Ben Carson illustrates the fallacy of marriage debate perfectly

Recently Andrea Mitchel hosted Dr. Ben Carson on her show Andrea Mitchel Reports. Andrea Mitchel quizzed Dr. Carson on his view of marriage. Unfortunately for Andrea Mitchel and MSNBC the line of questioning did little to rattle Dr. Carson's conviction on the definition of marriage. It was actually Andrea Mitchel that appeared to be flustered as her follow up questions were terrible. I bring this up as Dr. Carson lays out a great argument on the definition of marriage. Dr. Carson even hints to the abuse by the Federal government in restricting people the freedom of assembly via utilizing marriage as a vessel to transfer assets and death benefits among other aspects. In fact the Federal government has 1,100 laws on the books that abuse marriage in similar fashion. As an aside, this exchange illustrates the fallacy in the thought process of Progressives have in regards to marriage equality as marriage is not a Civil Right. Marriage, as Dr. Carson puts it, is rooted in God and the Bible not society. Take a look for yourself at the interview.

 http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/29/ben-carson-takes-on-msnbcs-andrea-mitchell-on-the-definition-of-marriage/

 Hopefully people will start to realize that marriage should be left to God, and other Dogma, and demand that Government remove itself from this sacred rite.

Supreme Court to hear Prop 8

Yesterday, President Obama and his administration sent the United States Supreme Court a friend-of-the-court-brief expressing their concern on gay-marriage ban instituted by the passing of Prop 8 in the state of California. The administration wrote:

They establish homes and lives together, support each other financially, share the joys and burdens of raising children, and provide care through illness and comfort at the moment of death.

The administrations hope is that the United States Supreme Court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage and bring equality for all people to have the right to marry. United States Attorney General Eric Holder is on record in hoping the Justices will strike down the law in an effort to "vindicate the defining constitutional ideal of equal treatment under the law"

Trouble is that no where in the United States Constitution does it state that Congress or the Federal Government has the power to define marriage or the ability to enact law in any manner to it. Yet, the United States Supreme Court, the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of our Federal Government has done that repeatedly in violation of United States Constitution. That being said, the Tenth Amendment clearly states that all other powers are reserved to the States.

To which I'd argue that the United States Supreme Court should not even have taken the case since this issue is not within the powers of the Federal Government to rule or legislate on in the first place. At the end of the day, marriage is a personal choice and ought to remain that. In the rule of law there are means for everyone - straight or gay - to enter into contract with another in a manner that mimics marriage - contract law.

Instead of trying to define marriage why are we not putting our efforts toward removing Government from the equation of marriage and leave it a personal choice and gain back our freedoms?

Intolerance - Who owns it?

Recently the CEO of Chick-fil-a voiced his opinion on same-sex marriage. An opinion that is not in favor of same-sex marriage. It prompted several Mayors to say that they would not allow a Chick-fil-a to be opened in their city. Why? Because of the view of the CEO that is against same-sex marriage. Naturally the CEO is being lambasted in the media, a few exceptions, as intolerant or a bigot because of his religious view.

While I don't agree with same-sex marriage, I do recognize that government has no reason to dictate to me, or anyone, on who they can or cannot live their life with. That aside, the question that sticks in my craw is: Why is voicing ones religious views considered ignorant; yet another can voice their view that runs counter to another's religious view and its considered enlightening?

Marriage Amendment is more than same-sex discussion

I know it has been awhile since I have posted a topic and adding my thoughts. To that I do apologize to my avid readers. Being a business owner has opened up my world to how incredibly difficult it can be to run a business, a home, and find time for family and friends. Not to mention finding time to do research into the topics of the day. I suppose I could just tune into MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News every night to get the hot topics of the day. To which I'd just get the spin and no substance.

Last night I flipped back and forth between watching the Minnesota Legislature and some of my favorite fictional television. Although the Minnesota Legislature was not able to gain a compromise on the budget - a budget was veto'd by Gov. Dayton - they were able to pass a potentially polarizing Constitutional Amendment - Definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Here is how the Amendment reads: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/showPDF.php

Now I went back to read the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution and no where in there did I see where marriage was a right afforded within. As the November nears I am sure a lot of conversation will take place, my hope is that labels can be avoided. Just because someone disagrees with the notion of same-sex marriage does not translate into them being a bigot. Having this type of amendment on the ballot is precisely how the Founders wanted our country to be - States are the test tubes of democracy while the Federal Government is there to ensure the ability for these types of tests to take place.

