Stand up for what you believe in, even if it goes against the current status quo.

Some Good Some Bad

I have a late start to my day today. I’m sitting at my desk, drinking my cup of coffee, going through my emails and doing miscellaneous schoolwork/real work stuff. If I have time for all of that, I certainly have time for a post!

Did ya hear? Rick Santorum came out on top in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado. WOW! Props to him. I really think he will come out of this race on top. (Fingers crossed and lips praying!)

And kind of interestingly, Mitt Romney is accusing Santorum of not being a conservative. (Look who’s talking!) But Santorum doesn’t let Romney get away with that… “That’s almost laughable for a moderate Massachusetts governor who has been for big-government programs” (Fox and Friends).

Here is the article on Santorum’s wins this week.

Up until now, Santorum hasn’t had to take A LOT of heat. Romney and Gingrich have  been too preoccupied with each other to pay much attention to Santorum (or Paul for that matter). But now that Rick Santorum is proving that he is an eligible candidate for the presidency, Romney (and probably Gingrich) will give it all their might and fight to discredit him.

 

Proposition 8 (the California law banning gay “marriage”) has been thrown out by a panel of 3 judges on the federal appeals court. Proposition 8 passed by a vote of 52%-48% by California citizens…

It was overturned because the proposition violated he equal protection rights of same-sex couples and violated the due process clause. It violated the Constitution.

My question is this: Where in the federal constitution does it say that anyone has a right to marriage? Where in the constitution does it say that same-sex couples have a right to marry? How does it violate the due process clause of the 14th amendment?!

The Due Process clause states that the government (state and local) may not take away its citizens life, liberty, or property without ensuring fairness. It essentially made the Bill of Rights applicable to state governments.

Is marriage states in the Due Process clause? Nope. Is the California government denying people the right to life with Proposition 8? I don’t think so… Is the CA government denying people the right to liberty? Not particularly. Is the CA government denying people the right to property? Noooo.

So what is the problem with Proposition 8 then? We’ve pretty much just disproved the excuse of it violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Marriage is a privilege, not a right, so Proposition 8 can’t take away a right where none existed in the first place.

As with the equal protection clause, gay people aren’t being denied rights nor are they being mistreated. Just because the government wants to uphold marriage between one man and one woman doesn’t mean they are taking away the rights of people. They are still being protected under the US Constitution and the CA constitution. They still have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property).

But because our country’s morals are kind of going down the drain, a panel of 3 judges were able to overturn a law that the PEOPLE, the CITIZENS, of California voted to enact. That seems a little bit backwards to me. If you want to read up on the decision, here is the article.

 

Big stuff in the news today. I wonder what will happen tomorrow!

Have a great Wednesday everyone! Take some YOU time 🙂

~Lucy

Advertisements

Comments on: "Some Good Some Bad" (14)

  1. You seemed to have overlooked that part of the 14th Amendment which reads, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    States that give heterosexual monogamous couples the legal and civil benefits of marriage, and deny those benefits to same-sex monogamous couples are not providing equal protection of the laws.

    My personal view of civil rights holds that they exist independent of political majorities. For example, if a majority of citizens voted to abolish a religion, or to ban free speech for a minority group, that vote would be meaningless as far as the validity of civil rights are concerned.

    Rick Santorum recently stated in public that marriage was a privilege. This means that an act of the state legislature could void the marriage of a heterosexual couple and render their children retroactively illegitimate. As a married man myself, I wonder how such a view of marriage contributes to family values.

    • In my political science class last night we talked about gay marriage. My professor explained that the government controls marriage licenses for certain reasons and there are kind of pre-requisites for getting a marriage license. The person you want to marry cannot be your first cousin. And you or your fiancé cannot be married to anybody else. Fair enough I think.

      So if the government allows gay marriage, then who is to say they shouldn’t allow first cousins to marry? Or allow polygamous marriages? Supporters of gay marriage mock the argument that allowing gay marriage will open up the door to other “marriages.” But really, it’s not an invalid argument.

      Marriage is a privilege… it is not a “right.” Rick Santorum is correct in saying that. And the state legislature voids marriages everyday. The divorce rate is through the roof! Look at the Kardashian chick… she was married something like 72 days and then filed for divorce. The state will render that “marriage” void.

