Therese Stewart is the chief deputy attorney for the city of San Fransodomy--er, I mean San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin "Back Door" Newsom determined that he was above California law and could issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Ms. Stewart claims that "[T]here is nobody who is hurt by allowing gay people to marry." In fact, most of the pro-sodomizer-marriage crowd claims that this is a "civil rights" issue, which is interesting since nowhere does the Constitution guarantee the right to marry.
You will note, perhaps with some dismay, that I refer to those who practice homosexuality as "sodomizers" because I want to make a distinction between those who experience homosexual temptations and those who succumb to them. If we are to love the sinner and hate the sin, then we need to distinguish between them. A "singer" is one who sings, a "murderer" is one who murders. If you only think about singing, you're not a singer. If you've only thought about killing someone, you're not a murderer. Sodomy is a homosexual act. It's not pleasant to think about, and that's the point. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with pretty rainbows or being "gay." Homosexuality acted out is an ugly, twisted depravity that damages human beings, and it deserves to be recognized as such, for the sake of those who are tempted by it.
Back to the point. Is anyone really hurt by allowing sodomizers to marry? Consider an alternate question. Would anyone really be hurt if we eliminated the legal drinking age? What about if we allowed small children the option of riding in a car safety seat, or not, as they chose? I personally know some kids who seem to feel that being strapped into "the chair" is cruel and unusual punishment of some sort. And those "baby gates" that people put around their houses--surely those are oppressive. Shouldn't children be given the same "civil rights" as the rest of us? Why is it OK to force our collective will on these innocents?
Those questions should sound ludicrous. Of course we don't want to sell booze to three-year-olds, or let them decide whether or not to strap in. Why? Because we understand the fundamental Biblical truth that "folly is bound up in the heart of a child" and adults have a responsibility to protect children until they are able to be accountable for themselves. Our child-protection laws are based on this fundamental truth. So who would be hurt if we decided to ignore that fundamental truth and give kids the run of the place? Kids, for one. They'd be injured and killed by the thousands, if not millions (that is, unless parents became criminals by protecting their children). When kids are injured or killed, parents suffer. The health care system would be overwhelmed. Insurance companies would go bankrupt. Sales of children's products would plummet. The stock market would fall. Any way you look at it, our society would be irreparably harmed. The only positive outcome might be the closing of a few government schools, and even that wouldn't give me any joy under the circumstances.
The same Bible that provides the fundamental foundation of our child-protection laws also provides the foundational definition of marriage, which is one man and one woman, one flesh for life. To redefine marriage would bring about the same kinds of far-reaching consequences as would redefining the accountability of children. For starters, crime statistics show that sodomizers commit pedophilia at a rate five times greater than the "straight" population. A sodomizer is 60 times more likely to contract HIV than a heterosexual. Sodomite "parents" have no choice but to train their "children" to accept and engage in a destructive lifestyle (after all, who is more likely to be an alcoholic than someone who grew up with an alcoholic parent?). That's not to mention the spiritual price of ignoring Biblical precepts, as well as the very real historical penalty that is incurred when a nation turns its collective back on God. The litany of societal ills caused by sodomy is staggering in its length and breadth.
The reason that so many people seem to have no problem with homosexual "marriage" is that they have been suckered by the "gay" propaganda. Flash a few photos of smiling same-sex couples, even some with grinning kids, and talk about love and acceptance for everyone. Sounds nice, doesn't it? News flash: what it's all about is sodomy. Sodomy between "consenting adults." Sodomy with "consenting minors." Sodomy in public places. Sodomy taught to your kids in public school (if you're still crazy enough to have them there). Sodomy on prime-time TV. Rampant HIV, AIDS, and other STDs. All that, plus being ignored by God as a nation. It ain't pretty, folks.
We need to get over our love affair with the rainbow, and call a spade a spade.
A hot topic these days is homosexual "marriage" and whether or not it should be allowed and/or legal. Some people mistakenly believe that a homosexual relationship can be called "marriage." They are libertines and fools, who would deny crystal clear scientific and theological facts in their quest for public acceptance of sodomy and other deviant sexual acts. But even some people who understand and agree with the "one man, one woman" definition of marriage still have reservations about a consitutional amendment, because they feel that this issue should be resolved at the state, rather than the federal, level. It is an issue of states' rights, they say. They are well-meaning, but they are wrong.
