Friday, February 27, 2009

Same-Sex Marriage: Still Hope from the Courts?

“… Do we really want minority rights swinging on majority sentiment? Maybe homosexuals, who’ve been abused so drastically for so long, are a minority group that merits court protection.” ("Total Buzz," Orange County Register, 2/27/09)

Experience has taught me that religious people, on the whole, are more kind and tolerant than the minorities who are allegedly now persecuted. Conservatives strive to protect the free speech of their opponents, while liberals have worked to restrict the rights of their foes. Aside from an official “marriage,” same-sex couples enjoy virtual equal status with opposite-sex couples. The years-long movement by the gay-lesbian community is an aggressive agenda designed to impose their code of morality on others, an action they denounce by some religious people.

Will the noble Professor Vitiello also defend the present majority should it become the minority? If percentage trends continue as they have over the past decade, the 2008 majority will soon become the minority. To a large extent, the current majority are religious people. Will they be able to freely exercise their religion should they become a minority, or will they be forced to capitulate to the created civil rights group lately formed over the past four decades? Will they then become victims due to the “tyranny of the minority,” and later become drastically abused themselves, suffering at the hands of a judiciary gone awry?

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Budget Bungling: California's Continuing Crisis

The following entry was published in the Orange County Register on 2/28/09:

I am disappointed. Disappointed because of self-seekers who seem to be stuck on spending. Because statesmen who take a stand are slammed as being self-seekers.

I am disturbed. Disturbed because the state continues to run its business in ways I cannot or could not in my home and business. I would have nothing in either home or business if I conducted my finances the way our government does.

I am frustrated. Frustrated because of yet another action that will further disable citizens and business. When my niece and her husband are married in a few months, they will be taking their small business out of state. Add them to my list of former Californians.

Wasn't taxation at the root of our American Revolution? Can we not learn from history that excessive taxation oppresses the people? Indeed, disappoints, disturbs, and frustrates them into action? May enough citizens possess the character they say our lawmakers lack to once again initiate civil but certain action.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

The Role of Religion in Politics

In response to an Orange County Register article, I submitted the following comment in the December 5, 2008 issue:

If religious people had not become interested in politics, America would not have the Constitution and Bill of Rights it possesses. The Founders dictated no national religion because they knew that Jesus did not force Himself on anyone. They protected the free exercise of religion because they had seen imprisoned pastors both in England and in the Colonies.

When non-religious [or religious] people raise their voices in the political process, I affirm their rights in the political process, even though I might disagree. I cannot muffle the voice of an opponent and find myself in harmony with the First Amendment, nor should my adversary. I fear when I see steps toward religious censorship.

It is the right of the people to accept or reject the views of religious or non-religious participants, but threatening and intimidating words and actions by "zealots" of any group are not consistent with the American way. Our increasingly "enlightened" society invites intellectual and moral haze and darkness when it draws curtains on the light of knowledge and wisdom. All citizens must be allowed to speak without fear of reprisal.

Note: I was also moved to write when I saw a blog site listing my name among hundreds of others as a target for somebody’s Molotov cocktail party. I do not find intimidation or encroachment humorous, if the site was a joke. If it was not a joke, then the words are utterly foreign to the concept of free speech envisioned by our forefathers and protected by our Bill of Rights.

Monday, February 9, 2009


Patriotism is love of country. My love is born of a realistic satisfaction of what America is, not of a cynical dissatisfaction over what I think she is not. Like one who is married, I do not view my relationship with America with a desire to change the one I love, but to serve the one I love.

President Kennedy put it so well early in his term: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."My love for America sprouts from the eternal seeds planted by heroes of three centuries ago, "who more than self their country loved, and liberty more than life."

The love I have recognizes the superiority and delicacy of that which was planted long ago--a matchless Constitution and Bill of Rights.My love for America thrives because of my love for God, my family, our forefathers, and our present-day citizens.

The zeal I possess to preserve the words and intents of our founding documents is generated by a sacred love for this unique land, a land destined to be one of the noblest, most generous nations to ever exist. May I be noble and generous in showing my love for America.

"America, America,
God shed His grace on Thee.
And crown thy good with brotherhood,
From sea to shining sea."


Thousands of years ago, properties and significant places were designated by landmarks. Those landmarks were intended to promote stability and security. Landmarks of various kinds are still in use today.

A biblical proverb says, "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy [your] fathers have set."

The intent of this blog is to remind us of essential, worthy, and time-tested landmarks regarding faith, family, and foundations of our government and society.