Sunday, February 15, 2004

I Now Pronounce You...

Most battles in the culture war are skirmishes that garner little notice from the press and therefore the general population. Thousands of little items that happen everyday to erode our rights, our traditions and our institutions.

A significant portion of these battles take place in education and our judiciary. The battles are difficult to combat since the forces of change are inherently more patient and therefore, more powerful than the forces trying to preserve our culture. The forces of change are effective also due to the bureaucratic nature of these institutions which keep the beliefs and desires of the general population at bay.

Passing down our country's values and traditions to the next generation is vital to keeping this idea of America alive. This is why education is a main battleground. The judiciary's ever growing propensity to make laws is particularly threatening. Take a moment to examine the roots of many liberal policies and you will find their anointment in the unaccountable courts not elected legislators. Policies which could never muster legislative credibility like racial preferences and unrestricted abortion were all thrust upon an unwilling populace by men in robes - many with lifetime appointments. To this we must now add "gay marriage".

Further down, I discussed in detail the Masschusetts' Supreme Court ruling demanding the legislator pass a law recognizing "same-sex marriages". Among the numerous problems with this decree, I mentioned that the courts literally were forced to change the definition of the word "marriage" to justify their decision. Among the admissions in the ruling were incredible phrases like "marriage is an evolving paradigm".

Even if this were true, these four judges needed to find this "right" in the Massachusetts' constitution. Since the judges themselves are theoretically powerless to change the state's constitution, the "right" for two people of the same-sex to marry must have already been there. Who put it there? When? Even this is dishonest, since two people can make whatever commitments to each other they desire. They can even have a ceremony. The question is not one of "rights" the question is what must the State, ergo "society, recognize, endorse and promote.

In addition, one must presume "marriage" is still evolving, as we speak. Where do these four judges think "marriage" is this afternoon? Where do they think it is heading?

It is even possible that since their ruling "marriage" may be "evolving" back towards the traditional definition of "a union between a man and a woman"? Polls would certainly support this view. What now?

The proponents of gay marriage frame the issue as one of civil rights. Usually the ban on "same-sex marriage" is compared to past laws forbidding "interracial marriage". To this, I will concede that the opponents of "interracial marriage" were primarily motivated by ignorance or racism. Making the case that opponents of "same-sex marriage" are the moral equivalent to yesterday's "racists" is slanderous. Few proponents even bother to extrapolate this argument to this logical conclusion. Most opponents miss or ignore this slander due to the intimidation of being associated with "racism" or "homophobia".

What should be noted is that none of this has anything to do with the pros or cons of recognizing "gay marriage". After all, shouldn't that debate have happened before we were forced to alter the fundamental building block of the family?

More Wondering...

Anyone else ever wonder how Bill Clinton's popularity would have been effected had Hillary left him immediately following the Monica Lewinski incident? Imagine the photographs of Hillary exiting the White House, bags packed with Chelsea in tow. The unrelenting news stories of the public humiliation they had to endure as wife and daughter of a serial philanderer.

The reason I bring this up is I never fully understood the steadfastness of his supporters. This scenario, ugly as it is, was entirely possible without altering one aspect of the ex-presidents behavior. Same behavior, only he'd be viewed as the national heel, instead of the leader of the Democrat party.

Friday, February 06, 2004

Nine Eleven

Ever wonder how would the world be different if 50,000 people had been killed on 9/11 instead of 3,000? The death toll was initially thought to be around 30,000 then gradually declined week by week.

Would fewer people have marched against the war? Would some of our "allies" even supported our efforts? If the world would be different one has to ask why? Those who planned the attacks and those who flew the planes had intended to kill as many as possible. 50,000 potential casualties certainly would not have dissuaded them from their mission.

Apparently, because we were lucky this time, lots of people were not persuaded in the necessity of removing a terrorist supporting, sadistic tyrant from power.

Remember that whenever you hear a reference to "the 3,000 who perished on September 11th". It was intended to have been worse. Much worse.

I also wonder how the anniversary of 9/11 looms in the minds of Democrat presidential candidates. John Edwards doesn't even mention terrorism in his "Two Americas" stump speech. Dean promises to pull us out of Iraq immediately. Kerry thinks it should be a law enforcement issue.

My guess is they are just thankful that 9/11/04 isn't closer to Tuesday, 11/2/04.

Thursday, February 05, 2004

Dodge Ball

So, the same people who were claiming that Bill Clinton's draft dodging was no big deal are trying to make a big deal out of George Bush's National Guard record. Should we be surprised?

These are the same people who claim Bush lead us into war by "lying" about Iraq being an "imminent threat" and "lying" about the weapons of mass destruction. Of course, they hope you forget that Bush said the exact opposite about Iraq in the State of the Union. More important they hope you forget they were against going to war even when everybody "knew" Iraq had WMD's. Still more important they want you to forget that a lot of them were even against going into Afghanistan. Of course, everyone's already forgotten that only 10 out of 52 Democratic Senators voted in favor of Gulf War I and the liberation of Kuwait , even with U.N. Security Council approval and an international coalition, which included France and Germany. 10 out of 52.

But what they are really counting on is everyone forgetting nine-eleven.