?" Of course not. Just like Social Security it will end up in the general fund, and spent. So not only will they start immediately raising taxes to pay for services years away, the money will be used up before those services even begin!
Maybe this time, unlike nearly every other social program in the history of this nation, they will set the money aside ... and maybe Nancy Pelosi will end up as a Playboy centerfold of the month ... but I kind of doubt it.
Whoops...
Sorry about my last. Things are crazy here, and my last post was interrupted and instead of hitting "Save" I hit "Post" with nothing done. hehe... "cloaking device"...
It's too bad. I had a rather good post ready to go, too... lots of historic detail making my case that, while Jambo is right and the over-all devices of the Nazis meant they couldn't possibly win their stated goals, I think there is a point between Sept 1939 and May 1945 when the tide turned from one of total Nazi command and control of the military, political and social orders in Europe to the opposite... the loss of Nazi control to Allied forces.
I put that point of change at June 22, 1941... when Operation Barbarossa went into effect and the Nazis invaded the USSR.
More later... Jacob is sick with a 102 fever and it is snowing to beat hell outside. Seems they just cancelled school across the district, so I'll be handling all the kids today, sick or not.
Oh, and on another note...
Pennsylvania just passed all the needed legislation for table games to go into every casino in the state. That is REALLY good news for me... with any luck and the blessings of heaven, I'll be gamefully employed (pardon the pun) by the end of the month.
It's too bad. I had a rather good post ready to go, too... lots of historic detail making my case that, while Jambo is right and the over-all devices of the Nazis meant they couldn't possibly win their stated goals, I think there is a point between Sept 1939 and May 1945 when the tide turned from one of total Nazi command and control of the military, political and social orders in Europe to the opposite... the loss of Nazi control to Allied forces.
I put that point of change at June 22, 1941... when Operation Barbarossa went into effect and the Nazis invaded the USSR.
More later... Jacob is sick with a 102 fever and it is snowing to beat hell outside. Seems they just cancelled school across the district, so I'll be handling all the kids today, sick or not.
Oh, and on another note...
Pennsylvania just passed all the needed legislation for table games to go into every casino in the state. That is REALLY good news for me... with any luck and the blessings of heaven, I'll be gamefully employed (pardon the pun) by the end of the month.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Q . . . & A
Ha, very good, you nailed that opening episode - putting humanity on trial indeed, tisk, tisk. I tended to see the united federation of planets as the United States, the Klingons as the Soviets and so on. And I think Roddenberry intended it that way. TNG? Although I am a fan & own nearly evey episode, it required me to actively ignore the more "liberal" overtones. At any rate, where am I to get this series? On the sci-fi channel, dvd? If it is as good as you say then its worth a gander to be sure.
****
To bring the triangulation to our recent phone conversations here - "When did Hitler lose the war, if he ever had the ability to win at all?", I will offer this ...
Apparently Titus & I gave the same answer - the Eastern Front. As soon as he goes into Russia (w/Stalingrad as the highlight obviously), he seals his fate. I will concede Jambo's point that as soon as you bring the US into the conflict Hitler also seals his fate. Now, we must first establish 2 things - 1.) That Hitler possessed the capacity to allow rationale and reason to dictate his war strategy (which he did not, quite obviously); and 2.) an agreed upon definition as to what "winning" looks like for Germany. Jambo proposed "Seize and maintain control of continental Europe", and I accept that definition.
So ... I will make my point brief - if Germany has the ability to allocate all of its' Barbarossa resources to continental Europe allowing him to take the UK before we enter, while NOT declaring war on the US at all (let alone 3 days after Pearl Harbor), being content to let us stay busy with Japan (assuming the racial and isolationist overtones in portions of the US holds that in place); and if Stalin stands still and watches Europe fall, then what you are left with is this: A US at war with Japan and having to decide whether we sue for peace with Germany or attempt to push them out of Europe. Bear in mind we now have no English Coast to launch D-Day. Jambo proposed that we would then cross the straight & make a deal with Stalin to do D-Day from the East. However, I would hasten to add that if Stalin is willing to maintain his pact with Hitler to the point of watching him dominate all of Europe then I tend to doubt he'd suddenly jump into bed with us & allow that front. Our only option as far as I can see at that point is a Southern to mid African landing, push North through Egypt, Lybia, Algeria & Morocco and then attempt our D-Day into either Southern Greece, Italy France, or Spain.
So to summarize, the 1-2 punch of invading Russia & declaring war on the US (rather than playing the "all we want is Europe" game as far as it would carry him) condemned his armies to a loss. Without those 2 events, in my opinion, he may well of taken all of Europe and compelled both the US to sue for peace, and Russia to maintain it ... a terrifying prospect.
****
To bring the triangulation to our recent phone conversations here - "When did Hitler lose the war, if he ever had the ability to win at all?", I will offer this ...
