Robbie is a long time friend, fellow memo reader and one of my best critics. He keeps me factually straight.
He has written a book about his mother and some recent letters he discovered she had written. I am posting his comments for anyone interested as well as a review of his book.
Dr. Robbie Friedmann (28 Letters: The Short Life Of Renée (Baba) Friedmann On Not So Calm Waters.This book follows the discovery of 28 letters that my mother wrote to her sister. The story behind these letters encompasses far more than two sisters exchanging letters. It has to do partly with the period (1941 - 1947) during which these letters were written (namely, pre-deportation, the Holocaust, and post-Holocaust), partly from where the letters were written (Hungary, Romania, and Sweden), partly to where they were addressed (Palestine), and to a much larger part to the fact that I got to know my mother through these letters.This book is aimed at telling a personal story to his children, their children and future generations to come. Yet it is also a story that has relevance to many who shared a similar destiny and even more to so, to those who need to know about it.The book is about how people who lived through the horrors of the holocaust, the infliction of Communism, and the tyranny of the British Mandate in Palestine, coped with the challenge of living beyond surviving. It is also a testament to the victory of humanity and the human spirit over evil.
The book is in English, Hungarian and Hebrew and includes original documents and photos.The book is available in hard copy at http://www.blurb.com/b/3253895-28-lettersIt is also available as an eBook for the iPad or iPhone at http://store.blurb.com/ebooks/334936-28-letters.
----The following is the book review:
When Britain was having its never ending economic crisis Churchill visited his economic adviser - Hyman Goldberg, in Miami. They were sitting on the beach and Hyman asked Winnie what was the problem and why had he come. Winnie laid out England's dire plight and said the Empire was collapsing . Goldberg thought for a minute and then advised Winnie to put Canada in the Queen's name.
Those who understand tax and bankruptcy laws will understand.
What has this to do with posting 1 below? The Palestinians never cease their effort to deligitimize Israel's claim to Jerusalem as its Capital so now the Palestinians want to put Jerusalem in Jordan's name.
I am not as learned as Goldberg so my response to Abbas and the Palestinians, who are morally bankrupt, is screw em! (See 1 below.)
But, you can never top the nut cases in Iran! (See 1a below.)
---
A reminder to Obama. (See 2 below.)
---
How big of the Saudis!:Saudi women can ride bikes
Hope they are permitted to see where they are going!
---
A recent GallupPoll revealed Republicans believe their party is too inflexible but then they also believe their party gives in too easily as well. I believe I understand the distinction made by those who were polled.
It seems they would like their party to recognize reality and change where doing so would win votes and elections but they also would like their party to re-craft its message while hanging tough when it comes to principles.
Republicans have many problems and the poll reveals there is a schism within Republican ranks. R's need to learn how to recast their message in more salable ways.
Let's face it. Democrats are as inflexible and actually more so but they are inflexible about their desire to continue giving and spending. Since people like to receive Democrats are seen as compassionate. Republican inflexibility often relates to demands made upon citizens ie. self-reliance, patriotism, being a good citizen, being responsible etc.
The press and media also contribute to the problem R's have because of their bias. All too frequently the press and media couch R's in a negative light and everything D's do in a more positive way.
R's will continue to have a problem until they are able to change voter perceptions. R's have the better message, they have evidence on their side but they cannot penetrate voters who are emotional not rational so R's have to present their rational case in a way that has emotional appeal.
I refer you to back to the ad our ad hoc group presented during the presidential campaign. It showed a family around the dinner table and the scene conveyed the imagery of an out of work husband and his two children wanting their favorite food and the mother telling them their dad was unemployed and they had to pull their belts in etc.
It left the viewer to reach their own conclusions because it did not attack D's etc. (See 3 below)
---
I believe gays are entitled to every right straights have but I do not believe their desire to co-habit with those of the same sex allows them the right to appropriate the definition of marriage.
If that means laws should be change to reflect their actions are defined as a civil union with all the rights and privileges of those who are married, fine. Change the laws.
Neither would I have a problem if a human chose to live with an animal as long as the law sanctioned such behaviour but I would object if the law claimed the couple were married or engaged in a civil union. I might willingly agree to the term 'bizarre union' as being appropriate.
I believe it is a dangerous principle to allow differences to be characterized under a reserved/defined umbrella. Just because Catholics worship God does not give them the right to call themselves Jews nor Jews to call themselves Catholics etc. Both may be engaged in worshiping their God but the distinction of how they are referred to or identify themselves should remain. (See 4 below.)
