Posts Tagged ‘History’
The Reality of Race in America: Why we can’t handle the truth
What is the purpose of marriage?
Following the recent decision regarding California’s law defining marriage as being one man, one woman; I was asked by one of my readers to discuss the following question, outside of the context of religion-“What’s the purpose of Marriage?”
This is a question that can be answered in a myriad of ways. Since the beginning of civilization this institution has come to carry religious, cultural and legal significance. And while one cannot fully understand the purpose of marriage without discussing all three; for this conversation, I will focus primarily on the purpose of marriage as defined by legal precedent.
How is marriage defined?
Black’s Law Dictionary Fourth Edition had three definitions of marriage.
The first definition was a “… condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life …”.
Subsequent editions inserted “or until divorced”.
The second definition in Black’s Fourth was “A contract, according to the form prescribed by law, by which a man and woman, capable of entering into such contract, mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives together…”
Please note that the legal definition refers to a man and a woman. As a matter of fact, since the beginning of time, marriage has always been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.
• Marriage: “That honorable contract that persons of different sexes make with one another.” A New General English Dictionary (1740).
• Marriage: “1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife . . .” Merriam-Webster online, April 20, ( 2005).
Now this is not to say the people don’t change the definitions of words. But in order to properly deduce what the authors of the follwoing legal opinions are trying to say, we must understand their words in the context in which they used them.
What role should government play in marriage?
When discussing the purpose of marriage from a legal standpoint, we must first understand government’s relationship to marriage. According to Meister v. Moore (1873) Marriage is not a right conferred by the state.
…everywhere is considered a civil contract. Statutes in many of the states it is true, regulate the mode of entering into the contract, but they do not confer the right.
And the reason that the state cannot confer this right is because the courts have deemed that it finds it roots in a power above even their own. As stated in 1892 by the Washington State Supreme Court regarding. McLaughlin’s Estate
marriage is a natural right, which always existed prior to the organization of any form of government, and all laws in restraint of it should be strictly construed in consequence thereof. It is held it should be the policy of the law to sustain all such contracts and relations whenever possible, and that this should always be done …[590 marriage has] its origin in divine law”
So why does government regulate and promote marriage?
Legal precedent tells us that it is to create the optimum environment to have and raise children. As stated in Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971)
The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”
The same logic was part of the Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942):
Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
Understand that this does not mean that the only people who can get married are those who desire to have children. In this case, the law has and educational function- to tell what is normative. And while not all opposite sex couples will produce children, it is still normative for them to do so. However, it is impossible for any same sex couple to naturally produce children. Therefore, it cannot be normative.
So why does the state ascribe certain rights only to married couples?
Well first of all , it is wrong to think of these benefits as rights. A better description would be to call them incentives.
In Maynard v. Hill (1888) the court acknowledged that just how important marriage is to society:
“Marriage… having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature… the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations… for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress… It is a relation for life…”
This means that how we handle this institution as a society will have a lasting effect on generations to come. This is why every effort to change the definition of marriage has failed. In Williams v. North Carolina (1942) the court ruled against efforts to legalize polygamy because of the effect it would have on the children.
That choice in the realm of morals and religion rests with the legislatures of the states… Within the limits of her political power North Carolina may, of course, enforce her own policy regarding the marriage relation-an institution more basic in our civilization than any other. But society also has an interest in the avoidance of polygamous marriages and in the protection of innocent offspring of marriages deemed legitimate in other jurisdictions.
And according to the US Supreme Court in Maynard v. Hill (1888) marriage is not a right granted by the state. It is an institution that the state has an interest in regulating and promoting. And that interest is rooted in protecting the offspring:
“marriage is a thing of common right… any other construction would compel holding illegitimate the offspring of many parents conscious of no violation of law”
This is why the court quoted Skinner when it opted to once again to preserve the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in Loving v. Virginia (1967).
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.
So what is the purpose of marriage?
While there are other cultural and religious purposes for marriage, when it comes to regulating marriage, the state has made it clear. The purpose is to create the most positive environment to have and raise children.
Black Republican Nominated to Congress in South Carolina. Democrats lament, “He’s no Alvin Greene!”
In 1854, the GOP is founded in opposition to slavery. In 1964, we elected segregationist Strom Thurmond. Now in 2010, we nominate an African-American to fill Thurmond’s old seat. The circle is complete!
Unlike their Democratic counterparts, South Carilina Republicans have nominated an African-American man who is undoubtably qualified and ready serve his constitutents in Washington DC.
The Associated Press reports:
Voters in South Carolina nominated a black Republican lawmaker for an open congressional seat Tuesday, rejecting a renowned political name and potentially changing the face of the national party.
State Rep. Tim Scott defeated Paul Thurmond, an attorney who is son of the onetime segregationist U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond. Scott, who won the runoff with 69 percent of the vote, is poised to become the nation’s first black GOP congressman since 2003.
Scott, 44, owns an insurance business and became the first black Republican in the South Carolina Legislature in more than a century when elected in 2008.
He’s now the favorite in the coastal First District, which has elected a Republican congressman for three decades. He would become the first black Republican congressman since Oklahoma’s J.C. Watts retired in 2003.
I think the fact that Mr. Scott defeated the son of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond is a wonderful bit of irony.
It will be interesting to see how the national establishment reacts to him. Will he be a game changer the way that JC Watts was during his tenure; helping the party develop policy to address issues beyond the usual GOP focus? Or will he be an establishment guy trying to sell the party as it’s ambassador to the black community?
I don’t know him. So, I cannot say which he will be. But I everything I have heard about him is that he is a conservative, independent thinker. That should bode well for the type of leader he will be in Congress.
The one thing I do know is that he is no Alvin Greene!
Congratulations Mr. Scott!
How Obama got elected (Video)
I find it funny how little these Obama voters know about the candidates or their campaigns.
Normally I would dismiss stuff like this as juvenille propoganda. But the responses in this video are totally consistant with just about every encounter I had with Obama supporters.
The video’s creator writes:
On the evening of November 4th, 2008 I along with millions of Americans were shocked that a man of Barack Obama’s extreme liberal positions and radical political alliances and policies could be elected President of the United States.
This is further proof that the news media, completely engrosed with Obama’s persona, simply refused to do their job.
Twelve Obama voters were interviewed extensively right after they voted to learn how the news media impacted their knowledge of what occurred during the campaign. These voters were chosen for their verbal abilities and willingness to express their opinions to a large audience. The video below seeks to provide some insight into which information broke through the news media clutter and which did not.
In 2004 Maxine Waters said Fannie & Freddie weren’t broken
Republicans are the ones who have pushed to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while Democrats continually fight any regulation.
I am not saying the Republicans are completely free of blame. The fact is, they were in charge in 2001 when this issue first popped up, all the way until 2005. And no legislation was ever passed providing the sort of oversight they knew was needed.
But it is clear from this video and other media reports that Democrats have been the ones preventing the reforms that could have prevented this crisis. I just think it’s sad thata the MSM is letting them get away with such hypocracy.
Obama fails history lesson
In his victory speech following the North Carolina Primary, Obama declared, “I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.”
Well Real Clear Politics published a commentary by Jack Kelly pointing out that Barak’s statement demonstrates stupidity, not wisdom. Kelly writes:
I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.
FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.
Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman’s response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.
So apparently, Roosevelt and Truman did not agree with Barak’s belief in unconditional talks with enemy states. In fact, they held that the only condition that merited talks was that of “Unconditional Surrender.” Kelly goes on to debunk the Obama’s “wisdom” when it relates to the actions of President Kennedy:
Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.
Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.
“There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy’s measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions,” Mr. Abel wrote. “There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America’s power. He questioned only the president’s readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are ‘too liberal to fight.'”
That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: “Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs,” Mr. Reston wrote. “He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed.”
Ok…. I’m still waiting for the “Wisdom” to which Obama is referring? Like a school yard bully, Khrushcev saw Kennedy’s overtures as a lack of will to fight, which we all know, will provoke said bullies to be even more bold and aggressive. I wonder how much sooner the cold war could have been ended, had Kennedy not compromised our credibility as a military superpower ready to do whatever it took to protect our citizens.
There is a popular saying: “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Well, through his own words, Barak Obama demonstrates that not only has he failed to learn vital lessons from history, he hasn’t even learned the facts of history.
__________________________________________
So are you saying that Kennedy should have engaged in a nuclear strike with Russia during the Cuban Missle Crisis? Whatever you think of Kennedy, the fact that he did NOT engage nuclear weapons at the time was one of the BEST decisions he could have made.
One example of when a President engages in Diplomacy: Jim Lea writes in Stripes.com:
“… Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected U.S. president in November 1952 and fulfilled a campaign promise to go to Korea and attempt to bring an end to the war. He arrived in December and made it clear that he, too, was looking for an armistice rather than a military victory. (NOTE: An amristice is a truce, NOT unconditional surrender).
He let it be known to Moscow, Peking and Pyongyang that if the talks were not reopened and did not proceed satisfactorily toward an armistice, U.N. forces would “move decisively without inhibition in our use of weapons and would no longer be responsible for confining hostilities to the Korean Peninsula.”
There was, however, no response from the communists to Eisenhower’s statement or to a proposal by Clark that the two sides exchange sick and wounded prisoners. Lt. Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor succeeded Van Fleet in February and continued to conduct skirmishes with the North Koreans and Chinese. A break in the Panmunjom deadlock came in March, some three weeks after Soviet leader Joseph Stalin died.
North Korean and Chinese delegates agreed to an exchange of sick and wounded prisoners. The armistice talks resumed in April, the exchange of sick and wounded prisoners took place shortly thereafter, and the POW issue was settled by mid-June.
The two sides agreed that each would be allowed to persuade any prisoners who refused repatriation to change their minds.
With the armistice almost a reality, battlefield action increased as Chinese and North Korean troops made a final attempt to grab more land. On July 13, communist forces drove eight miles into the central sector of the 8th Army line. Taylor counterattacked, but ended the final battle of the war July 20 because negotiators had nearly reached an accord.
The agreement was signed at 10 a.m. July 27, 1953, in a building hastily erected by the North for the ceremony.”
My point: That talking – even when you are a newly-elected president seeking to end a war going nowhere – can produce results.
Should Republicans compromise their values in order to win? A lesson from the Compromise of 1877…
It is for these folks that I offer this brief history lesson, outlining what happens when we compromise what we knew to be right in order to win an election. It was Republican’s agreement to the Compromise of 1877 eventually ended reconstruction and ushered in 100 years of Jim Crowe and oppression of blacks, all so we could have a Republican in the white house .
Here was the agreement- The 1876 presidential election ended with no clear winner. So, Democrats agreed to accept the Republican presidential electors (thus assuring that Rutherford B. Hayes would become the next president), provided the Republicans would agree to the following:
• To withdraw federal soldiers from their remaining positions in the South
• To enact federal legislation that would spur industrialization in the South
• To appoint Democrats to patronage positions in the South
• To appoint a Democrat to the president’s cabinet
Once the parties had agreed to these terms, the Electoral Commission performed its duty. The Hayes’ electors were selected and Hayes was named president two days before the inauguration.
This deal effectively ended reconstruction. As it died, Republicans and Democrats made promises that the civil rights of all Southerners would be respected. And for a few years this was the case.
However, by the 1880s it was clear that the northern troops would never return. Thus, as the threat faded, Democrat officials were less likely to investigate and convict those implicated in voter intimidation, making Democratic victories even more lopsided as black voter participation (the most important Republican in the south at the time) began to decline.
Then, by the 1890s, the “redeemer governments” began to segregate facilities by race and the lynching of blacks began to accelerate greatly and soon more blacks than whites were being killed without the benefit of a trial. The final “approval” of the redeemer governments came in 1898 when the Plessy v. Ferguson decision legalized segregation with the famous phrase, “seperate but equal.”
With that victory segregationists accelerated the separation of the races and soon did not even bother to worry about the “equal” part. Also in the 1890s, the great denial of civil rights to Southern blacks became commonplace as poll taxes, literacy tests and intimidation effectively ended the practice of voting by Southern blacks.
This 19th century version of “postpartisanship” would in the end, ruin our nation and our party for the next 100 years; all because of our willingness to sell out our values, simply to win an election.
