Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, May 22, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
It’s bewildering that Clarence Lanzrath — in his May 17 letter “Where is the real Obama?” — can accuse President Barack Obama of a “complete reversal” of his previous position on same-sex marriage. Unlike Mitt Romney, who was completely in favor of civil unions when he was governor of Massachusetts and who is now completely against such unions, Obama’s positions have been consistent. The president’s position has advanced from favoring only civil unions to now favoring marriage for same-sex couples. It is a logical extension of his views rather than a reversal.
Lanzrath says, “The dictionary defines marriage as between a man and a woman.” That is not the definition in any dictionary I have seen. Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary has three definitions for “marriage”: “1. the state of being married. 2. an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected. 3. an intimate or close union.”
However, dictionary definitions should have no effect on the status of civil marriage. While religiously sanctioned marriages can be restrictive, government-sanctioned marriages should not deprive anyone from enjoying the same rights as are granted to others.
Some of those opposed to same-sex marriage argue that it is a threat to the “tradition” of marriage. Is that the same “tradition” that once prohibited interracial marriage? Unfair traditions should be changed. My heterosexual marriage of 56 years is certainly not challenged or threatened by same-sex unions or marriages.
Please. President Obama has been anything but consistent on this issue. See this fact-check by Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...
I should point out that I do not disagree with Mr. Lipman's position with regard to gay marriage. Though I would prefer to see all government involvement refer to domestic partnership contracts without regard to gender, I will say that I support the idea of "gay marriage" with the caveat that I do *not* attach any religious meaning to the word "marriage" itself.
It is the assertion that President Obama has always supported gay marriage that I take issue with since it is so easily demonstrated that Obama has changed his position more than once in the past.
Yes, I'm am pleased that not only did Obama support the repeal of DADT (though I think he should have done that the same way as it was enacted, with an executive order, when he took office) but that he has also stated his support for gay marriage. But I can not feel that this is his true position in his heart. It simply reeks of political posturing in an election year.
Mitt supports civil unions and said so last week.
Do not lie about his position.
Mitt's position was the same as Obama - before Obama flip-flopped
Why has the Sun once again printing a distraction from the real issue of the election like the economy. Gay marriage is not as important jobs, jobs, jobs.
---------)
Obama said yesterday that Romney is not qualified to be president because he made a profit as leader of a private business
---------)
Obama even used the Presidential NATO news conference to campaign by telling reporters that Romney was unqualified to be President because he once lead a private firm which made a profit with the 350 firms it invested in and ran and the profits created hundred of thousands of jobs.
Get a new dictionary. Yours has changed with the times to be politically correct and is completely wrong. Marriage is, was, and always will be between a man and a woman. It is as it was from the beginning of time and still. Regardless of what anyone else wants to believe to suit their needs and preferences.
Carmine A. DiFazio
ACCEPTABLE RACISM AND PREJUDICE
PART ONE:
Mel; in your letter to the editor, I'm really glad that you brought up interracial relationships and marriages. Here exists in present day a type of racial prejudice that is just outrageous, but acceptable practice.
Prior to retiring several years ago, I was close friends with an Afro-American co-worker of mine. I always thought he was a great guy, that was, until I found out he had disowned his daughter, a purely Afro-American woman, and her intimate relationship with a "white guy". Oddly enough, in this group, but not surprising, everyone else agreed with him. Yes, it is true, that an Afro-American man having a relationship with a Caucasian woman is more than acceptable practice, while a Caucasian male with an Afro-American woman is still widely held to be "taboo".
During an argument between the two of us, I inquired as to why one integrated relationship is fine, but not another? His reply was; "a black man being with a white woman signifies the days are over of the white man oppressing the black people. But, a black woman being with a white man signifies that we are back, as a race, to being the white man's subservient, "Little Black Sambo" of sorts." I absolutely couldn't believe what he said. In anger, this took me back long ago, to days of past.
I remember back in high school, in the 1960's, going to school with a black eye, and a few other contusions on my face. No one asked what happened or even if I was okay. I had to assume everyone knew the circumstances. It was a justifiable beating from my father. I had committed a terrible sin that was worthy of the beating I endured.
There was this young Afro-American girl named Vera. I had known her since the third grade. She lived about a mile away from me, but far away from the middle-class white neighborhood. To get to Vera's home, I had to walk across a large industrial gravel bank and a forested type area. Vera's home was much like an old shanty down in Mississippi. Vera wore rags to school. Her personal hygiene was lacking significantly. Once at her home, I understood why.
PART TWO:
She had not been to school in a week. Her absence in school was questioned by no one. I walked up to Vera's house. She was sick with influenza. Although Vera was quite sick, she didn't seem to mind. This illness was a break for her. She didn't have to make the almost three mile hike to school across the terrain I spoke of above. She wasn't being called names. She didn't have to look down at the floor each time another human being came into her proximity.
After I left Vera's place, I went home and got cans of chicken noodle soup, and stole some unused female care products, and clothes from my mother that she had a great abundance of. I took it all back up to Vera's house. Our friendship really bonded after feeding her this soup hoping to make her better.
When Vera returned to school, her appearance made her stunningly beautiful. I beamed with pride! Although it was made clear the whopping I received was not only for stealing from my mother, it was more so of whom I stole for. Seeing Vera took all that pain away.
Here is my point. Vera and I both wanted to go to the high school prom together. However, we both knew that would have been pushing the envelope way too far. So, neither of us went to the prom.
Shameful isn't it, Mel?
And, by the way, if you are wondering what ever happened to Vera, she went on to become a prominent politician in the state that I grew up in.
"However, dictionary definitions should have no effect on the status of civil marriage."
Wrong. Words have meanings. And meanings have consequences. If not true, there would be no need for dictionaries with word meanings. Just make words mean whatever you want.
Carmine A. DiFazio
You nailed it Mel. Not favoring gay marriage is not the same thing as opposing it. President Obama favored civil unions in preference to gay marriage. His position has evolved over the years, much as public opinion polls show the American people have evolved to a favorable view of gay marriage.