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Palestinians kick off Jerusalem bid by ceding Holy Sites Custodianship to Jordan’s kin
An historic agreement signed in Amman Sunday, March 31, between Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Jordan’s King Abdullah II takes a new stand on Jerusalem - one of the core issues subject to negotiation with Israel - by accepting the king as Custodian of the city’s Holy Sites. The Palestinians agreed that Abdullah “will oversee and manage the Waqf (Muslim religious authority) in Jerusalem” and represent the interests of the Holy Sites “in relevant international forums… through feasible legal means.”
Where the Palestinian (Wafa) and Jordanian (Petra) versions of the same agreement differ is over the definition of “Palestinian sovereignty.”
By this document, the Palestinian leader and the king have laid the foundation for a mixed Arab-Palestinian-Israeli framework for managing the shrines holy to Jews (who are not mentioned), Muslims and Christians in Jerusalem. It has opened the door to what many will be perceive as a proposal to internationalize Jerusalem’s sanctuaries, a status affirmed but never honored from 1948 to 1967.
This foundation will not only raise strong Israeli objections but also be challenged by many Palestinians and therefore will have to last a long and tortuous course to survive.
Its importance lies in that the Palestinian Authority has taken the historically momentous step of ceding to the Hashemite throne the custodianship - religious, political, legal, and security - of the Muslim shrines on Temple Mount with authority over the Palestinian Waqf.
It means that henceforth, instead of the Palestinian Authority, Israel will have to engage the Jordanian government in discussions of matters pertaining to Temple Mount, especially hyper-sensitive security arrangements.
This should not be too much of a stretch since in practice, Israeli and Jordanian intelligence have cooperated quietly on such issues for many years.
This should not be too much of a stretch since in practice, Israeli and Jordanian intelligence have cooperated quietly on such issues for many years.
The Hashemite House comes out of the accord with Palestinian recognition for the first time as the Custodian of the Holy Places of Jerusalem, especially the Mosque of al Aqsa, a title which parallels the Saudi king’s traditional title as Guardian of the Holy Places to Islam in Mecca and Medina.
The degree of US Secretary of State John Kerry’s involvement in Jordanian-Palestinian accord is still to be determined and also whether Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni (in charge of negotiations with the Palestinians) were privy to its substance.
The Arab League summit meeting in Doha March 26-27, which debated the dormant Saudi Peace Plan, was certainly not in the picture. Those rulers now have much to chew on.
A confederation plan for a Palestinian West Bank state and Jordan was the real subject of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent conversation with King Abdullah in Amman,sources reveal – not Syria. This idea has become a focal talking point in Amman, Washington and Palestinian centers. It ties in with the report from US and Jordanian sources that Israel and the Palestinians will resume talks in the spring.
The new Abbas-Abdullah accord appears to be a strong move towards bringing this plan to fruition.
That it is a practical document and not just a declaration is indicated by the detailed definition of the Custodian’s purview appearing in the Jordanian version:
“Recalling the unique religious importance to all Muslims of al-Masjid al-Aqsa with its 144 dunams including include the Qibil Mosque of al-Aqsa, the Mosque of the Dome of the Rock and all its mosques, buildings, walls, courtyards, attached areas over and beneath the ground (a hint at Israeli archeological digs for the Biblical city and Temple)…”
Jordan and Palestine also pledged “all efforts to protect Jerusalem and its Holy Sites from Israeli escalatory Judaisation” – according to another clause in the Petra version.
On at least one very important point the Palestinian and Jordanian communiqués varied significantly:
According to PA Minister of Waqf and Religious Affairs Mahmoud Habash, “The agreement confirmed Jordan’s historic role in caring for the religious sanctuaries. It also confirmed Palestinian sovereignty over all of Palestine, including East Jerusalem as its capital.”
However, Article 3:3.1 of the agreement published in full by Jordan puts it this way: “The Government of the State of Palestine, as the expression of the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people, shall have the right to exercise sovereignty over all parts of its territory, including Jerusalem.
While hailing their accord as a historic breakthrough, the Palestinian and Jordanian leaders will obviously need to get all parts of their act together before they face Israel.
