Thursday, October 30, 2008
A Powerful Endorsement
I guess it's too obvious, but I'm supporting John McCain, or maybe I should say, like Glenn Beck, that I am endorsing Sarah Palin. Then we could actually hope that McCain gets elected and then impeached by the Democrats.
To Emily
I have to say a few things of a political nature. I am definitely on the side of those who believe that if it is immoral for an individual, it is wrong for a government (which is after all, individuals acting together). Ergo, taking money from some people and giving it to other people is wrong, no matter how "virtuous" the cause. Because the government produces nothing, anything it gives to fulfill a so-called "right" like food, or healthcare must be taxed (taken by force) from some and given to others. There are some things that only government can do such as national defense and those things are outlined very well by the founders in the original meaning of the constitution.
There are certain moral issues that require the attention of the electorate, particularly and more especially because of actions by activist courts. Abortion was handled individually (and variously) by the states until Roe v. Wade. Not addressed by the constitution it was forced into a national issue by the Supreme Court. Localities and states are no longer allowed to set their own moral standards on this sensitive issue. The same thing is happening with same-sex marriage. Standards held for millenia in multiple jurisdictions are being overturned under pressure from special interests by the state courts. Constitutional provisions which make contracts (such as marriage) legal in one state legal in all the states make the changes affected in Massachussetts or California valid throughout the Union. This is outside of the moral and practical reasons for supporting the maintenance of man/woman marriage.
Because Arizona has this issue on the ballot this year I am going to point out a few reasons to support keeping the status quo, i.e. marriage is between a man and a woman. If same sex marriage is legalized it may be impossible for citizens to maintain their religious beliefs in public. Schools would be enjoined from teaching that male-female marriages are superior to same-sex because both would be legal. Parents would not be able to object to their children being taught that way because it would be the law of the land. There could be no preference given to mixed gender marriages in adoption.
Churches may be prohibited from restricting marriages held in the buildings to only heterosexual marriages. This has already happened in Massachussetts where the tax exempt status of a church was threatened by its' refusal to allow a same-sex wedding on its' grounds. "If same-sex marriages are recognized as the law of the land, it will be difficult for any church to defend its right of recognizing another standard." (Janice Shaw Crouse)
Proponents of the same-sex marriage issue are using deceptive techniques to fight the ballot issue. Their ad claims that Arizonans have already voted on this issue, but they know that the intrusion of the courts in other states has made a constitutional amendment the only effective way to maintain heterosexual marriage as the standard. In fact, either an amendment to the US constitution or amendments to each state constitution is the only way for the religious rights of all citizens to be protected from zealous same-sex marriage proponents.
There are certain moral issues that require the attention of the electorate, particularly and more especially because of actions by activist courts. Abortion was handled individually (and variously) by the states until Roe v. Wade. Not addressed by the constitution it was forced into a national issue by the Supreme Court. Localities and states are no longer allowed to set their own moral standards on this sensitive issue. The same thing is happening with same-sex marriage. Standards held for millenia in multiple jurisdictions are being overturned under pressure from special interests by the state courts. Constitutional provisions which make contracts (such as marriage) legal in one state legal in all the states make the changes affected in Massachussetts or California valid throughout the Union. This is outside of the moral and practical reasons for supporting the maintenance of man/woman marriage.
Because Arizona has this issue on the ballot this year I am going to point out a few reasons to support keeping the status quo, i.e. marriage is between a man and a woman. If same sex marriage is legalized it may be impossible for citizens to maintain their religious beliefs in public. Schools would be enjoined from teaching that male-female marriages are superior to same-sex because both would be legal. Parents would not be able to object to their children being taught that way because it would be the law of the land. There could be no preference given to mixed gender marriages in adoption.
Churches may be prohibited from restricting marriages held in the buildings to only heterosexual marriages. This has already happened in Massachussetts where the tax exempt status of a church was threatened by its' refusal to allow a same-sex wedding on its' grounds. "If same-sex marriages are recognized as the law of the land, it will be difficult for any church to defend its right of recognizing another standard." (Janice Shaw Crouse)
Proponents of the same-sex marriage issue are using deceptive techniques to fight the ballot issue. Their ad claims that Arizonans have already voted on this issue, but they know that the intrusion of the courts in other states has made a constitutional amendment the only effective way to maintain heterosexual marriage as the standard. In fact, either an amendment to the US constitution or amendments to each state constitution is the only way for the religious rights of all citizens to be protected from zealous same-sex marriage proponents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
