Constitutional Rights

The US Constitution was written with the purpose of both restricting the government and protecting the rights of the people from the government. The types of rights it protects are defined as pre-existing, natural, and/or God-given. Likewise the constitutions of the various states in this country. The Constitution does not attempt to protect that which is unnatural. So when a Florida judge yesterday decided that a law restricting adoption to traditional married couples was unconstitutional, she was declaring that the constitution protects that which nature itself (basic biology) has denied.

Some try to pervert this by arguing that not all traditional couples are willing or able to have children of their own. This specious argument is merely an attempt to divert attention from the basic, natural, biological way of things by focusing on the exceptions. An exception does not a rule make. It still takes a male and a female to produce children, and the God-given (or natural) design is that children have both a father and mother. Those who argue that all children need is love are naive at best and deceptive at worst. Today's children are tomorrow's adults. Yes, children need food, clothing, shelter, education, direction, values, friendship, love, and so much more. But perhaps the most important thing children need is the perspective, lessons, and skills they gain from two beings that are different in nature: a father and mother.

Others will attempt to twist the notion of natural rights by pointing out that humans, by nature, don't belong on the moon. The Constitution protects the people from the government. It does not prevent the people from choosing the activities they will pursue, and it does not create rights—it protects natural, pre-existing, God-given rights. If the people decide to adopt a law reserving adoption for a married man and woman, then the government's place is to abide by it, conditioned on that law fitting in with the governing document, the Constitution that was created by the people (the "We the People" in the preamble). To argue that the Constitution prevents the people from enacting laws that preserve natural, pre-existing rights is ridiculous. To argue that the Constitution protects the biologically impossible was never the intent and is totally absurd.

References
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97478955
Excerpt:

"A Miami judge ruled Tuesday that there is no rational, scientific or moral reason that sexual orientation should be a barrier to adopting children, finalizing the adoption of two siblings by their gay foster father."

The lie of "human rights" tribunals

What happens when the intolerant decide that freedom of speech should be one-sided? Those in the United States only need look north for the answer. If you don't think it can happen here, then you haven't been paying attention.

Try this on for size. A minister is fined for expressing his opinion in a letter to the editor.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODNhMTMyYjhhZGNkZGY5OGJhMjQ1YTM4MzEwNGRlODM=

"In June of 2002, a Canadian minister, the Rev. Stephen Boissoin wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper in Alberta condemning the "homosexual agenda." It was in no manner close to what could be construed as hate speech. But for having an unpopular and allegedly discriminatory opinion, two years later an anti-Christian activist brought a complaint about Boissoin was brought before the Alberta "human rights" commssion. In 2007, the Alberta tribunal found him guilty of, well, something. And Just last week they finally handed down their sentence against Boissoin."

If that doesn't strike close to home for you, check out the persecution of one of Canada's largest magazines.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmVmYzFlNGRhNzhhNGJkMzRlZDE0Nzc1NjFjNTg0NTY=

"At issue is a cover story National Review’s own Mark Steyn wrote for the Canadian newsweekly Maclean’s, titled “The Future Belongs to Islam.” An excerpt from Steyn’s bestselling book America Alone, the article highlighted the fact that demographic trends suggest that Muslims may well become a majority in much of Europe and that this obviously represents a threat to Europe as we know it. A few Muslim law students objected to the article and filed multiple complaints with Canada’s national and provincial “human rights” tribunals and presto! Steyn’s opinion and Maclean’s right to print it have now been effectively criminalized."

Equality for all?

Image by Bob Warnick.

We've recently witnessed the brazen theft of "Yes on 8" signs in California. This petty behavior has prompted me to write. It strikes at the very heart of free speech in this country, where opponents are attempting to silence supporters of Proposition 8.

I've written previously about the issue of projection—where an accuser sees in others the faults they possess themselves—and how it applies to the battle for voters in California over Proposition 8. Many opponents of Proposition 8 shriek that the issue at hand has something to do with hatred. Perhaps in their view it does, since it appears that hatred consumes some significant portion of their lives. Specifically, opponents' anger and hatred have clearly manifested themselves in the theft and destruction of "Yes" signs (which I have personally witnessed), verbal assaults, and even physical attacks on voters, such as the October 13 story of Jose Nunez in Modesto. They accuse others of hatred and anger yet spare no effort to use it at every opportunity themselves, further making my case that opponents are projecting their anger unjustly onto others where it does not in reality exist. This should greatly disturb any rational citizen.