1a)
Iranian Official: The Loss Of Syria Will Lead To The Loss Of Tehran Itself; Syria Is An Iranian Province; Iran Has Formed A 60,000-Strong Syrian Basij; Israel Is Our Only Threat |
Introduction
On February 13, 2013, Mehdi Taeb, the head of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's Ammar Base think tank and the brother of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) intelligence bureau director Hossein Taeb, delivered a speech at a Basij conference in Mashhad, Iran, on Syria's importance to the Iranian regime.
In his speech, he defined Syria as a strategic Iranian province, and said that preserving the existence of the Syrian regime was even more important to the Iranian regime than preserving the oil-rich southern Iranian province of Khuzestan – despite the latter's strategic and economic importance.
Taeb also stressed that if Iran's enemies were to attack both Syria and Khuzestan, Tehran would prefer to preserve Syria, since its loss would lead to the loss of Tehran itself. He added that that Iran had helped to establish a 60,000-man Basij force in Syria which is fighting the rebels alongside the regime of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.
Reviewing regional and superregional threats to Tehran, Taeb assessed that right now, Israel – not the U.S. – constitutes the only serious threat. Tehran, he says, is successfully hobbling Israel by means of Hizbullah, and added that the U.S. will never attack Iran because it lacks the military manpower to do so, and also because of its shaky economy.
Taeb's view of Syria's strategic importance to the Iranian regime was earlier expressed by Ali Akbar Velayati, advisor to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, on February 8, 2013: "Iran has planned its defensive positions outside its own borders, and has linked its fate to the fate of the Islamic countries; this is why it will support those such as [Syrian President] Bashar Al-Assad to the end..."[2]
Taeb's statements triggered harsh criticism from conservative and reformist circles alike; they claimed that he is harming Iranian sovereignty with his willingness to relinquish precious parts of the homeland and that his statements support the Arab claim that Khuzestan is not part of Iran. They also said that his statements support the claim by enemies of Iran that the Iranian regime is oppressing its own citizens at home using the Basij, and that the statements confirm claims that Iran is now supporting the oppression of civilians in Syria.
In response to the criticism, Taeb said in three separate interviews with Iranian media that his statements had been distorted, but did not retract them: "The foreign media and the anti-[Iranian] regime media are helpless to deal with the Iranian regime, and therefore they distort statements made by Iranians[3]... Iran's position regarding the developments in Syria is completely clear, and my statement was a political and strategic analysis."[4]
Following are excerpts from Taeb's statements on Syria's strategic importance to Iran:[5]
Syria – A "Strategic Province" Of Iran
"Syria is [Iran's] 35th province, and it is a strategic province for us. If the enemy attacks us and wants to take Syria or Khuzestan, our top priority will be to preserve Syria. By preserving Syria, we will be able to retake Khuzestan – but if we lose Syria, we will not be able to preserve Tehran...
"Syria has an army, but it cannot wage the war within Syria's cities. This is why Iran proposed establishing a Basij force, to conduct the fighting in the cities. [So] the 60,000-strong 'Syrian Basij' was established; it has taken over the fighting in the streets from the army..."
"It Is Only Israel That Wants To Destroy [Iran], Because We Have Said From The Outset That We Do Not Want Israel To Exist"
"Today, there is only one threat to us, and that is the Zionist regime. It has the motivation and the capability to attack [Iran], and there is nothing preventing it from doing so. None of our neighboring countries – Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia – has either the money or the [military] strength [to attack us]; thus, we are not facing any regional threat.
"[However,] in the superregional arena, we see the U.S. as an enemy that would like to attack us but has neither the funds nor the [military] strength to do so... and it has no manpower to wage a war.
"To examine the economic state of a particular country, we must look at its budget proposal... During the Romney-Obama presidential debates, Romney told [Obama]: 'You have ruined the American economy, and amassed $16 trillion in debt – and Iran is now using this economic situation as a club to beat us with.' Obama responded, 'This debt is not my fault, but rather the fault of the American system...'
"During [the November 2012 Gaza conflict], the U.S. was in the Mediterranean, but did not come to [Israel's] aid. This is because if even one [Gaza] rocket had hit one of its warships, the wages of that ship's crew would have automatically doubled. [The U.S.] will never initiate a war against us.
"It is only Israel that wants to destroy us, because we have said from the outset that we do not want Israel to exist. Israel has as many nuclear warheads as we do provinces and towns; if they attack us, they will be accountable to no one in the world.
