If you are interested in getting your view on politics out there, please let us know! We are always looking for more writers no matter the political persuasion. Send us an e-mail at voiceamericablog@gmail.com and you could become a regular member of our site.

Stay tuned for updates the moment our writers have the chance to make them.

Considering that each member of the Supreme Court is to serve a lifetime on the Court once confirmed, one would assume that parties would dig in the trenches to prevent the nomination of someone from the other side. However, since the nomination of Anthony Kennedy in the Fall of 1987, there has been an interesting pattern in the voting tendencies of the Senators on the matter.

Kennedy passed with a 97-0 vote, but since then, the votes on people now considered to be on the liberal side of the Court have been as follows: Souter: 90-9; Bader Ginsburg: 96-3; Breyer, 87-9. On the conservative side, votes have been: Thomas: 52-48; Roberts 78-22; Alito 58-42 with Harriet Meiers not making it far enough to be voted on.

Of course correlation does not mean causation but there are a couple of ways to read this. One might be that liberal nominees are generally more qualified than conservative ones. Another read might be that Republicans are less likely to vote against a nominee than Democrats. A wrench thrown into the mix is the fact that Souter was appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush.

What does this mean? Very little, I think. However, I believe that even without a 60-40 control of the Senate, nor her placation to the Republicans during the hearing, that Sotomayor would run into very little trouble getting though. I expect her to have less than 20 “nay” votes when it all comes down. Perhaps even less than 10.

A tip I got in the form of a text from DrexxMac has led me to discover that at 5:01pm today, something big on the State Senate controversy will happen as Gov. David Paterson (D) steps up to the podium at a press  conference. Speculation by many (including Rochester, NY paper: The Democrat & Chronicle) is that the Governor will attempt to appoint a new Lieutenant Governor who would then be in position to cast a tie-breaking vote. This would most likely give the Democrats the power they need as Paterson will most likely select someone from his party.

There is a problem with this, however. There is no provision in the New York State Constitution to allow for such a move. The constitution does not provide for a method of replacing a Lt. Gov. if there is a vacancy in the position. An amendment would need to be written, voted on and passed to allow this to happen. There is no real way for this to happen in time to resolve this crises (unless it continues on for a year or so).

Republicans, of course, are threatening to sue to prevent the appointment from happening should Paterson go forward with the plan.

Both sides have been working behind closed doors to reach a power-sharing agreement.

I just don’t understand what the hang up is here. So the Senate is evenly split? How does this prevent them from sitting down and doing their jobs? I can see why it would be problematic on a lot of legislation which may end up getting a 31-31 vote, but how does this stop the Senators from at least attempting to do their jobs?

The situation is embarrassing for anyone involved and is costing New York State citizens tens of thousands of dollars as important legislation remains dormant while the Senators simply gavel in to Paterson’s special sessions, do nothing and gavel out.

This political bickering and partisan fighting is precisly why the Framers of the Constitution wanted to avoid political parties, but the nature of politics made this impossible. Now we have selfish state politicians trying to keep their political backers satisfied while completely forsaking the constituents who voted them in. The very people they are supposed to represent.

It is almost sickening to watch and makes me glad I will be moving outside of New York soon.

Bad argument No. 9
“The fact that many married couples do not have children proves that marriage is not intrinsically related to procreation.”

Yet the fact remains that most married couples either have had or will have children. The exceptions prove the rule: Being married tends to prevent a person from having a child with someone other than his or her spouse. In all cultures, even if some couples are childless, marriage as an institution is principally concerned with children and, therefore, society’s future.

Yet we still allow people who cannot have children marry. What’s the deal with that? The gay population is but a small fraction of the overall world population, therefore, to satisfy your claim here, marriage would still be primarily concerned with child rearing (if that is the real reason people get married, I mean, it couldn’t possibly be love, right?). So even by your own argument, gay marriage wouldn’t have a huge effect on the purpose of marriage.

Bad argument No. 10
“Heterosexuals have done a terrible job at marriage. Who are they to speak?”

It is true that half of all new heterosexual marriages end in divorce. But far more than half have succeeded, if you count marriages established before the divorce boom of the ’70s and ’80s. Yet the point is not how many are successful, but what marriage means. To accommodate gays, marriage would have to change into something it has never been: an institution for same-sex love without the biological possibility for children. It will probably not require sexual fidelity, which even the majority of unfaithful heterosexuals have conceded is the ideal. Some of the most prominent proponents of gay marriage, such as Andrew Sullivan, say the ideal needs to change, since gay understanding of fidelity includes other sexual liaisons.

Man, you really like this “marriage is for the kids” argument, huh? And why would gay marriage not require sexual fidelity? What basis do you have for this? The most common claim of this is that many gay couples are not faithful, but of course, neither are many straight couples. Besides, there is no where for a gay relationship to go, it cannot be stabilized or legitimized, so how can such a stymied hope of a relationship endure? In any case, the particular understanding of fidelity between a couple are up to that couple. There are plenty of married heterosexual couples who are not sexually faithful as most understand the term. But they are the exception to the rule. What a couple does in their bedroom is up to them and though most of us (both heterosexual and homosexual) would only want a relationship that is 100% faithful sexually, this is not true for every hetero- or homosexual couple.

Bad argument No. 11
“The resistance to gay marriage is motivated by fear and loathing for homosexuals.”

While no large group is free of hate-mongers, the vast majority resist because they strongly believe in the positive features of traditional marriage. They have experienced the benefits of the lifelong union of two persons who are complementary in many important ways—biological, psychological, temperamental, and spiritual—and who, because of this complementarity, have a unique capacity to bear and nurture children. It is appreciation for the unparalleled success of this complementarity—not fear or hatred for gays—that motivates most Americans to oppose gay marriage.

