A Lesson for America

March 15th, 1783. General George Washington was losing the respect of his men. America was going broke, and the army was suffering. The Revolutionary War still continued to be fought. Americans were going through difficult times.

Washington’s revolting officers gathered in Newburgh to discuss grievances and to consider an insurrection. Surprisingly, Washington showed up.

“By an anonymous summons, an attempt has been made to convene you together; how inconsistent with the rules of propriety, how unmilitary, and how subversive of all order and discipline, let the good sense of the army decide...” Washington continued to scold them.

The speech was not received well, not at all. Taking out a letter from a congressman, Washington read the financial difficulties of the government. After some time…he paused. His eyes were squinting. His officers didn’t know what to think. Washington reached into his coat pocket and pulled out a pair of reading glasses. His officers didn’t know he wore glasses, and were surprised.

“Gentlemen," said Washington, "you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."

During that moment, his men were deeply moved, and in tears. This man had led them through so much.

After finishing the letter, Washington left. His officers cast a unanimous vote, agreeing to the rule of Congress, and thus preserving the Republic.

Polygamy and Gay Marriage

"The Utah Supreme Court upheld the 2003 bigamy conviction of a former police officer, ruling that the state law banning polygamy is not unconstitutional" (FOX).

The Utah Constitution prohibits polygamy:
Article 3 The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of this State:[Religious toleration -- Polygamy forbidden.]First: -- Perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed. No inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.

What about the US Constitution? The US Constitution grants the States the right to decide these controversial issues, however in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (When the Utah Constitution did not prohibit polygamy) the US Supreme Court stepped far over its bounds and legislated that polygamy was unconstitutional. (Many far right wing Americans use this absurd ruling as a stepping stool to the argument that Gay Marriage is unconstitutional.)

This raises the question: Does the first amendment grant every American the religious right to wed more than 1 partner?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Is marriage religious? Yes, without a doubt. Civil Unions are not religious. States (via their Constitutions) have the legal right not to notice your marriage. States cannot stop you from marrying…however (again) they have the legal right not to notice or confirm your legal married status (provided that the State Constitution prohibits it). Polygamists and homosexuals can marry anywhere they choose…but the States do not have to legally recognize them (and they won’t - provided that the particular State Constitution prohibits it).

Morally (Religiously), you can do whatever you want. Legally, there will be consequences. When State Constitutions mention marriage they are describing a legal marriage…not a religious one.

------------------------------------

"ATLANTA -- A judge on Tuesday struck down Georgia's ban on same-sex marriage, saying a measure overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2004 violated a rule that limits ballot questions to a single subject. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell said the state's voters must first decide whether same-sex relationships should have any legal status before they can be asked whether to ban same-sex marriages" (AP).

This is a classic case of judicial imperialism. It’s simply absurd.

Another Speech - Updated!

"Mr. Bush's speech on Monday evening will discuss how the US should deal with border security and what should happen to the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country...

According to a statement released by Mr. Fox's office, Mr. Bush had said officials were analyzing the administrative and logistical support of part of the National Guard, not the Army, to help police on the border" (BBC News).

It’s a good idea. A political stunt, but a good idea nevertheless. This will raise his approval….by a good one percent.

“White House officials say it would involve fewer than 8,000 Guardsmen.”

The dangerous El-Paso sector alone requires that many! Don’t interrupt our prime-time entertainment until you’ve actually got something important to say!

-------------------

UPDATE-

"The Senate voted to build 370 miles of triple-layered fencing along the Mexican border Wednesday and clashed over citizenship for millions of men and women who live in the United States illegally.
Amid increasingly emotional debate over election-year immigration legislation, senators voted 83-16 to add fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southern border. It marked the first significant victory in two days for conservatives seeking to place their stamp on the contentious measure" (AP).

Now this is news! Just when I lost faith in the Senate....they win me over.

Arrogant Idiots - Updated

"Despite what at times appeared to be his best efforts to convince the jury that he deserved to be executed, Zacarias Moussaoui must now endure the rest of his life behind bars.
The only person ever charged in the United States with involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks may well have earned the status of Islamic martyr among Al Qaeda members and supporters had he been executed. But the nine men and three women on the jury at his death-penalty sentencing trial in Alexandria, Va., declined to help him along that route" (Christian Science Monitor).

The man testified that he was going to fly a plane into the White House, and he has verified links to Al Qaeda.

“Jurors already have held Moussaoui responsible for at least some of the nearly 3,000 deaths in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Although Moussaoui was in custody at the time, jurors concluded that his lies to federal authorities furthered al Qaeda's plot” (CNN).

What a travesty. Hypocrites! The Constitution never mentions jury of one's peers. The 6th Amendment further explains Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..." Can a jury be impartial if one or more members are against the death penalty, or legal punishment?

----Update----
Zacarias Moussaoui was saved from a death sentence by a single juror who never explained his vote to other members of the jury that sent the September 11 conspirator to prison for life, The Washington Post reported on Friday (Reuters UK).

That juror was NOT impartial.