I’m Intelligent, Disenchanted, and Opinionated…But What Can I DO About It?

How YOU can get involved!

This was a question my lovely girlfriend posed to me a while back.  I have always been vocal about my opinions and interpretations of legislation and the US Constitution, but all I did was talk to her and friends about it.  Sure, every once in a while I’d call into a local or national politic radio show, but that makes no real difference.  So, after giving the question A LOT of thought, I decided what I can do about it.

As a plebe, which most of us are, and a simple cog in the machination that is the American political system, there are limitations to how we can affect change.  Here are some things an average Joe/Jane can do:

  • Write your local Congressman – Anytime an issue is being brought up to a subcommittee or for a vote on the floor, write your Congressman and let them know what you think.  I believe it is important to write when you’re both in favor and opposed to something.  Just remember – and this works with anything in life – don’t just say you dislike something, instead bring up an alternative.  If you don’t know who that is or how to reach them, here you go: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
  • Organize people – This country has made HUGE changes to laws, policies, and procedures by responding to the organized masses.  Find, or be, a leader of like-minded individuals and fight for your cause.  Trust me, it actually works…as long on as you have a clear plan, are non-violent, and have an end-game.
  • Vote – I know it sounds lame, and most of you probably do, but it is your right and duty to vote.  We have a unique place in history by being able to “overthrow” our government every 2, 4, and 6 years.  Seize the opportunity.

Or you could do what I’m doing…going to law school.

That’s right folks, I’ve decided the best way to make my opinion and interpretations heard is first to argue in defense of the constitution, then, God-willing, become a judge.  The funny thing is that this was my dream when I was in HS – many years ago – and after a long detour, I’ve decided to make it a reality!

Sure the prospects for today’s JD graduates are few and far between, and sure constitutional law isn’t the most highly sought after type of focus, but it’s what I’m passionate about.

My uncle, very smart man, once said if you are passionate about something, find a way to get paid for it, and if you fail once, keep at it, because life is quite long.  With that theory as my muse, I think constitutional law is for me.

I still have about a year and a half left before I’m done my dual BA in History and English, which is somewhat disheartening, but I’m excited about this decision!  I just thought I’d share that.

Advertisements

A Potential Opening for New Radicals in America?

How much are we like Pre-WWII Germany? See below!

I recently came across a startling essay written by Erich Koch-Weser entitled “Radical Forces in Germany.”  Koch-Weser was a former Minister of Justice of the German Republic prior to WWII, and penned this essay about the state of Germany in April on 1931.  I’m going to paste the essay below, then my thoughts, in bold, after.  It is a fairly long post, but it is well worth the read, I assure you!  Please, read and share your thoughts.

Erich Koch-Weser:

“Economic depression and political radicalism go hand in hand. When economic distress reaches a certain point, the individual citizen no longer uses his political power to serve the public weal, but only to help himself. His ideal of political liberty pales before his ideal of economic equality.

Once this sentiment has eaten its way into the hearts of the majority of a nation, any political system is doomed to failure. It is useless to tell the embittered masses that their political and economic rulers are not responsible for their misfortunes. It is equally useless to point out to them that a revolution with its attendant disorders would not improve their situation, but would hopelessly compromise it. The world is not ruled by reason, but by passion, and when a man is driven to despair he is ready to smash everything in the vague hope that a better world may arise out of the ruins.

Intelligent and orderly as the German people are, patiently as they have borne the sufferings of war and of inflation, they are in danger today of falling into this reckless state of mind. It would seem that the economic crisis, the reduction of large classes of the German population to the level of the proletariat, and the unemployment of nearly five million persons, cannot go on for many more years without ruining the German nation as a whole. Here is a population, well-equipped from the point of view of health and intellect, which in general is forced to be satisfied with an income barely sufficient for a minimum existence. One-eighth of those who are able and eager to work are unable to find any opportunity to do so. And those who are employed see no possibility of little by little rising to positions where their abilities will have fuller scope. Above all–and this is perhaps the worst aspect of the situation–not only are great numbers of persons forced to abandon any hope of advancement themselves but they must also relinquish the idea of giving their children an adequate education and thus opening up a way for them to better their situation….

