Saturday, June 10, 2006


To continue a series of thoughts about "lines" and how we blur them, cross them and even double cross them. let's discuss the proposed Constitutional Amendment to create a Federal definition of "marriage" in America. This is interesting for many reasons and has prompted all sides of the argument of the "marriage" issue to cross, blur and exploit this line in order to further their respective agendas. There is plenty of hypocrisy to spread around on this subject. The Church, the Government, the gay and lesbian community and those self-righteous folks are excited and determined to further denigrate the Constitution of the United States.

But a few questions first.

Is the institution of marriage acknowledged and authorized by the Church (various religious representatives of God), or by the Government?

Does the United States of America have a Constitutional doctrine and or a "sacred" tradition prohibiting the mingling of Church and State?

Can the Government dictate to the Church what the Church's definition of marriage must be? (be careful with this answer).

Is the motivation for those promoting a Constitutional Amendment based on a religious opinion or is it an attempt to control the parameters of marriage from a contractual and governmental benefits perspective?

Is the motivation (in this case) of the gay and lesbian community to prevent a Constitutional Amendment based on a desire for religious acceptance or is their interest simply to gain governmental recognition to receive the enticing benefits being provided to "married" people?

If the answer to the first question is; "the Church" (because the ceremony of marriage is in reality a union of two people entering into a covenent with their God in "holy" matrimony) why then should the Government have any voice or control over the Church's (and therefore God's) policy on marriage? (again, be careful with the answer to this one).

If the answer to the first question is; "the Government", wouldn't that reduce the Church's (and therefore God's) impact on marriage to just a nice venue for a "ceremony" but with only a secondary role with respect to the rules and guidelines that affect "married" individuals? Also, wouldn't this make the Church's position (whatever it may be) mute as far as marriage is concerned and therefore make God's position mute as well?

If the answer to the first question is; "both", well, doesn't that really put an end to the "myth" that America actually has or is practicing a policy of separation of Church and State? That "line" was crossed and crushed many years ago for a variety of reasons.

It is Time To Think Again. What do you think about this point?

Wouldn't a Constitutional Amendment on this issue circumvent not only the Church's ability to establish their own doctrines or guidelines on "marriage" (therefore further blurring the separation line) but also remove yet another "right" from the individual States? Since a common platform ideal of the Republican Party (those most active in pushing for Federal Government intervention on this issue) is a strong principle in favor of State's Rights, why does this group continually abandon this principle and defer to the Federal Government on most difficult or sensitive social issues? Principle is rather like faith; you either have it or you don't.

Since the Government (both State and Federal) has so ingrained itself in the institution of "marriage" (legally and contractually) and the Church (and most people wanting to be "married") would like to maintain the religious aspects of "marriage", it seems that the issue may really be about semantics. In order to return to and maintain the separation of Church and State, the term "marriage" should be excluded from Federal or State dialog and permanently replaced by "civil union" or civil partnership" and keep the Government's involvement only concerned with the legal or contractual aspects of a union of two individuals (regardless of gender).

Again, no one should look to the Government for religious acceptance on the issue of "marriage" (that is not the Government's business). The Church should not be involved with governmental regulations nor have their own ability to establish guidelines regarding marriage dictated to them by the Government.

Laws and benefits provided to couples by the Federal or state Governments are really completely separate from "marriage" in its pure form. Many of these "benefits" are only enticements promoted by religious doctrines about marriage and serve to create a wedge with unmarried couple or hard working individuals who live and work under the same circumstances as "married" people. Each State should be able to exercise the right to determine which individuals will be affected by each of its laws, including civil unions or partnership laws. This shouldn't be a Federal matter and certainly not a Constitutional question. But that's just this writer's opinion.

In the end, it is Time To Think Again about the importance of preventing special interest groups (whether in the Gay/Lesbian community or the regilious right) from taking our Constitution hostage!