"[As to why we have not targeted Israel's nuclear warheads] – this is because we have completely locked up [Israel] with Hizbullah. During the 2006 Lebanon war, the Zionist regime tried to break this lock [i.e. Hizbullah], but after 33 days [of fighting], it gave up, and left [Lebanon]. According to [Hizbullah secretary-general] Hassan Nasrallah, Israel has said that in that war, it used 100% of its capability, while [Hizbullah] used only 4% of its capability."
Criticism Of Mehdi Taeb's Statements
Khuzestan - The Heart Of Iran – Is Much More Important Than Syria
Shokre Khoda Moussavi, the Majlis delegate from the city of Ahvaz, said: "Khuzestan to Iran is like the heart to the body – and one should not ignore the heart... Undoubtedly, while mercenaries and mercenary circles raise the issue of nationalism in regions like Khuzestan, the name of Khuzestan must not be raised, in order to support Syria...
"For the Iranian people and for Khuzestan, preserving Iran [with] Khuzestan is much more important than preserving Syria."[6]
Taeb Serves The Arab Claim For Sovereignty Over Khuzestan And Encourages The Division Of Iran
An article on the website Baztab titled "We Will Not Replace Khuzestan – Not Even With Damascus" claimed that Taeb had disregarded his statements' possible ramifications "for the sensitive province of Khuzestan" following "the [Support for the Ahwazi People] conference held in Cairo, which was held in an attempt to divide Iran."
Maintaining that Taeb's statements "are likely to play into the hands of extremist circles in Arab countries, who in recent decades have claimed sovereignty over Arab parts [of Iran]," the article went on to state that Taeb "speaks lightly of the possibility of war, while [Iran] is mobilizing all its capabilities to ease international pressure and to lessen the direct and indirect impact of the sanctions."
It continued: "He reduced the [Basij's] rank to [waging] war in the cities, and failed to explain where in Iran this kind of warfare has been used – and now he is recommending that Assad's regime use it... The [story] that Iranian Basij forces are being used [in Syria] is a baseless rumor disseminated by anti-[Iranian] regime media...
"The survival of the anti-Zionist regime in Syria is an Iranian strategic principle, because it is [part of] the resistance at the forefront of the battle against the Zionists' expansionist aspirations. No military, diplomatic, or strategic official would ever recommend losing even a single inch of Iran's territory. This is a sensitive issue – and even bringing it up, even if only to underline its importance, encourages division."[7]
Taeb Strengthens Iran's Enemies, Who Claim That Iran, Not Assad, Is Running Syria
The Iranian website Asr-e Iran accused Taeb of "violating [Iran's] national security and territorial integrity" and of fomenting "separatism." It explained that Taeb "disregarded the [Iranian] blood that has been shed to preserve this precious province [Khuzestan]."
The website noted that Taeb's statements "do not help the Syrian regime, but rather weaken its status against its opponents at home... who tell the Syrian people that Bashar Assad is a lackey and an agent of Iran – and Taeb's statements [prove] this. [Assad's opponents in Syria say that] Assad has turned Syria into an Iranian province, and that the sooner we [i.e. Syrians] get rid of the evil of this regime, which is identified with foreigners, the better...
"Taeb's statements only whitewash the armed rebels in Syria, who are identified with foreigners, and transforms them from foreign mercenaries into Syrian freedom fighters from Iran, or into fighters aiming to liberate the [Syrian] homeland from foreign rule.
"Yesterday, exiled Syrian prime minister Riyad Hijab told Al-Arabiya TV that Syria was occupied by Iran and that it is run not by Assad but by Qassem Suleimani, commander of the [IRGC] Qods Force. Don't Taeb's statements strengthen these anti-Iran claims?
"To the best of our knowledge, Iran has 31 official provinces. Where Taeb got 34 provinces, and added Syria as a 35th, we have no idea. Maybe he counted other countries such as Bahrain, Lebanon, and Iraq as Iranian provinces about which we know nothing?"[8]
Taeb Was Mistaken And Did Not Explain What He Really Meant
An article in the Iranian daily Kayhan, which is close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, claimed that "[Taeb's] mistaken statements about prioritizing Syria over Khuzestan were exploited by the anti-[Iranian] regime media... [Taeb] did not explain exactly what [part of] his statements had been distorted, or what he'd actually meant [to say].
