The Letter of the Law vs. Your Opinion

The following is the exact wording of the 1^st Amendment in the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let’s examine this in the light of whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to get married and take advantage of the over 1,500 federal rights and obligations provided to married couples.



“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….” What this means is that our federal government is not allowed to make, create, pass, or allow any law that has a religious foundation. Based on this, the Defense of Marriage Act, enacted September 21, 1996 is constitutionally illegal. It defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Its purpose is to say that no state shall be forced to recognize the marriage, in this case same sex marriages, that may be legally recognized in another. It also says that the federal government will not recognize a same sex marriage. This law came to be due to pressure from religious groups.

“… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” This means that not only is congress not allowed to respect religious establishments through law; they are not allowed to create laws that prohibit the right of religious groups and individual from practicing their religion. This does not mean that religions are allowed to violate the rights of others; it just means they can, in their private lives, worship how they wish. They are allowed to believe how they want.

The remaining text of the 1^st Amendment is irrelevant to the issue, including freedom of speech. Some like to argue that freedom of speech is important to the issue because people have the right to voice their opposition or support of gay marriage. Being allowed to voice your opinion on the issue is irrelevant, because the US constitution does not allow your religiously motivated opinion to matter.

So, it looks like depriving homosexuals the right to take advantage of the over 1,500 federally granted rights and obligations given to married couples is unconstitutional. The ONLY way to make this untrue is for all governments, federal, state, and other local governments to abolish any rights they give to married couples.

The matter is simple. The question is not, “what do you believe, in regards to morality, as it pertains to same sex marriage?” The questions are: What do you believe in regards to depriving your fellow US citizens of the same rights and obligations you take advantage of? Do you think its right to use your religion to oppress your fellow Americans? Do you think its right to allow laws to be passed and enforced that violate the first Amendment?

Your religious beliefs, no matter what they are, are irrelevant to the issue. But, the divisive subject is littered with religious connotation and opinion. Why? Because most religions believe without their religion, there would be no morals.

WTF Global Warming!!

The record breaking heat waves plowing through our country right now are causing some debates about “global warming.” I remember a few years ago the US had a particularly cold and snowy winter. All the people, mostly conservative republican types, who do not believe in “global warming”, touted the cold whether as “proof” that they were right. One can be quoted saying, “where are all the global warming freaks now?”

Now, this summer is the hottest our country has ever seen in its entire history. That’s right, it has never been hotter. Now, of course, all the “global warming” believers are doing the exact same nonsense that the nonbelievers did a few years ago. So, allow me to enlighten any who would use these two of years as examples or proof of anything.

Never will one particularly cold winter or particularly hot summer ever prove anyone’s beliefs to be accurate. To take either year as proof is committing logical fallacy. To put it in simpler terms; to do so would be like taking a survey of one person and giving that one answer a statistical value governing everyone. For example, if I asked you your favorite color and you said blue, and I went and said that everyone in the country likes the color blue I would be coming close to how ridiculous it would be to believe that one year of cold or heat means anything in the larger spectrum of millions of years.

As far as “global warming” is concerned, I really wish people would stop calling it that, it’s a misnomer. Call it climate change, because that is more accurate. During climate change the earth changes temperature, not always colder or hotter, but either, or. This depends on whether or not the earth is presently too hot or too cold. This is a naturally occurring phenomenon. This is how the earth maintains its ability to support life. This is scientific fact that cannot be disputed. To do so is either a stubborn refusal to accept reality, or just plain stupidity.

Now, does human activity affect climate change? That is what the real debate is about. Anyone who says no also refuses to accept reality. By this I mean they refuse to accept one of the principle rules of physics, “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” What we do is the cause, and what happens as a result is the effect. We pollute on massive scales, cause; the upper atmosphere pays the price with damage or destruction, effect. Will the damage we do have a great enough effect to cause Hollywood style consequences? Who knows? I for one am not willing to find out the hard way.

Finally, there are other concerns you should have about pollution as well, more pressing and urgent. One of these concerns is the simple fact that the very air you are polluting is the same air you are breathing. This isn’t always the case, sometimes the pollution you breathe in was actually spawned elsewhere and the wind blew it into your neighborhood, and of course the pollution we produce also gets blown half way around the world. Do I really have to tell you what happens when you breathe in pollution your whole life? Well, ask the person or people you know (and I know you know someone) who has an upper respiratory illness. No, not all cases have been directly caused by pollution, but breathing in toxins, as any smoker can tell you, weakens the lungs. Weak lungs develop illnesses and diseases. It’s that simple.