I agree that most people who oppose gay marriage are not hate-mongerers. We’ll leave that up to the crazy-ridiculous Fred Phelps clan. I think, however, that your focus on the child-rearing possibilities of marriage are hurting your argument more than helping it. As I have stated so many times before, sterile people, or people who don’t want kids are still allowed and encouraged to marry. Those who can produce kids, often produce kids they do not want who will then go to orphanages or foster homes. Why not allow these children to have a happier life as an adoptive child of a loving gay couple? Isn’t that more desirable; to allow children the love and stability that a family provides over the constant moving and troubles of life as an orphan or foster child? I think so.

Bad argument No. 12
“Those who resist gay marriage are irrational, Neanderthal, and bigoted.”

The gay marriage movement is only a few decades old. Could it be that billions of people who for millennia upheld traditional marriage were really irrational and bigoted? On the contrary, we would argue that a common-sense understanding of life leads in the direction we have argued. Further, it seems clear that reason without religious vision misses the depth dimension of human life. It tends to dissolve basic human institutions into contracts between persons who make whatever they want of them, to the detriment of children and society.

For almost as long, people have argued that slaves are good, the earth is flat, the universe revolves around the earth and so forth. As time goes on, people learn more, become more enlightened and realize that old ways aren’t always the way things need to continue to be. Many churches support gay marriage, or at the very least, homosexuality itself. Many gays are religious. Being gay and being religious are not mutually exclusive. If God created gays, He did so with a purpose. Far be it for us to know what His plan is, but homosexuals are God’s creatures just the same as heterosexuals and should be treated no differently. While I would not argue that those who disagree are necessarily neanderthals or bigoted, I think that God created marriage as a way for two people to show their undying and eternal love for each other. I know that I do not be someone who wishes to deny them that opportunity.

Bad argument No. 13
“The legal issue of gay marriage ought to be left up to the states.”

Quite the opposite, we need a national definition of marriage. Without a public definition embodied in a constitutional amendment, activist judges at various levels will undo the conviction of the vast majority of Americans. Some already have, in defiance of state defense-of-marriage acts. Precedent for a national definition is ample—the federal government outlawed polygamy in the 19th century and the Supreme Court has ruled in the 20th century on many cases regarding marriage.

Now here is where I can agree wholeheartedly. As much as I’d love to see the states stand up one by one to announce their support of gay marriage, the issue of interstate relations regarding these marriages is getting tricky. A homosexual couple married in one state are severly limited in their options should they desire to move. What if one of them gets a job offer in a state that does not allow gay marriage? What happens.

No, I agree here. We need a national amendment regarding marriage. Only, instead of the one you propose, it should be the one that states that gays are allowed to marry.

In sum, there are many bad reasons for supporting gay marriage. In contrast, there are many good reasons for protecting historic understandings of marriage, a public institution whose fate will determine the future of our society.

In sum, there are many bad reasons for opposing gay marriage. In contrast, there are far more good reasons for protecting the rights of others in an aknowledgement of the fact that our understandings are constantly evolving just as our institution of marriage has throughout the years.

From Christianity Today’s article, Thirteen Bad Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage

Bad argument No. 1
“Gay marriage is a basic human right.”

There are huge differences between constitutional rights with few restrictions (such as the rights to life or free speech) and other rights with important restrictions, which do not carry the right of universal access. We already recognize that not everyone has the right to enlist in the army, but that one must be of the proper age, physical condition, citizenship, and philosophy—anarchists and pacifists need not apply. We also agree that certain persons do not have the right to marriage—children, multiple partners, family members, and those already married.

This is all fairly logical and makes pretty good sense. But it does not provide a reason why gay marriage is not a human right. It does argue that children should not marry, that multiple partners should not marry, that family members should not marry and that people who are already married should not marry. None of these preclude gays from marrying. In fact, this seems to almost restrict marriage to two adults, which is exactly what gay rights advocates are pushing for.

Bad argument No. 2
“Gay marriage is a civil right.”

This is based on the false assumption that homosexuality is the same sort of human difference as race. But while the difference between sexual orientations is profound (one desires the opposite sex and procreates while the other does neither), racial difference has no intrinsic bearing on love and marriage. This is why philosophically opposed African American leaders such as Shelby Steele and Jesse Jackson agree that “gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue.”

First off, I tend to avoid getting advice from Jesse Jackson. Secondly, how does homosexuality have “intrinsic bearing on love and marriage” as opposed to race? Because they cannot have children? So heterosexual couples who do not want, or cannot have children should be lumped in with homosexual couples? The logic here is faulty at best.

Bad argument No. 3
“Opposition to gay marriage is discrimination.”

Let’s not mistake rational restriction for unconstitutional discrimination. Just as we rightly restrict marriage against polygamists, there is no constitutional reason why we cannot continue to restrict marriage to what all civilizations have defined for millennia: the union of a man and woman. This does not deny anyone the “equal protection of the laws,” since this restriction applies equally to every individual.

But then the question becomes, why has gay marriage always been prohibited? Many civilizations allowed, encouraged and even celebrated homosexual relations so it is not like homosexuality has always been wrong in the eyes of civilization. It is only in the past century that science has been able to show us that, unlike previously thought, homosexuality is a biological event. It had always been easy to say that homosexual couples should not marry because they should just choose to like someone of the opposite sex. Now we know that it does not work that way and thus, should allow homosexuals to be just as happy (or miserable) as heterosexuals in marriage.