"It is not necessary to demonstrate [the principle of] defending the resistance axis in Syria as opposed to [the principle of] defending the territorial integrity of Khuzestan or any other Iranian province. Syria is not an Iranian province, but it is an important and strategic member of the anti-Israel resistance axis...
"It is expected that people be more precise in their words – particularly in professional matters. Sometimes, when they make a mistaken statement, or if their words are [later] twisted, they need to correct them in a timely manner."[9]
Taeb Is Serving Arab Claims Of Sovereignty Over Khuzestan
The Iranian website Kaleme, which is close to supporters of Mir-Hossein Mousavi, claimed that Taeb had "ignored the ramifications of his statements for international relation [apparently referring to Iran's relations with its Arab neighbors], and for the national and security sensitivity [of Khuzestan]."[10]
On another occasion, the website noted that "the political and media pressure on [Taeb] made him blame others, instead of apologizing and correcting his position."[11]
The Ahvazis Respond: Ahvaz Will Be Free; Taeb's Statements Prove Iran's Involvement In The Slaughter of The Syrian People
In response to Taeb's statements, a separatist Ahvazi website noted: "With these statements, the Persian regime officials have clearly proven that Ahvaz has not always been under Iranian rule – and that right now, occupied Ahvaz is not part of Iran. The regime knows this, and knows that Ahvaz will win its independence."[12]
The website of the Ahvazi Democratic Popular Front added: "With his statements, [Taeb] has underlined Iran's direct occupation [of Syria] and Iran's involvement in forming the Basij in Syria... These statements prove Iran's direct involvement in the slaughter of the Syrian people, from the first day of the[ir] Intifada."[13]
*Y. Mansharof is a research fellow at MEMRI.
Endnotes:
[1] Snn.ir, February 13, 2013.
[2] Yjc.ir, February 8, 2013.
[3] Fars (Iran), February 15, 2013; Tasnim.com, February 16, 2013.
[4] Snn.ir, February 16, 2013.
[5] Snn.ir, February 13, 2013.
[6] Behar (Iran), February 16, 2013.
[7] Baztab.net, February 14, 2013.
[8] Asr-e Iran (Iran), February 16, 2013.
[9] Kayhan (Iran), February 17, 2013.
[10] Kaleme (Iran), February 14, 2013.
[11] Kaleme (Iran), February 16, 2013.
[12] Ahwazna.org, February 16, 2013.
[13] Alahwaz.org, February 15, 2013.
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Obama's Trojan Horse
Op-ed: US president seems to have forgotten Israel took great risks when it signed Oslo Accords, withdrew from Gaza
By Shaul Rosenfeld
"I fear Greeks even when they bring gifts," said priest of Apollo at Troy Laocoön when he warned the Trojans in vain against accepting the Trojan Horse. This ancient warning was forgotten by many when American President Barack Obama went to great lengths to stroke our ego and tell we "are not alone."
While it is possible that Obama's failed attempts to jump start the "peace process" in his first term, mainly by applying pressure on Israel and hurling accusations at its leaders, contributed to the White House's reexamination of its Mideast policy, it seems that what tipped the scales in favor of changing the behavior toward Israel was the failure of his previous tactic. From here the road to adopting an alternative tactic - which has been proven to be effective by people such as Bill Clinton - was short. Despite the disastrous "Clinton outline," the former American president is still a popular figure in Israel. "Never interrupt a person who is complimenting you," Osho said. Clinton understood this, and all the signs on the ground indicate that Obama has internalized this principle as well.
During his "king's speech" in Jerusalem, Obama used some of the same rhetoric we remember from his first term. He spoke of occupation, expulsion and the lost hope of the Palestinians, and he called on young Israelis to pressure their leaders into taking risks for the sake of peace with the Palestinians. Beyond his baseless statement that "political leaders will not take risks if the people do not demand that they do" – throughout history leaders (including American leaders) did not tend to ask the people for their opinion before taking risks – the fact that he told Israel's youngsters "you must create the change that you want to see" is no less than an insolent call for a civil uprising against the legitimate decisions of elected officials in a democratic regime.
Did Israel not take a real risk when it signed the Oslo Accordsand in return received a bloodbath in its cities and periphery? Did it not take a great risk at Camp David in 2000, which was followed by horrible acts of terror launched by its Palestinian partner? Did Ehud Barak not return empty handed, yet again, after making an improved offer to Arafat during the 2001 Taba Conference as Palestinian terrorists were killing Israelis? Did Israel not take a risk when it withdrew from Gaza in 2005? In 2007 did Abbas not reject the even more generous offers presented by Olmert - offers which amazed even the Americans?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Republican brand problem — and why fixing it won’t be easy
Asked to name the single thing they disliked the most about the Republican party, one in five people in a new Gallup poll said the GOP was “inflexible” or “unwilling to compromise.”
That’s bad — but it doesn’t capture the full magnitude of the brand problems that Republicans are currently dealing with. Two other numbers in the Gallup survey do that.
That’s bad — but it doesn’t capture the full magnitude of the brand problems that Republicans are currently dealing with. Two other numbers in the Gallup survey do that.
The first is 26 percent — as in one in four Republicans saying the thing they dislike about their own party is that it is too uncompromising. That is at least as high as the number of Democrats (22 percent) who said the same thing and higher than the number of independents (17 percent).
That more than one in four Republicans think their own side is too inflexible speaks not only to the divide between the conservative and establishment wings of the party — nothing shocking there — but also, and this is somewhat new, to the size of the group who thinks the GOP is simply too hard line.
Rock, meet hard place.The second, and more important data point, is that the second most-mentioned critique of the party — 14 percent named it — by self-identified GOPers is that they “don’t stand up for their positions” and “give in too easily.” And, when asked the things they like about their party, the three most-mentioned traits are “better fiscal management/budget cuts/less debt”, “conservative views” and “favor smaller government.”
Republicans want Republicans to compromise. But giving way on the budget and size of government strikes at the party’s raison d’etre. Compromising on those sorts of things — like the party did in the fiscal cliff deal with President Obama in late 2012 — is likely to lose the party more of its adherents than it gains it in converts. And, as any party strategist will tell you, a party without a base isn’t much of a party.
So, what the party compromises on then matters — a lot. And, that’s why making a deal on immigration may well be the best chance the GOP has to change the perception that they are allergic to deal-making.
Why? Because it’s something of a nothing-burger to their base — 2 percent volunteer the party’s stance on immigration as a top beef they have with the GOP while 1 percent name it as a positive thing for their side — and it could well allow the GOP to court Hispanics if the party can play an active role in putting together a comprehensive immigration reform proposal.
What the numbers from Gallup make clear is that simply making a deal to make a deal won’t help Republicans convince the public — or their party — that the image of the GOP is wrong. But, picking a high profile place or two — climate change, perhaps? — to cut deals might very well allow Republicans to keep their base behind them while shattering the negative image too many Americans have of them as hardened ideologues on every issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Yes, Let’s Keep Government Out of Marriage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Yes, Let’s Keep Government Out of Marriage
Last week at RedState, we spent a lot of time focusing on politics from a faith perspective because it was Holy Week. Throughout the week, many people who support gay marriage lambasted me and others that Christians were just trying to use government to legislate marriage or morality.
But I agree that we should keep the government out of marriage.
Last I checked, George and Martha Washington did not get remarried after 1776 when the United States declared independence from Great Britain. Nor did they do so after 1789, when the constitution was enacted.
In fact, not one of the founding fathers married prior to 1776 remarried the same person after the United States was formed.
Government did not create marriage. The only laws on the books related to marriage are state laws and federal laws that recognize the marriage structure that previously existed before the government established them.
To be sure, over time those marriages evolved. The age of consent and the ability to contract have changed and impacted marriage, but the structure and operation of marriage were still the same.
The most significant changes in the law regarding marriage have been on how to end a marriage, not how to begin a marriage or what constitutes a marriage.
But marriage pre-existed the state and has evolved institutionally over a few thousand years.
What’s happening now is that gay marriage advocates are attempting to use the state to change marriage. When they say Christians are trying to use the state to legislate their version of marriage, they are full of crap. All Christians are doing is defending an institution that already exists from being changed to something it has never been.
It is the gay marriage advocates who want to force, by the power of the state, a pre-existing institution to change. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution that it did not create, the state can force everyone to do so. It is already happening in this country at the state level.
Marriage may evolve to include gays one day. But the time is not their year. The laws enacted across the country to preserve the status quo are just that — there to keep the state, via the courts or legislature from changing an institution neither the courts nor legislatures of the several states created, but chose to recognize.