Apparently Titus & I gave the same answer - the Eastern Front. As soon as he goes into Russia (w/Stalingrad as the highlight obviously), he seals his fate. I will concede Jambo's point that as soon as you bring the US into the conflict Hitler also seals his fate. Now, we must first establish 2 things - 1.) That Hitler possessed the capacity to allow rationale and reason to dictate his war strategy (which he did not, quite obviously); and 2.) an agreed upon definition as to what "winning" looks like for Germany. Jambo proposed "Seize and maintain control of continental Europe", and I accept that definition.
So ... I will make my point brief - if Germany has the ability to allocate all of its' Barbarossa resources to continental Europe allowing him to take the UK before we enter, while NOT declaring war on the US at all (let alone 3 days after Pearl Harbor), being content to let us stay busy with Japan (assuming the racial and isolationist overtones in portions of the US holds that in place); and if Stalin stands still and watches Europe fall, then what you are left with is this: A US at war with Japan and having to decide whether we sue for peace with Germany or attempt to push them out of Europe. Bear in mind we now have no English Coast to launch D-Day. Jambo proposed that we would then cross the straight & make a deal with Stalin to do D-Day from the East. However, I would hasten to add that if Stalin is willing to maintain his pact with Hitler to the point of watching him dominate all of Europe then I tend to doubt he'd suddenly jump into bed with us & allow that front. Our only option as far as I can see at that point is a Southern to mid African landing, push North through Egypt, Lybia, Algeria & Morocco and then attempt our D-Day into either Southern Greece, Italy France, or Spain.
So to summarize, the 1-2 punch of invading Russia & declaring war on the US (rather than playing the "all we want is Europe" game as far as it would carry him) condemned his armies to a loss. Without those 2 events, in my opinion, he may well of taken all of Europe and compelled both the US to sue for peace, and Russia to maintain it ... a terrifying prospect.
"I mean to misbehave."
Let's put politics aside for a moment, and discuss something we all share in common: a real appreciation for science fiction television/movies.
I know James and I are both well versed in the nuances of Joss Whedon's sci-fi series "Firefly" and its spin-off movie, "Serenity"... but I'm wondering if Ryan or Baddboy have seen it? If you haven't... it is must see. I mean this.
Especially Ryan. We have all cried at the loss of America's "rough-and-tumble" individualistic western genre of TV series over the course of the last two decades, and most of our favorite sci-fi shows have shown a real liberal bend to them, even going back to the premier of the STNG series pilot, "Encounter at Farpoint".
Joss Whedon has broken that mold... forget the utopian "Federation of Planets" of Roddenberry, or the fairy tail structure of the two Star Wars sagas, this is really original and worth multiple viewings. I can't stop watching the shows! It is getting to be a real contender for "Most Watched" in my library... right next to Band of Brothers, to be perfectly honest. I think it has already eclipsed Lord of the Rings... tough as that is to admit.
Epic... truly epic.
I know James and I are both well versed in the nuances of Joss Whedon's sci-fi series "Firefly" and its spin-off movie, "Serenity"... but I'm wondering if Ryan or Baddboy have seen it? If you haven't... it is must see. I mean this.
Especially Ryan. We have all cried at the loss of America's "rough-and-tumble" individualistic western genre of TV series over the course of the last two decades, and most of our favorite sci-fi shows have shown a real liberal bend to them, even going back to the premier of the STNG series pilot, "Encounter at Farpoint".
Joss Whedon has broken that mold... forget the utopian "Federation of Planets" of Roddenberry, or the fairy tail structure of the two Star Wars sagas, this is really original and worth multiple viewings. I can't stop watching the shows! It is getting to be a real contender for "Most Watched" in my library... right next to Band of Brothers, to be perfectly honest. I think it has already eclipsed Lord of the Rings... tough as that is to admit.
Epic... truly epic.
"Paging Mr. Winchell ..."
This is good. The fellow that brought us the footage of ACORN & their various scandals has a new web site. He became famous (or infamous depending on whom you are) with the site "Big Hollywood", then "Big Government" (that was the undercover ACORN source), and now he has "Big Journalism, accessible HERE. Its premise is to be a throw back to when the media truly was a watch dog, unafraid and made their bones on exposing corruption, rather than its' partisan cover up.
One of the contributors is Greg Gutfield. If you don't know him, he's the host of Fox News' "Red Eye." That show is the political version of the E Channel's "The Soup." Sharp, funny, even goofy. But Gutfield is no mere comedian, he has a full grasp of the issues and their nuances. As he has noted on previos shows he gets a daily blast of emails from Media Matters, George Soros's propaganda outfit. Go to the Big Journalism site, scroll down till you see Gutfiield's post and the provided You Tube clip of a bit he put together fpr last night's show ... I laughed my a** off.
One of the contributors is Greg Gutfield. If you don't know him, he's the host of Fox News' "Red Eye." That show is the political version of the E Channel's "The Soup." Sharp, funny, even goofy. But Gutfield is no mere comedian, he has a full grasp of the issues and their nuances. As he has noted on previos shows he gets a daily blast of emails from Media Matters, George Soros's propaganda outfit. Go to the Big Journalism site, scroll down till you see Gutfiield's post and the provided You Tube clip of a bit he put together fpr last night's show ... I laughed my a** off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
