The Supremes miss the boat

You have got to hand it to the Supreme Court of the United States: They probably have done more damage to the country than they realize.

In two days, in my opinion (and one shared by many people), the justices in split decisions have done considerable damage to the rule of law in the United States.

Granted, I am not saying that the justices don’t have that power, because they do, and however wrong I, or anyone else, may think their reasoning and conclusions may be, what they say is how the law is supposed to be interpreted and applied in the United States. That is the compact we live under. I don’t have to like it. You don’t have to like it.

But love or hate the decisions they make we have to accept them as the new rules that govern the nation (at least until the political process can come up with a new way someway to interpret the compact that stands the scrutiny of the justices). If you don’t like that, then move to another country.

Now, having said all that, I think the Court’s rulings on both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and on “gay” marriage are faulty. Both of them for basically the same reason: They chose to redefine words with established definitions.

To some people this may not seem to be a big deal, but in the realm of the law, its rules live and die on definitions. How words are defined is established by tradition and precedent, and in both these cases the concurring justices chose essentially to say that neither tradition nor precedent was enough to warrant not changing the definitions.

Now, liberals and progressives will tell you this is as it should be because words evolve, the language evolves and over time things mean differently than they did before. Only in these cases, that really is not the situation. The justices just decided it was.

For example: the word “state” in the context of the U.S. Constitution and Congressional legislation has a pretty specific meaning that has been held for roughly 228 years. That definition is no longer valid. When legislation or regulatory rules are made now, rather than meaning just the political subdivision of US called the “state” (of which there are 50 of them), the word now means either the states (in the traditional sense) or the federal government, depending on how you want to interpret it in the political/social context.

I understand the argument that ruling the PP&ACA (Obamacare) would have adversely impacted millions of Americans and I imagine that played a significant role in the thinking of the justices. The court is loath to play bull in the china shop with the U.S. economy and usually seeks ways to avoid doing it. Of course, the court could have done as it did 30+ years ago with the bankruptcy code and stayed striking it down in Toto and told Congress it had six months to fix the problem. But that would not have served the ends of those on the liberal end of the court whose political view of the world is that role of the government is expansive and such things such as health care are a right (wrong … but that is an argument for another day).

The justices did the same thing with granting equal rights to same sex marriages.

Look, I have no problem granting two people of the same sex who wish to enter into a contractual relationship (which, legally, is all “marriage” is) and receiving government benefits equal to those granted “married” couples. No problem whatsoever. But you have to recognize that this really isn’t about people loving each other or living together; it is about those benefits. All the rest really is just window dressing.

Granted, it is an effort by a minority of our population trying legislate social acceptance of behavior which is, by any estimation, a tad bit on the abnormal side and in most cultures is considered something other than acceptable behavior. In some it may be tolerated more than others but pretty much universally it is considered aberrant.

So, the justices decided, based pretty much on a loud and orchestrated campaign of political correctness, to say that such pairings had right to be called “marriages” and were indeed a constitutional right (S0 that they had to be recognized in all 50 states). In essence, they redefined the millennia old meaning of a word in almost all cultures and religions to fit what they thought was correct in our evolving world.

The court, however, was correct in saying what is a contractual right in one state has to be in all states. So, in that sense, they did do something right.

To me, at this junction, I don’t have a dog in this fight. My objection is to the laisse faire playing with the language. Now, I know this is what lawyers and judges do all the time and it is what they get paid to do. Doesn’t mean I have to like it.

I see it as an assault on the rule of law, for remember the law hinges on words and how they are defined. Start changing the definitions and you tear at the foundations of the law. And if people can change definitions at will, then we become a nation of men and not law, as the old saying goes.

In one footnote, I would say that this ruling opens the door to polygamy becoming a constitutional right. You might say “nah, never happen”, but 20 years ago people were saying the same thing about gay marriage.

Next logical step

Here comes polyamory ... or is that polygamy?

Well, Katy bar the windows, they are coming through the doors.