"His position has evolved over the years,"
Yeah, right. It's called a double standard. President Obama's position evolves, Romney and Republican positions flip-flop.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"American people have evolved to a favorable view of gay marriage."
Americans believe gay unions should be accepted with all the same rights and privileges of a marriage. But they do not believe or accept these unions as marriages. There is a difference.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Like all things at times they seem to change as we address issues.The dictionary states that marriage is between one man and one women.That should be changed to read marriage is between two people who love each other.This is a part of what has changed in our society like it or not.
Carmine, you do NOT speak for all American people. I'll bet you don't even speak for everyone in your immediate family. Take your blathering BS elsewhere.
One must understand where Lipman is coming from. He's such a committed leftist his glasses aren't rose-colored, they're red, so you have to weigh his positions from that perspective. Me? I couldn't care less if homos marry but government should not trample on the religious rights of others in order for that to happen. So, let the suckers marry in civil ceremonies but let religious sects decide for themselves whether to sanction such unions.
Do christians support marriage the way King David had it?
Obama only "came out" in favor of gay marriage because his bonehead of a VP, Joe Biden, put him in position where he finally had to commit himself to something.And of course he gave himself wiggle room with his "states rights" comments, which is about the only thing he thinks states have a right to do. But, I am sure all that will "evolve" too, if he manages to win a second term.
Let's face it, if the "sanctity of marriage" was so precious to wingnut hypocrites, Las Vegas wouldn't have drive-thru wedding chapels with Elvis impersonators performing the ceremonies.
For years Siegfried and Roy were the biggest names on a Strip marquee and those two were all but a legally married couple. Yet somehow, their devious lifestyle has done nothing but bring joy to anyone who was paying attention.
The whole one man and one woman marriage ruse is driven by bedroom obsessed evangelicals and other religious zealots. Most people have more important things to think about than whether or not same sex couples can be married.
I agree that President Obama's reversal on same sex marriage reeks of political opportunism -- particularly his position that this issue should left to the States. Since when has the federal government ever deferred to the States on a civil rights issue?
A man of true moral conviction would be pushing for federal legislation to ensure that the fundamental rights of all Americans are protected.
samspeaks claims that "The dictionary states that marriage is between one man and one women." Please cite a source. I've checked a variety of dictionaries and find that in NONE of them. Most avoid ANY reference to the sexes of the parties involved.
"...government-sanctioned marriages should not deprive anyone from enjoying the same rights as are granted to others."
Lipman -- government needs to get out of the marriage business completely. The licensing part is the weakest link in this whole anti-gay marriage controversy, that a couple or trio or whatever can enjoy their lives' most intimate relationships only with state permission.
For the rest of y'all -- how many more times are we going to Discuss this topic to death??
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." -- Arthur C. Clarke, 1999, from "God, Science, and Delusion: A Chat With Arthur C. Clarke" in Free Inquiry magazine
I love the format for commentators in the Las Vegas Sun. Its technologically developed state of the art system for people to send letters to the editor, and comments to be made in response to news stories is far beyond that of your competitors.
However, take a good hard look at your discussion rooms. With the exception of a few commentators, your forum has turned into a junket of narrow-minded self-centered individuals who have little if any substance at all in their writings. Should these people be your trusted commentators?
People, who love to read, and learn need a lot more than just a rant. They love to hear the stories from one's past which have brought them to have the opinion or stance on issues that a trusted commentator takes. This has all but gone away.
Take the issue above written by Mr. Mel Lipman. The responses are the same old political, religious and personal statements. I know exactly what a commentator is going to say before deciding whether or not to read their entry. Most times, not.
The reader may not agree with my opinion on an issue, but for the most part, they know where I have come from in forming my views and judgments.
"Staralioflundnv (Star Ali Mistriel-Kogan) is a good example of a trusted commentator where a reader learns the history of her experiences and where her present day opinions originate and build from. Even when I disagree with her, it has always been a pleasure to read her material. However, she remains one of the very few.
The greatest learning tool to understanding and respecting others is the knowledge of where a writer's heart truly lies. But, it's your newspaper. It's your business. Related to your customer and reader base, in the end, it's your demise.
"Carmine, you do NOT speak for all American people. "
I can read and understand the polls of Americans on the issue of gay unions and repeat the results here just as well as anyone, including you.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Mr. Chapline,
I enjoyed reading ACCEPTABLE RACISM AND PREJUDICE. I have read many of your comments and agree with your point of view and your objectivity. It is a pleasure to read what you have to say. I truly enjoyed the sentence: The greatest learning tool to understanding and respecting others is the knowledge of where a writer's heart truly lies. Very nice.I also like when you acknowledge others in a positive way even though you may not agree with them.
Although I may not agree with BChap on some issues, I can truly appreciate his decision making. Unlike many posters who get their talking points from television, BChap obviously uses his life experiences when weighing the issues. Kudos!
"According to surveys included in the PollingReport.com database, an average of 50 percent of American adults support same-sex marriage rights while 45 percent oppose it, based on an average of nine surveys conducted in the past year."
The operative word here as I posted is RIGHTS!
Carmine A. DiFazio
""The dictionary states that marriage is between one man and one women." Please cite a source."
Look up the word "dead." Does it say..."not breathing?" No, most dictionaries, IF NOT ALL, don't use "not breathing." It goes without saying.
To say everything that is already inherently understood, is redundant and simple-minded.
I suggest you read, review and research "erroneous conscience" and "invincible ignorance." Two concepts well entrenched in moral living and values.
Carmine A. DiFazio
My argument on gay marriage rights is the same argument for other US policies like gun rights, religious rights, etc: "Live and Let Live."
In one breath Bradley Chapline says "The greatest learning tool to understanding and respecting others is the knowledge of where a writer's heart truly lies."
So he is saying that he does value understanding a person's point of view.
But a couple of days ago, this same guy said
"Yes, Joe Lamy, you attempt to portray yourself as a humanitarian. That all you have tried to do in life is make our country a better place. That is pure conjecture and poppycock.