      Gay marriage is not a civil right. A civil right is a fundamental right, a right that all people of deserving of, such as the right to vote, and free speech, and freedom of religion, etc. Martin Luther King Jr. fought for the civil rights of black Americans. He fought for their equal treatment, their right to vote, their right to full citizenship and desegregation. The things he fought for were civil rights. Our civil rights do not include the right for gay marriage.

  2. There is a very good reason why first cousins don’t marry; inbreeding results in genetic defects in the progeny. This won’t be a problem with same sex marriages.

    With regard to polygamy, there is no reason to think that extending the legal protections and benefits of marriage to all monogamous relationships rather than limiting them to heterosexual relationships would tempt a slippery slope to polygamy. Recognizing same sex marriage is not really that radical. States already refrain from regulating private sexual conduct (so it is okay to sleep with whoever one likes already whether same sex or polygamous), and states already confer benefits and protections for monogamous relationships. Same sex marriage merely makes monogamous relationship benefits available to everyone equally. It really is invalid to suggest that making all monogamous relationships to be equal will suddenly result into all sorts of bizarre marriage proposals.

    I invite the poster to describe how he or she would feel if the legislature enacted a law revoking his privilege to be married. I stand by what I said previously; that Santorum’s formulation of “marriage as a privilege” is more destructive to individual liberty, more destructive of family values than anything I have ever heard. To say that the institution of marriage only serves the interests of the government is the worst kind of statism. Stalin would smile at this.

    • Family values are being destroyed with the institution of same-sex “marriage.” A child needs a mother and a father, not two fathers, not two mothers. Preventing gay marriage is not destructive to family values; it is upholding them.

      Marriage is a privilege. No where in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Religious doctrines and books, the Bible does it say that people have a “right” to marry. But society today preaches that we have right to everything…

  3. “And the state legislature voids marriages everyday.”

    This is not true. State courts grant divorces every day, but only upon the application of at least one of the parties to the marriage. In other words, divorce is voluntary; it should NEVER be imposed by state legislatures upon unwilling parties. Since I am a firm believer in the “Golden Rule” consider how YOU would take it if the legislature passed a resolution voiding your marriage without your consent.

    Santorum’s “marriage is a privilege” formula is a direct contradiction to conservative thinking that holds that the state serves the interests of individuals rather than vice versa. This principle is so corrosive of individual liberties that it boggles the imagination that anyone would have the effrontery to suggest such a thing at all, let alone claim that it represents conservative thinking. This is statism, pure and simple. It can only lead to an authoritarian society.

    Your point about a spiraling divorce rate I think is revealing. It is true that divorce rates remain high, and that episodes such as the Kardashian debacle makes a mockery of marriage, but the more overriding point is that these things are nobody else’s business. If your religion moves you to remain faithful to your spouse, then excellent for you (I am of a similar mind; I have been married almost twenty years, my parents are going on 55, and my late in-laws were married for over forty). But it is not any of my business, nor is it any of yours if the Kardashians want to obtain a divorce in a matter of months. A person should not be compelled to remain in a marriage if their spouse is abusive, or cheating, or if they just don’t love the partner anymore. As citizens and adults, they are better suited to evaluate the nature of their relationship, and it is an intrusion on their freedom to second guess their decisions in this. Once again, I invite you to consider how you would receive it if the state or your neighbors were to insinuate into your marriage.

    “Family values are being destroyed with the institution of same-sex “marriage.””

    Same sex marriage is no more destructive on family values than Newt Gingrich’s serial adultery and family abandonment; or Herman Cain’s serial adultery; or Rush Limbaugh’s long litany of marriages. How about Anne Coulter? She goes about protesting family values and hasn’t even had the decency to invest her time, money and emotional capital into a family of her own. She carries the banner of family values while dressed as a Vegas strip party girl. Funny how when the defective family values of someone like Gingrich is brought up for public debate, one hears about how he has been “forgiven”. I think the two wives Gingrich abandoned are the ones he needs to ask for forgiveness, and it is fairly clear this hasn’t happened. But in all due fairness, it is NOT my place to tell any of these people how to live their family values. I take care of my own, which I consider to be the truly conservative approach.

    “No where in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Religious doctrines and books, the Bible does it say that people have a “right” to marry.”

