You There! Stay RIGHT Where You Are!

In my young life as one who pays a bit of attention to my country's political situation (pretty much the last couple of years of Bush Part II up until now) I have come to realize that so far, it seems as if Ron Paul, a Republican (eh, sort of) Congressman in Texas, is the most Constitutional politician out there. His nickname is "Dr. No" because 1.) he's a physician and 2.) he won't vote for legislation unless he feels it's Constitutional (appropriately this leads to very few "yes" votes from him). You can look up all the other fun facts about him on numerous sites so I won't go and add to the noise. I just want to bring up the fact that so far he seems to be the one politician who is actually looking out for what the Founding Fathers wanted for this country (and I stress "so far" quite a bit seeing as how he, just like any other creep, could have 72 Namibians in the basement of his house, being forced at gunpoint to conduct a large-scale orgy).

Now with that said, I would just like to say that Ron Paul is the last person I ever want to be president of this country. No, I'm serious. Ok, ok. Maybe "last" is too strong of a word because I would prefer him over Kim Kardashian or Carrot Top, but I do mean that I really do not want to see Ron Paul as president anytime soon.

I've already discussed how limited the president's powers are in the actual Constitution so instead of me rehashing that here, just read An Arm and a Leg for My Right to Complain. So if the president's powers are so limited, who does have the power? Well if we are going use that pesky Constitution once again then it appears Congress has most of the power. (Check out the length of Article I compared with Article II.) The Founding Fathers realized that in order to have a legitimate, stable government while also giving the people the power to not be abused by that government, the people need to have a direct impact on the people who serve in the government. What better way than to give them (the people) the power to vote in each member. In other words if we don't agree with the policies of Congressman X, we don't vote for him/her next time around.

Of course the problem here lies in the fact that all too often, an unworthy person is voted in. He/she tends to not screw things up too much and so people vote him/her back in based on the fact that they recognize the name. I understand because in my posting I'm All Out of Eyeballs! I detailed how difficult and time consuming keeping up with the issues is, and therefore we often have to take short cuts out of necessity. It's a tough cycle and I don't have an answer for it.

I would though recommend to anyone who is casting a vote to pay more attention to who you are voting into Congress. I know the coverage of the presidential election is portrayed as game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals, while the votes for the House and Senate are treated like those adorable, little pee-wee hockey kids that come out during intermission, but that is just the tradition of over-emphasizing the importance of the president that has been going on for...well...probably our country's existence. "Hey, that country's got a king. We need one too!" "Why, we do have one. It's called the president."

So that is why I don't want Ron Paul, the politician who I so far have the most respect for, to become president. He is perfectly suited for Congress. Granted if he ran against someone else who I felt would use the power of the presidency to do large-scale damage to the country overall (some recent presidents come to mind) I would no doubt vote for him, but I am hoping that situation won't present itself. For now, I am just hoping that he will continue to use his intelligence where it is most desperately needed: Congress.

Hey, Uncle Sam! Get Out of Our Bedroom!

Several years ago, I happened to witness a debate between two people very close to me on the prickly issue of gay marriage. The usual lines of dialogue were exchanged and naturally, as time passed, the conversation became increasingly emotional. Eventually the, for lack of a better monicker, "anti gay marriage" person brought up the issue regarding the definition of marriage. This was many years ago and because I did not write down this person's exact words, I apologize for the inexactitude (good word, eh?) of the following, but I believe it went something like, "The definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. In order to legally accept gay marriage we have to change that very definition."

Although I have now heard different variations of this idea since then, at that time it was new to me. I had no strong, personal preference one way or the other with the issue, but I admit that I was impressed with the practicality of this person's argument. I wondered how the "pro gay marriage" person would respond to this and to no surprise he/she had no response. Still though, despite my being impressed with that argument, I felt something was a little off. I thought to myself, "I'm not hugely for or against this so why do I feel there's an unanswered question?" Years later it hit me and wouldn't you know it, good ol' Uncle Sam was at the bottom of it once again.

Now before I go on to explain my answer to this question, I would like to expound my idea of homosexuality in general. The two main anti-homosexuality statements (at least the ones I hear most often) are 1.) homosexuality is a disease (sometimes "mental disorder" is used too) and 2.) homosexuality is a sin. Let me briefly tackle those two statements.

1.) My brother had cancer all through high school. My wife's grandmother had Parkinson's disease. Heck, I have something called Osgood-Schlatters disease (of course this is just a mild inflammation of the lower knee that pretty much goes away during adulthood). Does anyone have a problem with those people getting married despite the fact they all have diseases?

2.) I am a very serious Christian. I read the Bible every day that I can and I study up on famous Christian writers (my favorite currently being C.S. Lewis) to further develop my own faith. With all that said, I have a hard time finding this crazed "God hates queers" attitude in the Bible. Sure in Leviticus 18:22 it says, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." However, this is a rule from God directly given to the Hebrews wandering the desert. Leviticus is more of a historical document of these rules than a doctrine that Christians today are supposed to follow (I don't hear many Christians yelling at me when I eat lobster or catfish). Now Paul disses homosexuals a couple of times in Romans 1:27 and 1 Corinthians 1:9-10, but once again he is speaking to specific groups of people who were engaging in a multitude of "sinful" activities and he only mentions homosexuality twice (in passing) while other sins, such as idolatry, infidelity, etc., are mentioned in almost every epistle. It seems as if homosexuality wasn't quite as high on Paul's list as it is on the list of some of today's Christians.

Sorry for the lengthy diversion, but I feel it's important you know that I am Christian and I also don't hate homosexuals. Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, my unanswered question of why I still felt unfulfilled even after hearing a good, logical argument for no gay marriage.

The answer of course is another question and that is...why does the government care about marriage anyway? I'm a heterosexual male who married a heterosexual female and for the life of me I can't figure out why the government wants to be involved in my marriage in any way. Nothing against Nancy Pelosi or John McCain, but I don't want either of them anywhere near my bedroom. "But the government would like to promote family values by making it easier for those who wish to start a family to go ahead and start one." I grew up in a great family and so I'm all for family values, but I don't think it's the government's job to "promote" this idea. And even if the government is true to its word, wouldn't a happy homosexual couple raising two adopted children promote family values just as well?

This seems to be a pattern in my life, but it looks like once again I have to say to the government, "Leave it alone." Going back to the Christian perspective, I feel that marriage is a union of two people under the eyes and graces of the God I worship. Marriage should be an issue decided in the churches and not in Congress. If a church would like to recognize a union between two women or two men as being holy and in the spirit of God, then by all means have the ceremony, invite all the friends, and go for it! Honestly, I didn't get married so the state would recognize my union and give me a tax break (hmm, could that be a reason a couple of those hetero marriages fail?). I got married because my family, my friends, and most importantly my God all recognized my wife as the one person that I was willing to attach my life to in order to form a bond that nothing in life could ever break.

So you know what? When push comes to shove, I guess it turns out that I am against gay marriage after all! Of course, I'm apparently anti heterosexual marriage too.