If the opposition is so willing and ready to deny others equality of speech, then there is good reason to suppose that other freedoms—religion, for example—are next.

Any cause which leads its supporters to commit theft and violence should be strongly and uniformly denounced by any decent human being. The pretense of "equality for all" being pitched by the opposition is clearly self-serving and one-sided, and by extension, it makes opponents of Proposition 8 bald-faced liars. I invite opponents of Proposition 8 to prove me wrong by issuing an unqualified statement denouncing the brazen theft, destruction, and violence seen thus far. If you sincerely believe Proposition 8 supporters are angry and hateful, then take the high road and show us your good example. For my part, if any supporter of Proposition 8 were engaged in similar activities, they should be treated as criminals. Supporters have no reason to trade away basic values such as honesty, tolerance, and respect for freedom of speech.

The unfortunately reality is that some of the most vocal opponents of Proposition 8 are guilty of the anger and hatred they see in others. They cannot tolerate the freedom of speech—perhaps the most basic form of equality for all—by those who support Proposition 8; their tolerance is one-sided and therefore false. There is no other way to explain their exceptionally poor behavior, and relying simply on how they "feel" is no excuse for their actions.

Tolerance

In just a few weeks there are going to be 13 different Propositions for your consideration on the ballot along with various local and federal races. That's overwhelming for most people. There is one Proposition that I believe deserves your attention and "yes" vote more than anything else: Proposition 8. Proposition 8 restores the traditional definition of marriage in California. The bottom line question you're asking yourself is, "Why should I vote for this?"

We Californians pride ourselves in the diversity and tolerance in our state. We respect the freedom of others to make their own choices and we expect them to do the same for us. Tolerance and respect go both ways. We're willing to listen to others' viewpoints and consider them, but we don't want their ideas forced upon us. We expect to be able to make our voices duly heard through the political process. If you are one of the millions of Californians who identify with this description, then you will be stunned by recent events.

In May of this year, the California Supreme Court ruled1 that domestic partnerships in California—available since 2003— have "virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple." The high court's finding means that Voting Yes on Proposition 8 in no way affects the legal status of same-sex couples in California.We Californians' tolerate and respect our fellow citizens, and we expect them to do the same for us.

However, this last Friday, October 10, the San Francisco Chronicle reported2 that a first grade class—5 and 6 year old children—took a field trip, on school time, to witness a same-sex marriage performed by the San Francisco city mayor. When asked by the paper, the school staff noted that "they didn't see the big deal. Same-sex marriage is legal." As adults, we can tolerate others' choices even though we disagree, but the manipulation of our school children in an effort to force on us a contrary viewpoint is intolerant, un-Californian, and unacceptable. Children should not be exposed to adults' controversial decisions in this way: parents should be the ones to decide if and when to expose their children to these controversies. The school trip is just one of the many events that are happening and will continue to happen in California unless we pass Proposition 8.

I hope you find this as enlightening as I do, and more importantly, I hope you now see that tolerance and respect demand that we vote Yes on Proposition 8.

References
1. California Supreme Court, case S147999, dated 15 May 2008
2. "Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day," San Francisco Chronicle, October 11, 2008
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL

21st Century Slavery

I was struck with the parallel made by Patrick Lee in an article recently. In it, he adroitly points out that we don't seem to have learned how to apply to modern life the lessons from our own history regarding slavery:

"If a politician in the 19th century took a position on slavery analogous to that of Obama and Biden on abortion, his claim would go something like this: “I do not endorse slavery. I wouldn’t own slaves. I think people should be free not to own slaves, if they wish. But I am pro-choice. I have been a consistent champion of the right to own slaves for the last ten years. And I will make defense of that right a priority in my presidency. Of course, I hope fewer people will feel the need to resort to that choice, and so as president I will put into place economic policies that will reduce the need for slave labor in agriculture and in factories. But, to ensure that slavery remains an option for white men who should, after all, be free to decide how to manage their own affairs, I am in favor of providing subsidies for the purchase of slaves by whites whose farms and factories are at risk because of the high cost of wage labor.”

The central principle of our civilization is that all human beings possess an equal fundamental dignity, and no class of human beings can with justice enslave, use, experiment on, or deliberately kill other innocent human beings for their own purposes. Obama and Biden have rejected that basic principle. McCain and Palin embrace and uphold it."