Bad argument No. 4
“Marriage has changed through the centuries, so gay marriage would be just another development in its ever-changing definition.”

True, our understandings of sex and the role of women in marriage have grown. While these changes are important, they are trivial when compared to the agreement across time and from East to West that the social institution of marriage is about the union of sexual opposites for, primarily, the procreation of children, as well as intimate companionship.

Or the agreement across time that people need to be of the same culture, nationality, race, wealth, social status, etc…

Bad argument No. 5
“Opposition to gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state.”

It is true that Western marriage and family law stem in part from the Judeo-Christian tradition, as do many of our other laws. But the separation of church and state (assured by constitutional law) is different from the enforced separation of religion and politics, which is forbidden by the First Amendment.

Opposition to gay marriage on the basis of it violates religious teaching (just like www.nogaymarriage.com likes) does not follow the separation of church and state. Opposition to gay marriage based on flawed logic, opinion and faulty arguments has no bearing on the relationship of church and state.

Bad argument No. 6
“Marriage is necessary for gays to gain important legal benefits.”

Homosexuals don’t need marriage to gain most significant legal benefits. For example, hospital visitation depends on the wishes of the patient. If families disagree about medical treatment, even marriage won’t solve the problem, as the Terry Schiavo case has demonstrated. The answer is medical power of attorney, which is open to anyone regardless of sexual orientation. Another example is Social Security benefits. Children’s benefits are not dependent on the marital status of their parents, and the only certain benefit is a one-time death benefit of $255. A wife can access her deceased husband’s Social Security, but if she has had her own work history, her Social Security benefit would usually be higher than the survivor’s benefit—and she must choose one or the other. Most other benefits are based on work history.

There are also other legal benefits such as being able to file a joint tax return, the tax breaks presented to married couples, estate planning, funeral planning, medicare, disability, alimony, visiting rights in the case of the hospitalized spouse being unable to express their desire for their spouse to be there. I also believe that you are understating the Social Security benefits, simply assuming that if someone has a job, their job will have better benefits. That is not guaranteed at all and to assume so is to gamble on the fiscal security of the couple.

Bad argument No. 7
“There is no proof that gay marriage would change the marriages of heterosexuals.”

If marriage is all about fulfilling human desires and not parenting (as many proponents of gay marriage argue), it makes sense to dissolve marriages that don’t seem fulfilling. Recent experience in Scandinavia suggests that when a society reduces marriage to this minimalist definition, families dissolve more quickly. British demographer Kathleen Kiernan has shown that since gay marriage came to Scandinavia in the early ’90s, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has leaped significantly, and the family dissolution rate has risen. Only where the gay marriage movement had little success has the out-of-wedlock birthrate remained low. Marriage has virtually disappeared in the most gay-friendly districts of Norway, formerly the most conservative of the Nordic countries.

You fail to prove causation. These trends may simply be because of the culture of today’s young people. It may be something else entirely. Who knows? This is a common mistake when analyzing statistics that should have been corrected in any elementary stats instruction. Where gay marriage is allowed, there is a higher rate of out-of-wedlock birthrate; therefore, gay marriage increases out-of-wedlock births. Here’s another good one: in places where there are more churches per square mile, there are also more crimes per square mile; therefore, churches create crime. Ridiculous? I agree. Take a stats class, learn to present an argument and then come back to me later.

Aside from that, you go back to the classic “marriage is for the kids” argument which means that you should also be pushing to prevent any sterile people from marrying or any couples that simply do not want children should not marry.

Bad argument No. 8
“Social science shows that gay parenting is no different from heterosexual parenting.”

Many studies have claimed this, but, according to University of Chicago’s emeritus professor of ethics and social sciences Don Browning, none of these studies was rigorous or large-scale. Stephen Nock, scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, writes that every study on the subject of gay parenting “contained at least one fatal flaw,” and “not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.” Other studies show that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, had homosexual experiences more frequently, and suffered a greater rate of molestation by members of their families (Adolescence, 1996; Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1986; American Sociological Review, 2001).

Very nice. I have some studies too. These ones endorsed by the American Psychological Association. It’s a bit long, so bear with me, but right off the APA’s website, here is their Policy Statement on homosexual parenting:

Lesbian and Gay Parents

Many lesbians and gay men are parents. In the 2000 U. S. Census, 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home. Despite the significant presence of at least 163,879 households headed by lesbian or gay parents in U.S. society, three major concerns about lesbian and gay parents are commonly voiced (Falk, 1994; Patterson, Fulcher & Wainright, 2002). These include concerns that lesbians and gay men are mentally ill, that lesbians are less maternal than heterosexual women, and that lesbians’ and gay men’s relationships with their sexual partners leave little time for their relationships with their children. In general, research has failed to provide a basis for any of these concerns (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). First, homosexuality is not a psychological disorder (Conger, 1975). Although exposure to prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation may cause acute distress (Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 2003), there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers’ and gay fathers’ parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.

Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents

As the social visibility and legal status of lesbian and gay parents has increased, three major concerns about the influence of lesbian and gay parents on children have been often voiced (Falk, 1994; Patterson, Fulcher & Wainright, 2002). One is that the children of lesbian and gay parents will experience more difficulties in the area of sexual identity than children of heterosexual parents. For instance, one such concern is that children brought up by lesbian mothers or gay fathers will show disturbances in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior. A second category of concerns involves aspects of children’s personal development other than sexual identity. For example, some observers have expressed fears that children in the custody of gay or lesbian parents would be more vulnerable to mental breakdown, would exhibit more adjustment difficulties and behavior problems, or would be less psychologically healthy than other children. A third category of concerns is that children of lesbian and gay parents will experience difficulty in social relationships. For example, some observers have expressed concern that children living with lesbian mothers or gay fathers will be stigmatized, teased, or otherwise victimized by peers. Another common fear is that children living with gay or lesbian parents will be more likely to be sexually abused by the parent or by the parent’s friends or acquaintances.