The above story is about polyamory, a domestic living arrangement that permits multiple partners. Without being coy about it, we are talking about polygamy under a different name. Literally, from its Latin roots, “polyamory” should mean “many love” (poly = many, amor = love).

Well, once we condoned homosexual relationships and decided they were acceptable, then multiple relationships was the next obvious step.

It is not that either is unnatural, because they aren’t. Homosexuality has been less accepted in human societies, but polygamous and polyamorous relationships have been and still are acceptable in a good number of societies around the world.

Now, given that we living in an instantaneous communication and gratification society, it is no small surprise that coming so quickly on the heels of acceptance of homosexuality as a positive norm that the next logical step to multiple, multi-sexual relations be advocated for acceptance. I mean we see a form of polygamy exercised in our culture in the serial marriages in the lives of our opinion makers and cultural leaders, if not just serial relationships and to heck with the institution of marriage.

Of course, those who wish to see the overthrow of all traditions will greet this development with open arms. It frees them up to focus on their satisfaction, regardless of the consequences to society.

Therein, I propose, is the problem. You see, change is not necessarily bad. Far from it, actually. Change is a natural part of the evolution of human existence. However, uncontrolled change can create havoc and conflict as those who are comfortable with the status quo seek to protect its status.

So, I am not opposed to change (although a lot of people seem to think I am) but I always question the necessity and rational for any changes and often ask troublesome questions like “What if … ?”

It is all well and good to want to change society, to change social structure, change the way we do things or the way we are governed. But one must be wary when proposing grand sweeping changes because the law of unintended consequences (as President Obama’s signature Patient Protection  and Affordable Care Act is providing ample illustrations) has not been repealed.

I was just reading the fall news letter from my local state senator (a Democrat in a state where the Democrats control both houses of the state legislature and a Republican sits as governor) where he was lamenting the fact that government gridlock was limiting changes to small incremental things (with special interest groups of all shapes and sizes doing all they could to protect their vision of the status quo). He was hoping that there could be broad and sweeping revisions and change. To me, that man is dangerous.

He may tout bipartisanship, but broad changes usually are only reflective on one world view (Much like the PPACA) and not of a consensus.

Governing by consensus, rather than just majority rule, usually is slower, but it usually brings with it less strife … and less hate and discontent among those being forced to accept the changes being imposed by those whose vision of the world and how society is different from those who are being asked to accept the changes.

It is something I think Americans would do well to ponder as we look around the world and see the fruits of rapid and uncontrolled changes. Is that what we want? I don’t think so. It is not our style.

I hope it gives you something to think about.

Nuff Said.

Difficult, huh?

Gay couples face big hurdles to parenthood

It seems that gay couples wanting to have children face significant hurdles to becoming parents. Ah, what part of Biology 101 did you miss?

The last time I studied the biology of various species, humans were not among those who could propagate without the involvement of two different genders: A male and a female. Now, I might be wrong, but I think that is what I remember. Now, it seems that most animals are that way. I don’t know why, but it seems to be the case.

However, I think there was a plan by God/Allah/Mother Nature/Evolution, etc., when the human species was not made asexual. I don’t know, but it seems to me that there is some reason why people are designed the way they are.

Marriage, beyond being a legal construct that we people use for divvying up various benefits from the state and some other mythologies, primarily was instituted among various and sundry cultures (amazing how it is almost universal among the human species) to provide a structure to protect, nourish and ensure the propagation of the members of that civilization’s next generation. Now, granted, in some societies, polygamy is permitted but then that goes back to the pack nature of man and the fact that the gestation period for humans is nine months.

So, if gay couples are the union of two members of the same sex, would someone explain to me how they naturally are going to propagate? I can see how, using modern medical techniques, it can be done, but that is artificially. Artificial methods, I understand can get expensive but then that is the price of technology. I also fail to understand how two males are supposed to accomplish this (females, being the new-life carriers, it is far easier to understand).