Many times I have stated that marriage is not a right; rather it is a rite that should be returned to the Church to decide. It is time for Minnesotans to demand that our State and Federal government remove all the "rights" of marriage from the government realm. Allow people to live their lives free of government intervention. By having any marriage definition or a role in by the government is not allowing people to do so.

Repel of DADT should be catalyst of getting the Federal Government out of the rite of marriage

Last week Congress passed legislation that will pave the way for the repel of "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy in the United States military. In response, Vice President Joe Biden told ABC's "Good Morning America" last week, "I think the country's evolving. And I think you're going to see, you know, the next effort is probably going to be to deal with [the Defense of Marriage Act]" http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/12/25/biden_says_repeal_of_dont_ask_will_pave_way_for_gay_marriage/. The undercurrent of tolerance in America is moving perhaps "evolving" from the bigotry, racist and sexist thoughts of the 50, 60, 70, and 80's. What Vice President Biden is missing is that while society is becoming more tolerant of alternative views and lifestyles it is not the role of government to enact legislation to reflect in the manner Democrats are wanting to.

Instead of eroding State rights by enacting laws that re-defines marriage our Federal government needs to focus on stripping out marriage from our tax codes. Marriage is not something that government should be involved in. The rite of marriage is something that citizens enter into and should be allowed to do so without the interference of government. That interference comes in many forms. That being said, if groups of people in California, Michigan, Iowa, etc...want to enact amendments to their State Constitutions to define marriage then so be it. The definition of marriage is not a power enumerated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. And if people within these States agree/disagree with the new laws they have options – they can leave the state, fight to propose legislation to change the law, or plainly accept the law of the State.

In the end, I believe that marriage should be done within the framework of one's beliefs and not something sanctioned by the Federal Government. Vice President Biden is correct we are becoming more tolerant as a society so let's take the right step and remove the Federal Government from the marriage industry instead of expanding it.

Remove Government from the Marriage equation

This past week Chief United States Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop 8 that Californians passed last year that defined marriage between a man and a woman. The argument is that Prop 8 violated the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GBLT) community Civil Rights. Let's be clear here, marriage is not a right. The choice of any two people or several people for that matter, wanting to share their lives together is not a matter that Government needs to be a part of. I understand that the GLBT feels they have the "right" to marriage. I understand the religious proponents of the same-sex marriage are determined to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Why is that we feel this dilemma needs government intervention. Am I alone to see that government created this mess by their co-op of marriage by giving tax breaks, requiring a license and collecting fees?

It is time for both sides to agree to remove government from the process. Remove marriage as an option in the IRS tax code. Remove the license requirement with states. The issue seems so simple solved by removing government from the equation. The barriers that the GLBT are looking to be removed are health care coverage, recognition of property rights that exist between married couples and having the same legal standing that is granted to married couples. Well, a number of companies, i.e. Target, already have recognized the health care situation by allowing coverage for domestic partners. My thought is that every health care plan should be label in this manner as the domestic partner can be anyone. The property of rights and legal standing is already obtainable through power of attorney and other legal writs and this is where all couples should be directed to.

Government has only made a mess of this issue. I know many will argue that the license in important to ensure the legal standing of the married couple – of age, not already married or citizens of the US. Do any of those reasons really matter? I understand that most religions see polygamy as a bad thing but who are we to dictate to another how they are to spend their lives? We speak of religious tolerance, and are backed up by the Constitution, yet we do not recognize the ability for a woman to "marry" several men and women. As I said before, it is time to get government out of the marriage business. By removing them from the equation we create a win/win situation. Marriage is not longer institutionalized and returned to Religious groups and all of us will have to develop legal writs with our partnerships.

The Ardent Viper receives hate mail!!!!

A few weeks back the Star Tribune printed one of my letters to editor. The title of my entry was "Marriage is not a Right" which ran in the paper on May 14^th. In the event you missed it here is what it said (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/93729454.html?page=2&c=y):

It is time for Minnesotans to recognize that government involvement in the institution of marriage is the problem. Everyone has the right to choose a partner in life. It shouldn't be up to government to determine the makeup of that choice. We need to repeal all aspects of marriage from government and leave it to the religious institutions. It is time to replace the marriage license with a partnership recognition certificate that will give all legal aspects that the current marriage license does.