Let’s be clear here — you can support gay marriage, but don’t tell me Christians are trying to legislate their version of marriage. The only people trying to legislate, from the bench or otherwise, are gay rights advocates who refuse to let the institution naturally evolve because of their own impatience for the trappings of normalcy in a society that has long viewed them as outside the mainstream.
That the loudest proponents of gay marriage cannot even be honest in what’s going on loudly suggests they are not being honest when they say they’re cool with conscientious objectors to the whole idea. Consider, for example, this blog post from the Cato Institute entitled, “We Support Gay Marriage but Oppose Forcing People to Support It.”
They filed an amicus brief in support of Elane Photography, which was punished in New Mexico for refusing to help a gay wedding. Cato bases its defense on photography being protected by the first amendment. But note this:
Our brief explains that photography is an art form protected by the First Amendment because clients seek out the photographer’s method of staging, posing, lighting, and editing. Photography is thus a form of expression subject to the First Amendment’s protection, unlike many other wedding-related businesses (e.g., caterers, hotels, limousine drivers).
So if you are a Christian caterer, bed and breakfast, etc. too bad. You will be forced to provide services to a gay wedding. You will be made to by the power of the state. That’s where we are headed. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution it did not create, the state can compel your services to that institution.
So yes, let’s keep the government out of marriage. Its definition will change over time through the natural evolution of all institutions. That evolution may include gay marriage, but it might not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)
Yes, Let’s Keep Government Out of Marriage
Last week at RedState, we spent a lot of time focusing on politics from a faith perspective because it was Holy Week. Throughout the week, many people who support gay marriage lambasted me and others that Christians were just trying to use government to legislate marriage or morality.
But I agree that we should keep the government out of marriage.
Last I checked, George and Martha Washington did not get remarried after 1776 when the United States declared independence from Great Britain. Nor did they do so after 1789, when the constitution was enacted.
In fact, not one of the founding fathers married prior to 1776 remarried the same person after the United States was formed.
Government did not create marriage. The only laws on the books related to marriage are state laws and federal laws that recognize the marriage structure that previously existed before the government established them.
To be sure, over time those marriages evolved. The age of consent and the ability to contract have changed and impacted marriage, but the structure and operation of marriage were still the same.
The most significant changes in the law regarding marriage have been on how to end a marriage, not how to begin a marriage or what constitutes a marriage.
But marriage pre-existed the state and has evolved institutionally over a few thousand years.
What’s happening now is that gay marriage advocates are attempting to use the state to change marriage. When they say Christians are trying to use the state to legislate their version of marriage, they are full of crap. All Christians are doing is defending an institution that already exists from being changed to something it has never been.
It is the gay marriage advocates who want to force, by the power of the state, a pre-existing institution to change. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution that it did not create, the state can force everyone to do so. It is already happening in this country at the state level.
Marriage may evolve to include gays one day. But the time is not there year. The laws enacted across the country to preserve the status quo are just that — there to keep the state, via the courts or legislature from changing an institution neither the courts nor legislatures of the several states created, but chose to recognize.
Let’s be clear here — you can support gay marriage, but don’t tell me Christians are trying to legislate their version of marriage. The only people trying to legislate, from the bench or otherwise, are gay rights advocates who refuse to let the institution naturally evolve because of their own impatience for the trappings of normalcy in a society that has long viewed them as outside the mainstream.
That the loudest proponents of gay marriage cannot even be honest in what’s going on loudly suggests they are not being honest when they say they’re cool with conscientious objectors to the whole idea. Consider, for example, this blog post from the Cato Institute entitled, “We Support Gay Marriage but Oppose Forcing People to Support It.”
They filed an amicus brief in support of Elane Photography, which was punished in New Mexico for refusing to help a gay wedding. Cato bases its defense on photography being protected by the first amendment. But note this:
Our brief explains that photography is an art form protected by the First Amendment because clients seek out the photographer’s method of staging, posing, lighting, and editing. Photography is thus a form of expression subject to the First Amendment’s protection, unlike many other wedding-related businesses (e.g., caterers, hotels, limousine drivers).
So if you are a Christian caterer, bed and breakfast, etc. too bad. You will be forced to provide services to a gay wedding. You will be made to by the power of the state. That’s where we are headed. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution it did not create, the state can compel your services to that institution.
So yes, let’s keep the government out of marriage. Its definition will change over time through the natural evolution of all institutions. That evolution may include gay marriage, but it might not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment