About Me

Name:The Gadfly
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

Legislating Morality in California

Note: This article explores some probable impacts from the recent California Supreme Court decision, which allowed for same-sex marriages to be legalized. 

There is a popular saying which asserts, "You cannot legislate morality." I have heard this particular quote repeated ad nauseum over the years, particularly on hot-button topics like abortion, illegal drug use, prostitution, pornography, and (most recently) homosexuality. Many well-meaning advocates of this statement imply that, by establishing any law prohibiting a particular behavior, such established law will NOT prevent individuals from engaging in prohibited behaviors, regardless of the penalties. I wholeheartedly agree.

Yet following this same discourse and logic, one must eventually conclude the law NEVER prevents individuals from engaging in any prohibited activity whatsoever. One could easily defend a position that the establishment of laws defining and prohibiting murder have failed to prevent any murderer from committing homicide. So what purpose does establishing laws (prohibiting certain behaviors) accomplish?

The law only establishes limits of acceptable and unacceptable behavior in any society. The establishment of laws prohibiting specific acts sets parameters and sanctions for violations of those laws. Though many argue morality cannot be legislated, by its very nature of delineating right and wrong, the law indeed legislates morality. The question of establishing laws, then, boils down to the definitions of what constitutes right and wrong and who decides where the boundaries are placed.

The law does not protect law-abiders from law-breakers. It NEVER has. The law is merely the arbiter between two opposing factions. The law provides for redress, restitution, and retribution. It does not prevent crime from occurring anymore than placing a lock on a door guarantees the absolute safety of the persons or items secured behind it.

In June 2008, the California Supreme Court made a ruling of law which, by the nature of its ruling, legislated morality for all California citizens. Homosexuals have been granted the same marital status as heterosexual couples, overturning laws to the contrary. Ignoring the voter-approved initiative establishing marriage as solely between a man and woman (in 2000), the Court opened the door for gay-marriages to become legal. And long lines of eager gay couples lined up to be legitimized.

So how does allowing homosexuals to legally marry affect the institution of marriage? At first glance, the impact might appear negligible. However, for many who hold marriage as sacred and inviolate, legalizing sexual deviancy only serves to degrade holy matrimony. Perhaps polygamists can now gain legitimacy? How about allowing pedophiles to marry minor children? Maybe dogs can become more than just Man's best friend?

 In particular, churches will suffer from the Supreme Court ruling, if present attempts to amend California's constitution fail. Imagine in the future that a homosexual couple decides to get married in a local Baptist Church, in California. The pastor politely declines to perform the ceremony or allow the couple use of the church facility for the ceremony. This gay couple contacts an attorney and a lawsuit is levied against the pastor and the church for discrimination. Why? Because it is now legal for the homosexual couple to be married like any heterosexual couple. Never mind that homosexuality is taboo (sin) within established Baptist doctrine. The church must either relent or suffer a costly legal battle in the court system. As a result of the Court's ruling, Christian churches will be hard-pressed to defend themselves against these types of lawsuits based on religious grounds.

One need not be religious to see the California Supreme Court legislated morality in its ruling on homosexual marriage. Prior to the ruling, gays had the same rights and benefits afforded heterosexual married couples, through civil unions and domestic partnerships. In effect, it ruled that marriage between a man and a woman is nothing more than a tax-break or medical benefit. 

 Whether the high court made an appropriate judgment remains to be seen.

 
The Gadfly

(copyright 2008, Gregory Allen Doyle)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

John Edwards and the Bridge of Opportunity

A few months back, I read an AP wire story about parting comments presidential candidate John Edwards made, as he pulled the plug on his bid for the Democratic nod. An anecdote he offered made me so mad, I wrote a letter to the editor of my local newspaper to ask why no one in the press questioned Edwards' ridiculous (and I believe concocted) story. The newspaper never printed my letter.
 
Once upon a time, John Edwards told an audience that he was on the way to give his supporters his farewell speech, when he saw some homeless people living under a bridge. He stopped his vehicle, got out, spoke to several of them and was emotionally moved by the encounter. As Edwards returned to his car, he recalled one woman said to him, "Remember us, please." Mr. Edwards drove to his destination and gave his speech, which included the story of his encounter under the bridge. He reassured his supporters both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama had pledged to fight poverty, if elected to office.
 
Here is where the rubber meets the road in incredulity on the campaign trail in 2008. Granted John Edwards had about as much chance of being elected president as do the Dixie Chicks. But the fact that the media, in general, rarely ever questions these types of stories offered by the Democrats, gives rise to further outcry from conservatiives about liberal bias in the media.
 
Two distinct impressions were intended for the reader of that AP story on Edwards, if no questions were ever raised in the article (which they were not): 1) Democratic candidates reach out to the needy, and 2) Democratic candidates have good intentions to help the poor, if elected. As a conservative, I know this is a partial truth if, in fact, the story Mr. Edwards told was not a complete fabrication.
 
Imagine for a moment that you were the person passing those homeless people under the bridge, instead of someone hoping to curry favor with a political party. Perhaps you have seen a homeless person in your travels and felt compassion for them. I know I have. Let's examine for a moment some probable responses in this scenario:
 
1) You ignore the person.
2) You roll down the window and drop money in the street.
3) You call the authorities to complain about people camping in a public thoroughfare.
4) You stop and offer to give the person something to eat, at the very least.
 
While there are other possible responses, these seem to be the most likely for the majority of people. Yet what does John Edwards tell us about his encounter? He stops and talks to them, then tells a story about them to others, and persuades his political allies to end poverty. Meantime, he left those homeless people under that bridge with nothing but an empty political promise.
 