The consequence is a pronounced and inclusive dissatisfaction with the prevailing economic system. All the blame for every ill is laid on the shoulders of the capitalistic system, despite the fact that it has been hampered and weakened to a considerable degree by governmental interference. The number of people who feel confident that they can get on by their own abilities is steadily declining. You will recall the saying that Napoleon’s soldiers were inspired by the belief that each of them carried a marshal’s baton in his knapsack. Perhaps this was not really the case. But certainly it is one of the secrets of success of any efficient regime not to allow the feelings of self-reliance and self-help which exist in a nation to go to waste. America has managed things better in this respect than have the nations of the old world. In Germany, the self-made man is no longer the ideal of the people. This marks the end of the “bourgeois” way of thinking in the best sense of that word. The number of those who are beginning to think in terms of socialism is increasing. The adherents of the middle parties, who oppose this development, are dwindling in the same proportion that the number of independent, progressive and self-reliant citizens is being diminished through the increasing pauperization.

Of the non-bourgeois parties, the Social Democratic Party, notwithstanding its general socialistic attitude, is the one that cares least about remodeling the state in the socialistic sense. This is not so strange as it sounds. This party, which is still by far the strongest political group in Germany, consists of brain and manual workers, employees, foremen, small officials and peasants. It is proletarian in name, but actually the individuals who compose it have attained a greater degree of lower-middle-class security than have many of those in the ranks of the old bourgeoisie. This is partly the result of extensive social legislation, but in the main it is due to the protection offered by the trade-unionist organization. In these times of economic distress it has been unable to hold its own in open economic strife with the capitalists, but thanks to its power at the polls it nevertheless has been almost completely successful in averting the reductions of wages which would otherwise have accompanied increasing unemployment.

… For the time being, … it is almost completely absorbed in the ungrateful but historically significant task of keeping alive, in wide circles of the population, a sense of order and an appreciation of the value of the state…. The attitude of the Communist Party is totally different. It constitutes a reservoir for all those proletarians who–either without fault or by their own fault–have failed to find suitable employment or adequate wages. Of the great altruistic idea of communism there is not a trace to be found in this party. The watch-word is not the Christian one, “What is mine shall be thine,” but rather one of envy, “What is thine shall be mine.” The blind submission shown by the leaders of the party towards edicts issued by Soviet Russia increases its danger to Germany, as does also their financial dependence on Moscow. But–leaving out of account some disgruntled writers who are not in touch with world currents–the party members are recruited from the lower strata of the working classes. Unless the distress among the German people should become insupportable, any sudden advance movement on their part that relied on force would be doomed to failure without armed support and assistance from outside.

Greater danger is threatening at the present time from the National Socialists, popularly called the Nazis. This movement comprises the large ranks of the disinherited and the declasses–middle-class citizens, officials, officers and landowners. All of these deserve our sympathy and pity. Enormous numbers of them have been uprooted from a satisfactory social position by war, revolution and inflation, and thrust out to seek an uncertain and penurious existence…. The success of the party lies principally in the fact that those who belong to it despair of ever again being able to win a substantial share of the goods of this world or to secure a higher post than the one they fill today.

The National Socialist Party offers the advantage that one may indulge in cheap socialism, or rather in a socialism of envy, without having at the same time to forego class-consciousness or a sense of superiority over the proletariat. Both the membership and the political aims of the party show extraordinary variations. Some of its members condemn the present Republic on account of its ruthlessness in breaking loose from the old traditions of the German people. Others blame it for being lukewarm about the necessity for a new social order. That is why nobody knows exactly what their “third empire” would be like. They call themselves socialists, and probably really mean to be. But they use the word “Marxists” as a term of opprobrium and reserve it for their adversaries. Their “socialism” is hatred of capitalism; their “Marxism” is hatred of social democracy. Whether this party will ever make up its mind to take the leap and try an assault upon the Republic is extremely doubtful. And after all, it comprises at present not more than one-fifth of the population. Moreover, it is animated by a club or fraternity spirit more than by the sort of will which resorts to revolutionary measures. But no matter whether its deeds remain undone or whether it succeeds in temporarily usurping power or a slice of power, the main danger in the long run will be that it has no goal to attain. It therefore is bound to lead the hosts of its disappointed adherents not to a victory of reason but to some sort of embittered union of forces with left-wing radicalism….”

My thoughts:

After reading the article ‘Radical Forces in Germany,’ I am somewhat contemplative regarding our nation’s future.  Do I think we will fall under the spell of a group similar to the Nazi Party?  Of course not.  But, my fear is that we are primed to follow the person most sympathetic to the bourgeois plight, and that may have dire consequences as that person will most likely have ulterior motives.

Let me elaborate.

