Gay Marriage and The Freedom to Associate

I think it's important for you to know that I have been described by friends as being, politically, "just to the right of Attila the Hun." This is not to say that I necessarily have a mean bone in my body (OK, so I can be sort of aggressive) but that I am very passionate about the dangers of an over-active and ever-encroaching State. Our Founder's papers and correspondence are replete with warnings against the specter (HA! Specter, get it?) of, as B. Franklin put it, giving up liberty for safety. I think H.L. Menken said it best when he suggested that the main goal of politics was to get the people begging for the State to save them from the (State created) terrors of life by telling them how to live.

In our recent "shift" in DC and elsewhere around the country I have seen many people and politicians become excited, perplexed, glorified, and dismayed by all that has come to pass in the past 6-9-12 months. These events have given me much perspective; a chance to take a step back from my bias and reexamine who I am and what I believe.

I was so pissed off and angered by "W" that I felt it necessary to reexamine my positions on some subjects; which could be considered litmus tests for being a "Dittohead."

One undeniable truth that I have come face-to-face with is that The Founders of this amazing American Experiment were so right on the mark that you may not be far off to call them prophetic. Another is that the VAST majority of our current crop of politicians at all levels, but mostly the State and Federal, are liars and thieves.

...the last undeniable truth is that I have been wrong about some things.

The issue of gay marriage is really one of association: do two or more people have the freedom to associate in a way they deem acceptable, or do we in a collective, called The Government, have the right, or need, to stop them, or give them our blessing?

Politically, I am a libertarian on the issue and feel anyone should have the personal freedom to associate with anyone else of their choosing, in a way they deem appropriate, so long as they are not infringing upon the inalienable rights of another. Personally, I am conservative on the issue and think that anything other than marriage and intercourse, which belongs in the institution of marriage, between a Man and Woman is wrong. I mean no disrespect towards my GLBT brothers and sisters on this point, just that we have a religious disagreement, not a political one...fair enough?

Further, I believe that if governments are given the power to regulate such things it should only be at the State level. There is nothing in The US Constitution about marriage (but it is very clear about speech, association and conscience) and under the principles of federalism this is an issue better handled at the State level. I guess the question then becomes: do we really need permission/regulation of such a personal thing from ANY level of government?

Abiding by this concept, and if we can get ourselves back to the principles of federalism, we will have a much less powerful Federal Government. What's more is if you are GLBT you have the right to move to a State where the laws fit how you want to live, or you can change the laws in your current State through the proper mechanisms; same as me. And on that last point, the States that have done so through their legislatures or ballot issues have used the proper mechanism, using the courts becomes tyranny of the minority. I think people can be persuaded on this point, but if you force them you will lose.

What this really boils down to is the right of any free individual to live in this World in a manner consistent with their conscience, so long as it does not interfere with anyone else's same right.


In His peace, and our liberty,

Mike Poast

The Federalist (Remix) No. 1

"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

-A. Hamilton, 10.27.1787

Those words were written by Alexander Hamilton over 200 years ago as an introduction to as series of letters he and two other notable founders were to write to the people of The State of New York as an edification of the proposed constitution before them. They were under no illusions as to the enormity of the cause under which they labored, as the common state of mankind was not, and is not, one of peace, freedom and prosperity, but one of constant turmoil and subjugation by seen, or unseen forces, all around them.

Most of human history tells a tale of Man's inhumanity to man as he forces his kinsman to bear the burdens of some form of slavery for the pleasure of the tyrannical mind and body of his oppressors. Our founders sought a different tact, they saw liberty on the horizon.

Their ancestors had come to this land seeking religious and political freedom. The founders, after leading one of the most unlikely of revolutions in human history, were now looking to secure the liberties they had won by force. These rights from God had been codified in The Declaration of Independence and The US Constitution.

They had feared for some time that the union would dissolve into waring factions under the rule of despotic monarchies if they were unsuccessful in the ratification of this new compact. But they also knew what they were up against in selling the idea of this new, hybrid, government, as passions being what they were (and are) many falsehoods were bound to catch the imagination of the States before any truth had time to supplant itself. Also working against them was the tyrannical nature of Man and his desire to hold and grow his power when possible.

"Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety
of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices
little favorable to the discovery of truth. Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several
partial confederacies than from its union under one government."

They knew full well that it was very easy for men of goodwill to become confused and unwittingly relinquish their liberty under the banner of safety. They also knew that it would take time and careful, wise consideration for the several states to become comfortable with the new ideas.

"And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists."

