Lucky Stars

Lucky Stars                            

The solution to the great "gay marriage" debate has been provided by the NEW Miss California, Tami Farrell!  States rights, or course!  When asked the same question as Carrie Prejean, Miss Farrell answered quickly, and prepared... she answered without a flinch, in so many words, 'it should be left up to each state'.

It's nice to know that there are so many conservatives in California after all.  I was beginning to think that there wasn't anything there but a bunch of Perez Hilton wannabees.  He's an excellent role model of course, and for that matter, it should be every state’s right to bar him!

We haven't heard it called states rights yet, but that's exactly what Miss Farrel suggested.  It was the "obvious" answer as she almost shook her head in amazement with the whole idea that the prospective Miss USA was the one being looked to for an answer to this modern day, great cultural issue.  She even lumped it into the whole lump of "civil rights" dough!

Given the time to prepare for her answer, as Miss Farrell was, I'm sure Carrie Prejean would have answered equally as politically correct.  In fact, it wasn't even a politically correct answer, it was a side step that sort of answered a question with another question like, "I dunno, what do you think?"  Or, in this case, "what do the states think?"

Yes, Miss NEW California, you might be onto something here, except I'm betting by leaving it up to the states, you mean leave it up to the state legislatures where all the lobbyists and money that buys votes magically appears.  Imagine if you were in the voting booth and some guy popped up beside you and offered you money for support.  That would be ludicrous, but that's the way this system works.  So, sure Miss Farrell, if we're gonna leave it up to the "states", then let's leave it up to the real states, and those states are the PEOPLE!

The people of California have spoken on this issue, and yet the liberal establishment wants to take the voters to court to overturn their democratic voice in order to force feed, top down, their agenda.  California pageantry seems to have a case of wanting their cake and  to eat it too, now calling for states rights, without clearly defining what they mean, or course.

The liberalization of America has become so plainly evident in the last fifty years you cannot even recognize us as the same place we were before the days of reality t.v., and Girls Gone Wild.  Where are we?  Is this what progression to a more highly evolved state of being is all about, to raise a generation of so called "open minded" people?

In fact, let's apply the same logic to slavery... lest I forget that has already been tried, and we fought a civil war over states rights then.  Progressives don't support "states rights", they support a strong Federal government to dictate to us what we are to believe.  If it were up to them we wouldn't have our 30,000 wonderful flavors of Christianity, there would just be one religion, if any religion at all.  In fact, progressives see religion as something for the stupid, and would have us more highly evolve to a purely secular state where there's no need for churches and steeples, or synagogues, or mosques for that matter.

When asked how she would vote on the issue of gay marriage, Miss Farrell declined to answer for the sake of privacy.   So, I must conclude Miss Farrell is another California conservative just like Carrie Prejean, yet prepped for an answer to a question that was nothing more than a set up for failure, on the spot, for her predecessor.  After all, she believes in states rights, we do know that.

So, in keeping with that thinking, here is a suggestion.  From now on, Miss California, and all beauty pageant contestants should be elected by the people, not a panel of judges, just like on American idol!

The state of France, the state of Germany, the state of England, all have autonomy over their respective jurisdictions, so why shouldn't the state of California, or the state of Georgia.  This is what our states really are, you know?  Little countries united.  To each its' own, a more libertarian point of view.

Yet, and still, the question remains... what business does any government at any level have in defining what marriage is, except for as it relates to taxes and benefits.  If there wasn't a financial advantage in marriage, then we wouldn't even be having this very public discussion.  Isn't marriage something that existed long before big government?  Since when does the state have the right to determine whether or not you jumped over the right broom, or crushed the right glass?  Since when?  Since money became involved, and another form of fascism was put in place, or is trying to be put in place.

I cannot help but to think of the story of King David when Israel cried out for a king, God tried to tell them, 'you don't need a king'.  Somehow it is innate within us to need a figure head.  It's as if the figure head somehow proves God when God is quite capable of proving himself.

States rights, individual rights... if we really believe in that stuff, then let's drill down a little further and leave it up to the churches where marriage belongs.  There are plenty of gay friendly churches out there these days.  Let the church decide and leave the government out of the equation.  Repeal any benefits that heterosexual marriage receives and let people marry as they see fit, leaving God as the final judge.  If two people really want to marry then what does a tax benefit, or any other benefit have to do with it anyway?

If your mate is sick in the hospital, then go see him or her, no questions asked, except for if it is after visiting hours, or if the traffic is too thick in the hospital room.  If you want to leave your loved ones your material possessions, then so be it.  Hire an attorney and state your final will and testament.  If you want to have gay sex, straight sex, or no sex at all, then do it, but is this really something that needs to be brought into the streets?  Apparently, some think so, but we live in a world where sexuality is at the forefront of our minds, like never before, according to messages pumped in by the glorious info box now available in HD!

Well, we're never gonna get rid of the king now.  The kingship is firmly established and let's just hope we have a wise one, and not just another wise guy!

Ammendment 10 to the constitution of the United States reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

A certain flexibility always exists within this beloved document where powers can shift like the sands of time where big government can be allowed to grow, or it can be limited.  It's about consensus.  The funny thing is the constitution talks about free speech, slavery, war, the right to bear arms, and such but never about sexuality.  It's just not something that warrants the attention of our righteous government.

Ammendment 14 states, as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Does the abridgment of privileges... include the "right" to "gay marriage"?

When it needs to be specific, the constitution is specific.  Otherwise, this is a plain vanilla, and vague document, not quite a blank canvass, but instilled with a framework of freedom.  Slavery was a glaring contradiction to that framework and it was abolished.  The only thing we're really trying to abolish here now is the definition of marriage that has held its' own category since our nations inception, and long before.

Now, we want to say milk is also beer.  We might as well go ahead and say gay is straight.  There is no logic to this entire issue.  It has to do with one thing and only one thing... $. If it has to do with anything else... like acceptance... then does a legislature have the power to transform the minds of a people into acceptance?

This post is not a moral argument.  It is an argument of the proper role of government, and society.  If one wants to get into the morality of the issue, all one needs to do is attend church, and depending on where one goes to church, the morals are relative in this country.  We don't live in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Iran, Iraq, and even if we did, we would find there is not a unified view of Islam.  Splinters will always exist in whatever religion there is.  Again, let God be the judge on this issue in the final analysis, not the legislature.

I mean, it's not as if homosexuals are bound and shackled as slaves.  They are quite free to do whatever they please.  Slaves never had that luxury!  So, is this really an issue for which we need legislation?  The only bondage homosexuals have is the burning need for acceptance.  Go spend a day in the fields, against your will, forced to eat scraps, suffer a whipping, en masse and then let's talk about legislation, but until then, count your lucky stars... all fifty of them!