Recently, Gay Marriage has passed in New York State. As a Yank, I am disgusted by the lack of spine the NYS Senate GOP showed as they passed this measure. As a Christian I am appalled. As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I have to think this one over and remedy my feelings on the issue with my political philosophy that government should not do anything to control or subjugate people.
Homosexuals have been, and continue to be, free to conduct their affairs as they see fit, just like everyone else. As Americans, it is a fundamental right to pursue happiness as we deem fit. For some, this means breaking the norm – a norm informally set by society and its extra-governmental values [traditions]. Gays are not precluded from breaking these norms and pursuing their own happiness. That is the bottom line.
Questions now arise regarding the purpose of marriage. Is marriage a right? Is the purpose of marriage to assist in the pursuit of happiness? If the answer to either question is “yes,” gay marriage must be permitted. However, this is not the case. First and foremost, marriage is not a “right.” Rights are endowed by our creator and marriage isn’t one of them. If marriage is a right, I want government to provide me with the bride I am entitled to if I am not hitched by 30!
Secondly, government marriage has nothing to do with happiness. The God of Abraham, Jesus Christ, Buddha, etc, and their respective Churches and Temples care if you are happy with your marriage, not government. Government marriage and its tax and healthcare related benefits are issued only to ensure a suitable environment for the creation of new life. Government cares about this because a suitable environment for child rearing means couples will have more children, thereby creating a stable or increasing labor force, ensure population stability, and hopefully provide an environment that will yield the scientists and engineers of tomorrow.
I oppose homosexual marriage because homosexual unions do not grant society this benefit. Last I checked, homosexuals cannot create life. How can we call two unions equal if the fundamental groundwork for the union is vastly different? I love fried catfish and I love apples, but I would never compare the two or call fried catfish an apple. If this changes down the line, whether by Darwinian evolution or the Hand of God, I will revisit my conclusion. Perhaps marriage has changed from the days of mom & apple pie, but if it is no longer about creating a family – perhaps government should abolish the institution all together and save its money.
Another aspect to this struggle is one of ideological dominance. Government must treat all life-guiding principles as a religion and enforcing them on another is always wrong. Secularism IS a religion. Under the various guises of women’s rights, reproductive health, marriage equality, and the ACLU – secularism is a poison that seeks to subjugate the masses through social engineering. It seeks to eliminate other value systems, including extra-governmental norms, through a systematic attack through the mediums of government under the false banner of tolerance.
Allowing gays, or anyone for that matter, to live life as they see fit despite ones own reservations is tolerance. Thrusting a value system upon a populous is radical “acceptionalism” (meaning forced acceptance) and is the epitome of intolerance. Gay marriage seeks to thrust a new value system upon society and meticulously dismantle the extra-governmental values that society generally is guided by. Although gay marriage is not the be-all and end-all of this process, it is a mile marker.
With that, I must commend the 41 states that have either constitution bans on same-sex marriage or have laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman.
As a side note, I would not rule out statutorily strengthening contracts delegating inheritance rights and end of life decisions to a same-sex partner for that security is fundamental to the pursuit of happiness and it is ones right to delegate it as such.
Bottom line: Marriage is not a right, state marriage it is not solely meant for the purpose of happiness, gay marriage is biologically different than heterosexual marriage and therefore not comparable nor can it be equated, and gay marriage is part of the great war this country faces against secularism. Do not let the guise of tolerance cloud your judgment in the face of this intolerance.
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” – Abe Lincoln
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Ditch the Party
George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:
"[Political Parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."
It is not a shocking revelation to report that political parties, time and time again, flip-flop on basic issues to serve their own needs rather than doing what is good for the country. And if they act for the good of the country, rest assured it is only for some type of self-gain.
Who can forget Nancy Pelosi’s “pay as you go” budgeting strategy? That philosophy lasted until the second she got in power and needed to serve her party interests before the national interest. What about the PATRIOT Act? The staunch Democratic opposition in the latter Bush years suddenly turned into staunch support in 2010. What about the Civil Rights Act of 1957 supported by Republicans and opposed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson and the Democrats? Rather than protect the oppressed black community with a strong bill in 1957, he waited until 1964 when it was politically convenient and his party was in power. Suddenly, Democrats magically become the strong voice for “oppressed minorities.”
Let’s not pick on only the Democrats, the Republicans are no better. The most blatant example being the spend-drunk, yet fiscally responsible, Republicans of the Bush years. It’s even more amusing that they now claim to be born-again fiscal conservatives who wouldn’t dare revert to the Bush years if given the opportunity. We’ll have to see how that plays out.
Political parties not only put their own interest ahead of the national interest, but they actively seek to subjugate the masses with their own brand of “kool-aid.” Democrats actively seek out ignorant teens, minorities, and urban women while Republicans pander to ignorant white men and rural folk.
I will no longer subjugate myself to any party. I am a conservative and only conservatives will get my vote. Give me more liberty, or I will vote third party. I will no longer vote for a lesser of two evils.
"[Political Parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."
It is not a shocking revelation to report that political parties, time and time again, flip-flop on basic issues to serve their own needs rather than doing what is good for the country. And if they act for the good of the country, rest assured it is only for some type of self-gain.
Who can forget Nancy Pelosi’s “pay as you go” budgeting strategy? That philosophy lasted until the second she got in power and needed to serve her party interests before the national interest. What about the PATRIOT Act? The staunch Democratic opposition in the latter Bush years suddenly turned into staunch support in 2010. What about the Civil Rights Act of 1957 supported by Republicans and opposed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson and the Democrats? Rather than protect the oppressed black community with a strong bill in 1957, he waited until 1964 when it was politically convenient and his party was in power. Suddenly, Democrats magically become the strong voice for “oppressed minorities.”
Let’s not pick on only the Democrats, the Republicans are no better. The most blatant example being the spend-drunk, yet fiscally responsible, Republicans of the Bush years. It’s even more amusing that they now claim to be born-again fiscal conservatives who wouldn’t dare revert to the Bush years if given the opportunity. We’ll have to see how that plays out.
Political parties not only put their own interest ahead of the national interest, but they actively seek to subjugate the masses with their own brand of “kool-aid.” Democrats actively seek out ignorant teens, minorities, and urban women while Republicans pander to ignorant white men and rural folk.
I will no longer subjugate myself to any party. I am a conservative and only conservatives will get my vote. Give me more liberty, or I will vote third party. I will no longer vote for a lesser of two evils.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)