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

The Right Wing View on Unwanted Pregnancy

I post a lot of very hotly debated topics on my blog and on Face Book because I see a great deal on confusion in them. Consequently we never get past the emotions of any one particular issue which leaves us to make decisions at the ballot box with lacking or faulty information. I know none of us wants to do this, so I try to crate debate and open conversation whenever I can.

Recently a friend asked what I thought, specifically, about the issue of unwanted pregnency. I truely appreciate his candor in the question and was happy to divulge my belifes on the subject, of course backed up with facts.

I do not have his permission to post this, so I will not give his name.

Feel free to add what you think is missing..

"So the right wing view is... "You have to have this severely deformed child no one will adopt and you cannot afford and no, we will not provide any assistance in raising it because it is your own fault because you did not learn about birth control on your own because sex education shouldn't be taught in school and your parents were absent because law makers were influenced by a religion which we are "free" not to subscribe too"? I'm not sure, but sometimes I think I hear this."

First off I do not think you will find many conservatives who would say that they are against helping a struggling single mother to raise her child. You have a multitude of social aspects that lead us to the circumstance that you purport. I think you would agree that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for it to go down exactly as you have suggested. Public policy must be made on reality. I cannot speak for all but the general thought is that situations like the one you have described are first off better handled by the charity/private sector in the community as they are closer to the person and most likely know the details of the lives we are talking about. Secondly, if government is to get involved, it is best handled at the local and state levels. Nowhere in The Constitution does it provide Congress with the power, or authority, to meddle in such things. State and local governments have way more latitude in these areas.

Second, on the "unwanted/deformed child" argument; I do not know when it came to be considered good policy that an individual's unalienable right to live depend upon somebody else wanting them. Better watch out for the application of the equal protection clause of The 14th Amendment because you and I are next, as I am sure someone doesn't want us‼ I do not think that anyone would argue with Planned Parenthood’s slogan “every child is a wanted child,” but the idea that another human being’s right to life is contingent upon another human being’s deeming them “wanted,” reminds me of Hitler’s Germany. Remember that anyone who was not “Aryan” was not “wanted.” If you do not want a child…do not have sex. Why is the decision not to have sex beyond the ability of some, but the decision to have an abortion completely OK?

Third, your adoption argument: In 2006 there were 200,000 couples who wanted to adopt and only 25,000 babies available for adoption. I do not have current #’s but the point is that there are many more “parents” who want to adopt, who are forced to go to foreign countries, than babies available. Further, most abortions occur as a result of misused, or not used, or failed contraceptives. So we are removing the need for the responsible thinking that should always precede these decisions because we are removing all consequences.

Fourth, sex education should not be taught in a one-size-fits-all fashion. This whole debate brings us back to school choice and the need for the principal of federalism. State and local governments should deal with education, not The Federal government. There is no clause in The Constitution giving The Federal Government this power. If this were the case then you and I would choose schools for our children where this subject was taught in a manner in keeping with our belief system. I no more want to force you to believe what I believe than you do me or any one so let’s stop empowering The Federal Government to force our beliefs on others!!

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

Does The Majority Truely Rule?

There's nothing inherently noble about a majority of people agreeing on a particular issue. Indeed, bad ideas often prove more popular than good ones. It's only when popular majorities are anchored to the idea of inalienable rights that they're most entitled to our respect. Without that underlying commitment to individualism, majority rule can and frequently will degenerate into the loss of liberty for unpopular minorities. The racist policies of the Jim Crow South, after all, were often extremely popular among white voters.

So before we get too misty over the will of the people of South Dakota, let's remember that James Madison warned us about the tyranny of the majority, not the tyranny of unfettered individual liberty.