Why you may be asking yourself am I bringing this up now? It is not to toot my own horn about being published in the Star Tribune rather in response to a piece of mail I received earlier this week. A normal white envelope appeared in my mail box on Wednesday May 26^th with my name and address and a return address of American News Center 55401. At first glance I paid it no attention as I figured more junk mail. Thursday I decided to open it. Inside the envelope were two news articles. The first article was "Bonin guilty of four more road slayings" an AP story from Santa Ana, California. The second was "Sordid, gay-on-gay murder ignored in marriage debate" from WorldNetDaily dated January 1, 2010.

As I said, I really gave no thought. Then yesterday I asked my wife if she had seen what someone sent me in the mail. To which she had and didn't make sense. On closer inspection of the envelope she discovered a cartoon with the title of "The lower end of the Behavioral Spectrum". The cartoon depicted a normal man then a queer ape then a queer supporter ape with human head. My wife immediately thought hate mail to which I brushed off. So she did an internet search on the mysterious return address. Come to find out that it is hate mail in response to the letter to the editor posted above.

Here are some additional bloggers that received similar hate mail from American News Center 55401.

http://www.wilderoastcafe.com/diary/2006_01_01_archive.shtml

http://theangrycraig.blogspot.com/2008/03/american-news-center-55401.html

http://blueminneapolis.blogspot.com/2006/05/hate-mail-brought-to-you-courtesy-of.html

I am all for free speech and association. I recognize that with all the freedoms we take for granted we also must accept the fringe elements of every cloth among us. What raises my ire a bit, not much, is the anonymous factor and ignorant message the envelope sent. Personally I do not care who others choose as their life partners. My religious upbringing raises questions about why one may choose a same-sex partner and aspects of the teachings discuss its sin. Regardless of that, we live in a land where freedom reigns, at least for now, and with any free society there will be elements that we disagree with. I have on several occasions discussed the Same-Sex Marriage debate and offered an alternative solution that, I feel, will put the conversation to rest. What is so wrong with removing the "Marriage" license from our Governmental and Legal documents and replacing it with a certificate of partnership?

I understand we have over 200 years of institutional marriage red tape to unwind but the solution seems so obvious as to appease the Religious factions in America while ensuring the basic freedoms that our Founding Fathers intended to exist. No longer will there be an IRS box for marriage, no longer will the doctor's have to discern relations, no longer will we need to debate the sanctity of marriage as it will be preserved in religious ceremonies, and no longer will the Justice of the Peace be used to oversee marriage or any other type of union between two people. Everyone wins, right?

Marriage is a Rite not a right

Yesterday the courts, in California, took on the question if Proposition 8 is constitutional. For those who have lived under a rock or do not follow this issue, Prop 8 (as it is commonly called) was passed by 52% of Californians in 2008 to establish a State Constitutional definition that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. Gay right groups feel Prop 8 violates their rights and is unconstitutional. What we have here are two separate arguments being made but will be lumped into one. First point of discussion is if marriage is a right. Secondly, is Prop 8 unconstitutional? To answer the second question we need first define the first question.

Is marriage a right of all Americans? To answer this we must acknowledge the institution of marriage is rooted in religious dogma. To exercise one's religion is a right established and guarantee by the Bill of Rights. Since marriage is religious in nature, does that translate to a right for all Americans? Some religious sanction polygamy yet there are rules established that one cannot take on more than one spouse at a time. Even though the law exists those that practice religions that promote polygamy are still able to even if they are highly scrutinized by child welfare agencies. Now, we have laws against drug use in American yet certain religions are allowed to posses and use drugs as outlined in the rites of their religion.

This brings us back to the right of marriage by all Americans. Marriage is a religious rite that has specific guidelines for the married couple to live by. Being a Gnostic the concept of marriage takes place on a spiritual level rather than on the flesh and blood level. But I digress. Since the definition of marriage depends on one religion, then there should be very little discussion on the topic of marriage being a right. In essence marriage is not a RIGHT rather marriage is a RITE.

Now, if we view marriage as a rite, we can answer the constitutional questions in regards to Prop 8. To resolve this question we need to look at how the question is being phrased. The argument put forth against Prop 8 is the use of the 14^th Amendment. The 14^th Amendment guarantees equal protection and due process. The groups looking to overturn Prop 8 are equating interracial marriage to same-sex marriage. Is the argument one in the same? Is defining marriage between 1 man and 1 woman a violation of equal protection?