Results of social science research have failed to confirm any of these concerns about children of lesbian and gay parents (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999). Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents (Patterson, 2004a). Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents (Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999). However, few data regarding these concerns are available for children of gay fathers (Patterson, 2004b). Evidence also suggests that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). The picture that emerges from research is one of general engagement in social life with peers, parents, family members, and friends. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support. Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.

Resolution

WHEREAS APA supports policy and legislation that promote safe, secure, and nurturing environments for all children (DeLeon, 1993, 1995; Fox, 1991; Levant, 2000);

WHEREAS APA has a long-established policy to deplore “all public and private discrimination against gay men and lesbians” and urges “the repeal of all discriminatory legislation against lesbians and gay men” (Conger, 1975);

WHEREAS the APA adopted the Resolution on Child Custody and Placement in 1976 (Conger, 1977, p. 432)

WHEREAS Discrimination against lesbian and gay parents deprives their children of benefits, rights, and privileges enjoyed by children of heterosexual married couples;

WHEREAS some jurisdictions prohibit gay and lesbian individuals and same-sex couples from adopting children, notwithstanding the great need for adoptive parents (Lofton v. Secretary, 2004);

WHEREAS there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children (Patterson, 2000, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999);

WHEREAS research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish (Patterson, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001);

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the APA opposes any discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services;

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the APA believes that children reared by a same-sex couple benefit from legal ties to each parent;

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the APA supports the protection of parent-child relationships through the legalization of joint adoptions and second parent adoptions of children being reared by same-sex couples;

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that APA shall take a leadership role in opposing all discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services;

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that APA encourages psychologists to act to eliminate all discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services in their practice, research, education and training (American Psychological Association, 2002);

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the APA shall provide scientific and educational resources that inform public discussion and public policy development regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services and that assist its members, divisions, and affiliated state, provincial, and territorial psychological associations.

(Source: APA Site)

More to come in this series, so stay tuned!

Continued from our discussion on gay marriage as argued against by No Gay Marriage:

6. Foster-care parents will have to undergo ” sensitivity training” to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm such with children and teens.

I don’t see a problem with a foster parent having to rid themselves of any bias regarding the children they would be helping to raise. However, if a potential foster parent had so much of an issue regarding homosexuality, perhaps they should not taken in homosexual children.

7. How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system.

And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new “spouses and other dependents”?

Right, because somebody should be denied human rights because Congressman A wants a new bridge and Congresswoman B wants to build a new stadium. There is an insane amount of wasteful spending by the Federal Government. If the cost of allowing gay marriage is that big of a concern, perhaps we should make a more concerted effort to reign in pork spending. This may actually give us a good reason to do so. Perhaps gay marriage is the key to a more efficient and lean government!

8. Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material “beneficial” to mankind.11 Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global.

The point is that numerous leaders in other nations are watching to see how we will handle the issue of homosexuality and marriage. Only two countries in the world have authorized gay marriage to date-the Netherlands and Belgium. Canada is leaning in that direction, as are numerous European countries. Dr. Darrell Reid, president of Focus on the Family Canada, told me two weeks ago that his country is carefully monitoring the United States to see where it is going. If we take this step off a cliff, the family on every continent will splinter at an accelerated rate. Conversely, our U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that it looks to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution.13 What an outrage! That should have been grounds for impeachment, but the Congress, as usual, remained passive and silent.

We are talking about gay marriage in America. If other countries want to follow our example, then that is up to them and their constituencies. It is almost sad to think that (if you are correct), Canada is just sitting there waiting for us to act instead of considering what is best for itself. America is a sovereign nation, and so are these other countries. While they may decide to follow our example, that is up to them and has no real bearing on the debate at hand.

9. Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God’s primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.

Its most important assignment has been the propagation of the human race and the handing down of the faith to our children. Malachi 2:15 reads, referring to husbands and wives, “Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because He was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth” (NIV).

That responsibility to teach the next generation will never recover from the loss of committed, God-fearing families. The younger generation and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany and other European countries. Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids. This is morally wrong, and is condemned in Scripture. Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to “normalize” and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!

This is the classic “God created marriage so that there would be offspring” argument. That is fine. If your church does not want to allow gays, sterile couples, people who don’t want children etc, to get married, then that is up to your church. We just want people who want to get married, who may not be willing/able to have children (even if they are a heterosexual couple, whom you seem to also have a problem with).

Once again, divorce, bad parenting, deaths; things like that are the primary reason that children only have one parent, or none at all. Allowing gay marriage would allow for more children to be adopted into loving homes that will raise them far better than the futures they would have had with their broken families/orphanage/foster home.

10. The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become “as it was in the days of Noah” (Matthew 24:37, NIV). This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance.

This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless-unless-God’s people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That’s why Shirley and I are urgently seeking the Lord’s favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land.

As of this time, however, large segments of the church appear to be unaware of the danger; its leaders are surprisingly silent about our peril (although we are tremendously thankful for the efforts of those who have spoken out on this issue). The lawless abandon occurring recently in California, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington and elsewhere should have shocked us out of our lethargy. So far, I’m alarmed to say, the concern and outrage of the American people have not translated into action.

