Scrape away all of the semantics and philosophical bullshit, and there are only two main reasons for a family to exist: the conservation of familial assets, and the protection and caring of children. Whatever form a “family” has taken, throughout all of history, these are the only reasons for that family to exist.

Many different societies throughout History have tried many different forms, ranging from the single parent homes, to plural marriages, to line marriages, to group marriages. And they have all done everything they could to protect the collective assets of the family and raise the children of that family to be successful, healthy, and reasonably sane.

Despite the melodramatics and rhetoric used by both sides, that’s what it boils down to, and it is that which has to be considered the basics for the ethics of the situation (as opposed to the morals, which are societally based). If we are to hold a rational discussion on this highly divisive issue, we must keep that as our goal.

Since that isn’t ever going to happen, let’s fall back on the laws as written, shall we?

Here in California, we have certain laws. Many of those laws were written by the State Legislature (consisting of the State Senate and the State Assembly, which are analogous to the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives), and some were written into law by the collective vote of the citizens of the State. Either way, they each have the full weight and force of law, and each of them is subject to enforcement by any law enforcement, executive, or regulatory agency within the State, as defined by their respective jurisdictions.

Cities and counties are the most basic of these units, and each of them have their own zoning laws, sound ordinances, and speed limits.

However, there are some things which are not controlled by the cities and counties, but by the State itself. Each and every one of those issues are for a general reason, and apply equally throughout the State. Some examples are corporate law (so that corporations are the same throughout the State, and subject to the same laws), civil law (so that attorneys from San Diego can argue a case in Yreka, and not be blind-sided by the need to suddenly wear purple-and-yellow robes with a rubber boot on their head and call the judge “O Great Garglesnitz” - not that things like that happen in Yreka, so don’t write letters), criminal law (for much the same reasons), and family law.

Now it’s that last part that has the whole kerfluffle going on in San Francisco. Family Law isn’t just a cancelled series on CBS, it’s a concept that exists so that the state can step in and help to protect the children. This includes marriage law, divorce law, adoption law, and the various and sundry laws that allow the state to steal kids away from their parents if they feel that they could do a better job than the parents could. (Most times they’re wrong, but once in a while - once in a great while - they get it right, but their success ratio is irrelevant.)

Part of the State’s authority is to define the words used in its laws, so that the real intent of the people (or their elected legislators) can be used most accurately to interpret and enforce those laws. And it is with the defining of the word “marriage” and/or “spouse” that we run into problems. That doesn’t change the fact that the State has every authority to define the precise meaning of a word used in its regulations and statutes.

If we skip that part, pretty soon you have people arguing that oral copulation doesn’t count as “sexual contact”, and quibbling over the meaning of the word “is”.

But defining specific words is entirely within the scope of the State’s authority, and all of the rhetoric and high tempers on both sides of the issue are ultimately irrelevant, because the law is extraordinarily clear.

In California, Section 308.5 of the Family Code says “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

This is not to say that same-sex couples don’t have the same privileges and responsibilities as real marriages, if they bother to look. There was also a law passed in Gray Davis’ last few days in office, which is scheduled to go into effect next January, which gives same-sex partners the same rights, responsibilities and powers that married couples do, with the sole exception of the use of the words which are defined elsewhere.

And if, as they claim, it’s all just “semantics”, then why shouldn’t the gay-marriage proponents be forced to come up with a word or phrase which means what they want it to mean, rather than co-opting a word which has become standardized over the last five millenia? Is that so difficult to do? Why must the minority always get to define the words being used? Why is the expressed will of the majority so meaningless?

It isn’t the fact of the “togetherness” of the relationship, but that a severe minority gets to define the debate, to the point where any position which disagrees with that minority in the slightest is termed a “phobia” or a “hate crime”.

I believe that marriage should be defined as the union between one man and one woman, just as it has been used for the last several millenia of human civilization. There are terms which can be used or coined to cover new concepts and new realities, as the need arises.

I have no problem with gay couples wanting to formalize their relationships, and they have every right to expect the full protection of the law to cover their relationship rights and responsibilities, just as in marriage.

But let them come up with their own damned word.

Now, on to the legal aspect. The Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsome, swore an oath when he took office. That oath included the requirement to “support and defend” the Laws of the State of California, and the State and Federal Constitutions. He has violated that oath in every way imaginable. He has usurped the authority of the State and Federal Legislatures by declaring that he was indulging in a bit of utter lawlessness. He is attempting to claim that his actions are nothing more than “civil disobedience” on a par with Gandhi, Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther King, Jr.

But there’s one small problem: none of those people were elected to office. None of those people swore an oath to uphold the laws they then proceeded to violate. And every one of those people knew that there would be likely legal repercussions for their illegal actions.