Since marriage is a rite then no one's equal protection or due process is being violated. Now, a better argument on the constitutionality of Prop 8 is if it violates the separation of church and state. The entire process and incorporation of marriage in the laws, IRS filings, and other legal writs are all violations of church and state in so far that marriage is a religious rite. That being said, every American should be outraged by Prop 8 as it violates the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution. The term marriage needs to be stripped from various use by the government and returned to religious dogma from which it was born. If we, as a society, require recognition of living with a life partner then let's rely on legal documents, i.e. power of attorney. The Constitution already allows for same-sex and opposite sex marriages in so far as it protects one's right to practice religion and all ceremonies involved.

Why are we all not demanding the removal of the institutional definition of marriage as it violates the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution? Is that not a more intelligent way to go about the issue of marriage? By taking this approach we solidify the sanctity of marriage for all religions while also removing government control over one's choice of a life partner.

Maine voters speak on Same-Sex marriage

Yesterday I thought the big story would be the Republican sweep of key bell weather races – which they took 2 of 3 – but the bigger story to come out from Election Day is what took place in Maine. The Legislature in Maine pasted a law allowing same-sex couples to wed and was signed by the Governor. Despite the new law a measure was on the Maine ballot to repeal the same-sex marriage law. "With 87 percent of precincts reporting early this morning, 53 percent of voters had approved to repeal, ending an expensive and emotional fight that was closely watched around the country as a referendum on the national gay-marriage movement" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/politics/05maine.html). The repeal makes Maine the 31^st state to reject same-sex marriage when allowed to be voted on by the general populous.

In my blog entry, A Better Approach, I addressed the constitutional state amendment passed by Californians that defined marriage "between a man and a woman" where I offered a better approach to the same-sex marriage issue. At that time I even emailed a group call OutFront to offer up my approach. Even though 87 percent of the precincts have reported, gay-marriage supporters are holding out hope and are unwilling to concede the voice of the people. Frank Schubert who organized the campaign to repeal the gay-marriage law said that a victory will be a "backbreaking loss" for gay-rights activists while Jesse Connolly, organizer of the pro-gay marriage campaign, is holding out hope that when the remaining 13 percent of precincts report that victory will be achieved.

The bigger question here is twofold. Why is it that State Representation is passing laws that constituents are clearly saying they do not want? Why are Americans continually looking to Government to cure their plights? The issue of marriage is not a social issue that ought to have government involvement. The decision to spend one's life with another ought to be done in private. By allowing the Government to regulate marriage through the issuance of a "marriage" license means it's a privilege and not everyone is entitled to participate. It is time for Americans to wake up and realize that Government is not the answer to this issue. By removing the Government from the equation will have a ripple effect.

The ripple effect will be evident as the restrictions that same-sex couples argue they experience will dissipate as those institutions will no longer have the shield of marriage to hide behind. Americans – straight or gay – need to realize that the issue of marriage is a solemn arrangement to many and one that Government ought not to play a role in. Use the fact that 31 states have repealed same-sex marriage laws and rally to limit Government intrusion into our private lives. The populous is speaking loudly that Government is not the answer and when all the votes are counted in Maine will send that signal no matter how razor thin the result may be.

Why do gay-right activists, and other Americans, not realize that looking to Government for the answer is the wrong approach?

Homosexuals beware

The Star Tribune conducted a poll of Minnesotans about same-sex marriage. According to the poll, published in May 1, 2009 Metro section, a “slight” shift is taking place in regards to same-sex marriage. Many states, most recently Iowa, have rewritten law to allow same-sex marriage. The topic of same-sex marriage is a lightning rod and a polarizing conversation. Although homosexuals are celebrate every state that passes law allowing same-sex marriage; homosexuals need to be leery of “progress”.

President Obama’s Stimulus Bill earmarked money to assist in making all medical records electronic. Another goal of President Obama is universal health care. On the surface these two items appear to be mutually exclusive and harmless. As medical records become electronic it will make it easier create a national medical record system. The guise of creating a national data bank for medical records will be for the ease of sharing client files.

Don’t be fooled. The push for electronic files, national databank, and universal healthcare are all signs of increase intrusion into our personnel lives. One may be asking themselves how this adheres itself to same-sex marriage.