This reticence on behalf of Christians is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His Church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong. To violate the Lord’s expressed will for humankind, especially in regard to behavior that He has prohibited, is to court disaster.

All I really get out of this super-religious rant is the little tidbit at the end regarding God creating marriage as a sacrament for a man and a woman. That is fine. You don’t have to recognize a marriage between homosexual couples and you don’t have to allow them into your church. That is all up to you.

But there is that small problem you have known as the separation of church and state. America allows all religions and favors none over the others (well, that’s how it’s supposed to work). Gays being able to marry has no effect on your church and this “cultural war” thing sounds absolutely ridiculous.

Those were the most typical arguments against gay marriage as proposed by www.nogaymarriage.com and are thankfully, very weak arguments. I did find, however, what I believe to be the most coherent and logical arguments from another website and I will list those and more rebuttals in a post coming within the next few days.

As someone who considers himself to be center-right on the political spectrum it is surprising for many people to find how fervently I support gay marriage and equal rights for gays. There are a myriad of reasons for this, including having many oppressed gay friends, but I think one of the most prevalent and important reasons I support gay marriage is very simply: I have yet to hear of any real arguments against it that make much to any sense given the Constitution, founding principles of our nation, current American political culture and logical reasoning. As such, I would like to list out some of the common (typically bad) arguments against gay marriage as well as some that I found that are perhaps the best reasons I have heard (though their soundness is still questionable). I have posted the arguments in full, so as to avoid any criticism of picking and choosing which to defend against. Therefore, this is a bit long, which is why it is posted in multiple parts.

10 arguments (and my rebuttals) from the website, No Gay Marriage :

1. The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today’s children are born out of wedlock.

It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.

Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several “moms” and “dads,” perhaps six or eight “grandparents,” and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (as millions do in other countries all over the world today). Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation.

The apostle Paul described a similar society in Romans 1, which addressed the epidemic of homosexuality that was rampant in the ancient world and especially in Rome at that time. He wrote, “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless” (v. 29-31, NIV).

It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will be devastating to children.

I agree that fractured families are bad for children. The effects of a single-parent home on the development of a child is well documented to be very negative versus that of a child growing up in a two-parent family. But this is not the fault of gay marriage, it is the fault of divorce. Divorce, by definition, is the number one threat to marriage.

These descriptions of “six or eight ‘grandparents’” and a world where “little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street” are things that already happen in single parent families. They have no basis on the gay rights issue as the ability of gay couples (some of whom already have children) to solidify their relationship in marriage would increase stability and help alleviate this problems, not worsen them.

As far as the bible quote goes, I am always hesitant to engage in religious debates as any such argument is impossible to prove wrong or right because, as they say, even the devil can quote scripture. So allow me to do so:

And He said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40).

Love is to be held above all else. I know I love my neighbor enough to allow them to marry the person that they love. Do you?

2. The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.

The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will “have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society”-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family “may not be necessarily the best model.” Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.

Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of “rights.”

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to “civil rights” will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

This is one of your typical slippery-slope arguments. “Well, if we allow gay marriage, then we have to allow polygamy, and if we allow that, then we’ll have to allow people to marry their pets, and well, if we allow that, then I guess Jimmy will have to be allowed to marry his ’73 Camaro he loves so much.”

None of that really makes a whole lot of sense. Gay marriage advocates are asking that two adults with good legal standing and of sound mind be allowed to express their love in a marriage that has a legal standing. Lawrence v Texas was a case about sexual acts, not all of which were specific to gay couples (oral sex was typically recognized as being “sodomy”), it was not, as many claim, a purely gay rights case and has no bearing on polygamy.

As far as the Utah ALCU’s argument that it is the job of the state to “prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society”, well here I will agree with you, that is not how it works. It would be the burden of the proponents of polygamy to show how it is beneficial and a right and the opponents to show why it is not. This is like how we show why gay marriage is a natural right that should be afforded to American citizens and you argue that it is not. Thankfully, you continue to do a very poor job.

The legal framework that you argue as the bedrock of marriage always included, up until the past century, limitations that prevented people from marrying for love (even as a man and a woman) if their union would be in violation of various social norms of the time, such as wealth, social status, race, nationality, etc. We look back on that period incredulously now, wondering how we could have been so short-sighted on the right of people to marry, and I guarantee that we will do the same in a few decades after we allow gay marriage.

3. An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state’s compelling interest in marital relationships altogether.

After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

The gay marriage camp actually is generally in favor of keeping the states involved in marriage. That’s kind of a big purpose of this movement. I once again fail to understand how this increases divorce, gay marriage would stabilize relationships, not end them. The movement is trying to increase families, increase marriage and increase the love that we share; your conclusions on this are misguided at best.

4. With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.

Morals are impossible to argue. You say that homosexuality is immoral, I say that the continued denigration and second-class citizenship of homosexuals is immoral. Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to. Right?

Yes, I imagine that schools would have to acknowledge in their teaching that homosexual couplings exist. I have always been for teaching students the truth, I think that is a good way to run education. As long as it is presented in a sensible, neutral and appropriate manner, I see no problem with this. We did have to change our teaching programs to educate students that people of different races could marry, didn’t seem to do a whole lot of evil there.

5. From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption.

Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

All heterosexual couples = good parents. All homosexual couples = bad parents. That seems to be the argument here. Adoption agencies and the courts that help facilitate the programs go through an extensive process of vetting for potential adoptive parents. If it is decided that a gay couple would not be good parents, then just the same as if they were straight, they would not get the children.

