Mar 9 2015

The Last Stand: The Issue

 

“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” -Ronald Reagan

There are two fallacies connected with the traditional marriage versus same-sex marriage debate that we will deal with in this column. The first misconception is that love is the basic reason for marriage. The second widely propagated lie is that marriage is strictly a Christian tradition. Both have contributed greatly to the folly and contention we have today.

We should immediately dispense with the idea that marriage belongs to Christianity. Common sense tells us that Christianity is not the only religion that has had its imprint upon the rites of marriage. Not every Empire has been Christian, but every Empire has had a marriage structure by which to insure the stability of their generations in hopes to insure the longevity of their Kingdoms.

The pervasive thought that marriage tradition is rooted in Christianity comes from the fact that the United States is a Nation built on the foundation of a Judea-Christian faith. This must be tempered by the realization that we are a melting pot and not all peoples represented in this Country have their rites and traditions rooted in the same faith. While influenced by the Christian teaching of love, the origins of many of these various marital rites are very different from Christianity.

The proponents of same-sex marriage have tried to affix the label of Christianity to traditional marriage because it makes for a much easier and popular target. It is no secret that the political establishment has long resented and wanted Christianity removed from having any impact on society. Hollywood elites have longed disdained the teachings of morality and fidelity, and corporate tycoons have loathed the constant reminders to check their greed. Emboldened by the populace perception of Christianity as the evil menace to society, homosexuals have seized the opportunity to target and persecute Christians.

The prevailing argument is that homosexuals are loving couples that wish to have a marital relationship and therefore should not be denied this affirmation of love. This idea that a loving relationship is the fundamental basis for marriage is simple not correct. The institution of marriage was not created in any culture to validate a couple’s love and physical intimacy. No, the first and primary reason for the rite of marriage in every civilization throughout time was for the propagation and protection of the most fundamental and basic building block of society: babies.

The idea of a loving relationship as a prerequisite to marriage is a Western concept that has descended down from European lore and exacerbated by the modern Hollywood culture of today. In some Eastern marriage traditions, the idea of love is viewed as “bonus” that may come with time after the vows have been consummated. The one constant in every civilization is the purposing of marriage tradition as the vehicle by which children are brought into the world, raised, and taught the tenants of that society.

Not every marriage structure has demanded that physical intimacy be kept exclusively for marriage as Christianity and Islam do, but all the marriage rites of every civilization have agreed that the primary purpose of marriage was and is procreation. If a society is to survive it must have a stable structure in which to produce and raise children. The issue of marriage is simply about babies.

Even in the face of our hedonistic society the overarching truth still remains, marriage was created first for procreation not for love. It is a societal and religious rite created by heterosexuals for this primary purpose. Homosexuals did not create the rites of marriage represented in our Country and passed down by the various ethnic groups. The cold truth is homosexuals cannot procreate and, therefore, do not qualify for the purpose of marriage. Love does not qualify one’s relationship for marriage.

Marriage was not created for romance, love, or even sexual pleasure. While those ideals are not excluded, the harsh reality is that marriage was created by heterosexuals for heterosexuals who could, if they desired, create children. Marriage is exclusive for that purpose. Sadly, we are willing as a Nation, to target and revoke the rights and liberties of certain people groups based on reasoning that does not even exist.

Mar 6 2015

Duplicitous Surreal

Can you imagine being a part of a Party where you must operate in fear of showing loyalty to your own Country? Senator Robert Menendez has found out that the Democrat party is just that sort of Party.  Not days after criticizing the President’s treaty with Iran, the Senator from New Jersey finds himself the target of an investigation by the Department of Justice.  Whether the Senator is guilty or not, the speed in which the President has retaliated is a wonder to behold.  The same President, who is oblivious to any scandal within his scandal plagued administration, unsure of how to classify terrorism, gives nary a sniff at the corruption of his Chicago land cronies, and never utters a word of concern for all those in his administration that have terror ties, now has suddenly found the time to emerge from a golf course to climb atop the high horse he has demanded Christians vacate in order to ensure that members in his Party…. just do-the-right-thing….even if they are..left of everything.