They had their work cut out for them, but this was not foreign soil for them, for they had endured many a political and deliberative battle previous to this one. But, this one would be different, for now they had to convince the States to sign onto a document that, for all intents and purposes had it's prize in the perpetual branding of liberty upon this new world called America.

"It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

So, Hamilton devised a plan to write these series of letters called The Federalist. He recruited two others John Jay and James Madison to assist in the formation of what ended in 85 papers fully explaining the ins and outs of this new governmental structure and it's ability to secure the liberties of the people and the States while giving requisite power to the Federal Government to effectively govern in an appropriate capacity. They had done their reasearch into what had and had not worked in the past to secure liberty, now they had to sell it to the people.

This has been an attempt at an introduction to these papers and I will in the coming weeks and months take each at its message and glean from the lofty language of the 18th century a more understandable, relatible and modern flare, so that you might understand from where our Founders come. For, if you ever propose to alter the workings of an engine, you should first learn the engineer's goals.

-Poast

CNN's Bias Exposed....or is it?

I write about many things that are close to my heart; this subject rates in the top five. I do not understand how folks can so easily dismiss another human being who is so innocent, so fragile, so vulnerable. Here is a snippet of a story that cuts to the chase of one media organization's bias towards one side of an issue. They consistently claim objectivity, but the reality is only hidden from the already sold. Please see the following link for the video in question:

www.catholicvote.org

Dear CatholicVote.org Member,

We have been quieter than usual the past two weeks for good reason. Following NBC's refusal to air our ad during the Super Bowl, we received some great feedback from our members on what we should do next. The consensus was that our latest ad should be broadcast following President Obama's first State of the Union Address -- scheduled for next Tuesday.

So we contacted CNN, thinking their audience contains precisely the type of people we want to reach. Further, given CNN's track record of running advocacy ads, we were confident we would succeed. Not so.

For the past two weeks, we have been pushing and prodding them for an answer. And late this week we finally got a response: No way.

A representative from CNN wrote: "Thank you for your patience. We have decided to pass on this creative. CNN doesn't accept advocacy ads that portray personal decisions in a manner that suggests a position in favor of the advocacy message, without having permission of the persons involved."

This is absurd. Our ad does not suggest that Barack Obama is pro-life. Instead, our ad presents nothing but facts. President Obama, like every human being, began as an unborn child. Because he was born, he was able to become the President of the United States.

CNN and others simply don't like the obvious conclusion of our ad - there was no ‘choice' for abortion back in 1961. Thankfully, we had laws then safeguarding unborn children -- laws that protected the life of a future president who tragically is unwilling to fight for those same protections today.

But wait. Is this fair?

The standard CNN used to reject our ad did not prevent the network from airing a 2005 ad sponsored by the pro-abortion group NARAL that suggested that then Judge John Roberts supported violence against abortion clinics.

FactCheck.org described the NARAL ad this way: "An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers ‘supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber' and of having an ideology that ‘leads him to excuse violence against other Americans' It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham, Alabama. The ad is false.'"

Several prominent pro-abortion supporters condemned the ad, including President Clinton's Solicitor General Walter Dellinger. The commercial, which attributed views to John Roberts that were not his, was ultimately pulled from the air not by CNN, but by NARAL.

At the time CNN issued a statement saying: "CNN accepts advocacy advertising from responsible groups from across the political spectrum who wish to express their views and their opinions about issues of public importance."

CNN is willing to run ads insinuating that a federal judge supports violent criminal activity, but it won't allow an ad celebrating the potential of all human life, including Barack Obama? Not to mention, we are fairly sure NARAL didn't get permission from John Roberts to run their ad.

If you want to express your concerns, please do so firmly, but charitably. You can write CNN President Jonathan Klein at jonathan.klein@cnn.com

So what now?

We aren't going to sit back and complain. We are still looking at several additional options to air the ad. We are also working on our next ad, and have set our sights high once again.

If you liked what we have done so far, we are confident you will be excited about what is coming next.


Brian Burch
CatholicVote.org



P.S. I discussed the decision by CNN to reject our recent ad with an executive of a prominent commercial ad agency. He said bluntly: "Their excuse is a textbook answer for a network that does not want to run your ad."

Of course, all is not lost. CNN's refusal will only create more attention for our ad, which has been widely discussed even among abortion groups like NARAL and nationally-syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman. The ad remains a viral hit on the Internet with over 1.6 million views on YouTube.

We have successfully provoked a national conversation about the gift of every human life -- which is why we created the ad to begin with.

Rest assured, we are working hard on the next phase of this campaign. Thank you for your continued prayers and support.

