Supreme Court: Consequences on deciding Prop 8 and DOMA.

In the recent media blitz concerning the two cases regarding Proposition 8 in California and DOMA (which we still await a decision), much is talked about regarding the right for people who love each other to marry vs Traditional Marriage.   This is fine and dandy for a political pundit show and I am all for traditional marriage, but there are two respective points that are being missed in the consequences of each case. 

What I am putting forth are the scenarios of different decisions and argue that a vote that is not yes to both cases ("yes" being they are constitutional) will dramatically change our country forever.  That the supreme court should not only look at what is morally right but also what is the best decision for the country; either progressively liberal or constitutionally stringent. 

Proposition 8:  The court is taking this case after the California supreme court voted that voting on whether Traditional marriage was the only legal marriage or not was not constitutional. Moreover, I am sure that would not be the case if the majority of Californians voted yes on it.   The reason according the the California Supreme court is that Homosexuals are their own people and it is a civil rights issue; that barring marriage goes against the 14th Amendment.

Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):  An act to say marriage is between a man and a woman (a law but not an amendment) is being branded unconstitutional not only for the reasons of Prop 8 but also for stating this goes against the first amendment because this is a Federal act based on religious grounds. Again the decision for this case has sweeping complications as well, to the effect to more than marriage.

Ramifications of Prop 8 Decisions:   First of all, this going to the supreme court is a liberal's dream come true.  Why might you ask?  because either a vote of "no" or simply not hearing the case would be a huge victory for the left.   Here are the scenarios:

A vote of yes:  This means that a true republic with voting to majority rule is able to vote upon their consciousness what is good for them.  It also means that the homosexual agenda has truly been defeated in the state that houses a Sodom and Gomorrah.

Not hearing the case: It would be an utter cop out by the Supreme Court not to hear the case, one because it would affect the DOMA ruling and it would send back to the California supreme court which said Prop 8 was on unconstitutional.

A vote of no: MAJOR consequences, as this does three things: 1) This would mean that the majority does not have say in voting or that voting has no point.   If I am a voter then my purpose for voting on an issue is worthless.  Meaning now anyone who may want to vote for a cause will not based on this decision.  The people not the state should make a decision and a vote of no means their vote carries no weight. 2)  This would also mean states cannot vote for something that the Federal government deems unconstitutional. This would truly eradicate state's rights and state the the citizens of said state have no binding power in a vote. It would mean state sovereignty was suspect as states would be nothing more than satellites of a National government.  3)  Future cases: What about gun rights? What about tax laws? etc if the Federal government thought these were "unconstitutional" they could override to what they deemed fit. 

Ramifications of DOMA Decisions:  This is pretty straightforward:

A vote of yes:  Not much to say here except a vote of yes means that, as has been the case for years and years, that a marriage of one man and one woman is what is correct and what has been marriage defined for thousands of years.

A vote of no:  This would mean marriage between a man and a woman are unconstitutional, past the point that it is protected by the federal government.   It would mean that now that if marriage is not between a man and a woman, then what is it?   Is it man and man? Woman and woman?  Human and animal?  One man and 20 wives?  Adultery is OK?   These are things that are not thought about.  In countries such as The Netherlands bigamy is already legal.   For some people, marrying Fido is appropriate.  The slippery slope this creates does not end until all degenerate things have come to pass for marriage.

Conclusion: Clearly a vote for yes on one is a vote of yes on the other and vice verse.   Branding both of these as unconstitutional in which we do not have laws to refrain the onslaught of an opened Pandora's box will ruin us.   Our country will no longer a democracy but truly that of a Socialist union.   That in both cases, the tenth amendment which reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."    would be no longer effective.   California states these rights are not to the people and the Supreme court by voting no to both would say these rights are not to the states.   We have to understand that (even those who are for gay marriage) that the effects of these decisions reach farther than the votes themselves and if they vote no on each, the path will not end until we are all in a totalitarian state.

Letter to the Editor Daily Reflector 3-2-2012

There are so many things going on right now that I could only choose one topic and one that has been on my mind a lot lately is the recent issue with President Barack Obama mandating that religiously affiliated employers must provide coverage for contraceptives and abortions.

This flies right in the face of our constitutional First Amendment rights, that the government should not make a law to interfere with religion. Moreover, this is not just a Catholic issue as the media is taking it (recently many Protestant-affiliated colleges said they would drop health care coverage for students once Obama’s mandate was enacted), this is and issue for all Americans.

Remember how Obama promised that his health care reform would not include the funding of abortion? Well that seems to have been a lie and the compromise in which Obama said he would make insurance providers write contraceptive coverage into the plans is a violation of free enterprise. What we should all be concerned with is what is it the president we have in office wants to achieve. It would appear through his actions and his administration’s concerted efforts that he wants to make bigger government, which encroaches on civil liberties and forces the agenda of an elite few. That is why I am asking anyone who reads this, anyone who enjoys the freedoms we still have left in America, to support the Respect for Rights Conscience Act (H.R. 1179 and S.B. 1467) that will override such offenses to our liberties. Please contact your federal congressman or woman as soon as possible.

TRAVIS TYSON

Bethel

Hello!

I am back for real and ready to do some writing!

OK I am still here

I am slowwly working on this....lot of things (good things) going on in my life. Not much time to write lately. Stuff coming soon.

Big Bailouts hurt small banks

By DANIEL WAGNER, AP Business Writer Daniel Wagner, Ap Business Writer – Wed Jul 14, 11:43 am ET
WASHINGTON – To the list of economic woes squeezing small banks, add another one: government bailouts.
The Treasury Department's bailout program was designed with Wall Street megabanks in mind, according to a new report from a congressional watchdog. The "one-size-fits-all" program may actually be hurting small banks that are struggling to repay the money or even deliver quarterly dividend payments, the report says.
The main bank bailout program anticipated banks springing back from the crisis and raising fresh funds to repay the government, the report says.
That's exactly what happened to most of the big banks that took the most bailout money. Yet small banks continue to struggle, dragged down by souring loans for commercial real estate and high unemployment. Hundreds more small banks are expected to fail by the end of next year.
The 690 small banks that took bailout money are even worse off, according to a report Wednesday from the Congressional Oversight Panel, which monitors the $700 billion financial bailout. Already, one in seven has failed to pay a quarterly dividend due to Treasury. They can't afford the payments, which will nearly double in 2013.
Treasury spokesman Mark Paustenbach disputed the findings, saying in a statement that the bailouts helped many of the banks "weather the storm and continue to extend credit in the economy."
But the bailouts' costs are troubling because of small banks' crucial role in lending to small businesses and supporting economic recovery, said Elizabeth Warren, who chairs the panel.
The program "was not intended as a bailout for Wall Street," said Warren, who also is a professor at Harvard Law School. "It was intended to support ... homeownership, retirement savings and banks across the country."
Warren said the bailout bill, known as the Trouble Asset Relief Program, did stabilize the financial system. But she said that was only one of the program's goals. She said efforts to boost lending and support consumers have been less successful.
"There is very little evidence to suggest that the (bailouts) led small banks to increase lending," the report says.
In the end, that could mean that the biggest banks get even bigger, the report says. Dozens or hundreds of bailed-out banks could collapse or consolidate because they can't afford their obligations to taxpayers, it says. That would leave the handful of biggest banks with an even larger share of the banking system.
"The result could be that 'too big to fail' banks grow even bigger," Warren said.
The Congressional Oversight Panel was created by Congress to report on whether the bailouts are meeting their goals. The law also requires regular audits by the Government Accountability Office and creates a special inspector general to investigate fraud and other problems.

One Lone Light

I stand in a room that has One Lone Light.
The room, I do not know its size, ‘tis hard to tell,
Because the room is surrounded by the night;
I feel I am in a station of Dante’s hell!

The floor is of plank wood while the bulb gives hope,
But there is a darkness that surrounds both me and the light;
Much like a fog, which scares me, a fear I cannot cope,
For there are shadows in it that hide inside the night.

I hear them call me to turn off the bulb,
Others ask for me to join them in the darkness.
However I stay, to guard the lighted knolb.
And sit without fear, for with light there is no loneliness.

Some come into the light but like the darkness better.
They do things in secret which is a sin,
And follow one another exactly to the letter;
As they always go back, over and over again.

God however, gives me the courage to stay and fight,
They that do not wish to be made known;
Those specters that ask me to turn out the light,
So that their deeds, if in light, would be shown.

I want them to join me, to have the freedom that feel.
For in the One Lone Light there is liberty in its gaze,
No longer do I want them slinking in the darkness like an eel.
I want them to come out, to come out of their darkened maze.

They deny me and the One who has told me to be on guard,
Forever in the darkness do they perform their deeds;
They laugh, “He will never leave that light, for his head is hard!”
But I know they do not understand, for it is the light that their soul needs.

So I guard the One Lone Light,
To save myself from the deeds of darkness
And choose not to join their plight;
For with them it is utter loneliness.

God has given me this task to do,
Although I am weary, for it is for rest I am desiring,
I must keep the bulb shining, for it is I who
Am responsible, to keep the One Lone Light still burning!

Ephesians 5:3-14

(3) But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not once be named among you, as becometh saints; (4) Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. (5) For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (6) Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. (7) Be not ye therefore partakers with them. (8) For ye were sometimes in darkness, but now ye are light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (9) (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) (10) Proving what is acceptable to the Lord. (11) And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (12) For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done in secret. (13) But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever is made manifest is light. (14) Wherefore he said, Awake thou that sleeps, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

Hello

I finally got around to setting up my blogger account. The content of my Blog will be about political goings on, Christian theological issues (in the sense of trying to agree on things instead of pointing fingers), and (as my Blog title suggests) try to wake people up to what is going on and at the very least, keep them from being swept up in the emotional tide of today's media.

Some posts will be originally posted on here, other will be things I have written in other places to put on here. My hope is, along with the objectives I have mentioned, is to develop my persuasive and informational writing skills in order to help with books i want to write in the near future.

I hope anyone who gives me the satisfaction of reading my Blog (especially down the road) will enjoy and find it beneficial in their own life.