In reading Erich’s essay, there are striking similarities between Pre-WWII Germany and the present US.  Koch-Weser states that “Once this sentiment has eaten its way into the hearts of the majority of a nation, any political system is doomed to failure. It is useless to tell the embittered masses that their political and economic rulers are not responsible for their misfortunes. It is equally useless to point out to them that a revolution with its attendant disorders would not improve their situation, but would hopelessly compromise it. The world is not ruled by reason, but by passion, and when a man is driven to despair he is ready to smash everything in the vague hope that a better world may arise out of the ruins.”  This description, if taking away from this essay, would be an accurate way to describe the feelings of many Americans.  As Koch-Weser continues on, he further describes the economic and political strife during that time period. 

Koch-Weser also describes the political parties including the Nazi party.  Granted this was written before the meteoric rise of the Nazi party, and Koch-Weser does not the gift of hindsight that we do, but he describes the Nazi party thusly: “The success of the party lies principally in the fact that those who belong to it despair of ever again being able to win a substantial share of the goods of this world or to secure a higher post than the one they fill today. The National Socialist Party offers the advantage that one may indulge in cheap socialism, or rather in a socialism of envy, without having at the same time to forego class-consciousness or a sense of superiority over the proletariat.  But no matter whether its deeds remain undone or whether it succeeds in temporarily usurping power or a slice of power, the main danger in the long run will be that it has no goal to attain. It therefore is bound to lead the hosts of its disappointed adherents not to a victory of reason but to some sort of embittered union of forces with left-wing radicalism…. “

The thing that scares me most is that the original followers of the Nazi party were simply frustrated middle-class workers that felt as though they had no hope.  They were envious of those who had what they wanted and felt they were owed.  This is eerily similar to the ‘Occupy’ protesters and other current radical liberal groups.  These are people with (I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with their plight) what they perceive to be a legitimate gripe and they are – whether they know it or not – looking for a unifying leader. 

What scares me is that when a nation is embattled – as Pre-WWII Germany was, and as we are now – in economic and political crises, and there is a large portion of the population envious of others, they are very open to follow someone that simply listens.  In a strange way, it’s almost like transference.  Who is to say that this leader won’t have ulterior motives, the way Hitler did, and use his influence to destructive ends.  Again, am I saying that any current of future leader is like Hitler?  Of course not!  But, I am saying that when a group of people, or the majority – hell, maybe even a vocal minority – of a nation are so distressed and they’ve lost hope, they will turn to something almost blindly, not fully realizing what they have done.

OUR holiday!!

Betsy Ross displaying our first flag to George Washington

It’s a sad thought, but I’m quite certain that many people have never read the full Declaration of Independence.  It is, in my opinion, one of the most important documents ever conceived, treasonous though it was.

I challenge each of you to read it not once, but twice.  Once to remember exactly the situation we were in 236 years ago, then again to see the similarities of our current situation.  Please, let me know what you think in the comment section.

Happy Independence Day, everyone!

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

What the SCOTUS Healthcare Ruling Means for America!

The Supreme Court of the United States

The experiment that was America has failed!

In an historic ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the major parts of the Affordable Care Act.  The ruling itself is fairly confusing, though.  In the ruling, the majority opinion states that provision two – the government requiring individuals to engage in commerce – is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause, yet is acceptable as a tax.  What this means is that the government can force you to buy anything it chooses or they will tax you, except they just can’t call it a fine or penalty.  Basically, they aren’t allowed to call a horse a horse.  FYI – the ‘tax’ will be enforced on the tax-returns of law-violators.

Also in the decision the Court determined the forced Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional.  This means the Federal Government cannot withhold funds in penalty for the States’ refusal to enact the Federal Government’s recommended Medicaid changes.  This is a significant ruling as it sets a precedent the Congress cannot penalize the States if they do not adopt policies that conflict with their own.

What happens now?  Well, anything the government wants, really.  The ruling makes it legal for Congress to effectively force Americans to buy something.  What comes next?  Let’s look at this logically: should everyone have healthcare?  Of course.  Should you be forced to buy it or be penalized?  No.  Now, what else should you have?  Auto, home, renters, and life insurance?  That is likely to be the next issue.  What else?  The fact is that the power of government to force you to buy something is now limitless.

The authority of Executive and Legislative Branches is going to be unchecked and will inevitably lead to tyranny.

Since this unprecedented power of government is Constitutional, I say we need a new Constitution!  That’s right folks, you heard it here first!  We need a new Constitutional Convention to adopt a new document that prevents tyranny; our current Constitution does not do that.  Or – and this is a less radical option – you need to write your Senators and Congressmen to repeal this law immediately.  The only problem with that, however, is that the Constitutional precedent has already been set.

