The Defeat of Homosexual Marriages and the Election of A Black President

John Cloud, Time Magazine correspondent, wrote an interesting piece via Yahoo News on "Why Gay Marriage Was Defeated." Quite frankly, I think he is coming from the other side of the issue than me, as he seems to convey disappointment in its defeat. Nonetheless, I enjoy reading views that are significantly different from mine.

The correlation Cloud notes between the significant black voter turn out to help elect Obama also spelled doom for the misnomered "marriage equality." That correlation appears to be well-supported by the statistics contained in his article. So for those of us who for political reasons, rather than ignorant racial prejudices, were opposed to Obama's left-leaning socialism we can find some silver lining in the post election results. Gay marriage was defeated in one of the most liberal states in the Union, my native state of California. With that political score, for the first time in a long time, I am glad to claim my birth-place.

The statistics as given by CNN, suggests that African-Americans by a margin of 69-31 percent voted against so-called "marriage equality." In large part this margin is a reflection, according to the article, that African-Americans are more likely to attend to church than whites.

With all this said, there is one salient point that needs to be made. If the statistics are true and I have no reason to believe they are NOT for they are statistics of the left-leaning Obama supported cable news provider CNN. It proves African-Americans voted the race card electing one of the most liberal men ever to ascend to the Presidency ONLY because he was black. The same black vote that helped Obama get elected was the same vote that defeated one of the many things of the liberal agenda he supported. Namely, the misnomered "marriage equality" for homosexuals. By the way, "marriage equality" is pure subterfuge - it is not equality that the homosexuals want it is special rights they crave for their narcissitic world-view.

Integrity and the "Credit Tsunami"

Alan Greenspan, former head of the Federal Reserve, facing tough questions from Congress, acknowledged partial wrong in his efforts to deregulate. He refers to the current economic crisis as "a once-in-a-century Credit Tsunami."

I am no money expert and I am not sure about deregulation or regulation both are a two-edged sword. Nonetheless, let me state unequivocally that neither deregulation nor regulation is at the heart of our financial crisis. At the very center of the problem is humanity! That's right human beings like you and me. Unfortunately, many of these humans are governed by an insatiable appetite for wealth and an unquenchable thirst for power acting more like animals than they do humans. They give the human race a bad name!

What is lacking in humanity whether it is up on Capitol Hill, or over on Wall Street, or down home on Main street is INTEGRITY. While many on Main Street are yelling for prison terms (and rightly so) for those who are guilty on Wall Street and Capitol Hill. The sad truth is, if they were on Wall Street or Capitol Hill they would have been just as guilty. Regardless, of the guilt of the greedy power-brokers and the financial gurus and even though they may buy themselves out of serving time in prison - they remain human though they act like wild animals.

However, one day, like all the rest of us, they will face the Judge of all humanity in eternity where there will be no unsolved mysteries as to who is guilty and who is to blame (Ezekiel 18:20). If men and women lived with this in mind, regulation or deregulation would not be an issue, INTEGRITY would rule the day - "a man's word would be his bond" regardless of race, socio-economic classification, or whether he worked on Main Street, Wall Street, or Capitol Hill.

The Right of Self-government

Thomas Jefferson, speaking of self-government wrote, “The object of the republican form of government and of the principles that are essential to that form, is to enable a people to govern themselves to the most practicable extent possible.”

G. K. Chesterton, observed nearly one hundred years later, "Self-denial is the test and definition of self-government."

However, nearly two millenniums before Jefferson and Chesterton spoke of those self-evident truths regarding the divine origin of man and his right to self-government, the apostle Paul twice in the same letter to the Corinthians said: “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful …” (I Corinthians 6:12; 10:23).

When the apostle Paul made these statements it was a notation that we are a people endowed with free-will. Yet as people with free-will we are to choose responsibly by not allowing our choices to master us but to choose what will be most constructive for all. It is in this latter choosing of what is most constructive that he also gave this instruction: “Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others” (I Corinthians 10:24).

An elected body of government in a republic is by the people, of the people and for the people. Thus, government exists not for any ONE person but for the people who elected them. To whatever extent any elected position turns to self-aggrandizement or for the benefit of some special interest we have lost the right of self-government having failed the test of self-denial in putting others ahead of ourselves.

It is true we can’t legislate morality. However we can call for moral conduct and accountability in the lives of those elected. To live in a free country we must have the right and freedom to choose - even the evil. Yet we can only maintain that freedom to choose, for future generations, when each of us understand our choices cease to be helpful when they become our master or when they fail to be constructive for all. Furthermore, only as elected officials and the citizenry come to grips with the ultimate reality that we all answer to a higher law for the choices we make – are we enabled to carry out the objective of our republican form of government and live responsibly in its cherished democracy and freedom.

At every level of government we need non-partisan statesmanship and visionary leadership which seeks to guide with character and integrity rather than mere compliance and/or convenience. Once again G.K. Chesterton succinctly makes the point when he wrote: “Having the right to do a thing is not the same as being right in doing it.” Thus, in self-government to be right in doing a thing – the thing we do must not only be right but it must never enslave us to the thing chosen. Thus, the thing we choose must be helpful to those we serve no matter how difficult it is to choose.

Obama Barack's Flag Flack. . .

It is absurd what political pundits find to write about regarding candidates running for office. The latest is Barack’s recent comments about not wearing his flag lapel pin any more, which he did wear following 9-11. For the record, I am not a supporter of Barack, even if Oprah is! However, I think his explanation (see below) for not wearing the flag lapel pin is valid.

… I probably haven't worn a flag pin in a very long time. After a while I noticed people wearing a lapel pin and not acting very patriotic. My attitude is that I'm less concerned about what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart. You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and ideals. That's what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals.

I was reminded of a story a friend of mine told me about his son. It was several years ago when the WWJD bracelets were all the rage. His son who was about 8 or 9 years old, while playing some kind of organized football, came across the line and “put the hurts” on the offensive lineman trying to guard him and a scuffle ensued. My friend said he had been watching the two of them all game long. The offensive tackle had been getting the best of him for most of the game. He noticed several times when his son would get up after the play the offensive lineman would say something to him or would purposely bump into him. Finally, his son had all of it he wanted. That’s when he “put the hurt” on him and they began to scuffle a bit before the ref broke it up.

After the game was over my friend was walking off the field with his son. My friend told me he wasn’t going to mention the incident because he felt to some extent it’s all part of the game and the coach had already talked to him about the incident. However, after he looked at his son’s wrist as they were walking to the car and noticed the WWJD bracelet, he couldn’t resist. So with a grin he had to ask, “Son, when you got into that scuffle with that offensive lineman and you were hitting him, I am just curious, were you wearing that What Would Jesus Do bracelet?”

Whether you like Barack as potential candidate or not his explanation about patriotic values and wearing flag lapel pins is right on target. Our patriotism and good citizenship, as an American, is revealed by how we live, respect the law and treat others. Too bad politicians (along with many others) don't make the same connection about their faith. Namely, it’s how you live, respect the laws of the God and treat others that reveals your light as a Christian – not your profession of belief or the wearing of some religious icon, bumper sticker or bracelet. There is a reason Jesus asks, “"Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46)

Death Penalty Part 1: Is It Constitutional?

The governor of Alabama has granted a temporary stay of execution for convicted murderer Thomas Arthur. Understand the governor is not opposed to the death penalty. He is, however, concerned about the way it is carried out especially, since a federal judge in Tennessee has ruled the current meds used in lethal injection carried a “substantial risk of unnecessary pain.” The “substantial risk of unnecessary pain” according to the court violates the eighth amendment prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment.” I am no legal scholar, so there is no pretense here. My comments I hope reflect a common sense reading of the Constitution.

It is the obvious irony of the current controversy over the issue in Alabama which strikes me as being a bit odd. I am not arguing the specific merits of the Thomas Arthur or any other death penalty case per se where superfluous arguments are made against its application relative to race, economics or any other alleged societal misapplications. I believe the death penalty is permissible both morally and, even less importantly to me overall, constitutionally. I want to argue for capital punishment on both fronts. Since the latter is not as important to me as the moral right for it to exist, let me address in this post the opposition to the death penalty on the basis of the eighth amendment, which prompted the governor’s stay.

To argue against the constitutionality of the death penalty from the eighth amendment is to undermine the rest of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States. Clearly, the framers of the Constitution understood the right of the death penalty to exist as evidenced by the language in the Fifth Amendment (which upholds the right, against self-incrimination and double jeopardy, for due process, against confiscation of private property without just compensation). Notice how the wording of the fifth amendment begins (bold emphasis mine – br):

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

There is a well-known and accepted maxim that states “that which proves too much proves nothing at all.” If the death penalty is unconstitutional based on the eighth amendment, then the fifth amendment itself must be declared unconstitutional because it clearly accepts the right of capital punishment to exist. Thus, any argument based on the eighth amendment proves too much and is an unreasonable, untenable assault (whether intentional or not) on the whole of the Bill of Rights.

Death from a human point of view by its very nature is cruel and unusual. Just ask the parents of a small child whose life has been taken away by “natural causes” (some explainable or unexplainable disease). Just ask the young children who suffered the loss of a parent(s) to some accident or disease. Just ask a bystander who has helplessly and beyond his control had to watch another die for whatever reason. All of this we ask of those who are innocent survivors and victims of life. Yet lost in the innocence of these survivors are the victims of criminal homicide and their survivors, who know all too well, the nature of death as being cruel and unusual.

The constitutionality of the death penalty exists for a higher reason than the Constitution itself.

Next Post: Death Penalty Part 2: Is Capital Punishment Moral?