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 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!!

Sarah Palin's Style Selling Out!

Honestly, I think this stuff is a little stupid but the market never lies (to the chagrin of many liberals) and tells you where people's heads are. I think you could make an argument that, based on this phenomenon, the election is over.

read more | digg story

BBC investigated over climate change documentary

Well, of course they're going to lie. When you have no facts to back up your claims your only choice is to fabricate evidence. It only takes about 30 min. of research and an open-mind to discern that this is a magician's trick.

read more | digg story

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

Government hangover

Much of the problem comes down to US government 'anti-redlining' legislation, which forced institutions to lend to people in parts of town where the local property market was bad collateral. Lenders knew they'd have to comply or face regulator's retribution. Unfortunately they also meant a lot of 'sub-prime' debts on the institutions' books.

read more | digg story

George Will thinks McCain isn't ready to be president

Leading conservative columnist, George Will, says McCain is not ready to be President.

read more | digg story

Obama Is Stoking Racial Antagonism

What I have found is that those who do not like Mr.Limbaugh have not taken the time to listen to him. I don't agree with everything that he says, but he is far from embodying the attacks that are so routinely leveled in his direction. I understand the rough and tumble of politics. But Barack Obama -- the supposedly post-partisan, post-racial candidate of hope and change -- has gone where few modern candidates have gone before.

read more | digg story

Pelosi: Dems bear no responsibility for economic crisis

So, you already have a partial grip on the economy, you want more, but it's not your fault when things go a bit south. When Obama gets elected and they ram through socialized medicine I bet they will be innocent when people are waiting in lines for simple tests and annual check-ups. Wake-up America!

read more | digg story

The Gibson Doctrine - Dennis Prager

Charles Gibson showed more contempt for Gov. Palin than Dan Rather did in his interview with Saddam Hussein or Mike Wallace did in his interview with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He asked Palin about the non-existent Bush Doctrine-There are at least 4 doctrines that are called "Bush Doctrine,". Gibson's Doctrine: Peace w/enemies, war w/ Republicans!

read more | digg story

ABC's Gibson grilled Palin hard, but it may backfire

Even now, Obama has yet to receive any comparable grilling on his 20-year attendance in the congregation of the notoriously racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

read more | digg story

No WMD in Iraq? Let them eat yellowcake!!

Have you heard? The truth is out there if you want it.

read more | digg story

Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq: for those who haven't heard

The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers say.

read more | digg story

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe: This is what I mean by arrogant and snobish.

'At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory se...

read more | digg story

Divinity School Liberals Are Insufferable

Um, ok...uhhh...er...ah...wow, I am actually speechless. Your turn.

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 Power of Palin

With an always fresh perspective, Buchanan, makes several very astute insights into The Power of Palin.

read more | digg story

Pope Pelosi At the Gate

"In other words, human life begins at conception. That is not a religious posture, but a scientific fact that the lowest paid laborer on the planet can assert without qualm. What we do with that understanding is another matter, but no one in the 21st century should pretend not to know when human life begins."

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