I wonder how many of those couples would have been willing to spend time in jail for knowingly committing a fraud upon the State. Or if Mayor Newsome would be willing to spend time in jail for every “license” he ordered to be issued, because 3,200+ felonies would certainly call for some serious incarceration.

I’m not going to bother trying to defend this position, any more than the pro-gay marriage side will bother trying to explain why they can’t be bothered to coin a new term for what they mean by “marriage”. I’m also not going to discuss the religious side of the issue, since any attempt would be pointless. But when it comes down to it, we have ways to change the system, and no one wanting gays to “marry” is willing to risk that option. Not one. And that says more about the failure of their agenda than anything I could say…

You’re Taiwan!

Despite enormous setbacks, including the fact that most people refuse to recognize who you are or even that you exist at all, you’ve built yourself into quite a productive person. You’ve got a little trouble maintaining a sense of personal order, but through the mess, you’re still very industrious and have a small but pivotal impact on almost everyone you know, and even people you don’t. You make a whole lot of stuff.

Take the Country Quiz at the Blue Pyramid

You’re The Grapes of Wrath!

by John Steinbeck

You’re mired in a deep depression that encompasses you and everyone you know. You’re trying to get out of the depression, but your idea of help is, in itself, pretty sad. While some are convinced that this all has a deeper meaning, you’re really just dull and tedious. And utterly obsessed with dust. You really need to focus on something other than dust. Your best moments center around turtles.


Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

Anyone that is pissed off at this FMA thing should friggin’ remember that this is what we liked about GWB...he is direct, forward, and is not afraid to take political risks to do what he sees as necessary to make America better.  He really, really doesn’t give a whit about his poll numbers....you hear that he does from the media, but that’s hype. 

The guy isn’t pandering to his base, either....that is a way leftist detractors spin this subject to take credit away from his political stance.  They would rather debase his motives than comment on his obvious political bravery.  If Rove were behind this, and he was the evil scientist/genius that liberals paint him to be, he would realize that there is only 45-55% support for a FMA, and have the President do his best ‘Kerry’ on the subject...i.e. vacillate and waffle until after the election.  All Bush has done is polarize homosexuals and ‘political conservative/social liberals’ (sorry, Andrew Sullivan, I think the world of you, but that does describe you) against him.  Though their support for him was lukewarm at best, and based more on the War on Terror than anything, his actions where the DOMA is concerned has broken it. 

Fine.  An effective leader never, never makes everyone they lead happy. 

It’s obvious that GWB isn’t out to beat JFKerry in a popularity contest...if that is what his goal was, he’d have already started debating ol’ Lurch, and he’d be ahead in the polls 2-to-1.  Bush does what he sees to be right, and best for the country.  I haven’t read any detractor that has said that this was a big surprise.  He has a moral clarity about his duties that has been missing from the Presidency in a decade.  That is what makes him an effective leader, and is what pisses off the Left and those people that don’t share his worldview.  He does not compromise on his core beliefs.  He has balls.  He is willing to fight for what he believes in, and asks no quarter, after the battle is joined. 

Is he desperate, like some pundits say?  Hardly.  This is a natural next-step, especially after addressing this in the SOTU, and watching the Mass. SC and the Mayor of S.F. openly challenge him on it. 

You can refer to my last post on the subject to read what I think they are doing (in short, the Mass. courts and the S.F. Mayor are trying to mandate a social change via Article IV of the COTUS), but the only thing the President has left to do is pull out a big stick.  He can keep talking about it, but that isn’t his nature....ask the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. 

However, that IS what the last President would have done (and DID in this situation,, because CLINTON signed DOMA, but there was no outrage over that, was there?), and not what Kerry would have done (he’s flipped and flopped on this, as he has on everything), because they try to play the entire field, and make everyone happy.  That might make a guy popular, but it won’t make him a good leader. 

Bush is a good leader.  FMA proves that, whether you agree with him or not.  He’s not afraid to stand up for what he believes to be right.  That’s why he gets my vote.

It seems that Rosie O’Donnell is trying to get her name in the news again, by getting married to her lesbian partner in San Francisco this morning.

Hey, Rosie! That ringing sound you hear? That’s the alarm going off, marking the end of your “fifteen minutes”. Time to take your “in your face” attitude, and realize that your action will be invalidated as soon as a sane judge decides to take the case. (That qualifier automatically excludes almost any judge within 50 miles of the Golden Gate Bridge.)

I am extraordinarily impressed by the talent shown by some actors and actresses who are gay, but what impresses me more is the fact that they managed to do all of those performances without ever having to shove their sexual orientation in America’s collective face.