This sudden adherence to integrity would be heartwarming save for the surreal duplicitous atmosphere that the Democrat Party generally operates in. Take the matron not-so-saint of the Democrat Party, Hillary Clinton, who is now trying to explain why she has exclusively used, not just personal email, but a personal server, to do Federal business on, yet she excoriated and fired her employees for doing the same thing and publicly rebuked President Bush in 2007 for using personal emails citing it as a violation of the Constitution.    Clinton recently decried American business bemoaning unequal pay for female employee, but the females on Clinton’s staff are paid 20% less than the males.

The speed in which the White House has snapped the punitive lash over Menendez simply brings into stark clarity what is very wrong about the Democrat Party.  While a semblance of Patriotism may still exist in some of the rank and file Democrats, most of the leadership has wholly given themselves to the belief that America is evil and must be punished and any amongst them who defy that agenda will be punished severely.

Mar 6 2015

United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives has sent a letter to the President protesting the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.  Maine Congressman Bruce Poliquin is quoted in saying,

“As your Representative, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the Second Amendment.

“Since its beginning, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has proposed serious concerns to our ability to provide defensive arms to our closest allies and our right to keep and to bear arms. Maine has a long tradition of responsibly using firearms to protect ourselves and property when in danger.

“Growing up in Maine, I understand the importance and necessity of the Second Amendment for our hard-working taxpayers and I am determined to protect that right.”

The full text of the letter is here: The letter is a reintroduction of a letter sent last session, which will explain why there are signatures from last session on the letter.  The sponsor, Mike Kelly, has not reposted it with the new signees.  Chellie Pingree has not signed the letter.

Mar 6 2015

Bi-Partisanship, Folly, and Fantasy

 

The rookies are in! With the legislature now in full swing, the freshmen members have descended upon Augusta. These have come, with visions of their own grandeur rife with the fantasy of how their silver tongue and persona, steeped in the magnanimous, will alone bridge the partisan divide. Soon, the rude awakening will occur, or so we hope.

Why do I hope for a rude awakening? It may help the reader to understand my disdain of the modern clamor for bi-partisanship if we first examine the partisan divide. For this purpose, I will borrow and embellish an illustration from a columnist far more accomplished and respected than I, Peggy Noonan. This is from a column she wrote in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago entitled “Why Its Time for the Tea Party”.

Ms. Noonan likens the partisan divide to the increments on a yardstick. The one-inch mark would represent the extreme right, what some call “right of reason”. The 36-inch mark would represent those on the left, who just transported in from their spaceship through the StarGate on moonbeams. The 18-inch would represent the middle ground or the Nirvana of bi-partisanship.

While media elites, the Democrat Party, and moderate Republicans continue to loudly decry the lack of bi-partisanship from Conservatives and Conservative Republicans alike (Yes, there are some true Conservative Republicans that still exist.), the true reasons for the political divide are ignored either by intent or lack of political gravitas. The prevailing system of governance of today would be settled somewhere around the 28-inch mark in Ms. Noonan’s ideological yardstick. Conservatives would like the government to be running somewhere in between 5 and 10 inches but the yardstick seems to be increasingly tilted towards the 36 inch mark at an alarming pitch.

This is infuriating to voters, who have clearly spoken to their candidates on the campaign trail and have an expectation of legislative behavior based upon campaign promises. The elected legislators once in office are immediately barraged with a call for bi-partisanship and are assured that this is what the majority of people want. But the negotiations are happening at the 28-inch mark and, when Republicans hold up their accomplishments, with an “it could be worse” smile, the people throw their hands up in disgust. We are still at 28 inches, in fact, its now 28 and ¾ inches. We haven’t gained an inch.

The people are outraged! The Democrats and moderate Republicans admonish Conservatives for their lack of bi-partisanship, more concessions are made to salve the perceived political faux pas, and the Nation and States slide deeper into the mire of Socialism. Republicans are left looking like buffoons.

True and healthy bi-partisan tension can only occur on the flat plains of the middle ground. Bi-partisanship will never work until some courageous partisans refuse to be thwarted in their resolve to pull the mired wagon of government back to the 18-inch mark. Then and only then can bi-partisanship function on equal footing.

The fantasy of many Republicans to be that bridge over troubled partisan waters will never come to fruition as long as this fallacy of bi-partisanship exists. It is folly to build a bridge on anything other then a solid footing. We have wasted too much energy constructing monuments to futility in the mire only to see them sink away. Its time to pull back to the high ground of common sense, where negotiations truly work.