Taking Issue With Definition of Marriage

Image courtesy of Tufts University

I received an email this morning from a good man who forwarded an article from the Family Research Council. It was about two female cadets at West Point who were married in chapel in defiance of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that was passed into law. I felt compelled to address the issue myself although I am certain that it will not be well received by either side in this ongoing debate.

Back in September, 2011, I wrote a blog post (Marriage: Is It Legal or Lawful?) because the DOMA was being hotly contested in the media. I felt it was necessary to separate the issues at hand into their respective parts. Namely, the legal license that binds two individuals in a contract (civil union) and the ceremony of marriage, which is a religious institution, which is protected by law.

I also posted “Media Hype Aside: Ron Paul Stands Out!” where Dr. Paul articulates the need to remove “gay” preceding “rights” as all individuals enjoy equal rights, regardless of sexual preference. To grant rights to any group above the rights of others is not provided for in the Constitution.

The difference in not always obvious since the legal document called a marriage license is merely a contractual agreement for legal purposes, such as power of attorney when one party is unable to make decisions for themselves, and the other party therefore is granted the right to make decisions for the other. Just as a parent has legal power of attorney for a minor child, so does a license of marriage give the same power for their spouse or partner.

But the institution of marriage itself, the ceremony if you will, is particular to the religious faith of the two parties to be joined. After all, does not the ceremony state, “in the holy bonds of matrimony?” There is nothing “holy” in legal or lawful contracts between two parties.

So once again I am drawing attention to the post mentioned (Marriage: Is It Legal or Lawful?) since the question of whether or not West Point was correct in allowing these two women to be joined in marriage. Since the Constitution makes it explicitly clear that no particular religion can be chosen as the religion of the government, in also implies that all faiths must be treated with equal respect and reverence.

In times of war there were many soldiers who were of different faiths, and while the chaplains of the military may have been predominantly Christians, be no means were other religions made less significant by those chaplains.

While we may all have our convictions of what is right and wrong, and what is permissible based on religious doctrine, our nation was created on principles of liberty, and regardless of our personal beliefs, we must therefore accept the fact that there are others who will not always agree with our own religious practices.

It seems obvious that by prejudice against others of different beliefs we have become the Divided States of America, and that is a dangerous precedence to set when We the People must stand united when high crimes and treason are the main issues that are eroding our freedoms and nation.

Unwavering - Openness - Clarity - Transparency

“So will there be some [programs] that get eliminated or combined?  The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.”
— Mitt Romney

“I actually have a[n immigration] plan in mind, I haven’t unveiled it. ”
— Mitt Romney

“Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues…”
— Tax Policy Center

WASHINGTON, DC – Admittedly afraid of how voters will react to his ideas, Mitt Romney has a bad habit of teasing his policy proposals before refusing to show voters the details. First, Romney told told the Washington Examiner that he had an immigration plan that he hadn’t unveiled — that was over 100 days ago. Next, he gave a highly publicized “major” policy address at Ford Field in Detroit to unveil his new tax plan, but he failed to actually release the details of the plan in question. And finally, while speaking with the Weekly Standard, Romney flat-out admitted he was keeping secrets from voters because he was afraid his ideas would be unpopular. The Standard wrote:  “But Romney, ever cautious, is reluctant to get specific about the programs he would like to kill. He did this in his bid for the Senate 18 years ago and remembers the political ramifications.”


“Mitt Romney’s refusal to release his plans before the election shows he’s fully aware that his ideas are out of touch with American values. The only thing more cynical than Romney’s outdated policies that make the rich richer is his willingness to keep the details secret from voters."
 —  Rodell Mollineau, American Bridge president

Americans expect presidential campaigns to be worthy of the office they’re seeking — for candidates to offer competing visions for the future, instead of defaulting on the promises that got them there.  Romney has yet to prove to anyone he has what it takes. In fact, in the sixty months since Mitt Romney began his quest for the White House, the most noteworthy thing he’s done is outspend Rick Santorum in a couple of states. He has failed to realize it’ll take more than that to reach the White House.

Romney promised to eliminate cabinet agencies and government programs, but refused to specify which, out of a fear of the plans being politically unpopular. According to The Weekly Standard, “Mitt Romney wants to eliminate government programs and shutter cabinet agencies. Doing so, he says, is ‘the critical thing’ that needs to be done in order to bring government books back into balance and to begin restoring the promise of America.' ‘Actually eliminating programs is the most important way to keep Congress from stuffing the money back into them,’ he revealed in a 30-minute interview on March 21. It’s a smart answer in that it actually says nothing and is a deeply politically correct one.

Romney, ever cautious, is reluctant to be specific about any programs he would like to kill. He did this in his bid for the Senate 18 years ago and remembers the political ramifications. ‘One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don’t care about education,’ Romney recalled. ‘So I think it’s important for me to point out that I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies. So for instance, I anticipate that housing vouchers will be turned over to the states rather than be administered at the federal level, and so at this point I think of the programs to be eliminated or to be returned to the states, and we’ll see what consolidation opportunities exist as a result of those program eliminations. So will there be some that get eliminated or combined?  The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.’
[The Weekly Standard, 04/02/12]

December 7, 2011:  Romney admits he had an illegal immigration plan, but refused to unveil it.

In a Washington Examiner editorial board meeting, Romney was asked, “Have you not said enough to encourage that… simply by saying, ‘Well, once we’ve secured the border, we can do something?’" Romney responded, “I actually have a plan in mind, I haven’t unveiled it. There are other people I’d like to sit down with and review it with me. I went down to Florida and met with Jeb Bush six, seven months ago, laid out what I thought would be a complete plan to deal with permanent immigration policies with regards to our legal system to simplify it. Number two, how to deal with those who are here illegally today. And then number three, how to secure the border. And every piece of advice I've received from people who talk about this topic say get the first job done first, because if you talk about the other jobs you get highly confused with whether you are going to create incentives for people to come here illegally to take advantage of whatever program you might describe.”
[The Washington Examiner Editorial Board, 12/7/11]

Romney promised to eliminate tax deductions to pay for his tax plan, but did not specify which deductions, making it impossible to accurately evaluate his proposal. According to the Tax Policy Center, “In his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney has proposed permanently extending the 2001-03 tax cuts, further cutting individual income tax rates, broadening the tax base by reducing tax preferences, eliminating taxation of investment income of most individual taxpayers, reducing the corporate income tax, eliminating the estate tax, and repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the taxes enacted in 2010’s health reform legislation. …

The plan would recoup the revenue loss caused by those changes by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks, thereby making more income subject to tax. Gov. Romney says that the reductions in tax breaks, in combination with moderately faster economic growth brought about by lower tax rates, will make the individual income tax changes revenue neutral compared with simply extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.  He also promises that low- and middle-income households will pay no larger shares of federal taxes than they do now… Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues or the distribution of the tax burden.”
[Tax Policy Center]

Mitt Romney Platform:
 
What is the platform of Mitt Romney? Is Mitt Romney's 2012 platform truly conservative? And most importantly, can Mitt Romney be trusted to stand by his platform?

Mitt Romney's 2012 candidacy platform is contrasted below with the platform Mitt Romney maintained before and during his governorship of Massachusetts, and the previous article. Why is Mitt Romney running for President on a platform that has been so drastically altered?

Obviously, the 2012 Mitt Romney platform plays to the conservatives to win the Republican nomination, while Mitt Romney's earlier platform played to the liberals in Massachusetts to try to unseat Senator Edward Kennedy. In fact, Mitt Romney's earlier platform was actually more liberal than Kennedy's liberal platform.

Mitt Romney on Gay Marriage:

1994:  "As we seek to establish full equality [for gays], I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent, [Edward Kennedy]."

2011:  "I believe we should have a federal amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman."

Mitt Romney on Abortion:

1994:  "Abortion should be safe and legal in this country."

2002:  "Let me make this very clear, I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose."

2011:  "I believe people understand that I'm firmly pro-life."

Mitt Romney on Homosexuality in the Military:

1994:  "[I support] gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly."

2007:  "‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ has worked well... We’re in the middle of a conflict. Now is not the time for a change in that regard, and I don’t have a policy posture as to allowing gays in the military to serve there openly."

Mitt Romney on Health Care:

2007:  “I’m proud of what we’ve done... If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.”

2011: "What works in one state may not be the answer for another."

Mitt Romney on Immigration:

2006:  "[I am against] rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country."

2008:  "I disagree fundamentally that the 12 million people who come here illegally should be allowed to stay here permanently. I think that is a form of amnesty and that it's not appropriate."

Mitt Romney on Campaign Finance Reform:

1994:  "I would like to have campaign spending limits."

2007:  "The American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations."

Platform 2012?

Abortion:  pro-life

Capital punishment:  against

Censorship:  against the Fairness Doctrine

Child protection:  "would propose a "One-Strike, You're Ours" law for child sex offenders convicted of using the Internet to prey on children."

Education:  supports No Child Left Behind

Abstinence education:  supports this in public schools

Prayer in schools:  He was against this in 1994, but in 2007 said,  "We ought to allow ceremonies, graduation ceremonies and public events that we have the ability to recognize the Creator."

Gas crisis: Wishes to become independent of foreign oil by using alternative fuels as well as domestic reserves of petroleum.

Environment\Global warming:  Pro-environment; regulation of greenhouse gas emissions through voluntary measures.

Family life:  Mitt Romney has said,  "That strong families are one of his three pillars, along with military and economy, for a strong America."

Gun control:  Romney has "flip-flopped" on this issue, once stating that he supported, "the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution." and at another date saying he supported gun control and a ban on assault weapons.

Health Care:  supports the right of states to form their own health care plans for their respective state citizens.

Same-Sex Marriage/Civil Unions:  Romney has avidly supported same-sex marriage in the past, saying, "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern." However, in his 2008 campaign, Romney stated that, "I oppose same-sex marriage and I also oppose civil unions."

Medical Marijuana:  Stated, "I am not in favor of legalizing medical marijuana."

Stem Cell Research:  Believes it is ethical, but opposes research involving cloned embryos and opposes federal funding for it.

Free Trade: Supports

Minimum Wage:  Supports predictable, steady "changes" in the minimum wage. Up or down... Who knows?

Taxation:  Has pledged to not produce any new taxes or increase any existing taxes;  advocated for the elimination of the estate tax.

Immigration:  Supports legal immigration and decreased illegal immigration. Opposes amnesty for illegal aliens, but supports a path to citizenship for them, without any special treatment over legal immigrants, as well as the requirement to pay taxes and register with the government.

Iran:  Believes the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran if the latter country threatens to use nuclear weapons is an option.

Iraq War:  Romney has stated, "So long as there is a reasonable prospect of success, our wisest course is to seek stability in Iraq, with additional troops endeavoring to secure the civilian population." Is willing to withdraw from Iraq if the surge proves unsuccessful, which Romney believes is too early to tell.

Pakistan:  Wishes to aid this country in military, informational, and governmental ways through the Special Partnership Force."

What... if anything does the previous information actually mean?  You could corner Willard Mittington Romney in a closed room and sweat it out of him... but he might not know.

Neither This Jackass Nor This Elephant Is Fit To Be Ridden Or Walked In The Park, They Leave Stuff Behind Them

As Democrats and Republicans concerns intensify over Willard Mittington Romney's experience and just what it could mean for the Nation if he becomes the Republican candidate, they seem to have completely forgotten the facts and instead rely on opinion polls which contrast him against someone who is a known Socialist and Marxist agitator and has stated that he hates America, listen to what his wife has to say. One of his mentors, Bill Ayers, who contributed to his Harvard education fund, stated too many times to count that he wanted to see the complete distruction of America. He and his followers wanted to replace it with a Marxist/communist government. Suprise! Please read the earlier NDRP article "Busy Bees Make Shiny New Hive...," you will not see a Constitution, legislature, or judiciary mentioned anywhere, just a dictator and his minions.

As a Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Willard Mittington Romney, has stated that he felt pressured by the liberal legislature, as if the Commonwealth was the pressure cooker and the U.S. Legislature (Congress) is a simmering cup of tea.

Romney's signature Health Care plan is the model on which Obamacare is based. Social programs do not belong in our form of governance. They do nothing regarding the operation of our government. Retirement, Pension, and Medical plans are the provenance of insurance and HMO companies. When enacted at the national level, these types of social programs provide untapped revenue streams. Why do you think the Social Security Insurance Program fund is bankrupt every year; because, it continues to be borrowed from and not repaid and in addition mismanaged to the point that it cannot fulfill its purpose. For more information on Romney's experience, see the articles, 'Erosion And Death Follows,' and 'So... You Want Which Fox To Guard The Hen house?'

All surveys or polls are based on the questions asked, and in addition the answers, on which analysis is based, are opinions, not facts. Take this type of tool and place it in the hands of the privately-owned major media, all of which are biased and controlled, Google/see Project Mockingbird, and you can generate any outcome you want and present it for public consumption: can anyone spell P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A? 

Obama's record is abysmal EVEN at its zenith, but then again, he wants to replace the The Unanimous Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution with something similar to or worse than the NDRP which he signed into law, avoiding all the complicated procedures stated in the Constitution 'like the legislative branch of governance which is subject to judicial review of the other branch of governance,' and simply made the NDRP an Executive Order, fait accompli.

When considering such important areas of governance (the ways in which our government works), artificial contraceptives, abortion, and sterilization have absolutely no importance or place, as does gay marriage rights. These, if taken up by some non-governmental organization, are social and religious matters. Then again, there is that pesky Constitution and its purpose of day-to-day operation of the nation and the protection of the citizens to which it belongs. I suppose someone could appoint someone, like the excommunicated catholic Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to write regulations into law. After all she had quite a bit of experience in helping to write Obamacare. Now 41 Catholic Dioceses and Organizational groups have named HHS Secretary Sebelius, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and their departments as defendants in federal courts around the country for violating their freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

CFR Member Willard Mittington Romney has already subscribed to the policies of Bush and Obama, See 'Bigger Sharper Teeth...': his voting record proves it and the policies of the CFR are a matter of public record:  the destruction of the United States as a sovergn Nation comprised of sovereign individuals in favor of One World Government (NWO). Is there any wonder why Bush Jr. has publicly endorsed and is now supporting Willard Mittington Romney.

Neither the Obama Jackass nor the Romney Elephant is fit to be ridden or walked in the park.

Marriage: Is it Legal? Or Is It Lawful?

I am constantly being bombarded with email and "snail" mail letters telling me to support laws that will define marriage as that union between one man and one woman. It is apparent that this issue is important to many Americans. But I would like to offer my thoughts on the subject and perhaps it will assist others in seeing this issue in a different light.

When I got married, I was REQUIRED to obtain a legal marriage certificate from the State of Pennsylvania. But my wife and I also were married according to our faith(s) and so in effect, I have two separate documents to declare our marriage. One in which we declared our love and devotion to the Creator and to the Universe and the other (with appropriate blood tests and fees) in accordance with statutes of the State of Pennsylvania.

And I feel that this extremely volatile debate over the "definition" of marriage can be settled in a few paragraphs.

Under many religions, it is not permissible for two members of the same sex to join in "holy matrimony" as that joining is based on the act of reproduction as the primary purpose of marriage. But in the legal sense of marriage, it has to do with sharing legal responsibility with respect to contracts, income(s) and taxes.  The former is mutually exclusive from the latter and that is as it should be, as the government has no lawful authority to make that former religious point comply with statutory law, as that would be a violation of the First Amendment in a very specific sense, that it would enforce a religion's definition of marriage on all people, regardless of their personal liberties to choose their own life and life style.

In the Mormon faith, a man may have several wives, but that is against the statutes or "color of law" in America. I have a solution:  For the purposes of legal recognition, one person may be "assigned" to the role of "spouse" as defined in tax laws and contract law. and the others are spouses under their common religious beliefs.  Will that work for you? Or change the statutes so as not to violate the practice of one's faith just because it is different than the majority of others. Polygamy harms no one. Should not a man who has multiple wives, be allowed to claim them and his children all as dependents for tax purposes? After all, he is taking on the burden of providing for them all, why punish someone who is responsible and the reward so many others who are not responsible for themselves?

So to settle the debate, I offer this: Any two (or more) people may join in a legal contractual union which will hold them all responsible for and to the terms of that contract. In other words, if one falls ill or dies, the other(s) would share the burdens and rewards that are requisite in all spousal relationships. As a compassionate and loving human being, isn't it wrong to deprive a person bereaving the loss of a loved one, simply because they are of the same sex?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Therefore, to establish any law regarding the religious institution of marriage is a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Every State that issues a certificate or license for marriage is also in violation of First Amendment Rights.

It is incumbent upon the individuals who choose to join themselves in a loving bond to determine what rights and privileges are to be enjoyed by that union and not the province of government to make that determination for them.