Broadly speaking, the Founding Fathers operated under the premise that "We the People" would always be a God-fearing lot, self-governed and sober, following the moral code of the Bible even if we didn't agree on the exact nature of God or the way in which He should be worshiped. With that in mind, they did not bother to codify a comprehensive set of Biblical precepts into the Constitution. There was no need; after all, the precepts were already printed in the Bible, and everyone was, and always would be, intimately familiar with, and obedient to, the Law of God. So they assumed.
"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea." (James Madison)
"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." (Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence)
"If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instruction and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity." (Daniel Webster)
"Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both" (James Wilson, signer of the U.S. Constitution)
"Statesmen...may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." (John Adams)
"[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion." (Noah Webster)
"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained." (George Washington)
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." (John Adams)
There is more, much more, but hopefully the Fathers have made their point with these few quotes.
If those men were creating the Constitution today, though, they would likely throw up their hands and throw down their pens in disgust at the moral apathy, if not the total abandonment of morality, currently being exhibited by many Americans. If pressed to generate the Law of the Land, they would almost certainly decide that, due to the public's general ignorance of Biblical precepts, those precepts must be codified into the secular law, in an effort (however futile) to keep America from destroying itself from within.
The fact that marriage was, is, and always shall remain, an institution ordained by God between one man and one woman, is as much a foundational truth as the sanctity of human life. It is not an issue that is up for debate, at any level of government, and in reality it should not need to be codified at all; it is a "self-evident" truth. Slavery and abortion are obviously wrong, yet both have been legalized in America. One of those evils was addressed with a constitutional amendment which restored the slaves' unalienable right to liberty. The other evil is still at large, depriving thousands of children every day of their unalienable right to life. There should have been no question about slavery, but there was. There should be no question about abortion, but there is. It is not an issue of states' rights. It is an issue of right and wrong.
Whenever libertines attempt to shout down the truth, and they are willing to flout the law in order to further their agenda, a constitutional amendment is a legitimate means of forcing an end to the matter. If we have to reprint the Ten Commandments and other Biblical precepts within the pages of the Constitution in order that they may regain their original status as the pillars of American law and society, then so be it. It is a shame that it has come to this, and we dishonor the lives of our forefathers by our lack of virtue as a nation, but it is never too late to take a stand for what is right.
The sad thing is that so many Americans have become so detached from their moral moorings that they can't even come up with a coherent argument against homosexual "marriage," abortion, or even slavery for that matter. Separated from the God of the Bible, they have lost their common sense, along with the capacity for basic rational thought. But that's another topic.
The grand opening of the Liberal Arts & Science (LAS) building was Monday evening. His Highness the Emir, Her Highness Sheikha Mozah, and his insignificance Al Gore, along with an elite group of local dignitaries, were on hand for the big event.
They had a top-notch light show, and short speeches by several key individuals, two of whom we were responsible for piping in over the internet. Dr. Gates, president of Texas A&M, and Dr. Cohon, president of Carnegie Mellon, were each supposed to give their speeches live from their respective institutions, across a Polycom videoconference link. CMU dialed into TAMU, who dialed into Doha, and TAMU handled the switching between their signal and CMU's. All we had to do was get it onto the screen & speakers, and get a signal sent back to them. No problem. Right?
I was sitting with Jeune, who was running the video end of things for the AV crew, who were out of Dubai. Our command center was in the LAS parking garage, where everything (including the video equipment) had a nice coating of dust thanks to the two-day sandstorm blowing outside. We had the link up early, working great, and were ready to do some final testing, but they didn't give us a chance. I was "on coms" with Jeune and the audio guys, who were up on a platform behind the audience, and Mark was on an IP phone connection with the folks at TAMU, who were in the KAMU studio.
Bear in mind that we had spent a significant amount of time preparing for this. For the past week, we had sent countless emails back and forth with a long list of individuals, comparing notes, discussing contingency plans, hashing over every minute technical detail of the feed. We had tested the dual-feed arrangement with CMU and TAMU on Thursday. We had spent many hours on Friday getting a network connection down to the video command center, hooking up the Polycom unit, and conducting a limited test with College Station (the audio guys weren't ready yet). We had spent many hours on Sunday hooking the Polycom unit into Jeune's equipment, and testing it extensively with College Station, late into the night. We were well-prepared.
