Tag Archives: racism

Mar 22 2017

Burn That Bridge Down

 

After reading my last two articles, some may view my thoughts on this matter of the marriage license as a capitulation from my past stance on Traditional Marriage. Nothing could be further from the truth. I still believe that the heterosexual marriage traditions are the foundation of a thriving society, the erosion of these foundations spell doom for those societies, and that history has repeatedly offered us proof that portends these dire repercussions.

I am simply pointing out the obvious. There are many who don’t agree with me. It must be acknowledged that we have entered a time in our Nation’s history where we simply cannot talk to each other. The art and treasure of civil debate is dead.

Once a hallmark of this great Republic, the platform of civil debate afforded a place where those of differing views could express them and oppose vigorously those ideas they found exception with. The merits of these debates and the ideas from which they sprung would be presented to the free market of ideas in the public and the people would decide what they would embrace as a culture. But we have burned that platform down.

We have abandoned what was good and right about our Republic in that it provided for the safe and non-violent exchange of passionate opposing ideas. We have embraced the wrong which is using government as leverage to silence the dissent of our opponents. All are guilty.

Each side wants only their opinions expressed and agreed with. They want the world to be their own echo chamber where every thought is never challenged. Each hopes for a political gain or a legal ruling which they can herald as “settled law” to suppress the views of their opponents forgetting that “Government being, among other things, instituted to protect the persons and concienses of men from oppression,” (George Washington) and using government to silence opinion, belief, rites, and traditions is oppression.

Disagreement, however, is not oppression. The existence of an ideal or belief that contradicts my own does not mandate my subservience to it, nor should it. The idea that beliefs expressed should not be challenged but approached in a manner of acquiescence all to honor tolerance is preposterous and dangerous to society as it lends authority to whomever can express themselves first and loudest, hence, all the shouting.

This is a Republic. There is no such thing as settled law. All laws are subject to the constant review of the citizens of the Republic and can be repealed, changed, or challenged with perpetuity by the will of the people.

So here we are and what do we do? For the social conservative such as I, yes I still am, it is important to evaluate yourself and ask these questions. What do you believe? Will it stand the test of time?

I have found that time usually provides the evidence to dispel folly from truth. So what if the preponderance of evidence is wrong and civilizations can be built without children and a structure to rear them in? Then let time prove who and what is true.

As we’ve shown, the marriage license is the very embodiment of hate and vitriol. It was interesting to see the reaction of my teenage son as I shared my investigations into the marriage license with him. His assessment was blunt, “Burn that bridge down!”

Because it is the bridge that so many have used to attack their fellow Americans and trample so many of their individual unalienable rights, I agree it is time to “burn that bridge down”. A bridge that has not brought us together but a platform for war. A structure steeped in racism, eugenics, and hatred.

If the marriage license is abolished then those of faith can covenant with their God before their church, as to their rites and traditions, without government intrusion. If the marriage license is abolished those who have views on marriage, different from those of the rites of religion, can establish their marriage contract in the way they see fit without experiencing the disapproval of the church or trampling the rites and rights of religion in order to achieve their goals. Religions should be able participate in their faith, rituals and traditions without the bigotry of media, government, Hollywood, or their fellow citizens. Those who eschew religion and its rites should be able to express that without bigotry from the media, government, religion, or their fellow citizens.

Several counties in the state of Alabama have already abolished the marriage license and the state legislature is moving to follow suit. The real change must come from We The People. For politicians, courage is a commodity bordering on extinction right in line behind common sense marching in lockstep over the precipice to oblivion. Legislators quiver, ponder, and flounder on what to do until they awaken to find history has passed them by and they are left on the wrong side of it. If change is to happen, we must “encourage” our legislators to do the right thing.

There is only so much reason you can share with some before you realize there is no reason to share it all. In any conflict there are those who are more interested in the destruction of their foe than the resolution of the argument that was the impetus of the war. This solution will reveal who is interested in peace and who is vested in hate. I am convinced that, with the abolishment of the marriage license, those on each side, who are solely fixated on the destruction of the beliefs and rites of those they find objectionable, will be exposed to the American people, rejected, and the rest of us can live in peace.

Mar 8 2017

Racism, Eugenics, and the Marriage License

I do remember my wedding day. I remember how beautiful my wife looked walking down that aisle towards me, and, yes, I cried. My parents had not been remiss in their duties to instill in me a full knowledge of the gravity and sacred responsibility for this new voyage my wife and I were about embark upon and as a result, I was scared to death. I also remember the moment my bride and I walked to a decorated little podium and there signed our marriage license just like many other couples have done countless times in our Nation, but knowing what I know now, I would have never consented to having that moment in our ceremony.

The marriage license is a dark and horrible over-reach from government with its roots in racism and the eugenics movement. Its genesis comes from the anti-miscegenation laws, which were brought over from England. Such laws prevented intermarriage between races in an effort to maintain racial purity.

These types of laws were more often used to target the intermarriage between whites and blacks than any other as blacks were the prime target of eugenic scientists and believers, who were convinced negro blood was inferior and weakened the human race. This horrible belief system fomented in our society until culminating with Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

Until the 1920’s, the concept of a marriage license was non-existent. Simply put, the marriage license was created to prevent whites from marrying blacks. Government agents were gatekeepers or agents to prevent the intermingling of “dysgenic unions” by which “the superior groups (whites) risks polluting their germ plasms with inferior hereditary traits.”

