A 3 Year Old's Sincerity

If she only knew, what has happened to the country that was once as pure as she....



God bless the America that once was. With any hope at all, perhaps her generation might restore what our generation and those before us have eroded away.

Right, Wrong, and None of Your D#$% Business

There is a current uproar out in California this month (I say out, due to the fact that I hail from the center of the universe, otherwise known as South Carolina), with people all in an uproar about this gay marriage ban that was apparently voted in by the people of the Imperial Province of...er.... State of California. Here's the scoop according to Reuters.

Long story made short: First the California Supreme Court extended equal rights to same-sex couples with regards to marriage, despite the fact that the state (believe it or not) has historically refused that right to same-sex couples. Now, thanks to a majority vote on November 8th, 2008, 52% of the people who voted decided to revoke that right. Now the fight is all about the legality of that vote in the first place.

The Argument
The argument of gay marriage is always a charged one, and almost nobody comes to the table without some large bias in one direction or another. Religion invariably plays a part in that bias, and with good reason. Religion, or lack thereof, more or less dictates a person's view of ethics and morals. Note that I did NOT say it dictates a person's ethics and morals, but on the contrary I said a person's view of ethics and morals. In other words, the source of one's beliefs will inevitably be the authority for what we know as right or wrong. If a person believes that the Bible is true, then that person generally will view his or her morals as being taken from the Bible (whether right or wrong). On the other hand if a person denies that God exists and believes that all mankind is basically good and simply believes that moral behavior is best for the greater good of all, then that's where they lay the authority for their belief system. So one might say that any discussion such as gay marriage, or abortion, or any such discussion dealing with these sort of topics, is invariably going to invoke what is at the very core of each person. This results in the heavily charged atmosphere in which these discussions take place.

Traditionally, for as long as can be found, the question of same-sex marriage has been discussed based on arguments of right or wrong. Is gay marriage morally right? Is it morally wrong? Those who say it is wrong want the government to enforce it's "wrongness" with laws against it, and those who say there's nothing wrong with it or take a position of moral relativism (what's right and wrong for you, may not be what's right or wrong for me) want the government to recognize and protect the rights of same-sex couples.

Here is my problem with all of this: Since when did the government become the deciding or ruling body in this country when it comes to morality?

Let me explain my position here, with a series of "If, then" statements. If marriage in general, whether hetero- or homo-sexual, is a religious rite, then it should be the jurisdiction of the church. If marriage is a civic rite or "civil union" as they say now, then it should be the jurisdiction of the government. If it is decided that is a religious rite rather than a civil one, then the government needs to stay the hell out of it, and give people the right to religious freedom that our Constitution guarantees them.

So what I'm saying here, is that it not really up for grabs as to whether gay marriage or homosexuality in general is right or wrong in these discussions, when the real discussion needs to be whether government or anybody else has the right to impose themselves in a decision of choice for morality.

At this point, I need to say that I am not a proponent for gay marriage. I think it's not only gross, but immoral. I believe that a marriage should be a union under God between a man and a woman, because my beliefs are based on what I think God wants for humanity.

That said, what I believe is right or wrong or even WHY I believe it does not amount to a hill of beans when it comes to what should be law or should not be law. The purpose of the law is not to enforce a particular set of morals or ethics. The purpose of the law is to protect people from being oppressed. Individuals decide what their morals are, not governments.

What I believe to be right, that marriage is a union between a man and woman, does NOT come into play AT ALL when it comes to what is legal. The stark fact of the matter is that a good many people believe that it is morally fine to be joined with someone of the same sex. That is on THEIR shoulders to deal with the morality of it, not on me to decide for them, or on a court or congress to decide for them. Does it violate the rights of anyone else if my male neighbor married the guy that he works with? NO! You don't have the right to not be grossed out or be offended! You do not have the right to have everyone else in your line of site following the same code of morals or ethics that you do!

Friends with Benefits
The argument that is then presented is all wrapped up in benefits. What about the benefits that married couples get, just for being married? The happy church-going family in the neighborhood gets themselves all bent out of shape because now the gay couple gets the same tax breaks that they've enjoyed for years exclusively. Or now at work straight Bob now has to live with knowing that gay Joe gets the same benefits package for his partner that Bob gets for his wife. So really this argument is all about preferential treatment over someone we think is different from us - or worse, below us. We, as straight and upstanding family men and women, enjoyed the tax breaks, the benefits, and whatever else came our way as congratulatory perks for being just what "society" wanted us to be, and now that those perks are being threatened, well we just need to take a vote and see about not letting gay Joe have his way at all.

That's not it at all, you say? That's not the reason people are all up in arms over two queers getting married? What reason then is left for sticking your nose in someone else's morality decisions? Because you see, "It's just not right," isn't good enough. It just isn't your business to decide someone's morality, and it sure as hell isn't the government's.

Beck on Georgia

Coverage on the crisis in Georgia, from Glenn Beck's perspective:

Commentary: Russian bombs' message is 'this is for America'

NEW YORK (CNN) -- "This is for America. This is for NATO. This is for Bush."

These were the phrases that the president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvilli, told me were on Russian bombs falling before, during and after the numerous cease-fires that have come and gone since the Georgian-Russian conflict began.

He went on to say that he believed the Russians were not fighting a war with Georgia; in reality, they were fighting a war against the idea of Georgia, the governing principles behind it.

To have a flourishing democracy in a neighboring country is seen as a threat. It is a stark contrast from Russia's brand of state-controlled pseudo-capitalism. The Russians, he said, "want to kill the idea of freedom, and by proxy they imagine they fight a war with the United States."

Although the name Georgia is familiar to the United States, the country isn't. Most Americans don't know its remarkable story. The first time I spoke to Saakashvilli a few months earlier, it was under much more pleasant circumstances. I found him to be a young, energetic and well-spoken reformer who in many ways understands our founding fathers better than most Americans.

He spoke to me about his vision for Georgia, the vision that transformed it from a failed state to a burgeoning democracy with a quickly growing economy.

He said, "the government is going to help you in the best way possible, by doing nothing for you, by getting out of your way. Well, I exaggerate, but you understand. Of course we will provide you with infrastructure and help by getting rid of corruption, but you have all succeeded by your own initiative and enterprise, so you should congratulate yourselves."

Saakashvilli turned one of the most crooked nations on the planet into a place where people want to do business. His way of dealing with Georgia's incredibly corrupt police was amazing. No talk, just action.

"The first thing we did a few years ago when I became president: We fired the entire police force of the country." That's right, about 40,000 officers were fired, by his count. New recruits were brought in, and he told me that the public confidence in the police skyrocketed from 5 percent to 70 percent.

The notion that Saakashvilli believes in the ideas that formed our country isn't a surprise. He attended Columbia University Law School and studied our founding fathers, becoming determined to give the people of Georgia the same opportunities and freedoms that we take for granted here.

Imagine a nation with ideals forged in the traditions of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and James Monroe, sitting in what once was the Soviet Union. Now imagine how much that might be appreciated by ex-KGB agents like Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister.

When I spent a half an hour with Saakashvilli on my show this week, his mood was much different than in our earlier conversation. I told him that if Americans knew the story of Georgia, they would realize how important it was. I asked him to speak directly to America, tell us what is really happening and why we should care.

He said, "when the Soviet Union collapsed, when the Cold War was over, when I went to study in the U.S. and finally I realized my dream, I never thought that this evil would come back again. I never thought the KGB people would again try to run the world. And that's exactly what's happening now. What`s at stake here is America's -- America's ideals. If it will collapse in Georgia, it will collapse in other countries and in other places as well."

Luckily for Georgia, the world has generally aligned against Russia's aggression. Whether there are any teeth behind the talk is still unknown. Saakashvilli expressed gratitude for the supportive comments made by President Bush and both Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.

Even the United Nations issued a statement to express "serious concerns at the escalation of violence." Incredibly, that didn't seem to stop Russia. Who would have thought? If things get worse, I'll expect the U.N. to issue a harshly worded letter, a disapproving glare and maybe even a mildly annoyed "tsk tsk."

It's hard to know for sure what is really behind this conflict. Analysts have theories; citizens have sides. But even if you look past the 'he said, she said," in the end, it still goes back to a war being fought over ideals.

Back in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan led the effort to bring down the Soviet Union, partly by spending them into oblivion. We had the resources, we unleashed our economy, and we won (at least temporarily). We won by using the same principles that Saakashvilli talked to me about.

But he wasn't the only one watching and learning. Russia learned as well, and they now appear to be doing the same things that we did to them back in the '80's. Unless we wise up, we risk seeing the same result. We taught them this game. We can't allow it to be used against us. iReport.com: Do you remember the Cold War?

The long-term solution is to make ourselves stronger and more self-sufficient so that when these problems arise, we can't be held hostage. We need to become energy independent and financially solvent. But in the short term? I'm just glad I'm not president so I don't have to make these decisions. (Yes, I know you are, too.)

For now, we have to do what we can to strongly support Georgia, start to get our own ship in order, and take seriously the messages sent by the bombings.

"This is for America. This is for NATO. This is for Bush."