Parental Rights

A parent should be able to make decisions about healthcare and treatment for their children. Should I even have to reiterate that? Apparently so.

A friend of mine recently had a baby. This baby, S, was slightly jaundiced. The pediatrician on call ordered the baby to have phototherapy and mom and dad said no. They did not believe, and rightly, that the baby's condition warranted that. There are side effects to phototherapy and it would interrupt breastfeeding. The baby was in no imminent danger. So a social worker speaks to mom in the hospital and tells her that refusing the treatment is neglect.

Thankfully, mom stood her ground and fired back at them with the AAP's recommendation that phototherapy wasn't indicated for S. She was told that as long as they took S to the follow up the next day CPS would not be involved and she was free to leave the hospital with S.

Well, two days after being home, and making the follow up appointment for S, CPS shows up at her door!

I have heard about and seen so many cases like the above where some do-gooder called CPS on parents over nothing. Simply because they parent differently, or they had a bad day. What makes me so angry is that CPS harasses innocent parents and then lets others go when there were so many serious warning signs and kids end up dead.

It is truly frightening to me as a parent to see how much power government organizations have when it comes to my children. CPS can force their way into my house and forcibly remove my children without any evidence other than an anonymous 'tip'. The burden of proof rests on the parent, and not the state as it should. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. That is out the window though.

Why is it that total strangers think that they care more for children than the children's parents do? Why do these busybodies sic the state on anyone who makes parenting decisions that are different from the ones they would make? Why does the state believe that it owns our children? Why do we let the state get away with this?

http://www.parentalrights.org/

"Constitutional" Rights

I am seriously beginning to hate that phrase.


Let us be clear. The Constitution does not grant rights to the people. It was not written for the people, but to restrain the government. We have the rights of free speech, press, association, bearing arms, religion, etc, because we are human, not because we live in America. Jefferson said it perfectly, "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." The Constitution specifically enumerates the powers of the federal government and they are very limited. It was not intended to confer rights upon the people, only to acknowledge that the people had those rights inherently.


So please, stop claiming your 'constitutional' rights, and just claim your rights.

Pete Eyre arrested for wearing a hat.

Pete Eyre arrested for wearing a hat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynoUudh20A8

First reaction was to blame the one wearing the hat. Then I thought about it. Does failing to adhere to some custom warrant the treatment the man received? Without question the man was trying to cause trouble. Or was he? Why should there have been an issue? Is it really that important? It is not the law, it is just etiquette. Older people will say it is just good manners, and maybe it is, but not having good manners doesn't justify the wrongs and the bullying that is going on in government.

The fact that the police believed violence was an acceptable response to a breach of etiquette is disturbing to say the least. It is sad that our first response is always to side with the 'authorities', at least it is mine. Why should one cooperate with authorities that are violent without cause? Why should one give up rights and enable our government to get its power fix? Our government is intoxicated with power and uses things like this to assert its authority and subjugate the population.

So I think that we need more people like this who are willing to go through this to prove a point. We need to push back or we are going to be trampled.

Here are a couple more links about the same kind of thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHCkAk0WrPQ&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GskOXEX2wk&feature=player_embedded

Religious Liberty- Does It Still Exist in America?

Got this in my inbox yesterday from World Net Daily

Patriotic American,

The time for the so called "religious tolerance" double standard is OVER! And that's why I am sending you this most important email today on behalf of ReAL Action – The citizen activist arm of Renewing American Leadership. We must act now before it is too late.

It appears that the man leading this initiative blames us for the attack on the World Trade Center.

Here is an exact quote from the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf:
"The United States and the West must acknowledge
the harm they have done to Muslims before
terrorism can end." - See full article.

According to the New York Post, "The imam behind a proposed mosque near Ground Zero is a prominent member of a group that helped sponsor the pro-Palestinian activists who clashed violently with Israeli commandos at sea this week." – See full article.

The memories are still very fresh in my mind---but, more importantly, the minds of the families of the nearly 3,000 that were killed.

Even though there are more than 100 mosques in the New York City area, there are no churches and synagogues in the entire country of Saudi Arabia.