    I refer you again to my very first post in which I made reference to the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment. To say that same sex monogamous couples should not have the same legal benefits as heterosexual monogamous couples violates the equal protection clause. When states offer legal protection to citizens, they must offer it equally to all. Your line of reasoning would be very much like saying that the Declaration and the Constitution do not specify a right to run a business, so it would be perfectly acceptable for a state legislature to limit the rights of blacks or Hispanics to own and run a business. You should read the 10th Amendment; just because the Constitution does not specifically confer a right does not mean that the right does not exist. It was the intention of our founders that the Constitution should limit the powers of government, and NOT limit the rights of individuals. Ask your political science instructor about this. Individuals should have the right to do whatever does not harm another. Same sex marriage is no more harmful than the antics of heterosexuals that I referred to above.

    With regard to religious doctrines, books and the Bible, they are perfectly fine as a guide for individuals on a voluntary basis, but they are not a proper basis for public policy. Those who choose to reject your religious values have every right to do so, just like you have the right to reject religious values that are contrary to your faith (e.g. Christians can reject Islam; Buddhists can reject Judaism; Hindus can reject Christianity; etc.). In other words, if your religion teaches against same sex marriage, then you shouldn’t do it.

    • When I mentioned that the state voids marriages on a daily basis, I didn’t say that they forced individuals to get divorced. You are wrong in suggesting that I believe the state forces divorces onto married couples. No where in my post nor in my comments did I mention anything of that sort. But states do void marriages everyday. Yes, from the consent of two individuals. But, nonetheless, still voiding the marriages.

      Believing that marriage is a privilege does not go against conservative thinking. Social conservatives believe that, yes, the government should serve the interests of individuals. However, at the same time the government has a duty to uphold certain morals and values that benefit the good of the entire society. Such values include family values, the belief that every human being is sacred from CONCEPTION to NATURAL DEATH, that marriage is between one man and one women. They are things that impact society on a whole, and if mistreated could produce dire repercussions.

      It’s obvious that you are taking my comments out of context… When I mentioned the Kardashian marriage, I was using it as an example of the increase of divorce in our country and the decrease of the sanctity of marriage. So I’m not sure why it’s necessary to go off about how I shouldn’t be involving myself into other people’s divorces or relationships. The whole point of marriage is to dedicate your life to another being in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. It’s not a trial run to see if you can actually spend your entire life with a person. But unfortunately, that is what marriage has become; it is a temporary institution that can be broken whenever it doesn’t suite peoples needs anymore.

      I am not condoning Gingrich’s personal issues or Herman Cain’s “serial adultery.” They have made some serious mistakes and they will ultimately pay the consequences. Newt Gingrich, in the public’s eyes, has not been forgiven. Why do you think his popularity has fallen these past couple of weeks? Because people have not forgotten and they would prefer to have a presidential candidate with stronger morals and values.

      How about Anne Coulter? She goes about protesting family values and hasn’t even had the decency to invest her time, money and emotional capital into a family of her own. She carries the banner of family values while dressed as a Vegas strip party girl.

      Not everybody is destined to get married. Someone whose vocation is the single life have just as much positive influence in society as persons who are called to marriage. For someone who has preached to me in your comments about being more open to people and their lifestyles and has bashed conservative thinking, that’s an awfully inappropriate comment. A person can be an advocate for traditional family values without having one of their own. No, she doesn’t have children or a husband, but she recognizes the importance of family values in society. Maybe it is you who needs to consider how YOU would feel if someone called you a Vegas strop party girl and told you that your time was wasted because you weren’t a single, unmarried blogger.

      And who is to say that same-sex marriage doesn’t harm others? Just because Gingrich and Cain have made mistakes in their lives doesn’t condone same-sex marriage. The two aren’t even related.

      I’m not sure what your religious affiliation is, but Christianity doesn’t condone same-sex marriage. Buddhism doesn’t condone same-sex marriage. Islam doesn’t condone same-sex marriage. Hinduism doesn’t condone same-sex marriage. And since one could argue that atheists don’t follow a religion, philosophy can argue against same-sex marriage also. Biology produces arguments against same-sex marriage. The truth is there; it’s just being ignored.