Ok, despite having the obvious biological hurdle which seems significant to me, I guess society has placed a few more hoops for people who want children but can’t have them have to go through.

I know I am wrong, but it just seems that some homosexual couples don’t realize the difficulties facing heterosexual people who for one reason or another merely want to adopt children. There are those people, who are not gay, who can’t have children naturally. For them, they usually seek to adopt children, but that process is not just going down to the local hospital and picking out a new son or daughter.

There are all sorts of rules that make it very difficult for heterosexual couples to adopt and the hurdles for single people (remember, they just represent one gender as well) to adopt are even more complex and difficult (although it has never been banned outright). So heterosexual couples have to go through a multitude of hoops (Just ask my dear wife, who adopted two in her first marriage – took 12 years) in order to have children and now same-sex couples are complaining. Give me a break.

In the linked article, it is interesting that all the cases involved two women. I didn’t see any involving two men. It would seem to me that in all fairness, the reporter should have included the problems two men would have adopting a child, given the difficulty a single man already faces. I mean, if we are going to equality here, it has to be equality before the law, right?

And then if two people of the same sex want to adopt, what about three or four? What about multiple parents? Why not? It seems to me that multiple parents would be a good thing. What about multiple parents with mixed genders? Oops, we are moving into the realm of polygamy, plural marriages and communal marriages.

No, unfortunately, this isn’t really about parenthood, or raising the next generation. Not really because it really is about individuals thinking merely about themselves and their own pleasure, sexual and otherwise.

Remembering that humans are bisexual and that therefore unisexual relations are basically a statistical aberration, it would seem that homosexual relations are indeed not the norm.

I realize that these people desperately need to feel accepted as individuals. We all need to feel accepted as individuals. However, they are not the norm and never will be (or the species will die off).

I say we tolerate their differences as long as they tolerate our right to disagree with them.

Vote with your feet

Gay Chik Fil A employees speak out

 

I get really tired of people talking like this. Understand, I am not a fan of Chik Fil A. It is not my taste.

Still, if you work for someone and you don’t like the views of the people at the top of the corporation, there is a simple solution: Cast your vote with your feet and go to work somewhere else. Chik Fil A doesn’t owe you a job and you don’t owe your labor to Chik Fil A.

The sad thing, as was apparent in the HuffPo piece above, is that the actual policies and treatment for gay employees was pretty much no different than any other employee and that is how it should be.

People should keep their sexual orientation out of the workplace, where it doesn’t belong in the first place. I know that is an unrealistic attitude to take but it is what should be happening. Just like people should keep their religion and politics out of the work place, people should not make an issue out of a lot of other things that absolutely no bearing on whether the person can do the job they are paid to do.

I suspect I speak for a lot of people who say that being homosexual is unusual, but if it is what you are, then have at it. However, don’t force your views on me or ask me to accept your homosexuality as “normal” because it is not. It is normal for you, as the GLBT, but it is not normal for the species as a whole. This is not to condemn you or to criticize you. It is merely pointing out the obvious.

I used to have red hair. When I was younger, I took my share of abuse for it. Didn’t like the abuse but I didn’t run around demanding that people had to accept me because I had red hair. No, I wanted them to accept me because I was a competent individual who did whatever job I was assigned to do to the best of my ability. If you didn’t like my red hair, too bad, that was your problem, not mine.

Can’t tell you how many times I was referred to as that “little red-headed son-of-bitch” but I got over it. Got called a lot of other names as well, but I survived. Heck, every person gets called names unless they are totally milquetoast.

As I have said before, I have no problem with individuals being GLBT or whatever. What they do with their private sex lives is no concern of mine. However, the operative word there being “private.” Unlike, some people (lord, it wasn’t all by a long shot, I know after living what is “affectionately” referred to the “Bible Belt” for most of my adult life) whose take on religion makes them intolerant in their own right. Just like gays are being intolerant of those who don’t accept them, these people can’t accept gays because they are different.