Reference:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTI3Njc4OTUzMzQxZTQ2NWRkODEyOWZmNDliMTQyMTk=

Politics and Freedom of Religion

One definition of religion is that it is a set of values. To be sure, religious views are that those values are eternal in nature and given by God. In a very real sense, in the secular world a set of values or a belief system are analogous and could be seen as a "secular religion." From that perspective, it makes no sense that big businesses should be allowed to contribute to groups of their choosing while imposing tight restrictions on religious groups. True, big businesses don't claim to be non-profit in nature. However, many are utilities that provide things like electricity, telephone services, and so forth, which are in many ways so regulated by the government as to be almost an extension of the government itself. They obtain exclusive, monopolistic contracts, lobby to obtain favorable tax structuring, and have historically succeeded in raising prices with little resistance from government oversight, possibly because it equates to more taxes for the government. The proverbial fox watching the hen house.

If big businesses can contribute heavily to candidates and causes of their own choosing, in spite of their government ties that make such contributions a conflict of interest, then there should be no problem with private non-profit groups speaking out in favor issues which they believe are relevant. Such freedom was recently at issue when the Catholic church spoke out against statements by Representative Pelosi. Some argued—wrongly, I think—that this was church crossing into politics. A Catholic priest I think summarized the situation very aptly, as quoted here:

"To those that argue that a priest shouldn’t enter the political fray, he responded that “it was the Speaker of the House who started this; she, and other pro-abortion Catholic politicians, regularly cross over into teaching theology and doctrine. And it’s our job to try clean up their mess.”"

If politicians can cross into issues that are at the core of a belief system, then they should not be surprised when religion crosses into the political. It's the politicians who apparently don't see the line.

One of the key reasons this country was formed in the 18th century was to escape the oppression of religion by government in England. To have our modern government dictating what a religious group can or cannot say is a return to the same oppression of more than 200 years ago.

References
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDc4MmU1Y2E3YjMyNzdiNGI1ZDFhOTNmMTI4OWQyNDM=

The Purpose and Meaning of Marriage

There is much confusion in the world as to the definition of marriage. Among the voices are those asking, "Why shouldn't I be able to marry the person I love?" That question begs another question, namely whether love alone defines marriage.

The Purpose of Marriage
Marriage has historically involved fidelity, commitment, sacrifice, work, children, love, and yes, intimacy between a man and a woman. What has defined marriage, however, is the stable structure a man and woman create by entering into it—the family—one which is ideal for rearing children. Various studies have shown that children need both a father and a mother to reach their full potential. From a practical perspective, society has always had a vested interest in stable families because children literally are the future. When families fail, we see a range of negative consequences from poor self esteem and scholastic performance issues to gang involvement, none of which represent the best possibilities for the future.

There are, of course, families where a parent or children are absent, marriage itself is absent, or marriage was never a part. That does not make them the ideal or model of either marriage or family, however. Similarly, both marriages and families have their share of problems. Those problems are usually a result of the choices of the individuals involved, not the structure or form of traditional marriage and family.

Maggie Gallagher summarizes the need for traditional marriages and families this way:

"The marriage idea is that children need mothers and fathers, that societies need babies, and that adults have an obligation to shape their sexual behavior so as to give their children stable families in which to grow up."

What About Love?
Love can and does exist without marriage. Consider siblings, parents and their children, and friendships. Love does not require the institution of marriage. Likewise, human intimacy can and does exist outside of and independent of marriage (which arguably causes its own set of problems). What sets marital love apart is the commitment and sacrifice for a common purpose, namely the creation of a family both capable and suited to rearing children. Without sacrifice and service, love is hollow and meaningless. It is true love that motivates the sacrifice of self interest, and the willingness to conform to and adhere to the conditions expected of traditional marriage. That is what makes traditional marriage so well suited to family life.

Why do we so strongly support the preservation of traditional marriage? For the preservation of the family. Again Maggie Gallagher says it best: "Same-sex marriage would enshrine in law a public judgment that the desire of adults for families of choice outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers." The needs of children outweigh the needs of self-interested individual adults, and children need both a father and a mother.

Every human on the planet has needs and desires. That does not mean we should instantly seek to gratify every one of them. Andrew Tallman: "But strong desires do not justify behavior. Otherwise the study of ethics would be nothing more than the articulation of our impulses." The problem with the seemingly-plausible argument that love is enough to justify the redefinition of marriage (and, by extension, family) is that it relies purely on emotion to make life-changing decisions. Love is wonderful and important, but by itself it does not define marriage and is not a reason to erase traditional marriage.

References
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=2939&R=13BAC193F9

http://townhall.com/columnists/AndrewTallman/2008/07/31/five_logical_errors_of_the_born_gay_ideology?page=1