I knew your type well back during the "hippie era", and I know your type now. You have believed in and taught that the establishment should surrender to evil forces, justify the presence of such, legalize it, and let the herd make their own choices in a drug dazed state as to whether or not society legally indulges.
Meanwhile, the fanatical teachings and propaganda of you "Timothy Leary" descendants have in time proved your power of influence in this country.
I have to assume you were all listening when Timothy Leary advised his followers that, "learning how to operate a soul figures to take time." You now, modern day "freeze dried hippies" have certainly all lived by Leary's primary operational statement made many years ago. With your evil teachings, the "ripple effect" of such has now taken a firm root in our society.
The immoral Leary associates have finally become successful in operating the souls of the majority of Americans. The demand by even the middle-of-the-road Americans to end the fight against illicit drugs and legalize such now faces this country.
As I've posted many times before, America is in deep trouble. We are only one step away from Timothy Leary's goal of an American society; "if you take the game of life seriously, if you take your nervous system seriously, if you take your sense organs seriously, if you take the energy process seriously, you must turn on, tune in, and drop out."
Congratulations Joe Lamy, you even have the John Thompson's of the country believing in you.
Never, not me.' ...
and he said this because of my letter to the Sun (still running) which suggested a rational approach to the societal ills we have incurred as a direct of the ill-conceived and frightfully expensive War on drugs.
In the thread I discussed my involvement with groups of civic leaders, psychologists, educators and law enforcement who have come together to find solutions to this devastating schism in families, cultures and lives. Although my own experiences with alcohol and other drugs were decades ago, my work in improving indoor air quality standards twenty years ago taught me well how political changes require political routes. I successfully implemented improvements in how homes are assessed with a health and safety component that was absent before this previous twenty year slog.
Yet Bradley berates me for expressing an opinion along with my reasons and my background. Nice job, Chap, morality king.
I'm waiting to see Carmine try to defend his statement "Marriage is, was, and always will be between a man and a woman. It is as it was from the beginning of time and still." which shows not only a woeful lack of knowledge of history, customs and culture around the world...but also a sad lack of reading comprehension of his own bible. Wouldn't his own "Old Testament" completely destroy his claim of "...as it was from the beginning of time..."?
In light of his comments, Mr Chapline's song and dance about quality of comments becomes another hilarious piece of acrobatic attitudinal adaptations...
"your forum has turned into a junket of narrow-minded self-centered individuals who have little if any substance at all in their writings. Should these people be your trusted commentators?"
In a current posting regarding my suggestions for a rational approach, the honorable Bradly Chapline offers more attacks of a person for owning up to a past several decades ago, beyond the statute of limitations, but fair game for morality kings...
"Mr. Lamy states, "Brad, to shout that I am a "pro-pot enthusiast" as vehemently as you can in your obviously distraught frenzied disgust, but truth be told, I am not suggesting anything like that."
Is that so, Mr. Lamy? Your words from an earlier post in this discussion, "the choice to smoke a bong hit of bud is really not the same kind of activity as doing awful things to someone else." Secondly, did you not admit to "partying hardy" with the use of illicit mind altering drugs in your past? Yes, you absolutely did.
Yes, yes, Mr. Lamy, another post that proves your multi-faced statements of position. This is so typical of the former hippie subculture that apparently you have never grown out of."
But the clincher for absolute belly quivering humor is his clairvoyant crystal ball brain which enables this gift to humanity the capacity to actually KNOW what someone is going to say...
here's Brad again...
"I know exactly what a commentator is going to say before deciding whether or not to read their entry."
I feel blessed to even have been a tiny part of this discussion, don't you??
boftx:
You did it again: "Please. President Obama has been anything but consistent on this issue. See this fact-check by Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...
At least he is there now. Why not take a swipe at the McConnell's, Boehners, Romney's, religious nutz to the right that are continents away from Obama. He is not the problem, he is the closest thing to a solution.
He spoon fed the gay rights thing to America. We are a bunch of babies. I give him rare credit for being smart in holding back and giving Sam Brownback and his brigade of Vaginal Ultrasound crazies enough time so they didn't all die of strokes.
Politifact is not worthy of its name: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddow...
We really ought to eliminate Columbus Day while we are at it and replace it with an American Indian Day.
As long as we are talking about making things right.
BChap.
Yer a good guy who tries hard at everything you do. May the Lord Bless everything you touch.
He KNOWS what you are thinking...so be good for heaven's sake.
This guy demonstrates the re-runs of Matlock as judge, jury and hang-man.
here's another piece of the TV show in Bradley's mind..."Joe Lamy, your quote on your last entry proves my point from earlier. Your words, ""Placing a barrier to anything gives that thing power over us."
You are right. That thing, called the government places barriers over drug offenses that are related to criminal offenses such as. rape, molestation, and even incest? Don't forget robbery and murder. Sure, why not legalize all this Joe; certainly don't want any liberals faced with those ethical and moral barriers.
Case closed!!!"
By equivocating the decision to drink a beer with rape or murder, the poor guy has gone beyond the respectful confines of discussion into the realm of frothing at the mouth and spitting his disgust at someone whose approach consisted of informing others of what seems a rather losing proposition, this 41 year old Drug War, a contemporary parallel with the Prohibition of Alcohol.
Most law enforcement officials, civic leaders and professionals recognize the failures, the wasted money, lost time, disenfranchisement of generations and disarray of culture stemming from an antiquated approach to the war that took 50000 lives in Mexico in the last 6 years...
But Bradley's equivocation of a bong hit or a beer with murder or incest is not funny. What frightens me is how his tone is so volatile, saying reasonable things one minute and then wildly concocted insanity the next.
When 50 bodies were dumped last week on a highway in Mexico, all beheaded, befooted and behanded, the same kind of self-righteous attitude was displayed, indicating a violent and entitled authority to do what one damn well pleases irrespective of what is rational or human. It's scary as hell, as John Thompson said. He's right.
