The blogosphere is rife with discussion on gay marriage and the LDS Church’s involvement in California. I would like to do my part in the battle for family. I pray this post will have positive effect in that battle, however modest it might be.
First of all, I’ve already said how I feel about group rights. Gays don’t have rights. Human beings have rights. Gays happen to be human beings. Good, we’re on the same page.
That said, this isn’t really about gay rights as much as it is about gay marriage, but it brings me to my first point.
Marriage is not a right.
For all the talk about gay rights you can mostly chalk it up to human rights that need to transcend prejudice. In other words, instead of clamoring for “gay rights” they should instead be insisting that they be afforded the already existing human rights. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is a prime example of a group inventing new rights so they can feel the same as everyone else regardless of their decisions. It’s like a people with dreadlocks inventing a right to lay their heads on your table simply because you don’t mind another person without dreadlocks doing it.
Marriage is fundamental to society.
This is entirely incident to marriage not being a right, but is yet a powerful argument against the thought that marriage should be a right. Marriage is the very institution by which children have parents, both mother and father. It is the core of the fundamental unit of society—family.
Marriage involves more than the couple.
Intimate relations are not just about consenting adults having a good time. There is ever present the possibility of new life. This new life has rights just the same. It has needs, physical, emotional, spiritual.
Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God [etc.]
Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
It is because of this sticky situation that marriage is instituted. The very purpose of marriage is to give children stable homes, to assure where possible that when children are created they have a mother and a father. Once you realize this, you realize that gay marriage isn’t the only thing you ought to be worried about. Fornication, adultery and divorce come to mind. Alas, this post is about gay marriage. Indeed, homosexual relations cannot result in offspring, so the very reasons for instituting marriage don’t even apply to the deviants. Yet they insist they have a right to marry. Again I propose it’s merely about them feeling the same as everyone else, regardless of their personal choices. It’s validation, nothing more.
Government should be involved in marriage.
Many of my libertarian friends throw around the idea that government should step out of marriage completely, leaving it a private and religious matter concerning only those involved. This is one of few places where I diverge from the libertarian camp (though not necessarily libertarian ideals). As stated previously, marriage inherently involves more than the parties involved. It involves family and new life; it involves society as a whole. It is in the interests of everyone involved (and everyone is involved, who among us was not born of a mother and a father?) and we should take every opportunity to encourage marriage over promiscuity and counseling over divorce. We should take every opportunity to afford children the privilege of being born into the marriage relation, and where that’s not possible to be adopted into such (no, I’m not saying single parents should give up their children, though they shouldn’t be discouraged to do so). The government is the vehicle by which the people are governed. Whereas the people deem it in society’s interest to afford children the opportunity to develop under the guidance of bonded mother and father, encouraged to stay together, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, thus is born the state sanctioned institution of marriage.
Imagine you have a repository. At time t0 someone copies the code from the repository, starts another repository from there, and commences development. You also continue development. At time t you want to pull in the changes the other guy has made.
One approach could be you simply merge other guys code into yours with one big commit calculated from time t0. Now suppose you want to keep other guy’s history from t0 on, or even worse, you want to pull only some changes and you want to push some of your changes to other guy.
This is a true story. It all started with CVS. A webapp was developed, cloned and branched. Now there are 4 of them, mostly the same, but subtly different, and each with it’s own CVS repo. Each one at some point in time is identical to another, but the history behind those points in time are different, thanks to copy and commit cloning.
So after converting the CVS to Darcs, I came up with a way of tricking darcs into treating time t0 in each repository as the same t0, thus enabling cross-pollination, and here I describe that method.
First you find t0, and tag liberally. By liberally I mean twice. I’ll explain why later. Of course you put the same two tags on both repos, both at the same point in time. Then you do a darcs opt --checkpoint on each so you can do a partial get on them.
Now you have to decide which repo you’re going to keep, and which one you are bringing in. You probably want to keep the one with past history, and bring in the one that did copy and commit cloning. Do a darcs get --partial on each repo, keeping track of which is what. I like to use a for the destination, and b for the bad repo.
Edit: The below paragraph is a bit confusing. Keep in mind that to make b think it’s a, you just replace b’s guts with those of a, but this only works for the partial at time t0. So we make a snapshot for reference, and then pull in b’s downstream stuff (because we can’t do this after b thinks it’s a).
Now go into b/_darcs and we’ll play around with these guts to make it think it’s a, but we want it to have it’s future patches first. So we take a snapshot before pulling the other stuff. I just made a temp directory and did cp -r inv* patches temp, these are the three things in the _darcs directory we care about. Here’s where the liberal tagging comes in, the partial at the later tag only depends on the first tag, so that makes your inventory and patches much simpler. Now you’re ready to pull in all the subsequent patches from the cloned branch.
Once that’s done, you go back into b/_darcs, this time you take anything in temp/patches and temp/inventories and remove the corresponding files from patches and inventories. Then you replace those files with the files from a/_darcs/{inventories,patches}. These two steps I accomplish like so:
ls temp/inventories | while read i; do rm inventories/$i; done
ls temp/patches | while read i; do rm patches/$i; done
for f in inventories patches; do cp ../../a/_darcs/$f/* $f; done
One last step remains. Now you edit inventory and replace that very first patch number, the one that’s a tag, with the one that’s in the inventory file from a. Now b effectively has the exact same past history as a, and has all it’s future patches, and now you can share between your repo and other guy’s repo freely.