Again, the experiment of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” has failed!  We now are subject to legal and Constitutional tyranny!

A Triumphant Return to Tyranny!!

The historic cycle…

Don’t stop now, America, we’ve almost completed the return to tyranny that gave rise to our country’s founding!

Oh, you don’t believe me?  I can understand that.  After all, it has been an amazingly slow process and at each step, around half the people have cheered.

First, I’ll give my definition of tyranny:  tyranny occurs when the people fear the government, and when the government endeavors to control its citizens.  Let’s not mince words here; control is different from enacting laws to establish a safe and prosperous society.  As well as taxing people to provide military to protect that society.  Those points are not what I mean.  What I mean is how our government has, through the agendas of both major political parties, created an Orwellian ‘1984’ society.

Now, let’s explore some of the key points that show just how bad things are, and will continue to become:

1)      Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you – Wait, that’s not how that quote goes.  Regardless, that’s the mentality of most Americans today.  I deserve it, give it to me; so goes the mantra of the entitlement people.  Well, we allowed this monster to be created, didn’t we?!  The result of LBJ’s ‘War on Poverty’ is the ever expanding lower-class and the entitlement generation.  It’s simple psychology folks, when you repeatedly feed a person, they will come to expect to be fed.  I don’t blame the people on welfare or the people that feel entitled; it’s not their fault.  It’s the government’s.  Forty years of government handouts and the systematic redistribution of wealth gave rise to the crisis we are now in: there are more people on welfare than ever, more people living below the poverty line than ever, and more people than ever feeling that they are owed a living.  You know what need to do?  We need to systematically cut all welfare payments and promote immigration.  Most of you may not understand the promotion of immigration, but you will soon enough; it will be my next blog topic.

2)      The TSA enhanced pat down model – Do I understand why they implemented this process?  Yes, because I understand how a short-sighted and scared government reacts to problems.  The intended result was to create safer air-travel.  The actual result was the violation of our most basic expectation of privacy – the right to not to touched by anyone.  If you were to slap someone on the shoulder to get their attention, they could press simple assault charges.  Yet, if someone wearing a TSA patch grabs your crotch, it’s ok because you’re a possible threat.  Why are you a possible threat?  Well, that’s because you didn’t want a complete stranger looking at a full body x-ray of your naked body.  Does this bother you?

3)      Don’t forget who’s boss – Many of you are paying attention to the ‘Fast and Furious’ scandal, I’m sure.  If not, do a little research, and you’ll be as dumbfounded as I am.  In the most recent turn of events, the documents that Rep. Issa demanded from Attorney General Eric Holder have been given Executive Privilege by Barack Obama.  Many presidents have done this since…Richard Nixon.  We all know what happened there and why he claimed Executive Privilege regarding documents in the Watergate scandal.  Mr. Obama is undoubtedly covering something up as well.  I love this quote: “My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.” (Barack Obama, whitehouse.gov)  Well, Mr. Obama is 100% correct, openness will indeed strengthen our government…secrecy will also ruin it.  Let’s wrap up this point with one simple question.  Bearing in mind that elected officials are supposed to answer and be employed by their constituents, what would happen if your boss asked you for some documents and you told them they were privileged and he couldn’t have them?

4)      The Patriot Act – I don’t see a need to spend too much on this topic, since anyone with a reasonable understanding of individual liberty also understands that this an egregious violation of it; it’s right in-line with the Alien and Sedition Acts, the multiple times our government has suspended Habeas Corpus, and the Japanese internment camps from WWII.  Giving up our constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy in the name of security is a joke.  Plain and simple.

5)      What do you mean I can’t SuperSize my value meal – Who remembers when the vending machines at school carried Snickers and M&M’s?  Who remembers when you could get an extra-large order of French fries and a matching soft drink with your fast food meal?  Remember when the government stepped in and ‘encouraged’ fast food restaurants to eliminate that option?  Well folks, that was the start of that slippery-slope to the government controlling what and how much you can eat.  Now, as you may know, the City of New York is proposing a ban on soft drinks over 16 oz.  Did you also know that Cambridge, MA is going a step further with a proposal to ban soft drinks from being sold in restaurants?  Yep, they are!  These infringements on individual liberties come from a good place, that’s undeniable.  The drive to prevent obesity makes sense.  The problem is that none of those options have worked, and they still won’t.  Preventing people from eating what they want does not work.  Think about it: removing candy from the vending machines was supposed to ‘cure’ childhood obesity; did it?  The elimination of super-size meals was supposed to help ‘cure’ adult obesity; did it?  The liberals – and yes, this is a proposal by big-government liberals – simply argue that there is still too much junk food available.  Well, they only way to prevent people from eating junk food is to ban anything that isn’t healthy, right?  Well, don’t think for a second that we’re not headed there!  These lawmakers need to ask some educators, health professionals, psychologists – not to mention cultural anthropologists – and read a history text!  Prohibiting people from consuming what they want does not stop the product from being consumed; it simply gives rise to bad results.  If you want to ‘cure’ obesity, you need to educate people.  The more educated people are, the better choices they make.  Even if they still make bad choices, IT’S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

