Why Start the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Debate?

Senate to address DADT policy - Meredith Shiner - POLITICO.com

The Senate Armed Services Committee will address the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy Tuesday—the first time in 17 years the topic will be debated before a congressional hearing.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen are slated to testify on the law, which bans openly gay Americans from serving in the military.

Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin has said repeatedly "has never supported" the controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, and other Senators have expressed their opposition to it as well.

“The military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy is an unjust, outdated and harmful rule that violates the civil rights of some of our bravest, most heroic men and women,” said Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in a statement.

Republicans are opposed to the repeal.

“In the middle of two wars and in the middle of this giant security threat,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Sunday on NBC's “Meet the Press.” “Why would we want to get into this debate?”

Why indeed?

Well if I was robbing a bank…to distract someone from the robbery I could pull the fire alarm.  That is what I think this is about.  They have a few pieces of legislation they have been having trouble with because, well they suck, and we are watching, so they need us to watch elsewhere.  What better diversion, to divide and ignite the people on both sides of this argument, than DADT?  This will definitely rile up both sides, and probably fracture the middle.  Then while we are all arguing about this…BAMMO we get:

-KOOK

Gay Marriage, Straight Marriage, Let’s get Government out of Marriage.

I probably will not win any fans from my more religiously conservative readers with this post, but if you will persevere and hear me out you may be able to formulate a new opinion on this issue.  The more I read, and study, and think about these issues the more Libertarian I become.

Let me start at the beginning.  When a couple gets married there are usually two  things that actually happen, but frequently we only recognize that one thing happened.   Harry meets Sally, Harry and Sally fall in love, Harry spends a ridiculous amount of money on Sally a ring, they set a date, find someone to officiate (usually some flavor of preacher), go to the courthouse and get a marriage license…wait, do you see what just happened?

When you get “Married” what most of us think about are white dresses and churches.  We are joining together in Holy Matrimony, professing our love in front of God and our families.   Why does the Government need involved in that? Because of the second thing that happens after the “I do’s”.  Someone pulls out a marriage license and the happy couple and their witnesses and official sign it.  Now it is “legal”.  I even have a cute little funny picture somewhere of my (ex) wife holding the marriage license while we hug and she winks for the camera behind my back.  Sort of a , ‘I got him now’, picture.  (I didn't realize it was a catch and release program, but that is another topic)

Our government gives tax breaks and all sorts of goodies to people when they get married.  After thinking about it the reason is obvious: It is part of the social contract with the citizenry for procreating and contributing to the future of society.  We give you tax breaks, and ‘married-only’ deals on government loans and all kinds of things because you are assumed to be on the road to making babies.  So what happens if Harry and Sally decide never to have kids?  I think they should be in breach of contract.

Meanwhile, what does the Deity care if you have a legal document?  I believe Jesus  said ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's’.  I have not yet heard of anyone’s faith not recognizing the marriage vows based on whether it was duly recognized by the State.  What does God care?  God’s laws are not man’s laws.

Buddha certainly doesn’t care, I asked him at the Chinese restaurant the other day, paid my check rubbed his little tummy and asked, and he said it was cool with him. 

So two things happen… Church, and State.  Well I thought that the Liberals among  us were dead set against Church and State collaborating on anything…

Now really, and this is key, I am for Individual and States rights, and if I say that is what I am for I should be willing to put up or shut up.  If Tom and Jerry want to get married it does not hurt me in the least.  Really it doesn’t; I don’t have to like it, or agree, or anything, it simply doesn’t harm me at all.

 

  If Ellen and Portia want to tie the knot, how does that hurt me or my kids?  Remember I am for Individual and State’s rights, and so if I had my way, my kids would not be receiving a state education.

I am not currently married, and I am certainly not gay.  But what if I didn’t have any family, would I not want to be able to designate a caregiver, a beneficiary, an executor, etc as whoever I wanted it to be?  Isn’t it ridiculous to give tax breaks (even though I am against having an IRS anyway) to people just because they cohabitate no matter what their sexual practices?  If you have kids, you and whoever else is raising them should be able after proof of dependency to get whatever tax credit you are eligible for.  I half raise a kid that isn’t mine, I spend tons of cash on her and provide her a place to live at least 50% of the time, what makes me less of a parent than if I had married her Mother (yuck) or her (*gag*) Dad (gross double yuck) but I love the little stinker and her Dad needs help raising her so I do. Think Uncle Joey from Full House and you get the picture.

Over half of all marriages end in divorce anyway.  Look at all the step parents and single or unwed parents.  Think how much simpler it would be if it worked another way. Maybe this way:

You can marry whoever your preacher and congregation will allow, and let God be the judge if it works for Him or not. Neither forcing a congregation or preacher to marry any two people.  And really, who would want to force a preacher and congregation to marry them if they were not wanted in the church?  Church is not a place you can frequent very easily if you are completely at odds with everyone who attends.

Then, you go to the courthouse and sign a declaration listing emergency contacts,  executors, transfer on deaths, caregivers, who gets all your stuff when the relationship splits,  whatever.  That takes care of all our emergency and end of life needs, no matter what your status with a Church is. 

Then if you end up raising kids: yours, theirs, or someone else’s, you get tax breaks and whatever else you have coming.  If no kids are involved, why have a special status? 

It really is, and should be, Separate.

One last item, no sane person on the “Gay Rights” side is going to argue with the definition of  as being between “two people of legal age”.  If they do then we just have to write them off as ridiculous.  That prevents Triads (which are already legal or ignored many places), bestiality (I think every sane person agrees this is gross), Underage Marriage (which happens already with guardian consent at ages I am not comfortable with), and all other ridiculous notions.  If this solution was offered and not acceptable, then that would tell me that the issue was not one of being treated equally, but one of trying to change someone’s religious views and force acceptance of the way you live your life on someone else, which is Statism at its’ absolute worst.

There simply is no other way to give both sides what they want, and what they deserve.  Unless we remove emotions and look  at things rationally, i.e. Civil Rights  vs. Religious Freedom, we will never solve this issue.  I am for both Civil Rights, and Religious Freedom.  We cannot take away one group’s (or everyone’s) Religious Freedom, in order to guarantee some other group’s civil rights, and we do not have to.  The problem with Civil Unions as they have been discussed in the past is that they did not go far enough.  Remember there are two things that happen when you have a “wedding”. Let’s keep them separate and make it equal for everyone.

-KOOK

p.s. I cannot finish this post without stating that I am in no way agreeing that the Prop8 Protestors are correct.  A constitutionally mandated process was done as per the fervent wish of those seeking to redefine someone else’s religious beliefs, and they lost.  That is democracy, isn’t that what the left always wants?

 

 

-KOOK

Obama Fatigue, Liberty and Political Transformations. All Three Not Necessarily Related

I am finding myself suffering from Obama fatigue or even just sheer government idiocy fatigue. After watching the State of the Union Address, it appears Obama is poised to continue off the cliff. The only real question remains how many of us he succeeds in taking with him, how much of his agenda can be blunted and what exactly will happen in the 2010 elections. Until then, it is a watching and waiting game. Hoping also. Hoping that enough Americans awake and embrace liberty. But it seems the further one is from true liberty the less they know it's true meaning or can even envision what it would look like in it's practical form.

If liberty were to come, there is even the gamble that many would reject it in it's whole.

Some time ago, I read a piece by Solzhentsyn in which he said many people in this country believed their carefree life would continue on forever, unabated, no matter what they did. It was a keen observation. The way they were raised by parents in a country of unprecedented comfort and wealth that spoiled them. Not only their way of life but an improvement of it was a conditioned expectation. In reality, freedom can not survive irresponsibility.

Socialism and big government foster that irresponsibility. Socialism is an ideology wherein everyone owns each other, but, ultimately, nobody owns themselves. Everyone is owned by a coalition of resentful busibodies, leeches, incompetents, and demagogues. However, the idea of not owning one's self is attractive especially if they are free to engage in vice. Vice is then repackaged as a substitute for freedom.

I would guess it holds true that many conservatives or libertarians can admit to once being more socialist in nature. Growing up in upstate New York I was always intuitively more conservative than nearly anyone I encountered. That being said, the tide all around me was so low, that all things relative, my beliefs were pretty statist, looking back. My first tour of living in Europe cured me of any leftward idealists thoughts I might have. I saw first hand the discrepancy between our lives and what, in reality, was another of the "richest" nations lives. There was no comparison and the backwardness of their societies was palpable.

My abject fear of ever having such a society foisted upon us made me more nationalist, certainly jingoistic. Having the luxury of time I was able to ferret out the differences and feel out the small day to day nuances. For instance, watching as a man refused to move simple box 100 feet because moving boxes was not in his contract was a one day cure-all for any union sympathies I might have had. Also watching my neighbor take a full six weeks off of work for hay fever as he spent his days reading the paper and taking every meal out in his garden was another memorable eye opening observation. Observing human nature as it was, not as I wanted to believe it should be, was key in understanding the failures of collectivism.

As it is, no one talked me out of socialism. Like most, I had children, got a mortgage and saw how confiscatory it was to the typical family. Realistically, it took years to go from "talking point repeating drone" to conservative. Even still my political awareness is evolving. I am still recognizing the places where I accept the premise of an authoritarian big government. The places where, I myself, may reject liberty.