So the usual schtick for gay people in the United States these days is for them to scream some version of “Homophobic”, “Discrimination”, or something similar when society doesn’t give them what they want.
As a result when I read a headline like “Lesbian couple can’t cohabitate: Why not?” I tend to sigh and click the link, expecting a mash-up of the above terms in reaction to whatever law they don’t like.
As much as I’m not ashamed of my sexuality, I am regularly disgusted and ashamed by the majority of the “gay community”.
So when I clicked on that story I was definitely not expecting an actual decent argument that actually references the rights of parents, individual liberties, and actual constitutional rights.
So the story is that the Compton’s (Carolyn and Joshua) got a divorce in 2011. Carolyn had customer of their two daughters, but the paperwork for the divorce included a common stipulation for Texas law, a morality clause which “prevents a divorced parent from having a romantic partner spend the night while children are in the home.”
Yeah, that’s kind of bullshit. I know, I prefer that children be raised in a home with two parents and that, ideally, those parents will be married, but that clause is still all kinds of wrong whether the romantic partner in question is the opposite or same sex.
The judge overseeing this case made it very clear that the clause was not discriminatory in nature and applied equally to same sex and opposite sex couples and Price and Compton, refreshingly, accepted that. They did not kick up a fuss about how they should be given special treatment because gay couples can’t actually get married in Texas or anything like that.
Now that doesn’t mean they are going to just lay down and let the law run roughshod over them. They complied with the ruling, but they are also going to court with the case that the clause is unconstitutional and they actually made a good argument for that, which didn’t involve the phrase “gay marriage” or the word “homophobia” even once.
[Price and Compton] also said in the statement that the clause “is a burden on parents, regardless of their sexual orientation, that takes away and unreasonably limits their ability to make parental decisions of whom their children may be around and unreasonably limits what the United State Supreme Court has identified as the liberty of thought, belief and expression.”
You see, if Joshua Compton has a problem with who is raising his child he can always have a new custody hearing, but as long as Carolyn has custody, she really should have the right to decide whether her girlfriend can live in the house or not, so should any parent, no matter their sexuality.*
This is an incredible invasion of privacy by the government. You are being told that you are not allowed to make decisions on who helps raise your children or what people live in a home with your children. You are also being told that you are not smart enough to be able to make a decision on whether your partner is trustworthy around your children or whether your children can handle being introduced to mommy or daddy’s new girlfriend/boyfriend/uncle Justin/Aunt Josephine or whatever you are calling them for your children’s benefit.
Anyway, the government doesn’t need to know the nature of my relationships, whether they are sexual, romantic, or platonic. This is for the same reason that the IRS doesn’t need to know my political views or have access to my medical files and the DOJ shouldn’t be checking a reporter’s phone records because he has contact with a government leak.
Quite simply, it’s none of their business.
Get the government out of my business. I didn’t ask them to be there.
In the end this just make me reiterate my position on what the government’s involvement in marriage should be; which is, none at all.
*Unless, of course, the romantic partner is a pedophile or something similar. That’s just not right. They aren’t supposed to be living close to SCHOOLS, much less in a home with small children.
(Short post tonight, I’m about to fly out to DC for CPAC. I’ll report back if I see any drones on the way.)
New York City just won a minor victory against the Nanny State when a judge overturned Mayor Bloomberg’s ridiculous attempt to ban sugary beverages over 16oz. in the city that never sleeps, but those civil liberties are still a precious commodity…there and everywhere else.
One, possibly two, drones have been spotted in airspace over New York City. The first was drone was spotted on March 5th and nearly caused a head-on collision between itself and a commercial jet that was coming in for a landing at JFK International.
A second drone was, reportedly, spotted over the city on March 11th. Though this one did not scare the ever-livin’ crap out of an airplane pilot, but it was spotted only about 5 miles from LaGuardia. Not exactly a safe place for an unannounced drone to be flying.
So these drones are flying around the skies of one of our countries biggest cities and I think we’d all like to know what they are doing there?
Are these the drones that the Department of Homeland Security has equipped with technology that CNET has reported will be:
“capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not,” meaning carrying a shotgun or rifle. They also specify “signals interception” technology that can capture communications in the frequency ranges used by mobile phones, and “direction finding” technology that can identify the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios.
Or are they just the typical, hellfire missile equipped drones that they use overseas? Either way I’m not liking this much. Even if they aren’t going to fire a bomb and ruin my “cafe experience” as Rand Paul said recently, they are still violating my 4th amendment rights by allowing drones to intercept communications from radios and phones without a warrant and allowing the government to find my location through use of those drones.
Who has given them permission to do this? Well you get what you vote for and this is the Obama administration at work.
Don’t blame me, I voted for Romney.