America wants to be entertained, not lectured to. And let’s get real… Most actors and actresses, as a group, are just two steps up from the organ-grinders monkey. And their private lives never enter into it. They get all that money because they entertain us, and we have shown out appreciation by throwing large quantities of little green pieces of paper at them.

But for some reason, many of them have confused “fame” with “wisdom”, and are under the impression that because we spend a lot of time listening to them perform their art, we would be just as willing to listen to their opinions on issues for which they have absolutely no training whatsoever.

I remember a few months ago, I ran across a listing of the most politically active celebrities and athletes, and the level of education and training they have received in school. Most of them are no more advanced than high school. Michael “4F” Moore, just as an example, dropped out of college after just a single semester, but he suddenly feels qualified to dictate his opinion to and about a man who holds a Bachelor’s degree from Yale, an MBA from Harvard, and a former fighter pilot.

If I could find that list, I would post it every time something like this happened. Whenever an athlete, actor or actress, or musician speaks out about political issues, they should be reminded that they are not only not qualified, their opinions are usually based on wrong information, the “fictitions” of those who are no more qualified than they are.

Truly a case of “the blind leading the blind”. But entire news programs - and careers - have been built around telling these entertainers how wonderful they are. A few months of that, and pretty soon you have Paris Hilton telling people why she thinks Candidate ‘A’ would make a great President....

What a shame…

I posted earlier today at Right-Thinking, and shared my opinion on this.  There are two facets of the pro-same-sex marriage movement...one is financial, one is emotional. 

First off, marriage brings with it several benefits, mostly tax-related.  These are reserved for married couples and families because the government wishes people to be married and have children.  Other than the obvious benefit of keeping the economic viability of the population going, this tends to make staying together in a family unit more financially favorable than splitting up.  Homosexuals that are together want these benefits, and argue that they have an equal right to them...as much as heterosexual couples do.  In addition, there are reduced insurance rates for families and married couples, and homosexuals wish to have that.  Many people will benefit from same-sex marriage, such as divorce lawyers and family attorneys.  It will be interesting to see who comes out in support of same-sex marriage, and who opposes it. 

However, the primary motivation is emotional.  Homosexuals are not in favor of ‘civil unions’ because they know that there is a difference between a civil union and a marriage.  A marriage carries with it a connotation of morality (be it practiced by everyone or not) and social acceptance.  There is an inherent understanding that marriage is more than just a slip of paper....and because of the understood moral implications of same-sex marriage, homosexual marriage has been prohibited in the large majority of Christian churches.  christian society (ours) believes that the Bible is relatively clear on the subject...and this is what homosexuals want to change. 

They want not only to have the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple, they want the same respect in the ethical and moral venues as well.  Civil unions don’t give same-sex couples that....the emotional comfort of being universally accepted as moral and ethical equals under the eyes of God and man.  There is guilt involved, but the guilt is balanced by the desire to continue the behavior people think to be morally wrong.  The solution?  Change the morality, and make it socially and morally unacceptable NOT to fully accept homosexuality as the norm.  Civil unions don’t address that, but same-sex marriage does. 

See, a lot of people view the wording not to be important.  It isn’t for me, because I am a believer that the states have the right to marry who they want to marry.  If California wants to marry goats, chickens, and hamsters to their owners...then, fine.  If the people out there think it is OK, and they vote to allow it, then, let that be the law of the land out in California.  It isn’t addressed in the Constitution specifically, so we refer to Article IV and to the 10th Amendment. 

Article IV says that, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. ” That means, simply put, that a divorce, civil union, and/or marriage done in one state must be recognized by every other state in the Union.  The 10th Amendment says that any powers not specifically noted in the Constitution would be reserved to and for the States themselves.  So, two parts of the Constitution say that the States can make their own decisions, provided that it is allowable by the Constitution, and that these decisions are enforcible everywhere in the Republic.  The States regulate marriage and civil unions. 

What Bush is saying is that marriage needs defined, and is using the DOMA to do it.  If marriage is defined within the Constitution, then the States must adhere to that, unless otherwise instructed.  The fact of the matter is that the same DOMA says that the States can define marriage however they want to. 

Here’s the text of the DOMA:
“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”.

SECTION 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL.-CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 1, UNITED STATES CODE, IS AMENDED BY ADDING AT THE END THE FOLLOWING:

“7. Definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’

“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”.

Now...same-sex civil unions are not prohibited here.  Same-sex marriages aren’t even federally prohibited in the DOMA.  All that is said is this:  The States will not be forced, as they are currently under Article IV, to accept same-sex marriages from other States as binding, and that marriage now has a codified definition.  That’s it.  Nothing has been prohibited. 

