The Gay Marriage Debate

Todd's Input -

On Wednesday, February 26, a federal judge in the state of Texas ruled that the state’s ban on gay marriage violated the state constitution. In his ruling Judge Orlando Garcia wrote, “Texas' current marriage laws deny homosexual couples the right to marry, and in doing so, demean their dignity for no legitimate reason.”

If Judge Garcia’s ruling is upheld on appeal, Texas would become the 18^th state to permit gay marriage. 18 states would represent more than 1/3 of the states in the Union and more than 40% of the population of the nation. Quite a momentous achievement for a movement that only a few years ago had virtually no support throughout the nation and little hope of overturning existing laws prohibiting gay marriage.

To be fair, may people do, in fact, find legitimate reasons for denying gay people the right to marriage.

Leviticus 18:22 – Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 – If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

1 Corinthians 7:2–16 – But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

And so on… Of course, people who turn to the Bible for their rationalizations for opposing gay marriage rather conveniently “forget” that the Bible speaks about a very great many other issues as well:

Regarding divorce, from Matthew 5:32: But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Regarding the subject of selling daughters into slavery, from Exodus 21:7: When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to leave as the male slaves do.

So, if the Bible should be used to keep marriage between one man and one woman, shouldn’t we also ban divorces, except for sexual immorality? Shouldn’t we also permit the selling of teenage girls into slavery and servitude against their will? The Bible would appear to say so.

It is true, not everyone turns to the Bible for their opposition to gay marriage. Others turn to the Constitution or the issue of raising children.

In their failed attempt to convince the Supreme Court to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act (which allowed states to refuse to recognize gay marriages granted under the laws of other states and permitted the federal government to refuse to recognize gay marriage for the purposes of filing joint income taxes and other matters) in US v. Windsor, the attorneys seeking to defend the Defense of Marriage Act laughably claimed that it was necessary to preserve marriage as a method of fostering reproduction. Of course, the issue of whether infertile couples or couples past childbearing age should also be prohibited from marrying was conveniently ignored.

In argument after argument, opposition to gay marriage is based on hypocrisy or the attempt to selectively justify bigotry or fear of change. No valid societal benefit has every been identified that would justify continuing to ban gay marriage.

The constitution guarantees all Americans equal rights under the law. Denying those rights to any single class of citizens should be abhorrent to anyone.

My wife and I were married on August 11, 1996. The fact that gay Americans want the same rights should make all Americans stand up and cheer.

Chad's Input -

This topic is something that strikes me from two different sides. I am what I like to consider a very liberal person when it comes to social rights. However, I am also a religious person. So, Iam of two minds of this subject. That said I will be writing from a strictly personal level. No Bible quotes, no responses from judges no input from your average Joe. Just the mind of yours truly Chad Knight.

I think all people should be treated equally. Regardless of race, sex or creed. That said marriage is not the providence of man. Marriage has always been and will always be the providence of God. This is due to the separation of church and state.This means that the Church in all it’s forms is not to meddle with any aspect of the government and vice versa. So, with that in mind I ask when was it that the government started getting a say in who can and cannot get married? This is my problem with gay marriage. Not that I personally have anything against two people of the same gender want to spend time together in a loving monogamous relationship. The government in many states and countries have made a way for that to happen through civil unions.  There is a place for getting more rights to these people as far as inheritance and end of life rights, but, marriage is the government enforcing its will upon the church.

The Church also as it’s right to allow for “marriage” with in their places of worship if they feel that it is right for them. In fact, many Protestant religions allow for same-sex marriages with in their religion. I have no problem with that personally, this however, is the crux of my problem with all this. The government forcing many religions that don’t believe in the coupling of people of same-sex partnerships.

I am worried that at some point in the future the government will force religions to perform same-sex marriages and that will destroy religion through government influence and direct involvement. We have seen this with our current government and our president’s love of his directives.

Give gay couples the rights of having that kind of monogamous relationship, but, keep them out of the Churches that look down upon those that choose that life style.

As always we look forward your input into this and all our topics. We are always looking to see what you are interested in hearing from us. 

Stand Your Ground...Good Idea or Scourge of the States?

Chad’s Input - 

The idea that to “Stand Your Ground” has to be made a law confuses me. I am sure that when our forefathers arrived here and began a new country they never would have thought that if someone broke into their homes and in protection of said home and they wound up killing said intruder they would face the possibility of going to prison. I don’t understand how anyone could ask me to let someone uninvited come into my home and steal what I worked my entire life for simply so the lawbreaker’s freedom and/or life are not compromised.  I am honestly sick and tired of a society where those who break the laws not only get preferential treatment, but, laws are drafted around what’s best for them.

You may ask what is the definition of Stand Your Ground? Here is the definition I will be working from. “A Stand-Your-Ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use deadly force to defend themselves without any requirements to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. It is a law in certain jurisdictions of the United States. The basis may lie in either statutory law or common law precedents or both.”  

I live in Wisconsin, a state with the “Duty To Retreat” clause. That says if I am being attacked by someone, even if it is their intent to take my life, before I can retaliate I have to make every reasonable effort to retreat. If I don’t and I somehow kill a lawbreaker then I go to prison for murder. Take a moment to re-read what I just wrote. If I don’t give up what the LAWBREAKER is after and I stand my ground and he gets injured or killed I have to pay the penalty for this even if his intention is to take my life.