  4. “And who is to say that same-sex marriage doesn’t harm others?”

    Okay, I am listening. What about same sex marriage is harmful to others? How does a same sex couple enjoying the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples hurt anyone else?

    My view on religion is that spirituality is much like sexuality in that it is highly personal, and therefore not a proper basis for public policy decisions. It doesn’t matter in the least what any religion thinks about same sex marriage because this is a legal and public policy issue. Those who consider same sex marriage to be against their own religious views are free to refrain from marrying someone of the same sex. But they should not be able to impose those religious beliefs on others.

    And let me be clear with regard to Anne Coulter. It matters not to me whether she gets married and have a family or not. That is her business. My point is that she has no business telling others what their family values should be when she won’t bother to have a family of her own. I’ve been married for nearly twenty years and have raised two kids; what can she possibly say to me or anyone like me about family values? She obviously doesn’t value families highly enough to make one of her own. She has no credibility in this subject, and neither does anyone else who presumes to talk about families without bothering to have a family.

    “The whole point of marriage is to dedicate your life to another being in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health”

    If that is how marriage serves you, then I am pleased for you. But how it works for you is not necessarily how it must work for others, and moreover, it is not the business of government or society to make these decisions for individuals. The public policy objective for marriage is about legal and property rights. If two people want to file joint tax returns, or name each other as beneficiaries for insurance and inheritance purposes, or any of the other legal benefits associated with marriage, those two people should have the same opportunity to do this as any other citizen.

    Let me close by saying that it is not my intention to “bash” conservative thinking at all. My complaint is inconsistent thinking in this regard. I hardly think it is reasonable for conservatives to claim that government should stay out of the affairs of individuals and then in the next moment say that it is a proper role of government to ensure private relationships should follow religious doctrine. I have heard conservatives say that government should stay out of people’s private business, and I agree with this view wholeheartedly. It is the exceptions to this view I contest.

    • It is libertarians who believe that the government should stay out of people’s private business. While conservatives do believe this too to some extent, we also realize that the government has certain obligations, and one of those is to uphold a sense of morality in society.

      You are still way off guard with Anne Coulter. There are many reasons why individuals do not marry; most of the time it is not because they don’t want to “bother” to have a family. That’s a weak argument against family values.

  5. My point about Coulter has nothing to do with her marriage status. My complaint is that she is speaking on a subject about which she has little or no credibility when she speaks about family values.

    I am still interested in knowing how same sex marriage harms others.

  6. I think the more relevant question is, since when does NOT being married make one an expert on family values? For a person who has zero first hand knowledge of what it is like to commit to making a family to express an opinion on family values is exactly like a person writing a book review when she has never read the book. She might indeed have an opinion, but it is not an informed opinion, so thus it should be discounted as such.

    With respect to Ann Coulter, it is fairly clear her commitment to Christian values is entirely commercial in nature. For example, with regard to family values, Christians believe in abstinence before marriage. Coulter has never been married, and yet she is quite open about her fondness for sexual companionship. She certainly hasn’t taken any virginity pledge. So why should anyone take her advocacy of Christian family values seriously when she won’t lead by example? In this case, her implied message is “It’s okay when I fornicate, but you should not.” There is nothing at all about her lifestyle that suggests any commitment to living as a Christian, and yet she tells others that they should do so. Why does she do this?

    Because telling others how to live their lives helps her sell books. That makes her money to finance her worldly lifestyle. Coulter is not making a stand on principle, she is marketing a brand.

    What amazes me (and amuses me to a degree) is that some people cannot see beyond the blather she publishes to recognize that her sincerity is only as deep as her next paycheck.

    Am I to suppose by your silence on the subject that you concede that same sex marriage does not harm others? I am open to a candid and constructive exchange of ideas, and I think this point is central to my argument. But I will gladly drop it if you have nothing to add.

    I would also like to address a point you made about the conservative view that government has the obligation to uphold social morality. I agree with this view in general. But government regulation of morality must be designed to prevent individuals from harming others, and not merely to enforce a particular religious code or doctrine. If the behavior is not hurting anyone, then the government has no valid reason to restrict it.

    • Sometimes you have to realize when it is time to stop arguing, and we have definitely reached that point in time. You’re not going to convince me, and I’m not going to convince you of anything.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: