I thought I had something to say: Was that a bees nest?

Generally I try to avoid controversy just because I don’t like to respond to the backlash that tends to follow making a religious or political statement in my blog. However, as I think about it by not adding my voice I’m censoring myself or allowing those who may disagree with me to censor me. I’m reminded of the poem from world war two regarding the Nazi party taking various groups away and remaining silent and then when they came for me no one was left to speak out. I would include the poem but I think it’s better if you are interested to look it up on your own. I read it; I got something out of it and it has inspired me to speak up. Although I’m not without my voice I vote even in municipal elections when voter turn out is abysmal. However I don’t always speak up when the squeaky wheels are making noise and it is just nonsensical what they are saying. I think surely others realize that this is wrong. It doesn’t always appear that many others do know or if the do they aren’t saying anything either. So controversy shall from time to time enter my blog, feel free to disagree with me. I am okay with that however I am also free not to respond or delete any notes that I feel are inappropriate, vulgar or are not related to the topic. Here in Virginia a few years ago a popular election passed an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as a man and woman only. Virginia did this well in advance of North Carolina passing some similar piece of law. Unlike North Carolina, Virginia somehow avoided the national firestorm and controversy that plagued North Carolina following the laws passage. In my classes where I teach, I predicted that sometime soon someone would challenge this new piece of the VA legal world as being in violation of the US Constitution specifically the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment states that equal protection / due process applies to the states that does means you OHIO, and no state shall pass laws which make arbitrary distinctions between citizens and their rights. Sorry if you are in or from OHIO but you all really push the limits of what that means all of the time. This is fine because there is a thing called States right from the Bill of Rights (10th amendment) which says that those powers not specified to the federal government or prohibited to the states are reserved to the states. Not the point today So does defining who can marry who qualify as an arbitrary distinction between citizens. Well some would argue because the law does not say it is opposed to gay marriage. Gay being the key word it just says all men and all women can marry so long as they marry the opposite of their own gender. So every one is included… Not arbitrary However the semantics of that word play is that the spirit of the law is to prevent a specific kind of marriage, same gender marriages. I say same gender because sex is an act and a lot of marriages are void of sex. Gender refers to being male and female in the parts department not how you choose to use the parts when you play. With the intent or spirit of the law it certainly makes a distinction between the happiness of citizens and rights that come with the State recognizing a marriage. Differing tax rates, inclusion on employee benefits, insurance qualifications, inheritance and the list of rights goes on and on. One simple law closes the door on all of these other things in an arbitrary fashion. However this isn’t over because the first amendment also says that the government shall not pass any law that infringes upon the free exercise of religion. So the government can’t simply say your churches have to marry these people regardless of your beliefs in regard to this type of union. There is no way around this the churches are free to choose who they marry and who they won’t marry. Churches will refuse to marry some men and women to one another and they are allowed to do that too. It gets even trickier because there is some thing in the government which restricts the recognition of official churches. This has more to do with people declaring everything a church and defrauding the government and attempting to qualify for tax exempt status and other benefits of being a church as opposed to some other type of organization. The rub is that no matter who married you or how your religion sees your union to your spouse is a marriage or what ever you call it; as far as the government is concerned the ceremony that unionized you to your true love is a civil union. Sure they call it a marriage license but that is the semantics everyone is caught up on and no one is using common sense. Here is the argument that shows your what ever to whom ever is only a civil union in the eyes to the government not matter what you call it. Even when atheists marry one another it is called a marriage and there is not religious backing to these unions but they are the same thing. Most religions do not allow divorces and will not remarry anyone who has a divorce. However who ever joined the two of you in the “Holy State of Marriage” is undone in the eyes of the government if you go through the court process to dissolve that marriage in a divorce. The government doesn’t care what your church thinks then. 9th amendment your rights end where mine begin. It would be unconscionable to force men or women to remain in marriage if they were in danger or at risk of any sort of ruin with only the church to grant the divorce. Adultery gambling, domestic abuse, incompatibility, mental illness, lots of reasons that people get divorced and the state dissolves those civil unions and frees those people to live their lives apart again without a connection to the other person. Does your church have to recognize your divorce? Nope, not at all, not ever, it is still a legal divorce regardless. So restricting who can be in a civil union is an arbitrary distinction of rights and like it not businesses, other people, churches don’t really have a say in it at all. I include other people in that list of no matters because I’m sure lots of sons and daughters marry people other people wish they did not marry even this doesn’t make it any less valid. The language is merely semantics marriage or civil union it is the same thing. So we don’t have the right to restrict same gender marriages from happening. However if you are someone who wants to be in a same gender marriage you don’t have the right to make your church perform that ceremony or to recognize it as valid. However, businesses do have to recognize them and provide all the rights they would to any other couple who is married. Hopefully the court here is VA will strike down the marriage amendment and allow same gender couples to enter into these marriages. Marriage works for those who make it work and fail for those who don’t make it work. Going to church doesn’t give it some secret mojo to keep it from failing. Because it that were true our divorce rate wouldn’t be at over 50 percent for first marriages and over 80 percent of second and subsequent marriages. Like I said in the front you are free to disagree with me and if you base your objection in your religious faith that is fine I support your right and your church doctrine the right not to recognize it but I do not support the government’s right to deny it to citizens Well, that’s all for now, other stuff tomorrow most likely Happy Birthday if it’s your birthday and a very merry un birthday if it isn’t your birthday Thank you for reading, please subscribe Have a great day and play nice in the neighborhood. Ciao,