Wednesday, June 07, 2006


I have come to the conclusion that many of today's key issues are "all about that line". There are many lines to discuss during this time. Today I am going to discuss that "line" that is invisible but is also the center of much debate and concern to most Americans. That "line" is the one that defines the borders of the United States of America. The Government of this nation or any nation has the basic right and indeed the obligation to its citizens to establish and protect and defend the line that is the border. Over the years leaders of the American government (through the will of the people) have established many laws with respect to entry into the United States. This post is not to necessarily defend the content or merits of our current laws but rather to discuss the fact of the law. What does having a law mean? Once a law is established it then becomes the responsibility of all people to follow that law and the equal responsibility of all those charged with enforcing those laws (including all government leaders) to be vigilant in guarding and protecting each and every law. If a law is deemed to be impractical or out dated or just wrong then the Legislative branch of our government is empowered to create changes or new laws. Can a nation ultimately survive if only some of the laws are followed? Who is allowed to decide when crossing the legal line and allowing violations of our laws is acceptable. What about the violations that are occurring from the use of illegal identity documentation by the illegal immigrants or those that provide the documents? Should those laws be ignored and violations "forgiven" as well?

Unless it has been rescinded without the publics knowledge there is a current Federal law that basically says that it is illegal for any individual to enter the United States of America without authorization. For several decades, lawmakers, Presidents, and "we the people" have essentially turned our collective heads as millions of people have been allowed to violate this federal law. The reasons for this range from simple apathy to exploitation to business greed to the creation of a political vote getting issue. I believe that the most important effect has been not the crossing of "that line" at the border but "that line" our nation has crossed by dilluting our reverance for our law.

The President of the United States and many others of his political party have joined forces with a large portion of the other major political party, the Democrats in a campaign to convince"we the people" that crossing (or blurring) this particular "line" (be it the border or the law protecting it) isn't a serious breach of our national integrity. Many, including our President have presented the rationalization that a) the invasion of illegal immigrants are just a group of individuals searching for a better life even though they violated the laws of this country from day one and continue to do so each and every day and b) that somehow the shear numbers of 11 or 12 or 20 million illegal immigrants makes the United States incapable of enforcing the law because of whatever impact it would have on commerce and because so many have"been here for a long time" and work in jobs "than Americans won't do" (which is false).

Now I would ask the readers of this posting, should enforcement of U.S. law be determined by the number of violators or by the law itself? If there were 478 or 855 or 2,612 illegal immigrants rather than the huge number there actually are, should or would the lessor number of individuals be allowed to stay because they too might simply be "willing and hard working people just looking for a better life"?

The President has proposed a "guest worker" program (not the one already in existence) that ultimately (no matter what it is called) would allow MILLIONS that have entered this country "illegally" (and therefore crossed both lines) to remain and be forgiven not only for the illegal entry but also for living and working with false and illegal indentification (further violations of U.S. Law). The President tells us that once these individuals come forward (which is itself a questionable event), pay fines (with money they don't have), pay back taxes (again with money they don't have) from a system where they "worked" either for cash or for people that didn't keep clear records of employment since the employers are also violating U.S. law, therefore making it very difficult if not impossible to compute the amount of back taxes owed, and then telling all these millions of people that "if" they choose to seek U'S. citizenship (what's the alternative?) they would be "placed at the back of the line" (there's that line again) behind all those who have legally applied for entry and residence into the United States.

A natural question to the Presdient's "back of the line" proposal might be; "Just where is this line?" Are the hundreds of thousands of people who are now waiting in the "legal" line already IN the United States or are they waiting in line in their native nations? If the President is telling us that the current illegal immigrants (11 to 20 million of them) would NOT be placed in the line AHEAD of those already waiting for legal entry how then can a program (or new law) that does in fact, allow the currently illegal immigrants to remain in the country during this "waiting in line" period possibly be justified or accepted? The President has, through his proclamation that "we can't actually remove all the illegal immigrants because it's just not practical to do so" has told these individuals that the government of the United States of America does not intend to protect and enforce the law, so not to worry. This seems a classic example of the concept of "strength in numbers". What is the real message being sent to everyone in this country and around the world? How can we expect everyone to "toe the line" with respect to our laws when the "line" is allowed to be moved because of political pandering or pressure from business interests or because "they're really nice people"? That line that is being crossed is the one that formed the basis for our entire system of government. Consider the real issue and not the smoke screen.


There are several other "lines" to discuss and I will in future postings so stay tuned.