The time to end this religious double standard is now.

The very name "Cordoba House" tells us the true meaning behind the effort to build a mosque overlooking the site where thousands of Americans lost their lives. The name refers to Cordoba, Spain where Muslim conquerors symbolized their victory over Christianity by transforming a church into one of the biggest mosques in the world. To learn more about this, listen to a more detailed explanation from my good friend Dr. Jim Garlow, the President of Renewing American Leadership.

I believe that peaceful Muslims can have a place of worship – but my mind cannot even comprehend the audacity of trying to build a $100 Million mosque at Ground Zero. America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.

Select here to read my entire statement on the Ground Zero mosque.

It is not only a slap in the face to the families of the nearly 3,000 9/11 victims, but to every patriotic American, like you.

This is a genuine, insensitive injustice.

I cannot understand why city officials are bowing to the demands of the American Society for Muslim Advancement to open this 13-story shrine to Islam on . . . of all days---September 11, 2011! Will you assist me in STOPPING this onslaught against the common decency of respecting the families of 9-11?

Thank you for your true patriotism to our great country.

Your friend,
Newt Gingrich"


I would ask Mr. Gingrich what "double standard" he is referring to. Here in America, per the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, all religions are free to worship and build places of worship if they choose. I would say from the rest of his letter that he is the one with the double standard. He wishes to infringe on the rights of Muslims to worship and build a mosque.

He goes on to say that there are over 100 mosques in the New York area. And his point is? NYC has a population of over 8 million. That gives a ratio of 1:80,000 for mosques to people. I'd be interested to know how many christian churches are in NYC. In my city of less than 200,000 there are over 200 christian churches. That gives a ratio of about 1:1,000 christian churches to people.

Later he gets to the "double standard" he is referring to. Saudi Arabia doesn't have any christian churches. Well... The Saudis are bigots what can we say? Does that mean we should be too? How utterly juvenile! The Christian Right people are always belly-aching about the 'persecution' of Christians here in America and then turn right around an wish to persecute people of another faith. What hypocrisy! And this kind of persecution predates 9/11. See this article.

Now I quote that pesky First Amendment;

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I know it isn't Congress making a law in the case of the mosque near Ground Zero. The principle, however, is being violated by those who wish to keep the Muslims from building it.

~Rabbit~ The Right's pundits keep saying 'the mosque at Ground Zero' or 'the Ground Zero Mosque'. The proposed mosque will NOT be at Ground Zero. It is 3 city blocks away. Close, but not 'on' or 'at'. A nice example of how alarmist language is shaping this issue.

It was not the Islamic church as a whole that attacked us on 9/11. It was a group of radical Muslims. Most of which came from Saudi Arabia and not Afghanistan or Iraq (but that's another rabbit I don't have time to hunt and kill).

Newt says,"I believe that peaceful Muslims can have a place of worship" -- unless of course Newt doesn't like their choice of location.

This whole thing sickens me. If Christians are so concerned about Muslims taking over America why don't they get off their butts and do some soul-winning?! Live like a Christian and quit spouting hateful and bigoted rhetoric that only serves to offend and alienate those that the Christians perceive as their enemies but who they should be showing the love of Christ to bring them to the saving knowledge of his grace.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23, "For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you."

As for the quote by the Imam. Bin Laden's professed reasons for the 9/11 attack and other attacks was the US' interference in Middle East affairs and occupation of their countries. Unfortunately, the US will not acknowledge her part. And she should. It does not compromise our national security or degrade us or make us less to admit, "Hey, we screwed up, Sorry 'bout that."

It is what I tell my kids all the time when one of them is in trouble and the one pipes up with, "Well, she/he started it!" or "Well, they did it too!" or whatever words they use to justify themselves and lay blame on someone else. "You are only responsible for yourself. And just because someone else does wrong doesn't make it okay for you to do it."

Those on the Right are making a big stink about this to cause division. And it seems to be working quite well. They use emotional and inflammatory language to get a rise out of people. And those people are not objectively considering what is being said.

I will close with some wise words from some of America's founding period.