Joe Lamy:
You are a great guy too. God Bless all you touch too. I hope you and BChap find a middle. You both make valid points on occasion.
I'm certain of your good Christian upbringing and fervent respect for all of us, Jeff, but honestly, I'd much rather go down in a good open discussion with heathens than be damned by kind souls with faint praise, however much I may deserve it.
Personally I'm not IN to valid points so much as honestly presented facts; validity is a trick of agreement, and I know I see the world my way uniquely. It's that world that i know and am willing to risk disagreement to present to our world. I am alive and respectful of others, valid or not.
But i do thank you for your generalized humanity and concern for fairness.
Peace and civility to you and your family of friends.
Continuing with Unfair Tradition should be changed...our laws are our creations. They reflect what we value. During Prohibition of alcohol days, folks died from bathtub gin. In prohibition of pot days, folks die from guns, knives, etc. We make the laws and we change them.
But in Bradley's universe, the way it is is the way it is. Humanity is subservient to the laws of man...
"I got to hand it to you Joe Lamy, you are slick in your phrasing of sentences.
However, America is a nation of laws. It makes absolutely no difference whether or not, as an individual you agree with a valid law or not. This is especially so since you held the credentials of a teacher. But, that's another issue.
I offered you research avenues that gave you the opportunities to learn where marijuana is linked directly to criminal behavior. Apparently, you rejected that offer. That is your choice.
You manipulate comments to say I equate a "cold beer" with criminal behavior. That is absurd. However, you state there is nothing wrong with, "to smoke a bong of bud is really not the same kind of activity as doing awful things to someone else." I hope no former student sees this post of yours. What a disgrace!!!"
Most of the kids I taught had done more drugs by the age of 16 than I ever did in my short life of occasional 'illicit' drug use. Bradley's decision to bank his soul on the propriety of existing legalities is essentially Unamerican, anti-democratic and quite an atavistic assault on freedom as I view it.
I go along with the writer of this brief introduction to what makes us Americans, the thing called freedom and justice for all. That included freedom of speech last time I checked.
"However, America is a nation of laws. It makes absolutely no difference whether or not, as an individual you agree with a valid law or not."
airweare -- it's hardly that absolute. Of course BChap is a retired cop.
"...a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law." -- Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803)
I truly enjoy the Sun's format of allowing readers to comment on articles and letters to the editor. It's informative for me to see what my neighbors are thinking, as well as benefical to them by giving them a forum in which to work off pent up frustrations (If I have any, I usually just take a walk). Keep it up Sun, I need to get more popcorn.
Miley Cyrus, an unmarried starlet is making headlines celebrating the joys of SEX!!! How disgraceful!!!
A 43 year old law enforcement officer from Las Vegas was arrested today for doing lewd things with a minor under the age 14!!! How disgusting!!!
Bill Clinton and I, George W Bush, Al Gore and Barack Obama did it and fessed up, did 'illicit and mind-altering drugs' to use Bradley's words. I don't do those things and haven't even drunk a beer in going on 40 years. How disgraceful!!!
Can we learn if not from mistakes?? ours and others'??
We changed the Prohibition of alcohol and we changed the legality of once-legal pot. The laws regarding our personal consumption seem to be a choice depending on the golden rule - whoever has the gold makes the rules. Liquor establishment pushed Prohibition over and big pharma fights decriminalization of herb, same, same.
The land of the free and home of the bought.
In the study of spiral Dynamics, one can view the emotional growth on a socially defined gradient where what one says and does enables astute observers to recognize the traits of inclusiveness/exclusiveness, baseline character issues, power valuing, etc.
Fewer than 5% of us actually grow much past our 20s; I had help in the form of near death experienceSS and am quite grateful for the boost in understanding that derived its strength from the recoveries. Most folks are so locked into their comfortable pace that another viewpoint is often taken as a threat. We are lucky to be born in a time and place where these freedoms which we too often take for granted are handed us at birth. And we are cursed with that blessing because we feel entitled to what so few in history could even imagine.
The fact that so many choose to remain stuck in childhood is tragic; we can do better...we can grow and understand, but most stop too early, imho
KillerB, what you began your post with was a quoted line from Bradley. Sorry i did not put quotes at the beginning of each paragraph. That is the right way; I did it wrong and I think it misassigned the quote to me instead to its rightful author, Bradley Chapline, the cop...
Big day tomorrow, new client, biggest architectural firm i have proposed to, Certified Construction managers and registered Architects grilling me, watching me do my fancy schmancy auditing and checkouts and a lot on the line.
All my toys are lined up, research done on the property and the only thing that would lose the contract would be being less than 100% in my 5 hour demo, so I'm off for some rack time. Bidding my friends adieu...you too Bradley!
Romney wants to force mormonism on all of us.
Carmine,"the dictionary states that marriage is between a man and a women,please state a source."
My source is Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary copyright 2009 .That would be on page 761 under marriage." the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and constractual relationship recognized by law". That sounds like a man and women to me.And if I might ask what did you think it meant all these years, before all this became a argueing point.
"My source is Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary copyright 2009 .That would be on page 761 under marriage." the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and constractual relationship recognized by law". That sounds like a man and women to me."
samspeaks -- so we should all let some etymologist decide what our most committed intimate relationship should be? Think again.
"Inalienable rights. All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness[.]" -- Article 1, Section 1, Nevada Constitution
Carmine,You asked for a source and I gave it to you.So why dispute what you asked for. And if I might add on your 4:37 A.M. post you stated "marriage is, was, and always will be between a man and a women". Your words not mine,sometimes we all make mistakes including you and me, no one's perfect.
Hello conservatives,
Now how many wives did King David have again?
Mel.....Very good letter, right on the mark.
I agree with you Mr. Pizzo. No argument from me on marriage and its meaning. I opine you read another's post as mine in error.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"Wouldn't his own "Old Testament" completely destroy his claim of "...as it was from the beginning of time..."?
Adam and Eve. That's as old and as in the beginning that it gets.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Carmine:
So what came after Adam and Eve was incest then, correct?
"So what came after Adam and Eve was incest then, correct?"
It was original sin and the fall of civilization which gave rise to incest among other evils.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Incest was not evil in that case, it was necessary--otherwise--you and me would not be here, correct?
Adam and Eve sinned, not their children, eh?
We have all sinned, except the Holy Trinity and Mary the Mother of God. Next born without sin was John the Baptist. Except for them we are all with sins. That's the reason for baptism.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Keep it simple. Whenever obama's lips are moving you are being lied to. He's arrogant and self serving. One more term of this guy will be a huge national blunder.
The Christian message is based on the New Testament. There are many stories in the Old Testament that serve as examples of what not to do as a Christian. When Chirst came on the scene he was very clear that many of the preceding practices were not of God's will. Orgies and homosexuality were not condoned by Jesus. He would have loved those who were involved but condemned the behavior. Leftists who are secular are not well versed on the Chistian faith usually and should try to educate themselves on what Christ's teachings were in the New Testament. Some postings attempt to tie Christ and Christians to old testament stories. That is an error in understanding.
"The Christian message is based on the New Testament...Leftists who are secular are not well versed on the Chistian faith usually and should try to educate themselves on what Christ's teachings were in the New Testament."
Houstonjac -- having been an ordained minister I was "well versed on the Chistian [sic] faith." I find genuine historical works -- Plutarch's "Lives," etc. -- to be far more relevant and pure than your scriptures. The better of "Christ's teachings" were nothing new, the revered gospels having been written two generations after the crucifixion. Nothing new in them that hadn't been around for centuries and taught by such enlightened philosophers as Socrates and Epicurus.
"It was the same with those old birds in Greece and Rome as it is now. . . . The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know." -- President Harry Truman on the insight "Plutarch's Lives" gave him
Killer bee. Are you a Christian. You said you are ordained minister but did not say you are a Christian Just curious. My comment still stands
"Killer bee. Are you a Christian."
Houstojac -- used to be, obviously, no longer am. Liberated myself years ago.
"Religion is the opium of the people" -- Karl Marx from the introduction of his 1843 "Contribution to Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right"
Who cares what consenting adults do? It doesn't affect my life in anyway, so I say live and let live!
As the world (r)evolves around Obama so don't his "consistent" positions, he-he.
About that New Testament Jesus thing Bob Jack:
http://www.evilbible.com/what_would_jesu...
Traditions and taboos evolve as do our opinions. I try, I really try, to accept that what is my choice might not be what you want to do. So as long as it doesn't involve violence, intimidation, children, I don't care what gets you through the day, the night, your life. I try to accept anyone's behavior especially if it not traditional or is taboo (excepting ILLEGAL behavior.) I'm long over the "stage" of doing something different for the sake of rebellion. But I am rather accepting of the wild cards out there and in here. I've disclosed before that I am of mixed race and I betcha that if we go back an extra couple of generations, most of you are of mixed race too. Did you see the PBS genealogy show recently showing a spunky "white" woman who laughed "GET OUT OF HERE" when told she was 20.xx percent African? But she liked being told that 'cause she was trying to pass as Pink--Red and White mix. Isn't it wonderful that we can be accepting of any and every color. But we're not so accepting of various life styles--and probably never will accept dramatic differences in politics. Just doesn't seem to work. Europe is on a "Multi-culturalism doesn't work" kick. I'm ok with cultures but only if we can agree on what is legal and appropriate ways to treat each other.
Enough of this chit-chat about what Mel Lipman quotes a Dictionary as saying what marriage is.
THE LAW defines marriage as follows:
The "legal union of one MAN and one WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE." This is defined in "BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY - 6th Edition" (cite:) Singer v. Hara 111 Wash.App 247,522 P.2d 1187, 1193."
Further, Blacks Law Dictionary also defines a "Married woman" as being "A WOMAN who has a HUSBAND living and not divorced." So I suggest that no matter what Obama THINKS our laws should allow, they do not now allow such marriages - and until it is changed, the President should stop making such "political" statements - BEFORE HE WORKS WITH CONGRESS to write legislation that would make Gay marriage the "law of the land."
This definition in BLD should leave no doubt as to what constitutes a marriage, as it is defined by these "...Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence..." - WHICH ARE USED by Attorney's-At-Law in the practice, prosecution, and defense of civil and criminal matters in every Court in the United States.
Rationale for using Black's Law Dictionary:
The U.S Constitution says we are a "nation of laws. "Black's Law Dictionary" - - which has been a recognized SOURCE for legal definitions for two centuries - - provides a useful "starting point" for defining "legal words and terms."
Further, it provides Adjudicated Case Law summaries, cross-references, explanation of words and phrases, discussion of legal points-of-law, and address "settled Case-Law," precedents, and State and Federal legislation.
While there is no change in the stated definition of "marriage" shown in BLD, supplemental research sources are available (as noted by the Authors) that may be useful due to occasional variances in the practice of law in State or Federal cases. These "Helpful sources for supplemental research can be found in "Words and Phrases" and WESTLAW."
BOTTOM-LINE: Whether or not any one writing in this column agrees with how the law defines marriage - the question NOW BECOMES: whether "We the people..." should CHANGE the law."
And it is NOT REASONABLE or PROPER for the President of the United States (who represents 320 million people of various opinions) to make a whimsical and political "statement-of-the-day" (he has flip-flopped a lot on this issue) - in support of "Gay marriage."
Every interest group that develops a claim cannot carve out its own niche of America. It is up to a MAJORITY of the people to decide whether Gay marriage should be legal. And that decision will, in turn, illustrate what kind of country "We the people..." want the United States to become.
The fall of the Roman Empire should give us that answer.
"The U.S Constitution says we are a "nation of laws. "Black's Law Dictionary" - - which has been a recognized SOURCE for legal definitions for two centuries..."
Socratic -- "nation of laws" is NOT in our federal Constitution, and Henry Campbell Black's dictionary was first published in 1891, 115 years ago. So what else did you make up?
And the "BOTTOM-LINE" is hardly whether or not "We the people..." should CHANGE the law." It's whether or not any one of us, citizen or not, can be deprived of liberty -- and that encompasses adults in intimate relationships -- without due process of law. That's a protection found in both the federal and Nevada Constitutions. All you have to do is look it up.
"...a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law." -- Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803)
@ By KillerB - You are incorrect.
The phrase: "Law of the Land" IS in the Constitution. "Article VI. Section 2" of the United States Constitution" explicity says:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State should be bound thereby ...."
Thus, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States..." ARE INDEED "...the supreme Law of the Land." Hence, the United States is, defacto, a "Nation of Laws" - a term used by the Framers, politicians, and lawyers for over 200 years.
And by the way, of what consequence is it that the 1st Edition of Black's Law Dictionary was published in 1891. TODAY, the revised and updated 6th Edition (as of 1990) is the current Law Dictionary being used. The BLD will be revised again when such changes are necessary.
But this does not change what I said about the current LEGAL definition of marriage. And, while the BLD is a primary source for such research (noted previously), it is NOT the only source. But it is still accurate. And I am sure the 7th Edition will be forthcoming when needed.
As for your coment about Gays and deprivation of liberty. It USED TO BE that being Gay would get you into some kind of trouble, get fired from a job, not get a security clearance, etc.
I believe some progress has been made - for the better. Gay people are protected from harassment, and have the same LIBERTY to PRACTICE their life-styles - just as straight people have (even this still excludes Gays from getting "married.") But I have seen progress made over the years in recoginzing (some) Gay "rights" aka: liberties.
As for Marbury v. Madison - I agree with this quote. So what can "We the people..." do to prevent poor legislation and change laws? Well, we can take a greater interest in what Congress does! I submit that "We the people..." have relinquished our COnstitutional authority as citizens to a bunch of do-nothing politicians in Congress, and the White House.
So if we are to remain a free nation, and pursue justice for all, we must still be responsible for ENSURING that fair and just laws are passed - as they affect everyone. So the ANSWER to the question I asked of "what to do" - is check out who YOU vote for, and what THEY stand for. Then hold them accountable for doing it.
Our Rights were defined in the Constitution by the Framers, yet the current cast of characters in Washington, DC, can undo what the Framers provided for us - if we let them.
So lets keep discussing the issues as they come up - and "keep writing them cards and letters" to Congress. Then, eventually, we will find creative ways to resolve this - and many more - concerns we have.
"The phrase: "Law of the Land" IS in the Constitution.....And by the way, of what consequence is it that the 1st Edition of Black's Law Dictionary was published in 1891. TODAY, the revised and updated 6th Edition (as of 1990) is the current Law Dictionary being used."
Socratic -- wrong again. "Law of the Land" is not "a nation of laws," de facto or otherwise. The "consequence" about Black's dictionary is you added 85 years to its existence. And the current (2009) Blacks is the 9th Edition. I have an 8th on my shelf (2004). Along with a Fifth and Sixth Abridged and a Fourth Unabridged.
"The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." -- Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163 (1803)
"Plutarch's "Lives," etc. -- to be far more relevant and pure than your scriptures. The better of "Christ's teachings" were nothing new, the revered gospels having been written two generations after the crucifixion. Nothing new in them that hadn't been around for centuries and taught by such enlightened philosophers as Socrates and Epicurus."
Don't forget Confucius. But ONE huge difference. The wise men and philosophers said listen to me, I will show you the way. Jesus said: I am the way. These men showed the way to the light. Jesus is the light. These men preached truth. Jesus is truth.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"Don't forget Confucius. But ONE huge difference. The wise men and philosophers said listen to me, I will show you the way."
CarmineD -- Confucius being an Eastern philosopher is irrelevant. Our entire culture, including our system of laws, has its roots in ancient Greece. And at least the philosophers I read (Socrates, Epicurus, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius) didn't really say "I will show you the way" or "I am the way." They were actually indifferent about other people's opinions, especially Marcus, a Roman emperor and the last great Stoic writer.
Quoting your mythic Jesus to me is wasted. I am no longer christian.
Q: "What is the burning question on the mind of every dyslexic existentialist?"
A: "Is there a dog?"
I would add to the list of religious men Buddha, Confucius, Laotsze, Socrates etc. BUT as I said, these are religious men. Christ is religion itself. It is assumed that all religious men are alike. They are not. Bp. Fulton J. Sheen said it best in his book about Jesus: The Eternal Galilean. Doing so [lumping all religious leaders together] is like saying that because most of the pictures in the Louvre are red, green, white, and blue, that they were all painted by the same artist.
Sheen proves that Jesus is unique in the religious history of the world, and as different from all other teachers and reformers as He/God is different from man.
My suggestion may fall on deaf ears but I suggest you read the book and/or at least Chapters V and V1. Short book. One of about 90 plus that Sheen authored. Worth the read whether Catholic or not.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"I would add to the list of religious men Buddha, Confucius, Laotsze, Socrates etc. BUT as I said, these are religious men. Christ is religion itself. . . . .My suggestion may fall on deaf ears but I suggest you read the book. . ."
CarmineD -- again, Eastern philosophers are irrelevant. Socrates was not religious, had a problem with institutions, and was executed for it. The biggest difference between us is you can't seem to distinguish between being spiritual and being religious. You seem to attach your dogma to everything. As for your reading offer, here's my counter-offer -- commit to reading Plato's "Apology" and I'll read yours.
"Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write." -- John Adams "A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law," from "The Works of John Adams" (1851) volume 3, page 462
I rea Plato's Apology many many years ago. As I recall he believed and proclaimed even then the existence of one true God, not many as the great leaders and minds of the time did.
I don't confuse spiritualism and religion. I opine some can be very much the former without the latter.
Carmine A. DiFazio
A few things come to mind. If I recall correctly, St. Luke, short for Lucanus, a Greek and the doctor and Evangelist, only non-Jew, of the New Testament was influenced in his religious beliefs by Socrates and Plato especailly as it relates to a one true God. Source: Dear and Glorious Physician by Taylor Caldwell. Caldwell is not Catholic but wrote a very good biography of St. Luke in this book. Apologetics, the Catholic Study of Defending the Faith, comes from Plato's "Apology."
Carmine A. DiFazio
"I rea [sic] Plato's Apology many many years ago. As I recall he believed and proclaimed even then the existence of one true God..."
If you read the popular Jowett translation, I don't question your reading. Benjamin Jowett (died 1893) was a popular Plato translator who was also a theologian and is guilty of what many translators of his day did -- christianized the text, especially by singularizing and capitalizing "God" in their finished works. I have his contemporary George Long's (died 1879) translation of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius and was always curious about how these deists kept mentioning "God." That was answered in Martin Hammond's fresh translation (2006) of Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations."
"Then, by the gods, Meletus, of whom we are speaking, tell me and the court, in somewhat plainer terms, what you mean! for I do not as yet understand whether you affirm that I teach others to acknowledge some gods, and therefore do believe in gods and am not an entire atheist - this you do not lay to my charge; but only that they are not the same gods which the city recognizes - the charge is that they are different gods. Or, do you mean to say that I am an atheist simply, and a teacher of atheism?" -- Socrates in Plato's "Apology," Jowett translation
If I go back far enough, according to the logic of many people, I should get closer to some "truth" about deities...so cave drawings would have to be the most informed about this. No one has yet answered what they think about King David having several wives at once.
"If I go back far enough, according to the logic of many people, I should get closer to some "truth" about deities...so cave drawings would have to be the most informed about this."
mschaffer -- you think? Whether it's all the Catholic pomp and ritual or an aboriginal shaman chanting dancing around a fire, it's all just man's puny efforts to explain the unexplainable.
"To sum up: 1. The cosmos is a gigantic fly-wheel making 10,000 revolutions a minute. 2. Man is a sick fly taking a dizzy ride on it. 3. Religion is the theory that the wheel was designed and set spinning to give him the ride." -- H. L. Mencken, "Coda" 1920
@ KillerB - You are amazingly short-sighted, or just don't care about facts - even when they are pointed out to you - as I have, extracted FROM the U.S. Constitution.
If you say we are NOT a "Nation of Laws" (which is an obvious paraphrase that you do not accept), this tells me you must NOT BELIEVE or UNDERSTAND that the WRITTEN INTENT of the Framers of the Constitution was to "...ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH" ... "This Constitution, and the Laws of the Unted States..." AS "...the supreme Law of the Land."
1. Would you agree that the Framers WROTE that statement?
If so, why do you reject a common PARAPHRASE (not originated by me) that says essentially the same thing? Are there not many ways to say the "same thing" when talking about other subjects? (language dictionaries and thesaurus' are full of them.)
2, If you DO NOT AGREE with what the Framers WROTE in the Constitution - and therefore believe the "Rule of Law" to be invalid - WHAT do you think are the legal rules under which this Republic exists, if not LAWS?
I will anticipate your answer to this 2nd question, and suggest that you believe our Constitution is "BROKEN" (or other word you might choose), and therefore, the U.S. Constitution is invalid; or at the very least, does not work as you think it should. After reading some of your commentaries, I think this may be at the crux of what you believe.
If I am wrong on this last point (or anything else), say so; but don't just say that I am wrong - without further explanation. I have explained, at great length, WHY I think you are wrong. I know you can do the same.
We must accept Socrates religious beliefs through the writings of Plato, who I believe put his own spin on the thinking of Socrates. BUT, as I stated, St. Luke's belief in the one TRUE God [with a capital G] comes from his readings and word of mouth stories handed down through oral tradition about Socrates. Source is the biography of St. Luke I quoted above by Caldwell. I too read Plutarch many many years ago, but in the original Latin. I was fortunate enough to have 4 years of Latin in HS with a wonderful female instructor, and head of the foreign Languages Department, who had a passion for teaching the language.
I stand firm on the conclusions of Fulton J. Sheen. All these men were great teachers and religious thinkers and philosophers. But comaparing them to Jesus is disingenuous. None do. Jesus is the way, the truth and the light. They are teachers of.
I reaffirm also my belief to you that being spiritual does not require being religious. Organized religions are the public manifestation of liturgy and worship. Not the manifestation of spirituality, which is one's inner beliefs, thoughts, and actions.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Something calling itself "The-Socratic-Inkwell", starts out be using a fake name and then wants to be taken seriously.
"The-Socratic-Inkwell" believes this is a nation of laws...it is. There are laws for the privileged and wealthy and then there are laws for the rest of us.
@ By mschaffer (Mark Schaffer - Because you made an issue of my writing "to be taken seriously," I will tell you I have been a successful business research analyst and writer since 1979. So I have no fear of not being taken "seriously" in the forums I write in.
My writings and opinions are credible, or I would not have a job. But what I write in the LV Sun is only COMMENTARY - amd meant for conversational purposes; I am not out to "change the world" by the comments I make herein.
You have also made a presumptous remark by chastising me using a "nome de plume." I have written under this name for over 30 years. It has meaning to me, but I do not see what your point is in criticizing it? The name I use has NOTHING to do with what I writen.
Acceptance of WHAT I (or anyone else) will write is, of course, subject to the ability, interest, and willingness of others to engage in intellectual discourse.
As for your acquisience that the U.S. is, indeed, a "nation of Laws" - thank you. I agree that that there is certainly, a FINANCIAL disparity between the wealthy and "the rest of us." But, such disparity only occurs as a result of what a person has (or has not) been able to achieve, as aided by their education, level-of-effort, and business acumen; all of which will make a business prosperious (and the owners "rich")- or result in failure.
You seem to want assurance of FINANCIAL parity with the rich - but our Constitution DOES NOT provide for that. In France, they are working such parity as the new Socialist President is about to envoke a NEW 75 percent TAX INCREASE on everyone who earns over one million dollars a year.
Yet, if France did not SPEND so much (s we are also doing in the USA), neither the France nor the United States would need such high taxation rates. Is this Socialist approach the kind of financial parity you would like to see in the United States?
I don't believe you can "blame" rich people for being rich. They are just successful, where others have failed. But they take all the risks. Yet conversely, no one wants to help a failed business by sharing their financial losses.
So, I believe your last line of comment about "Laws for the privileged..." and "...the rest of us" - MAY be TRUE, but ONLY if you are taking about the IRS Code.
Because every American has the OPPORTUNITY to advance themselves by hard work. I did it, and you may have too. That is what our Constitution provides for: liberty and the freedom to pursue such success; not parity of income.
Freedom to thrive is a blessing, but the opportunity to fail must remain the flip side. We like that arrangement. It provides parity of potential gain along with an absolute guarantee of absolutely no guarantees. In other words, we're on our own, and we like that idea.
The rub seems to lie in the stacked deck that loads the odds of the wealthy in their educational opportunities and their initial capitalization funding. When, for example, a poor kid in a run-down tenement Section 8 complex works hard in a lousy school and graduates as Valedictorian with a minimal grasp of a few subjects at age 18, is there really a statistical parity when contrasted with a privately funded, college preparatory school kid from a billionaire background, steeped in social graces, art, world travel and a scholarship to MIT or Stanford ? Upon graduation the trust fund kicks in to supply the wealthy entrepreneur a stable funding source of unimaginable possibilities to try and fail and try again with OPM. Is this fair??
Come on...of course not. But is this what we want?...now that's the moot point, because it IZZ what we have. Methinks Mr. Schaffer asks us to accept this as our issue here, Socratic Inkwell; don't you agree?
Add to this unbalanced image the capacity of wealthy interests to purchase lobbyists to maintain or enhance the likelihood of deeper favors for the wealthy such as income tax cuts by our previous president concurrent with wars of choice to burden the middle class and proletariat that also enriched the cronies and depleted the moiety, the purchase of voting booths approved by the supremoes, and the tax structure mainstays in the form of really low capital gains obligations for the Warren Buffets and Bill Gateses.
What looks like staying power is in fact legislated staying power proposed and passed by those whose numbers are tiny and whose power remains untouchable. Not saying that Joe Schmoe has the right to their money, but as a matter of decent respect for the opinions of mankind, the parity has been all but removed from the picture.
Sheldon Adelson is one excellent example of the little train that could. From inauspicious beginnings, he developed an empire so massive that he could even squander a few million to the likes of the Newton and hardly blink when the speaker flaked. But in all honesty, when one considers the odds of a repeat performance arising from section 8 tenements with miserable schooling and zero funding mechanisms in this Information Age that adds light year capacity to the enabled today, the numbers of success stories of Sheldons are bound to shrink.
Tradition needs a thorough re-evaluation of how to share opportunity back to the masses whose birthright into poverty limits their chance at parity. Education is the key, and until we as a nation arrive at an educated populace, our concentration of power will grow in fewer and fewer families while the dissolution of our potentials eats away at the shrinking middle class and proletariat. Parity of income is a function of parity of chance. Our current path guarantees creeping plutocracy.
Something calling itself "The-Socratic-Inkwell" makes claims about it's background that, even if true, would confirm an inability to reason given a "business" background. Critical thinking is not prized in such environments and this person's writing confirms this. Between leaps of logic and lack of valid research sources it adds nothing of value to the discussion. Socrates would be embarrassed to know his name was being used to give credence to nonsense.
By Airweare - regarding your comment: "Upon graduation the trust fund kicks in to supply the wealthy entrepreneur a stable funding source of unimaginable possibilities to try and fail and try again with OPM. Is this fair?"
First, "OPM" (private money) belongs to the people who earn or invest it. So if they take the risk, make some profits, and become successful - while employing people who get paid - then it is THEIR MONEY. We know this because if the IRS considers it THEIR MONEY, they get taxed on it.
I will agree - depending on one's perspective - that the disparity between "rich, middle-class, and poor" income levels might may not SEEM "fair" - but such egalitarianism would apply in a Socialist-collective government (ala Karl Marx). We are not that. And I also agree with you that equal financial support is not available to everyone. But then, the Framers of our Constitution did not designed to it to make things "fair;" the 1st Amendment shows tht liberty and freedom was the focus for a new nation.
Today, ALL Americans stil have the OPPORTUNITY to PURSUE Happiness (e.g., financial gain), and the Constitution "ordains" (mandates) that we have the opportunity to pursue this. (For example, Billionaires, like Bill Gates exercised their opportunities and rose to to great wealth from, essentially, nothing.)
I grew up in a family of four in Brooklyn NY, and we were definitely poor. But after graduating from HS, (and the school of "hard knocks"), I tried to figure out how I could get out of Brooklyn. How could get a better job, and earn more money - like other guys had?
Well, I found out how; I joined the Air Force. It was there I found that working hard, showing initiative, and producing results - would move me up the (rank) ladder, which paid MORE MONEY.
After the Air Force, I progressed further: I got a job as an analyst. Yet I still wanted more. So again, I asked some friends: "why someone was paid better than I was?"
The answer was: "because he had a college education." So, I went to college at night, worked during the day - and in great 4 years, I graduated with a college degree in business; and it really paid off.
So just as I took OPPORTUNITES to become successful in life, any American who wants to ssearch for it. Being rich is not a requirement can achieve the same success - if they work at it. Taking risks and working hard has proven to be a good basis for success. And I'm sure that there several million oher American success stories that could be told. Those stories would include the 350,000 (former) business-startups that were typical in the pre-recession years.
SO in ANSWER to your question: "Is it fair?" I will have to say "yes" - because the "opportunity" in America does exist - and it is generally not dependent on anyone else. All one has to do is be motivated - and, (as Nike Shoe Co. says): "JUST DO IT!"
Where there is a will, there is a way.
I wonder how "The-Socratic-Inkwell" would have done without that pesky government funded Air Force supporting his/her/it's efforts?