This message was intended for: mikepoast@gmail.com
You were added to the system January 20, 2009. For more information
click here.
Update your preferences | Unsubscribe

No, You Cannot Join My Club!

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
-1ST Amendment to the U.S. Constitution


The right to associate, or to not, has created such a stir that it has caused some lawmakers to force otherwise law abiding citizens to break the law by not sharing air with their disturbing brethren.

It all begins with our general freedom to pretty much do as we please, as long as it does not interfere with another's, as far as it pertains to our person-hood.

We have a general understanding that we are not to be forced by The Federal Government to "associate" our thoughts or our being with anything that is incongruent with our self-actualized identity. Further that we have not the power, through any government or personal conquest, to force others to bend to our thoughts or actions until such a time as we can persuade them on such through the exchange of agreed upon goods, service or due process.

The problem has seemed to have presented itself where some of our fellow citizens have confused the word "association" with the word "acceptance." The Freedom to acceptance exists nowhere in The United States Constitution. You are free to disassociate yourself with my thoughts and properties, just as I am free to run away screaming from yours. You have the freedom and the right to organize a large group of supporters to stand up for your right to be you just as I am to create the same to denigrate you doing so. The critical line is drawn at me forcing you, through the power of government, to shut your mouth on either side of the equation.

What seems to have happened is that we have become lazy and have come to a general conclusion (not legal) that those things, with which we do not agree that make us uncomfortable, are included in this protection. They are not, and never were. One of the most fundamental protections of The First Amendment is the right to be unpopular or wrong. This includes being hateful or counter-cultural. It also includes being traditional, religious or old-fashioned.

I think it is important to recognize that while you may not agree with who I am, I may not agree with who you are and that neither of us has the right to empower our government to force us to see it any differently.

The IRS & The Constitution

Schulz explained that the petition that he submitted to the United States Government included the following alleged violations of the Constitution: U.S. aid to Israel, illegal immigration, North American Union, the Iraq War, The Patriot Act, the Federal Reserve, and income tax fraud.

read more | digg story

The Real Global Crisis

It does us great harm to ignore the lessons history can teach. We are not the first to come this way, however, most people's historical perspective begins from the moment of their birth. This failure to garner wisdom from our ancestors has us to believe that Socialism/Communism/Marxism are new and exciting ideas, nothing could be further from the truth. I was reminded years ago why my parents insisted on a good education, and why my dad always was demanding that I think, I just hope that one day we will all do as my dad requested. The present financial turmoil is really a failure of global statism. Socialism has failed once again. Let's try capitalism.

read more | digg story

The Way Ahead: How We Got Here.

George Washington was the original CHANGE agent.

read more | digg story

'People's History' headed to movies

So, here they come again the America-Bashing Hollywood Left with another attempt to teach the great unwashed that we have been duped for the last 200+ years. They can say whatever they want, the American GI has died for that, but I can still say that they're stupid. Oh, one last thing, this would be brave if they were doing it in Communist China, not brave in pluralistic America. ;)

read more | digg story

The Next War of the World

I saw this guys (Niall Ferguson) documentary on PBS last night and he, along with several other facts that have come to my attention, and am still investigating, are beginning to fine tune my world view. I believe that I am thinking towards several conclusions here.

Not prepared to put it into words yet...

read more | digg story

Stupid in America

If you ever wanted to know what "School Vouchers" are about watch this.

read more | digg story

Facts are obsolete

Why is it that when otherwise intelligent people begin to engage in the political process they are consistently duped by charlatans and snake-oil salesmen. It blows this citizen's mind that we are unable to utilize our common sense in matters which have such consequence. Thomas Sowell, once again, asks some very important questions.

read more digg story

Why a Black Artist Replaced the National Anthem

What Marie did embodied a plethora of leftist ideals and characteristics: Ethical relativism, multiculturalism, the supremacy of feelings, the belief that artists are above normal ethical standards and group victimization.

read more digg story

My passion for party was subdued when I read this...

What do you feel are the proper foreign relatonships. Should we open up all of our trade in a free and Laize fair mentality; or should we place restriction upon our international commerce so that we can learn to produce our goods on a more local basis. It is a question that is important enough to put down your beer and think upon. The results of this decision are liberty or tyranny. We see it today.

read more digg story

Why America Is The Greatest Country On Earth

American history, in all of its most glorious permutations, represents the outgrowth of our founding philosophy. Only by accepting the greatness of America's founding philosophy can we hope to ensure that freedom flourishes at home and around the globe.

read more digg story