"If we may openly speak the truth neither Pagan nor Mahometan, nor Jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion." John Locke

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." Thomas Paine

Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. "True freedom," Lee asserted, "embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion."

Officials in Massachusetts were equally insistent that their influential Constitution of 1780 afforded "the most ample liberty of conscience … to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians," a point that Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons resoundingly affirmed in 1810.

A petition of a group of citizens of Chesterfield County, Va., to the state assembly, Nov. 14, 1785: "Let Jews, Mehometans and Christians of every denomination enjoy religious liberty…thrust them not out now by establishing the Christian religion lest thereby we become our own enemys and weaken this infant state.

Benjamin Rush, asserted that he had "rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles."

Essential Liberty

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin

So. The wonderful Congressman from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, has introduced the "Terrorism Expatriation Act". This act modifies another passed years ago while McCarthyism was still alive and well.

The text of the original is:

§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if

(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or

(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

(4)

(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or

(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or

(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or

(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

Okay. So I can see the expatriation of those described in section 1-6. Those have renounced their citizenship by swearing allegiance to another state. But section 7 I have a problem with. Those sections of the US code that it modifies give stipulations on how long someone can be incarcerated and say nothing of expatriating them.

Now Lieberman's proposal would expand that to include terrorists, domestic ones. The biggest problem with that is that if we expatriate citizens what becomes of them once they are released from jail? If they have no citizenship here or in another country what are they to do? Can they be re-naturalized? Will they be deported? and if so to where?

I see this as an open door to stifle dissent and to criminalize and strip of their rights American citizens at the whim of the state. The burden of proving, or rather disproving, the state's accusations lies with the one accused. That is not right! In this country we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around!

This quote sums up my fears on that point, "While the burden would be on the State Department and you would have access to court review, the agency process could make it difficult to contest such findings -- particularly with the use of secret evidence (and barring the use of evidence by the defendant on national security grounds)," [Jonathan] Turley wrote on his blog."

Of course I saw this one coming. All the debate about whether or not to 'mirandize' those suspected of terrorism and whether non-citizens deserve those rights. I believe we must extend the rights of our legal system to include those that are terror suspects. We must prove that they are what the authorities say they are before we incarcerate them. If they are not part of an organized military, that belonging to a sovereign state, then we must treat them as individuals guilty of a crime. As individuals they must be proven guilty, not proven innocent. We cannot abandon justice to procure some illusion of safety.

Church and State

US Constitution Art. 6 Sect. 3 "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

That boldened part is very important; especially in light of the accusations flying around that "Obama is a Muslim" or a "Muslim sympathizer". Constitutionally it does not matter if he is or not!! Using those accusations as an argument about why one does not like him as President is just ridiculous. There are so many other things that are really worth worrying about. To constantly bring that up in discussions about Obama's qualifications or fit-ness for the Presidency is what is called an ad hominem attack or perhaps a red herring. It has no relevance.

I am tired of hearing it brought up. Of course those who do bring it up always point to the fact that Muslims are our enemy. But are they really? Are we not allies with Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Kuwait and Pakistan and UAE? All of those are Muslim nations. Are we not providing military aid (nice euphemism for war, isn't it?) to Iraq and Afghanistan? Those are also Muslim nations.

It makes no difference if Obama is a Muslim, something he has consistently denied, or not. Those who do not like Obama need to get it through their thick head that according to our Constitution it DOES NOT MATTER!! It is completely irrelevant! His, or any other elected official's, religion cannot, should not, be used as an argument against him.

Now on to the First Amendment!

The First Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It seems to me, judging by many of the comments I've seen of Facebook and other places, that Conservative Christians would like very much for that Amendment to not be there. They like the freedom of religion in theory, but they don't seem to like the fact that it is all inclusive. They seem to wish that Muslims were not allowed the same freedom that they claim to prize for themselves.

For example, today there was a post on FB about whether or not the US should restrict immigration of Muslims. Most of the comments ran along the theme that, Yes, the US should not let Muslims in or if the US does that they should be forced to give up their religious practices and assimilate into western society.

Those sentiments are so wrong. So detrimental to true liberty. That same liberty that so many Christians claim to stand for and be thankful for.

The ideology of many Christians, at least in the way they approach the legislation of 'values', is that only one set of beliefs should be protected and that any belief that does not fit with that is wrong and should be made illegal. Here's a post on the gay marriage issue, and how it is not really a matter for the state to decide. And here's a post on why I think that CPACs are not really a good thing. I agree with those Christian values, I just don't want my government forcing them on the rest of the population.

In matters of one's personal life I agree that the Bible is the final authority for Christians, for all men really. I also believe that in matters of state it is the Constitution of these United States, and not the Bible, that is the final authority. If Christians wish to effect a change in the moral climate of this nation let them do their Father's work and preach the gospel and let the Holy Spirit do his work and quit trying to use the US legislature to do it.

Obama poised to sign away US sovereignty

Fascism is a wonderful thing!!

This couple had their children kidnapped by CPS because a WalMart employee reported them for suspected child pornography.

But before we become enraged at the employee or WalMart lets get angry at the legislators who made a law requiring that any possible pedophile activity be reported. It is so much easier for the state to keep tabs on the people if they enlist the help of the people to report on each other!

Now, I want real pedophiles prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but when the Law goes after innocent people like this it makes me doubt that anyone the state labels as a pedophile really is one. This kind of high-handedness is ridiculous. It is crazy that parents have to consider if the picture they are taking could in anyway be construed as sexual! I know I have taken nakie pics of my kids. I do not view them as sexually stimulating in any way! And millions of other parents have done the same. Use some common sense people!

And if this had been the only case of such abuse of government power I might not be so upset. But it has happened before in other states. A Texas couple had their children taken and were brought up on charges over one breastfeeding picture. I found this site interesting. They claim that 60% of of child molestation accusations are false!! I am sure there are many more examples of this kind of misuse of authority and false charges. I know personally of one case that I am fairly certain was false and yet the party involved was convicted and will likely never see her children again, not even in pictures!

And then there is guilt among the ranks of those that are supposed to uphold the law. The case of the former social services commissioner. And that is not the only one, there are plenty more! Here's a list.

I don't really know what the point of this was except to rant a little. :)

The ACLU is evil...or maybe not.

I know that the typical conservative opinion of the ACLU is that it is an evil organization that is always against Christianity. I went searching their site today and while I morally disagree with the positions that the ACLU defends, constitutionally I think that the ACLU is doing a good thing.

Take the most recent viral christian-right vitriol...FL residents take stand against ACLU

Christians are frantically trying to portray this as an attack on the First Amendment. But is it? The teachers were leading prayer, not students praying on their own. How would these Christians feel if the teachers were leading students in muslim prayer or buddhist prayer? I imagine the response would be very different.

Teachers are government employees, well at least public school teachers are, and should not be using that position to proselytize young people.

So now I have a long list of things I found on the ACLU's website. Cases that I believe Christians would approve of.
Virginia jail ends censorship of religious material

ACLU stands up for pregnant women's right to refuse medical care

ACLU calls for provision for freedom of speech and association protection

Kindergartener's right to freedom of religious expression

ACLU over unlawful searches and detentions by TSA

ACLU Challenges Defense Department Personnel Policy To Regard Lawful Protests As “Low-Level Terrorism”

ACLU Files Federal Lawsuit To Protect Religious Liberty Of New Jersey Prisoner

ACLU of Pennsylvania Defends Church Forced to Shut Down Its Ministry to Homeless

ACLU Urges Governor Crist to Uphold and Respect Religious Freedom for All Floridians

City of Portland Upholds Freedom of Religion

Judge Orders Children Returned To Their Families

ACLU Sues To Protect Marriages Threatened By Recent Court Decision

ACLU Says Religious Tests for Public Office Unconstitutional

ACLU Challenges Louisiana Law Funneling Taxpayer Funds to Favored Churches

Louisiana Court Affirms Christian Protester's Free Speech Rights

ACLU of New Jersey Applauds Ruling in Favor of Student's Right to Sing "Awesome God"


ACLU of Tennessee Fights for Religious Freedom in Wilson County Public School

City of Omaha and ACLU of Nebraska Announce Settlement in Lawsuit Over Muslim Woman Barred from Public Pool

ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln

Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks

Interesting post on the gay marriage issue

Copied from someone else online (with permission)

Enough W/ The Opinions on Gay/Straight Marriage ... How 'bout a CONSTITUTIONAL Perspective?