Just ’cause I said it, it don’t mean that I meant it: AKA Obama Takes Political Advice from an Adele Song
“I’m not a dictator”
Obama said that only days ago.
I have news for you, saying something doesn’t make it so, actions do. Obama’s actions recently, and those his administration, are not those of a man who thinks that he has checks and balances working against him, or a constitution and bill of rights to uphold. If it walks like a dictator, talks like a dictator, and legislates like a dictator…it’s a dictator. At the very least a fledgling one.
Who cares about the war on women when our current administration waging a war on the bill of rights. They are stomping on the 1st amendment by harassing journalists who try to ask them tough questions and hold them accountable, starting an overt war on the 2nd amendment, and haven’t given a damn about the 10th amendment (except when convenient) since Obama was sworn in.
And now the 4th and 5th amendment are taking the brunt of this administration’s disrespect to American principles.
The president has taken to pretending that amendments 2, 5 and 10 do not exist. I think I should expect to start quartering soldiers any day now.
Not only that, but Obama and Al Gore have both been whining so much about people exercising their 1st amendment rights, that even CNN has taken a notice and asked them to please shut up.
Also Obama thought that we would just roll over and play dead just because he asked us not to photoshop a picture of him.
Let me think about that.
Nope, not gonna happen.
I have the sinking feeling that all of Obama’s whining about the “right wing media” is just his way of putting the 1st amendment on notice.
Ronald Reagan once said “Man is not free unless government is limited” and this has never been shown more easily than by this memo from the Justice Department (the same one that sold guns to Mexican drug cartels, yay!), uncovered by NBC news.
When I interact on social media sites like twitter or tumblr, I see people of my generation and the generations that will follow me into becoming the leaders of this country.
Often I am inspired by genuinely intellectual young people who are intelligent, well-spoken, and share a love of freedom with myself and an understanding of the fact that the style of governance our founding fathers gave us is the key to that freedom, not this false “equality” that liberals want to sell us.
But very often I am brought face to face with an element of our future generation of leaders that depresses me. These are the people who have bought into the idea of “equality of outcome”, “wealth redistribution”, “anything goes moral relativity”, and the idea that everything bad that happens to them and every bad decision that they make, is a product of society “oppressing” them. They want the government to even things out, make sure they succeed, and hand them everything on a shiny silver platter.
Donlyn Turnbull (creator) and Tim King (contributor and co-host) at DS&P Magazine, where I also contribute and article or two on occasion, invited me on to their radio show on FTR radio last week to talk politics, Ronald Reagan, roast beef sandwiches, and Rosie O’Donnell (ewww).
If you would like to listen to the show (my interview is the second segment, about 20 minutes long) here is a link to the DS&P website where it is posted. You can stream it or download it.
We had some formatting issues on this one, hopefully they will be fixed by tomorrow.
But here’s the link to the rest of the article anyway!
Here’s a taste.
The media called the bluff Obama made today at a speech in Iowa and it didn’t go well for him.
And here’s the thing: Iowa, you know me. You know that I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. There are some folks in this crowd who have probably been following me since I was running for the United States Senate. (Applause.) And you know what? You can — like this guy right here, who I served with in the United States Senate [sic], George Shadid. And you could take a videotape of things I said 10 years ago, 12 years ago, and you’d say, man, this is the same guy — has the same values, cares about the same people, doesn’t forget where he came from, knows who he’s fighting for.
The thing is, if you dare the media to do something, they are probably going to take you up on that.
Case in point,…..
So that barely qualified moderator at the VP debate opened up the can of worms that is the pointless abortion debate once again (probably on orders from Dem. higher ups to try and once again churn up this dumb “War on Women”…ignoring that it is this administration which is pumping money to the very anti-women Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, negotiating with the very same Taliban who shoots girls if they dare to try and learn, and views all women as nothing but Julia who must be taken care of because they couldn’t possibly do anything for themselves*
But this brought up two points.
The first being that you’re an idiot if you think Republicans are going to outlaw abortion?
Why are you an idiot?
I felt this made a great follow up to my post about why a constitutional amendment on abortion, birth control, of gay marriage would never happen.
I received this question on tumblr yesterday.
And I realized, much to my dismay, that people really don’t understand this process. Here is my answer and I wanted to share it here as well, in the hopes that more people will understand this process.
And hopefully understand why this argument that “You shouldn’t vote for Romney or he will outright ban gay marriage, abortion, and birth control” is completely false, not just because he believes in state’s rights, but because that simply isn’t within his power.
Banning any of those things would be unconstitutional.
Now you may bring up DOMA here, but DOMA, while there is an argument about whether it is constitutional or not, was not a ban. DOMA basically meant that divorces and marriages did not have to be recognized across state lines, if a same-sex married couple moved from a state where their marriage was recognized to a state that did not have same-sex marriage.
So to ban something like that would take a constitutional amendment so that it wouldn’t be a unconstitutional. You following so far?
An amendment on one of those things would never happen. Here is why.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
The amendment on those topics would never be proposed by 2/3s of the House and Senate or by 2/3s of the states.
And even if one was proposed, it wouldn’t be passed because:
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).
Do you really think 38 states would agree to such an amendment? Not likely.
Do you remember the reports surfacing that Iran was going to be putting ships, equipped with long range missiles, just outside America’s maritime borders to intimidate us?
Not that it worked, because, in the words of one of the comments on an article from that day “They would fry their own equipment”. I mean, it’s Iran. The idea that any of their missiles would actually hit us or that their ships could even make the trip and set up some sort of Flotilla, as the Iranian Navy commander, Admiral Habibollah Sayari, called it back then, is just about as laughable as the plot of the new Red Dawn movie.*
But the viability of their plan isn’t why I’m reminding everyone of this.
I’m reminding them of this, because Obama seems hellbent on being Ahmadinejad being his new best friend and organizing play dates between the United States and Iran, while he stops excepting Netanyahu’s calls and removes Israel from America’s friend’s list.
Israel has been our ally for a very long time, may I remind you.
Israel is one of the few countries in the Middle East who celebrates freedom, has equal rights for women and LGBT members of their society (while other countries strip women of their rights and strip LGBT people of their lives), and promotes freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
These are things that mirror American ideals. So why is our President cancelling meetings with Netanyahu and, instead, verbally getting cozy with Ahmadinejad, the leader of a country that has intentionally tried to militarily intimidate our country and doesn’t exactly mirror us in their view of freedoms.
In fact, they don’t have any respect for the freedoms we hold dear in our country, their constitution doesn’t even respect the sovereignty of other nations, because their intent is to put a one world ISLAMIC government in control.
Don’t believe me? Here’s part of their constitution’s preamble.
in accordance with the aims and aspirations set out above, with the hope that this century will witness the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others.
- based on a translation provided by the Iranian embassy in London
Where we have a Bill of Rights, even the preamble of their constitution goes against the very basic freedoms that America should be promoting.
Want some examples?**
WOMEN IN THE CONSTITUTION
In the creation of Islamic foundations, all the human forces which had been in the service of general foreign exploitation will recover their true identity and human rights. In doing so, women who have endured more tyranny up till now under the idolatrous order, will naturally vindicate their rights further.
Women were drawn away from the family unit and (put into) the condition of “being a mere thing”, or “being a mere tool for work” in the service of consumerism and exploitation. Re-assumption of the task of bringing up religiously-minded men and women, ready to work and fight together in life’s fields of activity, is a serious and precious duty of motherhood. And so acceptance of this responsibility as more serious and – from the Islamic point of view -a loftier ground for appreciation (lit: value) status (lit: greatness) will be forthcoming.
You know how feminist’s these days get so upset about women who ‘sell-out’ by choosing to stay home and be full-time mom’s and homemakers?
If Iran had their way that would be your ONLY option ladies.
Because having a life outside the home, having choices, that’s EXPLOITATION. No, your real freedom comes from being coerced into being a housewife with no rights outside those that your husband gives you.
THE RELIGIOUS ARMY
In the organization and equipping of the countries defense forces, there must be regard for faith and religion as their basis and rules. And so the Islamic Republic’s army, and the corps of Revolutionary Guards must be organized in accordance with this aim. They have responsibility not only for the safeguarding of the frontiers, but also for a religious mission, which is Holy War (JIHAD) along the way of God, and the struggle to extend the supremacy of God’s Law in the world.
“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of God and your enemies, and others beside”.
Quotation from the Arabic
Jihad, extend the supremacy of God’s (Allah’s) Law in the world, religious mission, strike terror into the heart of the enemies of your God (which would be anyone who doesn’t follow their God, fyi).
THE JUDICIARY OF THE CONSTITUTION
Thus provision must be made for the establishment of a judicial system on the basis of Islamic justice, manned by just judges, well acquainted with the exact rules of the Islamic code.
Sharia Law anyone? Sounds lovely.
THE PUBLIC MEDIA
The public media (radio-television) must take their place in the process of development of the Islamic revolution, and must serve in the propagation of Islamic culture. In this sphere they must look for opportunities for a healthy exchange of differing ideas, and must rigorously refrain from the propagation and encouragement of destructive and anti-Islamic qualities (ideas).
Freedom of the press? Not so much.
Yeah, that seems like a good country to be allying ourselves with.
Great job Obama.
Great job liberals.
I think they’ve lost the plot, maybe we all have, but I’m here to help you find it again.
*who thought that implying North Korea could invade America was even a plausible plot? Seriously. They should have kept the plot they originally, wrote. At least China has the numbers to attempt an invasion.
** All examples come from the Iran Chamber Society.