Marriage Equality for the USA

Ah, yes! The sweet sound of diversity being embraced in the world's oldest democracy: America.

As a gay man, I am finally happy to say that I can marry the individual of my dreams without worrying about being judged unworthy by my government. I kept a list of the states that legalized marriage equality, but I have since torn it up, because it is now moot. Each state is legally bound to accept the marriage of a man to a woman, a man to a man, and a woman to a woman.

What does it mean to me?

A few weeks ago, I watched my brother marry the girl of his dreams in a full wedding that was sanctioned by the government of our state. I was teary eyed for multiple reasons. I never thought I could have the same experience in my home state. Instead, I envisioned a ceremony in a state or country I never had called home. Ironically, and true to form, my brother's marriage wasn't a religious ceremony. It had those tones, but it was civil in nature. They exchanged vows and rings, kissed, held hands, and faced the audience for the first time as husband and wife. There were no gold or rugged crosses or prayers for blessing. It was my their style.

What does it mean to religious individuals?

Nothing. I once heard an individual state that their church would have to change its by-laws to preclude same-sex marriages from being performed. Well, goodness gracious. The religious people get their panties in a wad about the whole affair when it doesn't apply to them. I wouldn't want to get married in their stuffy, hating church in the first place. They place too much premium on "outsiders" wanting what they have. If I want, I'll create my own church and call it the First Church of Same-Sex Love and we'll put in its by-laws that mixed-sex marriages may not be performed. And the person I was eavesdropping on is correct. There is nothing about marriage equality that demands or requires anyone to change their viewpoint of the issue. It is a First Amendment liberty! In short, no one is requiring all the heteros to become homos. Jeez! We don't want you at our party drinking our booze, anyhow.

What does it mean to the hypocrite?

The endless lectures on Facebook and in-person about the Biblical morality of it all. Come on, your argument holds no water. I don't care what Leviticus says. Basically, you may as well pull out Hans Christian Andersen and quote from his works. That's the same level of credence I give your religious arguments. Ironically, many of these sanctity of marriage arguments are being extolled by individuals who have been divorced! In fact, I may have lost a "friend" who argued for marriage's sanctity, considering I couldn't consolidate his argument with the fact that he had divorced his second wife. Where does God fit into that argument? No one wants to talk about that. Instead, he wanted to point out the principles of Christianity that he believed upheld his personal viewpoints. I'm sure he wouldn't have been as comfortable receiving a lecture on divorce and fornication. (Gosh, I may have to ask for an amen on that!)

Finally, I will fly my flag a little higher today with pride and acceptance of all who walk beneath it. It won't be a rainbow flag or Confederate flag. It will be the flag of the United States of America. It will represent the country that underscored the value of human dignity and ratified our nation through the words scrawled by James Madison, "We, the People..."

Our First Canadian President, eh?

In February, 2014, I published my thoughts on Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) running for president.

It would seem that Senator Cruz is going to announce his candidacy for the nation's highest office in the near future, despite constitutional reservations about his ability to serve.

Unlike Barack Obama, Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate. His father was a Castro-sympathizing Cuban, while his mother is his only birth connection to the United States, since she was born in Delaware.

How can Republicans not criticize Cruz legitimately for the very thing they illegitimately criticized Obama for in 2008 and 2012? Will Donald Trump parade Cruz's Canadian birth certificate for the whole world to see? Will Cruz publish his birth certificate? Will he acknowledge his Canadian roots at all?

I have reservations about people who claim they are natural born Americans, when in fact they were born on foreign shores. That applies to John McCain (R-AZ), despite the fact his father was on active military service which led to his birth in Panama. Let me go a step further, would I have berated the issue if Barack Obama had been born in Hawaii prior to 1959? The answer is an astounding yes! Considering, Hawaii was not a state until 1959. (Obama was born in 1961.)

With that said, Obama's father was born in Kenya, while his mother was born in Kansas. (If we want to draw parallels to Cruz and Obama's American pedigrees.)

Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution very clearly states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President." While it may seem ludicrous to have this conversation in the 21st century, it was an important principle for the individual holding the highest political office in the land to have no allegiance by birth, or claim thereby, to another sovereign nation.

It will fall to the United States Supreme Court to decide if that portion of the Constitution allows for naturalized citizens as well. Of course, there's the constitutional amendment option, but I doubt that will happen before 2016 (or ever).

Let's sue the President

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner (pronounced "boner") has announced a plan to ask the United States House of Representatives to file a lawsuit against the President, which would require him to enforce, protect, and defend the Constitution.

Isn't that a noble concept?

Just days after the Fourth of July, such an action would be suggested against the Executive Branch. I find this idea ludicrous at best. How can a house of Congress sue the President to perform his duties? I think in a counter-suit, the President would sue the House of Representatives to conduct itself, through a constitutional manner, to create laws, rather than sit on its collective thumb and do nothing.

Perhaps, the only legal remedy available to the Speaker is found in Article II, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, which allows the House of Representatives to lay charges of impeachment against the President for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Accordingly, can the House of Representatives lay a charge for impeachment against the President for enacting executive orders, which is at the heart of this squabble? The President is the head of the Executive Branch of government, which contains many, many organs (yes, I'll use an old communist term here) that allow it to operate. The President has constitutional power to execute the laws of the United States, through the enactment of executive orders. (No, there is no clause that allows for executive orders in the Constitution itself. Executive orders are implied rather than explicit.) For example, President Obama issued an executive order raising the federal minimum wage for its employees. Seemingly that is within the purview of the President, since the executive order only impacts those organs--or parts--that are within the executive's sphere of influence (a Cold War reference, yes). Does such an order maintain that the states must now raise their minimum wage?

No.

Does that mean Hobby Lobby must now raise its minimum wage to offset the cost of birth control pills and Plan B for its female employees?

No. (It's in the Bible! No, don't look it up.)

So, who can help in such a quagmire?

Let's look to the Judicial Branch, through the Constitution's well-crafted plan of Checks-and-Balances. Outside of impeachment, the only remedy for Speaker Boehner's complain can be found in the courts; however, which court has original jurisdiction over such a suit? Will the Speaker, along with a throng of Republicans, file suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia? Or like Bush v. Gore (2000), will the case go directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for adjudication?

When it's all said and done (if it ever gains traction), I believe that the courts will find that the only recourse for action in such a case is within Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution of the United States. Previously, the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that the language of the Constitution is quite sufficient and clear in such a case. Inasmuch, Nixon v. USA (1993), the Supreme Court found that it has no judicial review of impeachment proceedings or outcomes, as such proceedings are the "sole" charge of Congress.

In other words, draft articles of impeachment, or hush!

Indivisible with Liberty and Justice for All

I'm going to jump head-first into the National Security Agency (NSA) and Edward Snowden maelstrom.

As I write this post, I have my leather bound copy of the United States Constitution setting next to me on my desk; it comforts me. It is a reminder of what this nation was/is/will become. Humbly, I believe that those individuals who drafted this most remarkable document would be appalled with what our government is currently doing. Our government is keeping tabs on terrorists, and now it is keeping tabs on law-abiding American citizens, because, you know, just because. It's no biggie! Or so they would have us believe.

Since 9/11, we as a nation have given our heart and tears to those people who died during this most unfortunate event. We, too, as a nation have grieved the losses of soldiers in the field of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, we as a nation must now give our very soul to the machine that drives us closer and closer to an information controlled society. Isn't that exactly what the terrorists of 9/11 wanted?

Unfortunately, they wanted a country that embraced individual freedom above all else to suddenly become a country controlled by xenophobes, who were willing to take from us our most precious personal liberties: freedom of speech, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, and due process of the law. They didn't believe that by flying those planes into the World Trade Center it would cause the collapse of our government or force a coup within our government. But they understood very well that such an act may scare the American people into accepting restrictions of their liberties in the name of protection and safety. That's what they feared most about us as a nation: the rule of law.

If my government must keep a list of who I call, text, and email, without my expressed consent or legal due process for just cause, then I'm not sure I need that government. That's the bottom line. I do not concede my personal liberties or personal choices to the United States of America. I do not believe it is most capable of deciding how I live my life or with whom I communicate.

I am reminded earnestly of the Gestapo of Nazi Germany and the STASI of East Germany, which both gathered information on its citizens in the name of "just because." If we allow this action to go unchecked the next logical step may be to set up a toll-free number for people to call in and report their neighbors, friends, and relatives for suspicious activities. Then, there will be visits by black cars in the middle of the night. Perhaps, people will go missing for hours, days, or forever.

People say that Edward Snowden is a traitor, but perhaps he is a patriot. We use that word a lot (not as much as we used it after 9/11) to describe people who I would hardly classify as a patriot. Like the Founding Fathers, he has put his personal fortune and very life on the line to expose an injustice within the highest echelons of our national government. I applaud him for his sacrifice. I hope that a Western European country will take him in and protect him from the unconstitutional covert fallout that is certainly heading his way.

Will we has Americans heed his selfless warning?

Signed,

A natural born, tax-paying citizen of the United States of America

P.S. I'm sure this post will be collected, analyzed, and stored by the NSA.

John McCain, Welcome to America!

United States Senator John McCain (AZ), who we all know is a Republican, blah, blah, thinks President Obama made a mistake by not classifying Santa bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, as a military combatant, so he would be tried in a military court, instead of a civil court.

With all due respect, Senator, but isn't that whole point of terrorism? I mean, isn't it the very notion that terrorists want to destroy American institutions by instilling fear into our minds and causing us to throw off our day-to-day lives to conform to them? If we put Abdulmutallab on trial before a military tribunal for an act that occurred on American soil, then the terrorists are defying American justice, and we are complacent. 

The Constitution applies here, Senator McCain.

I sincerely hope that the terrorists--whomever they are--see that in America we live by a set of equitable laws and a solid code of justice that cannot be defied by their bombs, kamikaze-wanna-bes, or rhetoric. If you commit a crime in the United States, then you will be tried in an American civil court of justice, protected by liberties guaranteed by our nation's constitution, defended by an attorney, set before a jury of peers. If appropriate, the guilty will be punished according to our laws.

The Constitution cannot simply be railroaded when you feel compelled, Senator McCain. This is not Nazi Germany. And the age of George W. Bush is in the past. We do not have secret courts, where civil rights and liberties can be ignored, when a few desire it. From the lowest to the highest criminal, each stands before the same framework of justice. 

That is our America!

Term Limits in Congress

Some Republicans in Congress think that its members should be constitutionally limited to terms. One proposal is to amend the Constitution to limit members of the Senate to two terms and members of the House to three terms.

Is this going to happen? It is unlikely! However, the Republican members of the United States Congress may feel completely free to limit themselves unofficially! That would be perfectly fine with me.

The TSA is not the Gestapo, sorry guys!

I am a big believer in civil rights and liberties, which is why this particular passenger has made my day.

It would seem that Steve Bierfeldt was given some unnecessary flack for having a metal box with a large sum of cash in it. Of course, it is not illegal to travel intra-continental with large sums of cash, but a group of TSA agents made it their business to get to the bottom of why this individual was carrying $4,700 in his luggage.

They used intimidation to coerce this information from the flier, by taking him into a windowless room and using profanity and threats. He simply asked if he was required by law to answer their question. He never said, "No!" Constitutionally, you must not submit yourself to illegal search and seizure. Nor, does the Constitution give law enforcement the right to intimidate and unlawfully detain individuals to get answers to questions, which subsequently had nothing to do with flight safety. (Isn't that the TSA's mission?)

Fortunately, for all fliers, Mr. Bierfeldt, with the help of the ACLU, has brought a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security. On a related point, isn't it time that the Department of Homeland Security was dismantled and abolished? After all, it is just another example of George W. Bush's attempts to force unnecessary government oversight into the lives of law-abiding American citizens. It is a tarnishing behemoth of bureaucracy.