Okay, so there have been several journals about gay/straight marriage and the Prop 8 issue. There is enough opining going around to really stink up the issue, so I have decided to write about the CONSTITUTIONAL view of marriage.
First, I want to put the following on the table:

I am a Christian - which means I am personally and religiously opposed to gay marriage.I am a Libertarian - which means that I am politically opposed to a Constitutional Amendment banning or granting same-sex (or any other kind) of marriage.

Here is the basis for my argument:

The US Constitution does TWO things:

It PROTECTS an individual's rights - it DOESN'T GRANT rights
It BINDS the government to a restrictive rule of law, OBLIGATING them to protect and uphold the Constitution.

First, lets look at what a right REALLY is:

According to Black's Law Dictionary, a right is "inherent in one person and incident upon another .. the power of free action." Please note that rights are "inherent," meaning that it is physically impossible for rights to be extracted from a person by ANY means. In other words, someone can kill you - depriving you OF life, but they cannot deprive your RIGHT to life.

A right is something you can do without permission, therefore the opposite of a right is something you cannot do without permission. ANY time you need permission to do something, it is a privilege. Black's Law Dictionary defines this as, "a particular or peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption." Rights and privileges are opposites. To have a more thorough understanding of the differences between Rights and Privileges please click here: Rights vs.Privileges [note* I am not sure this is the link the original author posted, I lost that link]

Here are some corollaries:

ALL rights are derived from property
EVERY right implies a responsibility
The ONLY limitation on your rights is the equal rights of others


For the sake of brevity and applicability, I am paraphrasing the information in the above document for the purposes of this journal.

It may come as a shock to read that there are no "constitutional rights." This term is misleading because it gives the impression that the Constitution grants rights.

NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!

The Bill of Rights enumerates our rights, but none of our founding documents bestow anything on you at all. All of your rights precede the US Constitution. The government can burn the Constitution & shred the Bill of Rights, but wouldn't have the slightest effect on the rights you've ALWAYS had. This also means that these rights aren't exclusive to Americans; America is just the country who has promised to protect them.

"The convention of a number of the states, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."

- The Preamble to the Bill of Rights (didn't know there was one did ya?)

Let's break this down:

Who? The convention of a number of states
When? At the time of their adopting the Constitution
What? They expressed a desire to prevent misconstruction or abuse of government power.
Solution? To add further declaratory and restrictive clauses.
Why? To further extend public confidence in the government

When we make an amendment to the Constitution, we are DECLARING to the government that we are claiming a specific right that they may not, under any circumstances, touch. Remember, rights are something that we don't have to ask for, and something that is inherent in us - we are born with them. If we had to ask our government to practice our rights - then they wouldn't be rights, they would be privileges (put this in the back of your mind when contemplating any other rights - you might begin to see how unconstitutional our current government is).

So how does this apply to the marriage issue? Let's break down the argument to its most basic points:

Proponents of gay marriage argue that marriage is a right for all couples who are in a loving committed relationship regardless of sexual orientation, AND should be privy to the same "rights" that heterosexual married couples have. (I have rights in quotations for a reason ... I hope that you understand this as I go on)

Opponents of gay marriage argue that marriage is a right for ONLY one man and one woman, and homosexuality should not be rewarded because of the negative moral and social implications. Marriage is a religious issue and the government has no business in it..........

*Sigh* Where do I start .......

How about with this: Marriage is NOT a right! ..... For anyone ..... gay or straight .....