There are so many children out there in need of a loving home and family; who are we to deny a decent, hard working and loving couple the opportunity to adopt, raise and protect these unfortunate children solely because they love some one of the same gender?

Part II

Having lived in Upstate New York (for everyone outside of New York, that’s everywhere that is not NYC or Long Island) for my entire life, I have always associated New York State politics with inefficiency, political bickering, self-interest and a general lack of will to represent constituents. Names like Bruno, Silver and Pataki have always meant “those people”, people who felt no concern for the lives of the people in New York as long as they got to remain in power. I will never forget, sitting in my high school economics class where my teacher (who fell on the right side of the political spectrum in a time where New York State was run by a Republican Majority) told us all, as we went to the polls for the first time, something along the lines of “Guys, the system is broken and the people in Albany don’t care about us. When I go to the polls, I will vote for every challenger, I will not vote for any incumbent regardless of their party”. That stuck with me that somebody could become truly that frustrated with their government.

What is important about the current situation in New York is that it is a microcosm of where the Federal Government seems to be heading. The voice of the people of New York does not matter, it is all about who has the power. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the current dilemma, let me give you a quick run down of the situation:

In reality, the foundation of this problem occurred when Eliot Spitzer was ousted from the Governorship of New York. I guess spending your salary (provided by us taxpayers) on expensive hookers is frowned upon. The New York State Constitution provides no measure for the special election or appointment of a Lieutenant Governor should there be an absence in the post. Therefore, when Lt. Governor David Patterson moved into the Governor’s Mansion following Spitzer’s departure, the Lt. Governor’s position, just vacated, was left unfilled as per the law. So remember that.

After the 2008 election, the Democratic Party had the majority in the New York State Senate for the first time in in over 40 years. They held that slim majority 32-30.

Now here’s where things get sketchy. The head office in the Senate is the President of the Senate, a position held by the Lieutenant Governor. This person would oversee the meetings and cast a deciding vote in the event of a time.

Now, there is a Senate leader as voted upon by the Senators, this is the Senate President Pro Tempore. This person’s job is to preside over Senate meetings. Typically, this position is filled by the majority party leader in the Senate, and that is where the problems really begin.

By entwining the rules and operations of the Senate with party politics, this further moves the legislature away from the will and voice of the people and towards partisan bickering revolving around self-serving politicians trying to keep themselves in power.

So back to the controversy. The Senate is controlled by a slim Democratic majority and many people wish to change this (apparently including self-made billionaire and former candidate for Governor, Tom Golisano), so the Republicans worked out a deal with two of the Democratic senators and those two senators moved into the Republican’s caucaus, shifting power to the Republicans.

Immediately when this happened, the Republicans introduced a measure to vote on a new Senate President Pro Tempore and, with the help of the two Democratic Senators on their side, they passed the resolution. However, before a vote could be registered, Jeff Klein (D) moved for adjournment, which was then granted. The Republicans cried foul, stating that, according to Robert’s Rules of Order (used as rules for Senate meetings), adjournment could not be granted without a vote and even if a vote for adjournment had occured (which it did not), those same rules prohibit adjournment from happening when there is still a vote out on the floor (as the vote for new leadership was).

All but 4 Democrats then left the Senate and the Senators that remained voted on new leadership. They voted in one of the defecting Democrats, Pedro Espada (D), as the new Senate President Pro Tempore and Dean Skelos (R) as the new majority leader. Business was continued with some bills and resolutions being passed in the absence of half of the Senators.

The Democrats elected a new leader, resulting in the other of the two defecting Democrats to rejoin his party, leaving the Senate tied at 31-31.

Now the entire Senate is mired in controversy as neither side will refuse back down and both claiming legitimate control of the Senate. In the event of a tie, the vote goes to the President of the Senate, the position held by the Lt. Governor, which is vacant with no provision of being filled. Governor Patterson has decided to call special legislative sessions every day (including the 4th of July) until the situation is remedied.

This whole situation has vast damaging effects for democracy. Many of the bills that are not being acted on while the bickering is going on are important things such from public schooling, tax decisions and the highly publicized gay marriage bill. None of these will be voted on until the mess is sorted out.

Perhaps even more importantly, this entire contraversy is just a symptom of a broken system. It has been a long time since anybody I know in New York has had any kind of faith in the state government. Those people in Albany represent not the citizens of New York State, but their own selfish interests and in doing so, have brought what little working government that had existed to a complete standstill. Despite the wishes of the people, the state government refuses to acknowledge that their power comes from their constituents, instead they seem happy to believe that they are entitled to their positions and to hell with anybody who wants a more representative government.

Party politics has directly led to this situation. The United States Constitution was written in a manner to prevent political parties from forming for this very reason. While I recognize that coalitions in legislative bodies require leadership, that special status should end once the legislators step into the chamber/house/senate. Political bickering leads to people who are supposed to represent their constituents instead doing their best to keep themselves in power while keeping their campaign coffers full. Does the political alignment of the President Pro Tempore of the Senate mean more than making sure our schools are funded and our government services are running efficiently? In a system run to the wishes of the people, no I do not think so. But in the current system, where what gets done is only what party leaders want to get done, well it is easy to see why such a fight occurs.

The system is broken. I think that New York represents what the United States government is slowly morphing into. Partisan bickering means more than what the people want. I think this was clearly demonstrated when the Democrats introduced the war spending bill (similar bills were introduced when Republicans held the majority) and the parties voted almost entirely down the line in the opposite manner in which they had voted when Republicans had introduced the bill.

Stand up and make your voice heard. Write or call your State Senator or Federal Congressmen and women. And, if things still don’t seem to change, follow my former teacher’s philosophy: if the current government doesn’t represent the people, then the people should vote the current government out.

 By: Chasse Rehwinkel

I call it “the change effect” but it might as well be termed “the we look doomed effect” or “the all is lost syndrome.” It’s when the old guard no longer seems to be working, when people loose their confidence in how their country is being run, when change becomes a battle cry for the masses and when politics descends to its most volatile and ugly.

The 2008 Presidential Election is an archetypical example of this very situation. As you should already know, economic downturn, duo-warred policies and executive inability left Americans with an extremely sour taste for the way things were being run.

When I look back at what happened—and please try to stay with me on this one—I always envision the same thing, an ancient forest. Now I know that sounds a little crazy, which might actually suit this article, but if you use the analogy of an ancient forest for the last years of George W. Bush’s America then I think the 2008 Presidential Election becomes much clearer. 

As any 9^th grade biology textbook will tell you, forests grow and develop in a cyclical way. As a forest grows older it becomes more and more difficult for new vegetation to get sunlight and space. Forestry experts, as well as our aforementioned trusty text books, point out that when a forest reaches a certain age it becomes stagnant and, as an ecosystem, it begins to die.

As it turns out, one of the best ways to save an elderly forest is seemingly catastrophic in nature, a fire—and for all those pyromaniacs out there who are just giddy at the prospect of finally discovering a viable excuse for setting stuff ablaze note that a California man was just sentenced to death for starting the Esperanza Wildfire, a fire which killed five firefighters. Wildfires help by clearing away the old vegetation, which gives the previously shut out seeds enough space to grow and develop into seedlings, and eventually, into full fledged forest flora, a process that effectively regenerates the forest. 

Think of these wildfires as the recent shocks to our society—economic downturn, multiple wars, political corruption and such—which traumatized the old political environment and paved the way for movements that would have previously been unable to play any sort of major role in the American political landscape.

The movement, or political seedling if you will, that was able to rise to the top of the American political canopy in 2008 ended up being Barack Obama’s extremely well run “Change” campaign.

However, Obama’s victory does not mean that there weren’t other campaigns vying for the top spot in American politics.

In fact a slew of movements, some more extreme then others, struggled for space and light in this tumultuous yet fertile environment.

Other than Obama, the most interesting and arguably most passionate movement was Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s unsuccessful Republican campaign.

To me the Paul campaign represents how complicated and fascinating a political movement can be. And although the election is over, Paul’s race is one that still demands analysis. For Paul not only shows the strength of third party politics, he reveals a passionate and also deeply troubling vein in the American political ecosystem.

In other words, not all seeds sprout luscious new greens and not all seedlings aspire to regenerate the once proud forest.

Continue to Part II

Continue to Part III

Continue to Part IV

By: Chasse Rehwinkel 

Toward the end of the 2008 Republican Party nomination race I was assigned to cover Paul’s “much anticipated” Gettysburg College campaign stop; a trip that marked somewhat of a return for Paul, who is a 1957 graduate of Gettysburg.

In spite of this “interesting” personal connection, I wasn’t that excited to cover Paul’s appearance. After all, Paul was considerably far behind the Republican front runners and was viewed by most experts to be more of a joke than a legitimate Presidential candidate.  

However, at 11:25 on April 11—an extremely professional five minutes before the start of Paul’s speech—I strolled into Gettysburg College’s Majestic Theater, having lost the battle with my editor over completing my assignment. Unbelievably overdressed for the occasion in my black t-shirt and ripped shorts, I walked into the theater and stumbled upon quite the impressive sight.

Hundreds of supporters had come, and were milling about the Majestic lobby, decked out in full Paul regalia and shouting various revolutionary slogans. It was a place of stunning passion, a lobby full of conservative misfits so committed to this lost cause that one couldn’t help but regain some respect for third party politics.

It was a scene that I have to admit totally caught me by surprise.

Like having a long unkempt beard or politely talking to oneself, the stigma of the third party has been one of confusion and madness. Not since Roosevelt, that’s Teddy not Franklin, pledged his loyalty to a progressive bull moose has a third party had a legitimate shot at election. And, not since Honest Abe mesmerized reporters with his speaking prowess, while the Democratic Party loudly shot itself in the foot multiple times, has one successfully made the transition to the White House.

So, why would any sane American voter lend support to one of these forlorn hopes? Why would rational persons capable of representing only one candidate per election choose to seemingly throw their vote away?

 Simply, it’s not that simple.

Pushing my way past the Libertarian ballot sign up desk and the seemingly endless string of ponytailed delegates distributing Ron Paul fiscal responsibility pamphlets, I made it, finally, to the main auditorium. Quickly, I realized, that as a liberal, I was in the conservative lion’s den, and, therefore, it was imperative for me to find a safe spot somewhere soon in order to avoid conflict. Through throngs of what can only be described as “conservative hippies,” I searched for “friendlies,” people like myself who had mistakenly come out of curiosity. The seats filled up rapidly, and when all seemed lost, I noticed a couple Gettysburg students just outside the auditorium’s archway still unsure if they should proceed into the chaos or not. Immediately, upon joining my equally lost brethren, an usher informed us that the seats in the main theater had been filled to their maximum, leaving only the balcony vacant for those who wished to hear the speech.

It was here, far above the teaming downstairs seating, that I started to understand the sheer wonder of what was unfolding.

To my right were the two students safely acting as a buffer between me and the Paul supporters, whom I still had my doubts about, but to my left was an empty seat leaving open the possibility for a surprise guest.

Seconds before Paul was set to make his entrance, an exhausted looking man appeared from the aisle. Asking if the vacant seat to my left was still, in fact, empty. I nodded “yes,” and introduced myself as a student from the college who was curious about this dark horse politician.

He retorted by explaining that he was a resident of New York City and was originally an immigrant to this nation from Vietnam. He had become a supporter of Paul’s primarily due to his belief on the interpretation of the Constitution, a stance the naturalized New Yorker had engendered through the long process of coming to this nation.

Forget Paul’s stance on closed boarders, Mr. New York was a die-hard supporter and had woken up early that morning to drive all the way to tiny Gettysburg, PA to hear his idol speak. The man dressed in what was apparently the mandated uniform for the day: a Ron Paul Revolution shirt complete with multiple campaign buttons. With him were all sorts of props: tall signs, short ones, ones that he made and some that were given to him, loud noisemakers that, thank God, lay dormant, and, of course, more buttons. He was ready, in his element and thirsty for what was to come.

For that matter, so were many of the other patrons waiting to hear their anointed savoir speak. The theater had an Olympic atmosphere to it, the whole mass cheering as one for their lone underdog runner, completely focused on the upcoming event: Paul’s speech.

I love third party politicians. At home in either the official halls of a university or along side the urine soaked prophets of Central Park, they are candidates always willing to speak their minds. But, above being fearless politicians, third party runners actually are legitimate factors in the American political system.

Disagree with me?

Both in 1992 and 1996, the Republican Party found an unsinkable enemy in the elfish Ross Perot. This high strung Texas billionaire used his immense resources, to spin the incumbent George H.W. Bush’s campaign into a downward spiral, and, in ’96, he virtually ensured Bob Dole’s failure from the get-go.

In 2000, a tight election became even tighter when a party that had been slowly gaining momentum since the mid-nineties, the Green Party, finally pulled it together. Their leader was that champion for the malcontent himself, Ralph Nader, whose Harvidian stoicism was confoundingly more charismatic then Democratic candidate Al Gore.

As the election marched forward, Gore’s dependable environmentalist base became more and more eroded. In the end, enough votes were siphoned off of Gore to turn the election. Eight years later, Ralph is still looked on with distain from the Democratic Party.

Beyond just determining close elections, third party politics is responsible for minute changes in major party policy. If the two major parties have been consistent on anything, it is their continual adaptation for survival. Whenever a third party rises up to threaten one of the big two, invariably, one of the major parties will strike a compromise and snatch up that smaller party’s main points in order to bring the third party’s base together with the big party’s. Whether it was the Free-Soil Party in 1852, or the Green Party in 2004, this absorption of the little guy has always been a given.

Ultimately, it is not the third party’s job to get elected; it’s to bring enough momentum to their points so that they get noticed. A hopeless position, always completed with passion that is truly commendable in this day in politics.

From stage left emerged the highly anticipated Ron Paul. A sea of poster board signs rose to greet the man, some clever, such as “Ron Paul: The Enema America Needs,” some serious and slightly off-putting, especially, “It is said that some angels walk among us,” but most were the standard, “Ron Paul Revolution” with the boxed in “EVOL” representing love—a slogan of which someone still needs to explain to me. An entire auditorium was seeking guidance from one man: a Texas OB/GYN-turned-Congressional Representative by the name of Ron Paul.

Paul is not a great speaker, but the electrified atmosphere combined with his obvious passion made his speech flow almost seamlessly. Everyone that came to show support got exactly what they wanted to hear: an unwavering resolve on issues that Paul has been campaigning for since the 1960s.

To the Libertarian laymen, however, Paul’s words were not poetic calls for change. No, to us the platform being described was, for lack of a better word, crazy—which brings me to a major point: the legalization of raw milk.

Okay, we all know Paul is a little off the mainstream path. And, taking up issue with topics like legalizing raw milk, which I’ve never heard of as an actual issue, or reconverting America to the gold standard, an issue that hasn’t been under discussion since the 1880s, may seem like cherry-picked examples from a knowingly daft political platform—and you’d be correct; it is.

However, Paul is not just about these bizarre, never-going-to-happen policies. He also has legitimate parts to his platform that can easily be taken seriously, and that’s what terrifies me. Along side seemingly good ideas such as balancing the national budget and ending America’s role as “World Police Chief”, there are calls for the dissolution of the Federal Reserve System and withdrawal of American participation in the World Trade Organization, The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, The North American Free Trade Agreement, the International Criminal Court, and the U.N. Raw milk to me seems like small potatoes when judged alongside these ideas.

Paul’s speech was around an hour in length, with every minute and word greatly appreciated by the elated crowd. I saw children sitting on their parent’s laps with little Ron Paul signs, I heard cheers of “America” and “Freedom” every couple of minutes from crowd members who could no longer hold their enthusiasm, and I experienced the truly genuine collective pulse of the room—a tremendous excitement too overwhelming to miss.

Afterward, like a rock star, I saw Paul in the lobby signing autographs and being mobbed by his adoring fans. I have no doubt that these supporters truly respected and admired this man, and possibly some were still under the false impression that a Ron Paul presidency was possible in ’08. It was a sight that I had never seen before, and it has no compliment in mainstream American politics, which is why devotion to these never-going-to-happens will always occupy a special place in my heart.

At the time I was really impressed with Paul’s performance and I genuinely wished good luck to this “angelic enema” and to all third party politicians everywhere, if for no other reason then because they liven up American politics.

But I missed an important point: what is a daft political platform to one man is shimmering genius to another, a dangerous possibility that may yet still yield problems for the future.

Back to Part I

Continue to Part III

Continue to Part IV