If you’ve read this far, you can see how successful the government has been in removing our liberties, controlling what we do on a daily basis, and made us dependent on them.  That, my friends, is tyranny.  There is a great quote delivered by Mel Gibson in The Patriot, “Why should we trade one tyrant, three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants, one mile away?”  Well America, that’s just what happened!  The only question that remains is – what can we do about it?

Mawwage. Mawwage is what bwings us together, today.

Screen shot from “The Princess Bride”

As this is my first blog post, I suppose I’ll start with a dandy – gay marriage.

Gay marriage? Why not?! This really should not even be an issue. The problem, as I see it, is that there are too many people that just feel the need to exclude others.

The first thing 100% of Americans need to understand is that by denying one group of people the same benefits of another group, you are establishing the former is a lesser class of human than the latter. (Or, as with felons not being able to vote or possess firearms, it is a form of punishment.) Thus, by denying same-sex couples all the legal rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, we are simply saying same-sex couples are barely human (This is why we call it “Human Rights.”). I really don’t see how there can be any proponents of that. At least, if there are, those people lack the basic intelligence needed to even defend their position. So, now that we have established that gay people are not a lesser breed of human than straight people, what is the problem?

So the Bible says that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Right.  It also says that homosexuality is a sin. Ok.  So let’s assume that the people making this argument are completely devoid of all sin (except original sin…you know, why Jesus died on the cross and all that), and let’s get to the argument itself. Well folks, they’re right. If their religion says it’s a sin and it is not allowed, then so be it. If you are a gay man married to another gay man than Catholicism deems you a sinner and claims you’re going to Hell. So what? I’m going to go out on a limb and say you probably don’t give a damn what Catholicism says about your life. After all, isn’t everyone raised on the belief that people are entitled to their own opinions? I know that I was!

So we’ve now established that Catholicism – and a number of other religions – deems homosexuality an immoral sin. Ok I’ll give you that one. So those people can – and do quite vehemently – argue that gay marriage should not be legal because the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Have I got that right? Good.

That’s all well and good, except that we’re not talking about religion; we’re talking about the law. Now here’s the problem: thanks to the forethought and wherewithal of our founding fathers, We The People are entitled to a ‘separation of Church and State.’ This one fact, written right into the constitution, completely negates the “Bible Argument.” Let me explain. Sure, any specific religion is entitled to recognize whomever they choose to as married, or to enter into a marriage. In the eyes of the several churches, gay couples are not recognized as being married. I know that this issue is much larger than having deeply religious people give you dirty looks. This is about being equal in the eyes of the law. Religion and the law must, at all times, be separate.

Let’s get to the root of the problem – the definition of marriage.

Since there must be a separation between the two, the law’s definition of marriage must stand on its own. When the federal government, states, counties, cities, and towns decided to give legal entitlements to married couples, they split the definition of marriage between the law and religion. There are now two definitions of marriage: one for religion, and one for the law.

Let’s wrap this up quite simply – The law has to establish its own definition of marriage. If the law says that marriage is between a man and a woman only, the law is discriminating against homosexuals. Discrimination is a violation of basic human rights. Federal or State governments cannot pass any law that discriminates against a targeted section of the population. Ipso facto, there is no debate; gay people must be given the same legal right to marry as straight people.

Furthermore, I think the politicians that put the gay marriage issue to a public ballot ought to take a history class or two. The public’s perception and opinion is irrelevant in regards to human rights. Think about it. If women’s suffrage was put to the popular vote state by state, they would not have won the right to vote. If segregation were put to a popular vote state by state, half the country would be segregated. The same thing goes with blacks having the right to vote. Slavery! Imagine if slavery were put to the popular vote in the Confederate States!? In all of these cases, there was no popular vote, because it didn’t matter! In issues of human rights, the popular vote does not matter!