You must ask permission to be married; you must ASK your significant other if you can marry them. If they say yes, you are granted a privilege to be a part of the person's life "as long as you both shall live." If they say no, you have NO legal recourse; you simply cannot marry that person; you've been denied that privilege. If marriage is a right, then the government is OBLIGATED, by the law of the Constitution, to protect your right. This DOES NOT happen! If Johnny asks Suzy to marry him, and Suzy says no, Johnny cannot sue her, and the government doesn't come to the aide of Johnny in order to protect his right to marry.

EVEN if you get past the first hurdle, the two of you STILL do not have a right to legally marry. You must ask permission from religious clergy or a JOP to marry you - they can also refuse - and you must apply for a license in order to do it. Black's Law Dictionary defines a license as "a personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on land without possessing any estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor (red flag)
and is not assignable." Did George Washington have a marriage license? (No.) Did Thomas Jefferson? (No.) Did they simply ask the women they loved to settle down with them and perhaps raise a family? ..... Uh Yes! Ever heard of a Common Law marriage? Did you know that the ONLY reason why we have marriage licenses to begin with was to "approve of" interracial marriages.(red flag)

Because rights are derived from property, the ONLY way for marriage to be a right, is if you OWN your significant other. Owning a person is slavery and it not a right because (we all know this), it infringes on a personal liberty. Your rights cannot infringe on my rights and visa versa.

The Constitution was not designed to give the government the power to grant privileges to certain (or any) groups of people for any reason. Let me say this again......

"We the People" NEVER gave the government the authority to license , permit, or otherwise grant special privileges to anyone for anything!

The authority lies with in our own power to exert our own rights. For this reason (marriage) licenses are unconstitutional. However, under the current law, their is a civic injustice which discriminates against a certain group of people - in this case homosexuals.So to the PROPONENTS of homosexual marriage ......If you want the government to grant to homosexual couples the unconstitutional privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy, then keep doing what you are doing. HOWEVER, true liberty CANNOT thrive while our government continues to act illegally. If you want true justice you should be fighting to get the government OUT of marriage by calling for the immediate discontinuation of the issuing of marriage licenses, the discontinuation of government endorsed privileges associated with marriage (and while we are at the penalties too), and revoke the authority of Justices of the Peace to marry couples. After all, the only reason to legally marry under current law is to reap the benefits associated with it. No one has any business telling homosexuals that they cannot have a common law marriage. If your significant other grants you the privilege to marry than it should be your right as a couple to live how you deem fit; you shouldn't have to ask anyone else beyond that. (This principle should apply to heterosexual couples as well). If a homosexual couple desires to have a clergy marry them and conduct a ceremony, then seek out a clergy who supports your relationship.
While this may be outside the Christian faith (at least) why would you want to force someone to do something against their will?

And to the OPPONENTS of homosexual marriage ....Please remember that I know why you feel the way you do; I feel the same way but with a major exception. If marriage is a religious issue and the government has no business involved with this, then why do you ....

permit the government to license marriage?

permit (and accept) government endorsed privileges?

try to misuse the Constitution -which dictates federal law - to fight a culture war?

Remember, the Constitution doesn't grant rights but it also doesn't restrict the people. The Bible may say that homosexuality is an abomination but it never says that we can use the government as our mouthpiece and coerce people to submit to Biblical law against their free will. Jesus Christ NEVER forced ANYONE to follow Him against their free will. I believe that we are a nation founded on Christian principles, but that doesn't make us a Christian nation. If we were, then the founders would have established a theocracy and not a Republic; a government that protects the rights of the individual over that of the group. If you want true justice you should be fighting to get the government OUT of marriage by calling for the immediate discontinuation of the issuing of marriage licenses, the discontinuation of government endorsed privileges associated with marriage (and while we are at the penalties too), and revoke the authority of Justices of the Peace to marry couples. After all, the only reason to legally marry under current law is to reap the benefits associated with it.

These two completely polor opposite postions have a common ground on which they can fight upon: To get the government to follow the Constitituion and get out of marriage in order to allow us to live as "We the People" choose to live.

Imagine how powerful we can be when "We the People" speak!

Imagine taking back the power we have relinquished over time to the government!

Imagine the freedom YOU would have!