Monthly Archives: June 2012

Happy Birthday!

I happened to notice that today is the one year anniversary of my blog.  That’s kind of fortuitous, and it deserves a post.

 

Happy Birthday!

 

Two of my kid’s birthdays, my Dad’s birthday, my nephew’s birthday and my brother’s fiancé’s birthday also happen to be this month.  Not that anyone cares, but I wanted to give a shout-out to them anyway.

 

I started this blog because in November 2007 I wrote a book about why I was Conservative.  I thought I did a really good, thorough job of going through all the major differences in opinion, and explaining why I believe the way I do.  I wanted to share it because I thought way too many people are pretty negative and close-minded about the ‘other side’ and I wanted to have open, honest discussions.  I wanted the opinions I have formed from my various experiences available to anyone who was interested in understanding why Conservatives and Liberals view things so differently.  I wanted Liberals to go away from my blog thinking, “I don’t agree with her, but I understand her opinion and respect her reasons.”  I wanted people to respond with their reasons for why they believe the way they do.  That was why I did this.

That’s still what I want.  I hope I can continue to accomplish this.  If we can’t agree, at least we can respect each other.

Advertisements

Constitutionality and marriage

Seven years ago I became a wife.  Five years ago I became a mother.  Today, I became a Texan.  I couldn’t be happier!  This city is gorgeous, DMV employees are nice, the flags here are clean, and I actually ate a waffle in the shape of Texas.  I’m still a stay at home mom with my children.  Now, instead of staying home while my husband goes to school, I stay home while he studies for the Bar exam.  Which has led to some very interesting discussions on topics like marriage and abortion (I’ll do abortion next).  The general public are very set on their definitions of right and wrong, and really don’t stop to look at things like legality and constitutionality when declaring that it is ‘right’ to allow gay marriage and ‘wrong’ to stop someone from killing a baby.  But the focus of this post is marriage.

The fact is, you do actually have to examine things like Constitutionality.  Declaring something is a right does not make it so.

Did you know the supreme court has actually already had a ruling on marriage?  Yes, there is precedent of the Supreme Court saying they have a vested interest in limiting the definition of marriage.  Their reasons are pretty intense, too.  Stuff about establishing the basis of the family and strengthening the foundation of society.  Basically, they said everything that conservatives are saying now and liberals are dismissing.  Fortunately, the Supreme Court has to look at previous decisions and follow precedent.  Unless they want to overrule the previous ruling.  Which would be EXACTLY what I have said would happen, again to the scoffs and scorn of every liberal reading my blog.

Let’s just look at what they said.  I want to impress upon you that these words have meaning.  I am quoting from a Supreme Court ruling; these words are the law of the land, and will be until the Supreme Court overturns this decision.  This isn’t me, as an ‘extremist’, spouting bigotry or religious ramblings.  This is the law as it now stands.

DAVIS
v.
BEASON.

No. 1261.Supreme Court of United States.

Argued December 9, 10, 1889.Decided February 3, 1890.

“Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a 345*345 free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coördinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And to this end no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.” (italics added)

“Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is, nevertheless, in most civilized nations a 344*344 civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal.”

So, what was this case about?  Idaho was blocking polygamists from voting.  If you practiced polygamy, you couldn’t vote.

“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society and receive more general or more deserved punishment. ”

This was fought, as the LDS church felt that polygamy was an acceptable form of marriage.  The Supreme Court said, “No.”  Once it was the established law of the land the LDS church stopped practicing and instructed its members to follow the law.  And now there is another group again trying to change traditional marriage, with the decision working its way back up to the Supreme Court.  This is quite the conundrum, isn’t it?  If gay marriage goes before the Supreme Court, the only way they can allow it is by overturning this decision, making polygamy legal.