Back in 1993 the journal Science Dean Hamer, PhD, reported the discovery of a “gay gene”. In an article posted on WebMD Health News(Jan. 28, 2005), Brian Mustanski, PhD at University of Illinois, stated, “It builds on previous studies that have consistently found evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation, but our study is the first to look at exactly where those genes are located.” Dr. Mustaski is referencing a study done to compare chromosome of both parents to help identify DNA that supports the existence of the “gay gene”.

Now if a “gay gene” does exist and the government establishes the national databank of medical files and universal healthcare, how soon will a test be created to discover if the unborn fetus contains the gene? I typically am not a conspiracy theorist but I am a big picture thinker. Looking at all the small pieces that are being put in place, homosexuals need to be aware of the consequences of what they seek.

Now, I am not saying that if you decide to live your life with a member of the same-sex that it is right or wrong. I am merely putting all homosexuals on notice. As I have stated in a previous blog post, the government should not be in the business of marriage. As more states allow same-sex marriage only furthers the government’s ability to track, record, and identify homosexuals.

Combine the same-sex marriage license data, national medical database, universal healthcare, and the identification of a “gay gene” and we have a recipe for genetic manipulation to eradicate the United States of homosexuals. It is time for homosexuals to stand behind the flag of smaller government and demand a shift from marriage licenses to certification of civil unions.

Cat Fight at Miss USA contest

“In my country, and in my family, I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman,” are the fateful words said by Miss California Prejean in response to Perez Hilton question “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?” Perez Hilton said he was “shocked and incredibly frustrated and disappointed” by the response given to his question. Really?
Why does Perez Hilton ask this question? Perez Hilton went out to say, “Miss USA should represent all Americans and , with her answer, she instantly alienated millions of gays and lesbians and their friends.” Okay. Miss America should encompass the ideals of US society but does the majority of America agree with alternative lifestyles; I am not sure.

Miss Prejean did predicate her answer by acknowledging that every person has the right to choose their life partner before giving her personal belief. Perez Hilton, in his video blog, thought Miss Perjean could have answered the question more neutral. Why?

All too often Americans feel they need to sugar-coat controversial topics. Talk about them openly and honestly. For Perez Hilton go have a tizzy fit over an answer to his question is pathetic. Perez Hilton, who is openly gay, needs to settle down. Not every American believes that homosexuals ought to marry. The government should not be the one that settles this issue. The discussion should take place in our local communities.

Miss Perjean needs to be applauded for her beliefs and speaking them. Just as the expectation is for one to respect Perez Hilton’s stance, one must respect Miss Perjean’s.

A better approach

During the past November election cycle, Californians voted and passed Prop 8 that changed the California Constitution by eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry and defined marriage as “between a man and a woman”. Currently Minnesota legislators have introduced several bills on the topic of same-sex marriage. Three bills – HF 1824, HF 1870, and HF1871 – have been introduced in the Minnesota Legislature that proposes Minnesota Constitutional amendment of defining a marriage as a union of a man and a woman (http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/gay.asp).

With all the issues facing Americans, why do we spend so much time on the topic of same-sex marriage? Understandably some aspects of our lives, i.e. healthcare, require a “marriage” license in order for ones partner to participate or make decisions on the topic at hand. OutFront Minnesota, and others around the United States, are pushing for a conversation on same-sex marriage with the goal to legalize it as some point in the future.

Why? Why must same-sex be deemed legal? Marriage is not something that Government ought to define, control, enforce, legislate, or license. The sanctity of marriage is established and maintained by ones belief system. Believers that view same-sex marriage as a threat to the nuclear family or against the will of “God” need to be treated the same as those that believe same-sex marriage is completely natural. Holding such a belief does not make one a bigot or homophobic. Rather it is simply their belief system; right or wrong.

It time for Americans to stand up and shorten Governments reach into our lives. Regardless of how one feels on the topic of same-sex marriage, the simple fact is that Government was not formed by the founding fathers to establish the right of marriage. The concept of marriage is rooted in a belief system. Groups like OutFront will further their cause better if they advance the elimination of Government intrusion rather than fighting the moral majority on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Since the word license often translates into right, by changing the jargon from license to certificate we solve one problem facing the concept of marriage. Instead of the state issuing a couple a marriage licenses the state issues certificate that recognizing the union of two people. By recognizing the union the Government is simply stating that.

The new “Civil Union” certificate will afford all Americans the same rights that are held hostage by the marriage license. Going the route of certification and away from licensing, Americans can escape the repeal or proposal of legislation like Prop 8 while shortening the arm of Big Government.