However, homosexuals are not getting the social and moral differences addressed here.  Notice that the opposition is there, even though individual States can and will make same-sex marriage the same LEGALLY as traditional marriages.  See, that isn’t enough.  One-on-one committment, and the recognition via a civil union isn’t enough....homosexuals are not satisfied with the current situation.  States’ rights aren’t the issue, either, though some are arguing that point.  The fact is that homosexual-marriage proponents want all of society to accept their unions as equal, legitimate, and morally acceptable as traditional marriage.  They want the moral proscriptions to be gone...immediately. 

I like Andrew Sullivan immensely, but he is too wrapped up in this subject to be objective.  I’m sure he could be worse, but there is a limit to what e-text can convey.  Truth be told, I would more than likely feel personally affronted myself, and deeply hurt....and I would probably feel discriminated against as well.  However, this isn’t about the President hating gay people, as AS is insinuating.  It is about protecting the rights of the States against activist judges and politicians, who are forcing THEIR moral stance on 300,000,000 other people.  Massachussets and SF are abusing the Full Faith and Credit (Article IV) Clause for political gain, and the President had to act to stop that.  It isn’t about discrimination, so don’t let anyone paint it as such. 

One of the more amusing things about this debacle is that Kerry is sunk either way.  Politically, it was a bold move by GWB, no matter what you think of his politics.  He has never deviated from what he thinks is right, and, as Andrew Sullivan said, his moral clarity is what makes him a great President in this current War. 

Comment lots!  I want to hear from you!

“America has given itself the right to kill or detain anyone anywhere and to deport anyone to anywhere for any period, without anyone daring to ask why, who, where or until when.”

Kill anyone, anywhere who kills or threatens Americans...got that right numb-nuts. What’s so hard to figure out about that?

Kill the terrorists...simple plan.

Oh wait, I’m just a civilian. According to Vietnam Veteran John F. Kerry, I can’t talk about such things. Under penalty of tongue-lashing from that freakish huge lurch head of his.

If I were to move to any other country on Earth, it would have its own culture, history, societal pressures, economic situation, and tolerance level. In every single one of those countries, they also have their own flag, their own Heads of State and Government, and their own official languages.

Except one. I have skimmed my World Almanac rather thoroughly (I know that seems like an oxymoron), and done a heavy sampling of about half of the listed nations (from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe), and I have only found one exception to the “official language” category.

That is to say that there is only one nation I found that doesn’t have an “official language”. Can you guess which one? That is a rhetorical question, of course.

It’s the United States of America. We have two “Principal languages” - English and Spanish - but nothing “official”. I was just reading John Hawkin’s most excellent site, and ran across this post, and I have to say that I agree with him.

If you want a piece of the American Dream (the 2BR/2Ba with the white picket fence, and the flamingos in the yard - or whatever), then you are welcome to come and carve your particular niche.

All we ask in return is that you do that bare bit necessary to assimilate, just as I would have to do if I moved to your country. Pick up enough of the language to read traffic signs and negotiate goods and services (you’ll improve as time goes on, whether you want to display that improvement or not), learn enough of the culture to know when to rub blue mud into your bellybutton, and enough of the law to stay out of major trouble.

That’s not much, just common politeness.

But for some reason, people want to come here without bothering to show that tiny bit of courtesy to those who are the citizens. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t take a Berlitz course for a two-week tourist trek through Europe, and I don’t expect tourists to learn the nuances of what has been described as the most difficult language to learn as a “second” language. But if you want to make your home and life here, as least try.

I was in the DMV a few weeks ago, and I noticed a sign on the wall that showed a message that was repeated several times, in several languages. At least it seemed that way, as I could work out the message in one or two other languages, and was speculating on the others, since I could not only not understand the language, I couldn’t even guess what languages it might be (although it likely comes from Southeast Asia or Oceania).

The languages I could understand said, “Translators available upon request”. Now the fact that we are trying to be as available to as many people as possible doesn’t change the fact that these government forms and officials were printed in something other than English (and Spanish). There isn’t a single traffic sign anywhere in the United States I have ever seen that was printed in any language other than English (with the occasional bilingual one that had Spanish, especially near the border). So why were these forms available in these other languages? If they cannot understand English enough to fill out these very simple forms, or to speak the language enough to answer questions like, “What is your name? Where do you live? How old are you?”, WHAT BUSINESS DO THEY HAVE BEING BEHIND THE WHEEL??

Now that we are in an election cycle, it becomes even more obvious that many of the people that are making the decisions that affect our laws don’t speak the majority language. Why? Because it’s not the ”official” language!

I think that we should become the “melting pot” we were once famous for, and cause people to melt a little bit into one nation again…