Lothrop Stoddard, a lawyer and eugenics expert, speaking in support of the Virginia Racial Integrity Act in 1924 before the Virginia legislature said this, “White race purity is the cornerstone of our civilization. Its mongrelization with non-white blood, particularly with Negro blood, would spell the downfall of our civilization. This is a matter of both national and racial life and death, and no efforts would be spared to guard against the greatest of all perils-the perils of miscegenation.”

The Virginia Racial Integrity Act would be the law overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. Still there was another eugenics influence that found its manifestation in the marriage license, the required blood test. This was done to establish whether there was enough percentage of “impure” blood in the person to constitute them as black. The ratio would vary from state to state. Amazingly enough, some states still require a blood test, although the claim is that it is now to test for sexual disease.

So what is your point many may ask? In my faith, it is our belief that my marriage to my wife is a sacred covenant between us, bound before and by God Almighty. Many religions have similar sacraments. Others view marriage devoid of religious sacrament but a necessary fundamental structure to the building of a society. Some, especially as of late, view marriage as a right to be obtained as an expression of equality.

Each of these views has merit for some, while others may hold strong reasons to contend against the establishment of said beliefs. All point to the Constitution as the validation for their marriage rite. The bridge by which all these contending beliefs attack each other seems to be the Marriage License.

As an activist who has vigorously defended the rites of traditional marriage and a railed against the acceptance of gay marriage, I present this proposition. Could the growing cries for the abolition of the marriage license be the solution by which we all can live peaceably and not have our rights trampled by our rites? The very existence of the many and varied marriage traditions should be an indication that the governmental one size fits all approach does not work.

And why do we need governmental approval to marry in the first place? Should a couple wish to marry and covenant before God and their church, let them within the rituals of their faith. If a couple prefers their marriage be simply a legal document witnessed by friends, let them. If a couple wishes to have a document with a government approval, let them, but let’s do away with this horrible concept of government control on who can and cannot marry and thereby providing the vehicle by which groups from all sides can attack others all in the name of love’s rights and rites.

It really comes down to whom or what do you believe your God is? Whom do you honor? If your beliefs do not perpetrate violence upon your fellow citizens, our Constitution declares you are entitled to them, anywhere.

Have I changed my beliefs on marriage? No. Do I still believe the abandonment of our traditional marriage structure will have and has had dire societal repercussions? Yes. Are there many that disagree with me? Obviously.

As of late, I am convinced that there are factions on the many sides of this divide that prefer the argument rather than the solution. They relish the utilization of the hammer of government to target and eliminate their opponents. From targeting a florist for her religious beliefs to Christians abandoning their religious beliefs to hate the “sinner” rather than the “sin”, we have forgotten the value of live and let live. In the marriage debate as I see it, we will never see the merit of the arguments come to fruition peacefully unless we abolish the marriage license.

Jan 16 2017

Dribble Much?

Once again the Bangor Daily News has allowed itself to be the platform for anti-American dribble from the alt-left. Khalil Gibran Muhammed teaches that racism is the bedrock of US history and he’s come to Maine to inform us of this “truth”. No where in the BDN’s glowing coverage of Mr. Muhammad’s speech is there a slightest attempt to check the validity of his claims. To the contrary, a nominal perusal through historical fact would debunk Mr. Muhammad’s claims and the self-same nominal perusal through the religion Mr. Muhammad embraces, Islam, would expose the hypocrisy of accusing Americans of perpetrating slavery, when Islam is the overwhelming greatest perpetrator of slavery throughout history, its atrocities ongoing.

These flaming epitomes in the mind numbing study of the intellectual duplicitous standardizing of selective amnesia have become nauseatingly predictable but no less repulsive to those who strive to be objective thinkers. What is far more morally repugnant to any decent American on this day is that Mr. Muhammad speaks as a representative of the MLK Foundation. For it was Martin Luther King who understood the “bedrock” of this society, our Constitution, better than perhaps any of the great leaders of this Nation when he said these words:

“When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.”

Reverend King understood that in the bedrock of this civilization our Founders had placed the “promissory note” in the Founding Documents with the intent and belief that good people of this Nation, in the light of their faith in God and their love of freedom, would in time eradicate the stain of slavery from this Nation.

And they did so, spilling the blood of their own sons to cleanse this land. No other nation has accomplished what our nation has in fight against racial injustice. So I ask, if slavery is the bedrock of this society, how is it that so many have fought from its very inception and laid the groundwork step by step to destroy slavery? Does Mr. Muhammad think that if the foundational bedrock of this nation was slavery and racism that the slaves would have been freed and the Nation would have heeded the calls of Martin Luther King to follow the words of its own Constitution with all men? If slavery is the very fabric of our society, as Mr. Muhammad intimates, than how is it a majority of Americans abhor slavery and racism? In no other nation could King have voiced his concerns much less mount the call for equality with out being crushed. Why? because its in the bedrock of who we are, freedom for all. 

Martin Luther King understood the unique opportunity afforded to him in the true fabric of this nation. It was Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Mr. Muhammad disdains the very thing, the very hope, that was the bedrock of Dr. King’s hope and the bedrock of this Nation, that “all men are created equal and our endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”. On this day, let us remember the truth that Martin Luther King believed and not the lies that Mr. Muhammad imagines.