It really is sad that a relatively small group of people, all in the name of demanding attention and acceptance of their “unusual” sexual orientation have set out to redefine everyone else’s religious beliefs. You may not agree with their religious beliefs, but just as you expect them to respect yours and treat you with dignity, then each person should treat those with whom they disagree with respect and dignity.

Unfortunately, we are seeing precious little of that these days … anywhere (Not just in the US). Makes a real sad commentary on the human race, doesn’t it.

This is asinine, people

Chicago Seek to Ban Chik-Fil-A
Chik-Fil-A is bad (as are Christians)
Boston wants to Ban Chik-Fil-A
Politicians face road to unconstitutional acts
Ok, boys and girls – my fellow Americans – this is absolutely stupid with a capital S.
It seems the mayor of Boston and the mayor of Chicago (and some other town out in California) and the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite rights advocates have their nose out of joint because the president of the private company that franchises all the Chil-Fil-A restaurants happens to be a card-carrying Baptist who believes that homosexuality is a sin.
These people want to use the law to ban this person’s business from operating in their cities and if possible run them out of business. WRONG ANSWER!!!
First of all, there is not documented case to my knowledge of Chik-Fil-A restaurants ever denying service to any gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite person. The company even makes a point of this that it is NOT their policy to do so.
So, the president of the privately-held company tells a Christian publication that if it is said that he is against gays getting married, then he is guilty as charged. That is what he believes, that only a man and woman can get married.
So the progressives, ever so willing to tolerate differing views from their own, throw an absolute temper tantrum.
Give me a break. I am sorry, but this pushes my buttons. I may disagree with what you believe, but honestly – after 26 years as an active and reserve component soldier and 30 years as a civilian newspaper journalist – I will put my life and my reputation on the line for your right to hold your views without threat from the government.
For years, I worked one block and lived about five blocks from a very infamous store in South Carolina. It was the Redneck Shop and Klu Klux Klan Museum. If you don’t think I didn’t hate that shop and all it stood for, then you have no clue who I am. However, I -- in print and in person -- defended the right of the owner of that shop to operate his souvenir store just off the public square in that town. I may not of liked it, and may have told everyone who asked if they please would not patronize the store, but I fought just as hard against any effort by the city government or any level of government to force it to close.
You see, freedom isn’t just a one way street. People are not just free to do and say things that you like. They are also free to do things that you absolutely detest or express views that are so stupid you want to vomit.
My progressive friend out west seems, from his Facebook posts, to be one of those people who, if I showed the same sense of tolerance he seems to, I would be banning him from Facebook and the world. I let him rant, because – to be honest, Don Carlito – it makes me laugh and shake my head how silly you can be.
Now, for what it is worth, the GLBT people are literally trying to force their views down “our” collective throats. If you don’t agree with the “rights” as they define them, then they want government to punish you. No, that will not happen. I am sorry. You have every right to your sexuality, your beliefs, your views, but you have no right to dictate to me what my views on your sexuality, your beliefs, your views, your actions, are or will be! That is a line you do not cross.
I had no problem with the military GLBT people marching in uniform in the recent parade in San Diego. No problem at all, as long as each individual maintained proper military decorum as a representative of their service. That, among other things, basically means no sexual hijinks, no over the top displays of affection, etc. It doesn’t matter what parade you are in, that sort of behavior represents improper military decorum.
If you are not in uniform, and then do what you want, but once you put that uniform on, you have sworn to uphold that military decorum under the articles of the Universal Code of Military Justice. It does not matter how many stripes, or lack of, or bars, stars or leaves you have, it is still wrong.
I really am getting tired of the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite community ramming their views of a proper life down people’s throats. I hate to think what would happen to them if they were doing this stuff in some other countries, particularly Muslim countries.
Anyway, if you can’t tell, I really am pissed off. And I am really getting tired of the so-called progressives and liberals who put up with this bovine scatology. Almost as pissed off as I am at conservatives and religious fundamentalists and evangelicals who just won’t let the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite people live their lives.