I think now is a place for a little bit of background on me. I am a practicing Roman Catholic. I believe in the Bible and the dictates of Christ. I am even a believer in the concept of turn the other cheek, but, if someone comes into my home and threatens my family, my way of life or my livelihood I will stand my ground. We can also argue about what stand my ground means. I don’t own a gun, even for hunting. I don’t own a taser, even for weekend parties. I do own a bat and I was a pretty fair hitter in my youth. I do own a few blades, I aim well enough to cut. I would never want to purposefully or accidently kill someone, but, I want the right to protect what is mine.

With the George Zimmerman case in Florida most people have heard of the stand your ground law there, but, where does Stand Your Ground exist. I got my list from http://www.propublica.org their tag line is Journalism in the Public Interest.

Alabama

Arizona

Georgia

Idaho

Illinois – The law does not include a Duty To Retreat, which courts have interpreted as a right to expansive self defense

Indiana

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Michigan

Mississippi

Montana

Nevada

New Hampshire

North Carolina

Oklahoma

Oregon – Does not include a Duty To Retreat

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Washington – Does not include a Duty To Retreat

West Virginia

On the flip side there are the states such as Wisconsin that has a law that states a Duty To Retreat. I found this list on http://www.findlaw.com. Those states include:

Arkansas

Connecticut

Delaware

Hawai’i

Iowa

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Missouri

Minnesota

Nebraska

New Jersey

New York

North Dakota

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Wisconsin

Wyoming

I now want to take this one step further. Let’s take a look and see which states Red (Predominately Republican) or Blue (Predominately Democratic). We will find out if there is a political correlation between the Stand Your Ground laws and Duty To Retreat states.

Red States (Republican) with Stand Your Ground:

Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

Red States (Republican) with Duty To Retreat:

Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wyoming.

Blue States (Democrat) with Stand Your Ground:

Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon and Washington.

Blue States (Democrat) with Duty To Retreat:

Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

So from this cross section and honestly, politically motivated for making a point there is definitely a correlation between the ideas of protecting yourself (Republican) and protecting the lawbreakers (Democrat).

What has the Stand Your Ground laws done in different states as it relates to crime?

“The third edition of More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott says that the states adopting “Stand your ground”/”castle doctrine” laws reduced murder rates by 9 percent and overall violent crime by 11 percent, and this occurs even after accounting for a range of other factors such as national crime trends, law enforcement variables (arrest, execution, and imprisonment rates), income and poverty measures, demographic changes, and the national average changes in crime rates from year-to-year and average differences across states.”

All this together makes me say that the Stand Your Ground laws are something that we need; we should have and we should fight for.

 

Todd’s Input –

When human beings lived in caves, laws were completely unnecessary. Humans lived in small disorganized groups and hunted and ate and mated and died for generations with no law more complicated than the one that said whoever had the bigger stick or spear or rock was always right.

            Later as humans discovered agriculture and basic technology, they stopped living in disorganized groups and started to live in villages, and towns, and eventually cities. Concepts such as “property” and “ownership” and so on came soon after. And to protect these things, guidelines were laid down, such that if a man paid for a cow his neighbor could not just take it from him. Over time these guidelines became rules and then, eventually, laws with consequences.

            Agreed upon laws exist in a civilized society to establish the rules of that society. To establish, for example, how contracts may be executed, how property rights are to be protected and how crimes are to be punished. Laws are written and enforced to help eliminate bias and favoritism.

            If a man commits a murder, then the law permits for that man to be arrested, tried based on the evidence of his guilt and, if convicted, sentenced to an appropriate punishment. Clear cut. Simple. Fair.

             But the “Stand Your Ground” laws that Chad mentions are not based on a system of fairness or a desire to protect society. They’re based on fear. And not necessarily fear of one’s home being invaded by bad guys, but just fears in general. Fear of African Americans, fear of people who are different.

            When George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, Mr. Zimmerman’s home was not being invaded. His property and his safety were never in danger. He was following an unarmed African American man, whose only crime was being in George Zimmerman’s neighborhood and Mr. Zimmerman killed him.

            In Jacksonville, Florida on November 23, 2012 a gun collector named Michael Dunn was at a convenience store when some young black men were playing loud music in their SUV. The young men apparently “trash talked” to Mr. Dunn, who thinking he saw a shotgun in the young men’s car, opened fire into the car, letting off ten blasts, nine of which hit the SUV. One of which struck and killed 17 year old Jordan Davis. Mr. Dunn used “Stand Your Ground” in a failed attempt to stay out of prison.

            Like Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Dunn’s home, his wife, his property were never in any form of danger. Like Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Dunn could have walked away from the scene unscathed. Like Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Dunn left a dead body and a grieving family in his wake.

            Many laws currently exist to protect a man’s home from invasion and allow for reasonable force to be used in self defense of one’s property or safety. But Stand Your Ground isn’t about that. Stand Your Ground is about enshrining a tin foil hat wearing mentality on an unsuspecting nation. Stand Your Ground is about taking us back to a time when the caveman with the biggest rock always got his way. How much more innocent blood will have to be spilled before we get the message? Stand Your Ground is a 21^st Century evil. And it belongs on the ash heap of history.

Now you know where we stand, what is your take on this subject. Please let us know below. Also, at any time feel free to ask us to cover a topic you would like to see us cover. Can’t promise anything, but, I can tell you we will take it under advisement.