And just what does a pledge to "end poverty" from a liberal politician usually mean? Raise taxes, increase government entitlement programs, and increase spending at the bureaucratic trough with other people's money (yours and mine.) The story offered by John Edwards is indicative of the liberal way of thinking. Instead of stopping and using his own money and resources to reach out to the homeless folks, he prefers to spend your money to help people like them.
 
The truth is, even if he really stopped to talk to them, John Edwards ignored those people under that bridge. Think about it. Even if a Democrat won the White House in November 2008 and was inagurated in January 2009, how much longer would it take a president to persuade Congress to pass a homeless aid package? By the time any really help might be realized, those folks under that bridge could be dead or displaced.
 
Aren't Mr. Edwards, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Obama senators? Don't they have the power of the purse strings to end poverty now? What good would the presidency gain them to end poverty other than a bully pulpit?
 
By the way, has anyone heard much discussion from either Clinton or Obama on ending poverty, since John Edwards dropped out? Did John remember to get that homeless woman's name so anyone could truly remember her after the elections? It may seem a trivial matter in the greater scheme of the political campaign season, but I am reminded that but for the grace of God, I might be living under that bridge someday.
 
If the Democrats fool the electorate and gain more power to raise taxes, we all might be.
 
 
The Gadfly
(copyright 2008, Gregory Allen Doyle)
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What's "Love" got to do with it?

There has been a lot of misleading talk about love these days, especially in the print media. Women's magazines seem to drip and ooze a mushy, pungent (and sometimes noxious) swill of feminized and sexualized love, while men's magazines shift to an objectification of love in the form of lust for the flesh. The Scriptures tell of a different kind of love, which from the very beginning was NOT meant to be expressed strictly in terms of feelings.

The love of a parent for a child was clearly seen in the Creation account in Genesis. God carefully and patiently watched over and adored His first two human offspring (created in His image no less.) God's deep and abiding affection was sorely tested by their fall from grace, yet God's unconditional love continued to reach out to Adam and Eve and their offspring. Love required the use of discipline to correct wayward behavior, even when the consequences seemed severe.

Love also showed itself in the quality of God's mercy extended to His children in spite of their sins. God continues to provide air, rain, sunlight, food, and shelter among many other blessings to those he considers wicked, as well as righteous. Impartiality appears to be another quality, which love emulates.

Compassion for those in need is another hallmark quality of love. The blessings of healing, restoration, and reconciliation all spring from the deep well of empathy for the oppressed, misfortunate, and down-trodden. Reaching out in times of disaster to bring relief and aid to the dispossessed is a genuine expression of love.

The greatest of all qualities expressed through love is sacrifice. It is the conscious decision of the lover to forsake all selfish desires and selflessly give for the sake of the loved. It is the picture of Christ crucified, having suffered humiliation, torment, and death for the benefit of all condemned sinners. It is the unconditional nature of the lover to surrender the best in life to overcome the worst in death. It is the promise of hope and renewal through the resurrection from death to life.

Could the true picture of God’s love become any clearer? We humans have a lot to learn about the true meaning of love, don't you think?

God has been more than willing to show us, time and again.


The Gadfly
(copyright 2008, Gregory Allen Doyle)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Poetic Dig At Human Nature

A Hole Other Story

As Ned looked down atop a rock
In sand, he saw a soily sock.
“Who left this here?” old Ned inquired.
“Perhaps the owner has expired.”

An excavation soon revealed
a rusty saw and wagon wheel.
“I must dig deeper!” Ned implored.
“A find this good must be explored.”

He asked a friend to help him out.
“I’ll tell you, Mack, what it’s about.
The origin of what we know,
lies buried in this ground below.”

Though Mack was doubtful of Ned’s claim,
Mack grabbed a shovel just the same.
And bent on helping out his friend,
Mack shoveled dirt for days on end.

Then weeks passed by, each toiled and dug.
Ned found a coin, Mack found a mug,
unearthed two bones, and one loose tooth.
They found a lot, to tell the truth.

Still deeper down their shovels bit.
Ned marveled at the size of it.
A crater grew beneath their feet.
They called in Frank, then Jim and Pete.

Ned brought in cranes and dynamite
and blasted morning, noon, and night.
He rented trucks to haul the rest.
Perhaps they’d find a treasure chest?

A scholar stopped there by the rim.
“Who is your boss? I must see him!”
From Pete to Jim, to Frank then Mack,
each echoed, “Ned, will call you back.”

Reporters swooped down on the hole.
The cops showed up for crowd control.
Inquiring minds just had to know.
How far would Ned’s hole have to go?

A source who would not leave his name,
predicted power, wealth, and fame.
“Old Ned has something special here.
A fortune’s find is very near!”

Like locusts, hell-bent for a meal
Folks swarmed Ned’s dig with lust and zeal.
They picked each pile clean in pursuit.
In riot’s wake, each grabbed Ned’s loot.

Disgusted Mack walked off the dig.
Jim just got drunk. Frank took a swig.
Pete helped himself to Ned’s best wine.
Then up they staggered from the mine.

Now friendless and still in the hole,
Ned cried out for his weary soul.
He wept great tears in pained reprise
And filled the hole in several tries.

A two-day float up through the shaft,
Marked all his labors, fore and aft.
Ned perched again on that old rock
And spied a matching, soily sock.

Ben Franklin quotes Ned’s sorry plight;
In timeless words on wisdom’s flight.
“Soily to Ned, soily he cries
Hole he dug solely, socked in demise.”



The Gadfly
(copyright 2008, Gregory Allen Doyle)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »