Update from the
Heartland
No.717
7.9.15 – 13.9.15
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- U.S. District Judge David Bunning lifted the contempt
order against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis [716] and released her from jail with the proviso that she will not
interfere with the issuing of marriage licenses to qualified citizens. With all the brouhaha over this
obscure, rural, Kentucky county clerk, what happens next is anybody’s
guess. I know what should happen,
but that means nothing.
-- We have a reliable, authoritative site, but not yet an official
site, confirming the B777 flaperon found at Réunion Island [711] is from the missing MH370 aircraft [638, 691].
“French investigators confirm Reunion flaperon from MH370”
by Jeremy Torr
Air
Transport World / Aviation Week & Space Technology
Published: Sep 7, 2015
The most striking observation about the retrieved flaperon
is the paucity of impact damage, i.e., high-energy distortion damage. To me, the recovered flaperon suggests
a controlled ditching, i.e., an intentional act. I eagerly await the official evaluation of the recovered
flaperon. We will learn more.
-- On Thursday, in accordance with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015
[PL 114-017; 129 Stat. 201; 22.May.2015] [700],
the Senate fell two (2) votes short [Senate: 58-48-0-0(0)] of invoking cloture
on debate regarding S.Amdt. 2640 to H.J.Res. 61 (Hire More Heroes Act of 2015)
– the Senate’s rejection attempt of the nuclear control agreement [Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)] with the Islamic Republic of Iran [709]. Then, on Friday, the House passed its version H.R. 3460, titled:
An Act To suspend until January 21, 2017, the authority of the President to
waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application
of sanctions pursuant to an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran
[House: 247-186-0-0(2)]. The
60-day review window imposed by PL 114-017 has expired. By my understanding of the associated
laws and congressional procedures, the JCPOA is approved by default and the
implementation phase begins.
An
interesting article for cogitation and debate forwarded by a friend and
erstwhile contributor:
“Monogamy Just Isn't Natural — Here Are Some Other Options:
Thinking about a partnership as something people design or craft allows for
flexibility and change.”
by Mark A. Michaels and Patricia Johnson
alternet.org / Cleis Press
Published: June 12, 2014
Let the debate begin.
[P.S.: I vacillated over whether to include this debate
topic, since given contemporary arguments, it is more likely to feed the wrong
fires. C’est la vie. Aller à la
grandeur!]
My
hesitation noted above springs from the incessant distraction around us about
marriage, as if those of us who advocate for freedom are somehow corroding the
very structure of marriage and the foundation of the family unit as we know
it. While I am intellectually
curious about the evolution of our biology, of our social constructs, and of
our thinking about liberty, we must not lose sight of the founding principles
of this Grand Republic – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people]
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.” I will note here,
there were no qualifiers or constraints to that foundational statement. My marriage and my family are not
threaten by the notion that other citizens might and most probably will choose
a different path in their “pursuit of Happiness.” Nonetheless, since the distraction apparently threatens the
marriages of others, I have elected to include more snippets from the
continuing debate from a parallel forum.
In
this arena of public debate, we have been subjected to a broad range of extreme
rhetoric. This week, I felt the
threshold of my tolerance approaching.
I attempted to draw the line.
I
said: I started to respond to this
drivel, but it's not worth my time.
Let is suffice to say, I profoundly disagree. Thank you for sharing.
To
which came this response:
“Of course Cap profoundly disagrees because he believes that a
fringe perversion which has historically been considered unlawful to perform in
this country somehow magically rises to the status of equal with the
foundational relationship of societies for millennia throughout the world
because one -- one -- more judge sided with creating a ‘right’ that has never
existed in our lawful heritage and has NO basis of tradition other than mental
disorder.
“Sounds reasonable.
Let me think on that for awhile to see if I can justify that in my
mind. Nope.”
My
reply:
The
beauty of a free society is our right to believe what we wish to believe for
whatever reason or rationale we use to justify those beliefs. We can say what we wish.
Interesting
thought “. . . historically been considered unlawful . . . ” At the Founding, slavery was codified
and protected by the Constitution of the United States [Article IV, Section 2,
Clause 3]. By the Constitution, it
was unlawful to harbor runaway slaves.
Does that make slavery correct, lawful, right, worthy? At the time of the Founding, “men” in
“all men are created equal” was assumed and understood to mean ONLY white,
educated, male, property owners.
Does that make the Doctrine of Coverture correct?
No
one is asking anyone – not [anon.],
not you, not me – to approve of the private choices of any other citizen.
What
I am suggesting and asking is to accept and defend the evolved founding
principle of this Grand Republic that every citizen is entitled to equal
protection under the law . . . regardless of any one or combination of the
social factors. Let us respect
every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice.
Uncharacteristically,
I shall give [anon.] the last word.
“I wholeheartedly disagree.
Marriage has a well-founded and historical context and involves the
union of males to females.
“Marriage was a religious concept LONG before it was a civil
concept. It migrated to the civil
sphere ONLY because some wanted the money involved, and were also working to
reduce church power. Easily verified,
if you want to bother.
“And this jackass clerk has been married 4 times, WAY beyond what religious
doctrine espouses, at least western religions.”
News from the economic
front:
-- The People’s Republic of China (PRC) revised its growth
rate for 2014 down to 7.3% from 7.4% -- the slowest rate seen in decades. The
PRC’s growth target for 2015 is 7%.
Comments and contributions from Update no.716:
“Yes - just a so-so museum. Come out here to where I ‘work’
at the USAF Museum at Wright Pat in Dayton. They wanted me to work there
even though I tell visitors all the info on the Air Farce does not want to be
known. Like all the aircraft on display that the Air Farce stole from the
Navy. The F4, the A7, the A3 (the Air Farce calls B66), the A1,
Sidewinder missile, etc.”
My reply:
The
Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB is certainly on my ‘to-do’ list. I’ve not had the pleasure, as yet. Indeed, the USAF did use aircraft
developed by the Navy. They also
tried to force the Navy to use aircraft they developed, case in point the F-111
– one of McNamara’s many follies.
Another contribution:
Good points on the marriage license fiasco. I thought Gov. Huckabee's
interview by George Stephanopolis was the best discussion of the real problem
with the case of the Kentucky clerk who refuses to bow to the federal court
while blatantly violating her oath of local office. In spite of George's
scripted efforts to interrupt and guide the interview to suit his superiors, he
was unable to prevent the Governor from expressing eloquently the fundamental
problem we are facing: federal intervention in local affairs by a single
branch of government without any basis in legislative action. One had to
listen carefully to the governor, who managed to not be completely thrown off
by George's efforts to interrupt, to get his entire logic. I agree with
Gov. Huckabee, although I am incapable of properly summarizing his argument.
I think that while the clerk is wrong and should resign or be removed
from office because she cannot do the now declared constitutional duties of her
office, the federal court should have declined to intervene in this local
matter. The U. S. Supreme Court, having spoken but not without being
subject to reversal by the legislative branch, has nothing to do with such
matters, and the Congress has not spoken on the subject except arguably in the
law that the Supremes reversed. We may yet see a change there, as there
was after the Dred Scott decision [60 U.S. {19 How.} 393 (1856)] (wasn't
this the one Lincoln ignored?). An individual citizen should not be
jailed for this. The proper target for the feds who have no respect for
state's rights is the state of Kentucky, not a lowly clerk. And all this
from your flaming Conserberal,
My response:
Interesting
perspective . . . and respectfully, from my perspective, the argument
represents and reflects the challenges any free society faces – the inherent
conflict between federal, state and local, between public and private. This conflict goes to the Founding of
this Grand Republic. Yes, marriage
is not and never has been a federal issue or within the federal authority
established by the Constitution.
In
short, I do NOT agree with Governor Huckabee’s position or rationale.
While
the Supremes’ justification for Obergefell v. Hodges [576 U.S. ___
(2015); no. 14-556] [706, 710] was weakly presented, I do believe
they offered the proper argument.
The marriage question is not federal versus state; it is public versus
private, or more to the point, government authority versus individual
rights. Thus, the federal government
is simply performing the role of enforcement of the 14th Amendment, which none of the
states has the authority to violate.
Lastly,
we simply must get the government (all levels of government) out of our private
affairs and out of the morality enforcement arena.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment