Marriage, Bailouts, and the Long Hot Summer in Hubbard

Letter to: The Hubbard City Cafe

From: Jim Hammock (Maxine's Youngest Boy)

Date: August 9, 2010

There are some pretty interesting items in the news recently, and I know with the Global Warming thing sapping your strength there in August, it is hard to hold discussions and fix everything. So I thought I might pick up the slack by giving some of my personal views on some fairly important things like marriage.

Well California has done it again. A gay federal judge overturned California's same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry in America. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit two gay couples filed, arguing that that the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights.

Supporters of the ban countered that it was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.  California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.  Looks like a big tug of war between citizens and liberal courts.

Arguments to support ruling against the will of the people mostly centered around the fact that everyone has equal rights under the law. The historical issue of outlawing mixed marriages (black and white races) was used to show how you can't trust the citizens to protect people's rights, and we must depend on judges and their interpretation of the Constitution instead. It seems to me this is the wrong way to look at the issue since a huge majority of citizens today would clearly agree that all races have equal rights to marriage.

The issue is what is marriage? For some time, most of the world has defined marriage as the sacred union between one man and one woman.  That definition would exclude multiple men and women, animals, children, objects, and yes, men marrying men and women marrying women. While most of us would agree that all men and women have equal rights to marry, we would not agree that all men, women, children, animals, etc. have the right to define marriage as they and the judges desire. Maybe that is why in every one of the thirty-one states that have put the issue before the people for a vote, true marriage has prevailed. Only judges have ruled otherwise.

In summary, it is pretty simple. Define marriage first, and then determine who has rights to this union. My guess is you should be careful with your definition because gay marriage is just the beginning of a movement to break down, weaken, and even destroy the concept of marriage and family.

Justice Anthony Scalia worries about this slippery slope. He has argued that marriage is the cornerstone of society. He feels marriage is not only a “sacred obligation,” but also a civil contract governed by law. State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, bestiality, child pornography, statutory rape, and polygamy are based on moral choices of society who wishes to protect the time honored concept of the family.

Bottom line, with the problems we are having in this country I feel we should be for most anything that strengthens the family and against most anything that weakens the family. Marriage should be strengthened not weakened. Period.

Also, did you guys notice the Democractic Congress called folks back to Washington to give a $26 Billion bailout to their teacher and police unions in hopes to get out the vote in November. They say don't worry about the deficit because they will raise taxes on businesses to pay for the legislation.  This came out the same week that news about The city of Oakland, California made the rounds. Our California friends laid off over 10 percent of its police force after failing to negotiate a settlement with the police union — whose members earn an average compensation of $162,000 a year.

“What’s going on in Oakland is an example of a phenomenon being seen across the country: states and cities choosing between providing services to the public or maintaining luxury compensation for public employees,” Josh Barro, the Walter B. Wriston Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, writes for the Real Clear Markets website.

As the result of the loss of 80 police officers, Oakland’s police chief says cops will no longer respond to 44 categories of crimes, including grand theft (a large Obama voting group).

Well guys, I will continue to keep watch down here in the cool City of Austin until temperatures drop a little there in Downtown Hubbard City. I know how that Global Warming saps your strength. Don't worry, surely your BAILOUT is in the mail.

Think about it,

Jim