Senate Bill 514

North Carolina's Senate Bill 514, The Defense of Marriage Act, has caused quite a bit of a stir as of late. Both sides are arguing and marching to the detriment of what, this bill ,for lack of a better word, is confusing. The main argument is to strengthen the law so activist judges won’t overturn it and to make it so arduous that when/if liberals come into office, it can’t be tampered with. I do believe I hit the proverbial nail on the head.

I’ve looked at both sides of the aisle and I’m still confused. The word redundancy describing the bill has come up, as well as it should. When you look at both sides what is the most compelling argument? I have four.

1. Religious groups are on the wrong side of the argument. If the bill passes, lawsuits will take it into the federal courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. It takes power from the voter/electorate.
2.  It takes power from companies that cover same-sex couples.
3. What will be the effects on same-sex couple who have adopted children?
4. The bill has too many add-ons that aren’t glaringly clear.

For example, what is the meaning of private party in Section 6? It's unclear language with too many question marks pertaining to it.

Ministers aren’t helping this issue at all especially the outspoken Raleigh Minister Patrick L. Wooden, the same person that involved himself with the Merry Xmas controversy. I’m still trying to wrap my head around what Christmas has to do with the Bible. He’s on the wrong side of two arguments and doesn’t know it yet. True, we are not the left coast but notice the vote is being taken out of the hands of the people. I don’t want the Supreme Court to have more over-reaching power to make a decision for me. With these people's continued action that is what's going to take place.

Government should be challenged. Abraham Lincoln said it best in his famous speech “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Government should be continually challenged by the people who politicians do essentially work for: the folk that elect them.

Allow me to say this. I’m not for gay marriage within the Ekklesia(Church), I do however look at history as well as miscegenation laws still being upheld in Tennessee. Intermarrying within the colonies was banned. Why don’t Minister’s argue bigamy or miscegenation laws that are current within states. Marriage is a contract entered into by two consenting adults.

All of this is nothing but a wedge issue for votes and to keep religion in line with the conservatives. Politics and religion should be kept separate but that’s for another day. For a better understanding read my book, God, the Bible and Politics.

We have to remember we are not a theocracy and also we have a document called the Bill of Rights that certain people want to reinterpret to fit their myopic personal view points.

This is but another non-issue, NC doesn’t recognize common law marriage and also already on the books: marriage is between a man and a woman. Is this potential amendment a way to punish people who may differ with you? So come May 8th vote, NO, in order to save what is already on the books, so the Supreme Court doesn’t have to get involved and to save the preacher from their own demise.

Santorum takes on PORN

What can we say about pornography that hasn’t already been said? Just the mention of the word is difficult enough.  So why am I talking about porn? Oh, because Rick Santorum made it his business to talk about it. While we can invoke the Bible in this argument by using  passages such as: we shouldn’t look upon a woman’s nakedness unless she’s your wife or we could use (2Pet 2:10) which closes the argument for the existence of porn legally. Allow me to ask this question, what’s wrong with free people in a free society supported by the Constitution watching  porn? I believe porn is something you outgrow and with the age of the Internet it has become easier and more accessible. Before you answer the previous question, how you police your household is valid just the same as others who believe differently than you; it’s also valid. If porn is a legal entity following the laws of the land, how is it wrong simply for your displeasure?

This is where the rubber hits the road, no pun intended. Conservatives cry for smaller less intrusive government as long as it fits their model. Taking away people’s freedoms and right isn’t freedom. Maybe Rick is listening to a higher power that isn’t God. Maybe Rick wants us to be a theocracy (rule by God, either directly or via earthly representation in the form of priests) so papal power can inflict its dictates upon us. This is a conspiratorial thought of my own admission but it stands to reason though since he’s coming out against every right or freedom of a free society. A question again must be asked, how many people is he winning for the Messiah?

Porn is a huge business; a billion dollar a year industry. It isn’t some seedy little business, it has well insulated itself within well-known corporations. Porn is a Wall Street business and it benefits from hotel chains such as, Marriott, Hilton and Westin as well as from cable & satellite companies such AT&T and Comcast. Lastly General Motors who owned Direct-TV but sold its stake to News Corporation which is owned by Rupert Murdoch continues to sell pornography channels. We can’t forget about the Internet, especially Yahoo.

Do not misunderstand the intentions of this post, there’s not much positive about porn; if it has any merits. There is the ugly side of porn: addiction. In 2004 a panel of experts testified before a Senate subcommittee that porn is dangerously additive. Read the story yourself and draw your own conclusion. Porn is one addiction Rick Santorum is going after, why not gambling or alcoholism? The Bible addresses the issue, read (Rom 1:21, 24, 29); the desire can be loosed with God’s help. The business of porn can’t be gotten rid of because of one man’s dislike of it. It should, however, be continually policed to keep underage girls and boys from getting involved. Mr. Santorum wants to crack down on certain porn, if elected, he promises to “vigorously” enforce laws that “prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier.” Again isn’t this you asserting your personal convictions on others, especially people over the appropriate age to watch it? Politically this is very dangerous and unsettling but at least he’s gaining traction.

Children are usually dragged into the porn argument, we are concerned with sex trafficking and children having accessibility to it. What happened to the right of a parent to parent? Does Rick care about your Constitutional rights?
The government Rick rails so boldly against, he now wants to use to enforce laws upon free people. It’s the parent’s responsibility to know what his or her child is looking at under their roof. It’s up to parents to police everything in the household from phones to tablets to all forms of CPUs or any other streaming device. Do not use the children as the excuses to carry on a war against something you find detestable. Under the First Amendment children will always be safe and criminals prosecuted. We don’t need another war on anything. We are still dealing with the War on Drugs, look how that has turned out. If you take things away i.e., prohibition, people will always find a way to acquire way things. If you disagree with it, by all means don’t watch it. Churches should be talking to their members about the issue. Police the home first.

Speaking of issue of policing, Rick Santorum needs to speak about the Catholic Church and their treatment of young boys and the news story that are coming out about castrations. As with anything porn can be destructive but if people want it, it’s, by all means, a personal choice. For the ones who talk about it often, I’m wondering about you specifically. Everyone has a role to play in cleaning up their backyard. Continue to put derelicts behind bars that harm the little ones and innocent adults. No sin goes unpunished, deluding ourselves in believing so is only an illusion.

The NON-Conformist

http://men.webmd.com/guide/is-pornography-addictive

Properly framing the Gay Argument pt.1

The subject of one’s sexuality continues to come up. As the sun is scorching the United States so is the topic of homosexuality. The problem I have is how the argument is being framed. Should gays have equal rights? Are they born this way or is it a choice? As I mentioned before the framing of the issue has been wrong. The argument generally falls between two camps: for or against. Those for believe the Constitution answers the question. Those against believe the Bible is the answer. So, what is the answer? Well both, kind of.

Let’s deal with the Bible and the religious side first. I would like to add something first, people hold and have the right to agree as well as disagree. This is what adds to the framework of the argument. We all need to learn to disagree agreeably or agreeably disagree. No one opinion is absolute.

Let’s get back to the religious aspect. The Bible is written for all those that will hear. People have the right to follow its teachings or not. I want to deal with three very specific scriptures that people point to in opposition to homosexuality. The first is Romans 1. It’s important to read the entire book of Romans but for time constraints we will begin with verses 21-32.