One might think this is an uncommon situation, but I can’t help but think it’s more common than I think… Hopefully this guide will save others the headache of trying to wrap their minds around the darcs inner guts, as well as save me some headache should I ever encounter this again (which I’m pretty sure I will, in only a few weeks!).
Connor, kudos to you for standing up for liberty. I find it sad that there are those who would so vehemently oppose liberty in any form. As for anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action laws, they are indeed different, and yet the same.
“Redistribution of wealth” is a hot topic these days, perhaps we should coin the term “redistribution of liberty.” It’s an erroneous and an insidious ideal that a group should be made equal, for you can’t make anything equal but the individual. Where a shop owner may refuse credit to a man based entirely on individual merits, how is he to prove his state of mind to the law if that individual happens to be in group $minority protected by the ill-conceived law?
I will reiterate for for clarity’s sake… “Rights can ONLY be protected on an INDIVIDUAL basis.” Note that rights cannot be “granted” except by God, or derived as necessary from those God given rights. To find such words as “minority” or especially enumerated groups in legislation is to find legal and even mandated discrimination. From merriam-webster.com:
3 a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
This discrimination may be spelled out such that it is discrimination in favor of a group, but as all things must be balanced, this discrimination is necessarily in hindrance of another group, specifically anyone not belonging to the favored group. I doubt anyone would be all gung-ho for anti-discrimination legislation in favor of caucasian white males. Such legislation would be immediately labeled as bigotry, so why the double standard?
In fact, to be truly anti-discrimanatory, you must allow everyone the discretion to make decisions on an individual basis on any characteristic he deems relevant. And thus it follows that to be anti group discrimination, you must be pro individual discrimination. Unfortunately, such things as skin color and other traits shared by groups are also perfectly valid as individual traits. Such is life, and we must live with the bad judgments of individuals if we are to value liberty over entitlement.
I just finished reading an article on how we have strayed in a very fundamental way. It’s called Federalism: The Great Lost Concept. Here’s an excerpt.
A return to federalism, which is what Dr. Paul offers, is a return to the great experiment our Founders started. As a supporter recently said, we can choose between Candidate A and Candidate B’s plans for our lives, or we can choose Ron Paul’s plan to give us back our lives.
And for those of you who think Ron Paul would recklessly take us to anarchy, another excerpt.
It is possible to streamline operations and return to the states the powers they once held. Dr. Paul is not in favor of immediately abolishing programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security because, while these programs are unconstitutional and ultimately harmful, too many Americans have been made dependent on them for those programs to be immediately ended.
This is in response to Jordy’s post. Though it quickly degrades into rant, it comes full circle to my main point.
If you follow my blog, you know I’m fairly anti Romney. Yet that’s not to say I’m anti Mormon, as I am one. Which begs the question, “Is Romney’s failure truly a reflection of religious bigotry?” Of course I’m one person, and this is all anecdotal. I would like to say that had Romney been truly conservative instead of merely “more” conservative than McCain, that he might have done better, stayed in the race, maybe won. Alas, I can see this is not the case. If Romney had been truly conservative, he’d likely be in the same boat as the true conservative. Perhaps not, for if he was in that boat he would have jumped ship long ago. Maybe that’s unfair, calling him a quitter, but I digress.
So here Romney runs as the “conservative” choice, as well as the shrewd businessman that can turn around the heaviest, most sluggish, most doomed of vessels. I almost wonder if he dropped out (or suspended) because he was sacrificing more and more of his true conservative values for the sake of media acceptance, the campaign, and the party. C’mon, we all know his loyalties lie with the party above all else. The theory goes he could not do it anymore, he couldn’t keep sacrificing his principles to keep the campaign going, but he endorsed McCain, the antithesis of conservatism… so much for that theory.
You may think with all this ranting I’m bashing Romney and may yet give him a whopping slap in the face. Well, you may be right. That depends on how you interpret it. Above I was merely conjecturing, posing possible reasons behind his suspension as well as reasons behind the reason for his suspension, another reason, you might say the reason… his lack of support. Funny definition of lack of support though, I think he really had a shot still, he was the runner up! Though I digress yet again.
There is a point to all this. Regardless of why Romney was losing, regardless of what tactics were used against him, regardless of what he really does believe in, the fact remains that he dropped out. This is the slap in the face, so brace yourselves. I truly sympathize with all you Romney fans out there. Whatever the reason you supported him, you were counting on him. You were counting on him to keep McCain out. You were counting on him to save our dollars. You were counting on him to bring God’s blessing upon our great nation. You were counting on him to bring his conservative values to the white house. Whatever it was you were counting on it, and he has let you down. And for what? For “the party.” And now he jumps behind McCain “for the party.” I’m truly sorry. If my main man did that to me, if my candidate of choice (you know who he is) so much as hinted at dropping the race, I would be dismayed beyond consolation. My heart goes out.
Now ain’t that depressing? I think everyone has probably heard by now that Romney has officially endorsed McCain (aka McPain, McInsane, McShame). I would say I cannot believe it, but in fact I do. Merely because the more I found out about Romney the more I realized he is just the mormon version of McCain. I don’t want to believe it, but I do. Romney has lost any ounce of my respect he heretofore had, where before I somewhat generously if hesitantly gave him the benefit of the doubt. Now it’s come to this and I have to believe that sane people will not follow Romney’s endorsement. If this all isn’t depressing enough, here’s another video. This one at least has some hope to go with it.
Your choices are now McCain, Huckabee, Ron Paul or whoever wins the Dem. nomination. I used to lean towards Obama as a second choice, not that I’d ever resort to a second choice, but with fozzmoo’s recent article I fear he’s not much of a second choice at all. Obama is to Clinton as Romney is to McCain.
To be honest I’m not entirely well educated on Huckabee, but I hear he blew the lid off with high spending in Arkansas, and his admitted ignorance on things war doesn’t help much either. I hate to say I told you so, but it looks like Ron Paul is our man, so please go out and make a difference.
“I believe in limited government. I believe the purpose of government is
to protect liberty and not to run our lives, or run the economy, or to
police the world.”—Ron Paul
The above quote was from a radio interview. I don’t think anybody could
say it any better. That quote is the very embodiment of why I support
Ron Paul to the very end.
Want to find out more of what he’s about? Here’s a blog that has video
of his speech at CPAC.
If you find yourself dismayed and at a loss with Romney’s suspended
campaign, please please take a close look at Ron Paul. If you have any
doubts about him or any compelling reason not to support him I would
certainly appreciate the chance to look into them, for my own
enlightenment as well as yours. One friend of mine brought up a concern
that, given any merit, would deeply concern myself as well. I spent
many hours that evening looking into it, at the expense of
homework, and came up convinced that the allegations were nothing but
misrepresentation and slander.
If you wonder what could be done at this point with most primaries
already passed, just drop me a line. There is work to be done.
I’d like to clarify somewhat on my previous post, mostly as a response to my brother’s comment thereon.
I thought long and hard about making that post in the first place. I read comments that said Romney answered the best he could without becoming entrapped. I read comments on disgust with the “fake smile” on his face the whole time. Mainly the comments defending him where the well constructed ones. The ones against were mainly personal attacks. This nearly led me to drop the issue and give Romney the benefit of the doubt.
I thought about it further however, and did some research on the controversy of medical marijuana. Here’s one quote:
Along with California, nine states have passed laws permitting marijuana use by patients with a doctor’s approval: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Arizona also has a similar law, but no formal program in place to administer prescription pot.
So that’s 10 or 11 states that legalize marijuana for medical use, depending on how you count. So really at the base of this controversy is whether the Federal Government will trump the state laws and arrest users in those states (and their doctors).
This controversy is fundamental to the question in the soundbite. He’s essentially asking, “will my state’s law apply or will your law?”
Romney answers that he’s not for the legalization of marijuana, but that doesn’t answer his question. Is Romney going to encourage states to not pass such laws or is he going to trample the state’s laws with federal laws? Now here it gets sticky. As Hans said in his comment, the president would merely execute the laws, not make them, but the fact is a president has an enormous amount of influence over what laws do or do not get passed. In any case, here’s a couple possible answers Romney could have given.
I will uphold the law, if the law says you will be arrested then that’s what I uphold.
I believe that marijuana should not be used in any circumstance and I would support any legislation that would make it illegal on the federal level.
I will stand behind state laws, though I would like to see all states make marijuana illegal.
Any one of those answers fits within his broad “I am against the legalization of marijuana” statement. Read them closely, however, and they have more than subtle differences. So which one does he really mean? That’s what I want Romney to own up to, and that’s what the man in the wheelchair was trying to get at.
Here’s Mitt Romney answering a question about medical marijuana, if you can call it answering.
I’m not going to get much into the rights or wrongs of marijuana, medical or not, the war on drugs, or all that jazz. Instead I’m going to address Romney’s dodging of the question. One might say he in fact answered the question very directly, “I’m against the legalization of marijuana.” That’s a fine answer, Romney, but you were asked a very specific question. “Will you arrest me and my doctor if we use marijuana to treat my ailments?” He just wanted an honest answer.
Some have sympathized with Romney, saying it’s a loaded question. If he answers yes, then he’s not sympathetic to the less fortunate. If he says no, then he’s a hypocrite.
I say well then Romney, own up to your policy. If your policy is marijuana is bad in all shapes and forms, and you believe the feds should arrest abusers, then own up to it. Tell the man he’ll be arrested.
Ron Paul gives a very straightforward answer to this question. He says the federal government has no business interfering with such matters. Paul says the states have the say here. He says he (or the federal government) will not arrest you.
The tragedy is that Romney dodges around the question so he can fool as many people into voting for him as he can. If someone is going to vote against him because they don’t think the feds should arrest users in sympathetic states, then that’s their prerogative, and shame on Mitt for not coming clean to them.