After speeches from a couple of local dignitaries, Dr. Gates was up, and his speech went smoothly. We had about 30 seconds to switch from TAMU to CMU while the emcee was introducing Dr. Cohon, and it was at that very moment that CMU's Polycom unit dropped the connection. We're not sure why, but we suspect that someone at CMU pulled a boner.
They were able to reconnect quickly, but when we went live with Dr. Cohon, we had video but no audio. After a few eternal minutes during which Mark and I stared, TAMU scrambled, the AV crew fumed, and the Emir chuckled, the dean of CMU-Qatar stepped up to the podium and delivered an impromptu "stand-in" speech. It was embarrassing for us, because it looked like we had dropped the ball, and frustrating, because we were helpless to do anything about it. I guess that's the way it goes when you work with remote live feeds.
You'd have thought, with the inventor of the internet on hand, things would have worked properly. Then again, he's so far left, it's probably asking too much for things to go right. So, blame it on Al Gore. He's still managing to make everyone around him look bad.
It sure would have been nice if it had all worked. Sigh.
Well, they surprised us, and I missed it. The faculty and staff were apparently extremely impressed with our handling of the building move, and they threw a surprise party for us. My wife was in on the secret, and she was able to get me to take her and our son back to the office with me after lunch, without raising my suspicions in the least, so they'd be there for the party.
She didn't know about the welcome-the-new-dean meeting before the party, though, so I missed that. That's where they popped the surprise on the ITS group, with a big "thank you" poster signed by everyone, "ITS Hero" buttons, hugs etc. Then I had to go setup a videoconferencing rig for one of the staff, so I missed the ice cream part too, and my wife gave up on me and had someone give them a ride home. You throw a party for IT, and they end up working right through it. I did manage to swipe a bowl of ice cream before they put it away, so it wasn't a total wash.
Monday is the big grand opening dedication to-do for the LAS building. We thought we were going to have the afternoon off, since they'll be clearing the building and doing security sweeps, but then we were informed that the presidents of TAMU and Carnegie Mellon will each be doing a short speech, broadcast--you guessed it--live, over our network connection. So, we get to work the event, with one of our Polycom videoconferencing units. We get to come in on Friday to setup and test (crews are building a large stage in the parking lot against the back of the building as I type), and Saturday to shut down everything in the machine room so the contractor can test and adjust the UPS system. Maybe we'll get to meet the king and queen, anyway. Maybe.
I'm probably in for it when my son is older. Part of our bedtime ritual is for him to "hide" under the covers at the foot of his bed, and then I come in and fall on top of him, and then he squeals and clambers out. Well, yesterday evening when I fell on top of him, he seemed a bit less bony than usual, and he didn't squirm like he usually does. It took me a few seconds to realize that I had fallen for the old stuffed-animals-under-the-sheets trick, and he was hiding in the closet. Long enough for my bride to get a good belly-laugh out of it, anyway. I figured she had put him up to it, but in fact he came up with the scheme all by himself. So, yeah, we'll probably be in trouble in a few years. It's a good thing I have a devious mind myself, so maybe I can stay one step ahead of him.
Whew! We're pretty much finished with the move into the LAS building. They're still bringing in the furniture, cleaning the floors, completing construction in the lecture halls, dusting everything, and generally working all around us like bees. This morning, as we were commenting to the visiting Carnegie Mellon IT guys about how few problems we'd had with power over here, a contractor working on the UPS unceremoniously dropped power to the entire machine room. People started complaining about not being able to check their email, which alerted us, but we were unaware of the full scope of the problem until we got down to the machine room and all the lights were out. C'est la vie.
The latest version of AOL Instant Messenger, 5.5, is compatible with iChat for audio/video conferencing. It's still in beta, you have to install an upgraded RTC on Windows, you have to be running Windows XP, and you (obviously) need a sound card and a webcam. I have yet to actually make it work, but Carl and I are still trying. :) Once the bugs are ironed out, we'll be able to videochat with our operating-system-challenged (i.e. Windows-using) friends and family out there.
I learned yesterday about a faux pas I made back in November. I have a money belt that needed some minor altering, and I had taken it to a tailor to do the work. It took all of about five minutes, and when I asked him how much I owed him, he waved me off. I figured that he was being charitable due to the fact that it was Ramadan. Yesterday, though, I had another minor alteration made by a different tailor (you can get custom-tailored suits and such made here for very little money, by the way), and this tailor waved me off when I asked about my bill. Somehow, I realized that this was just his way of allowing me to make an offer, so that the net result of the transaction would be one of mutual favors--he did me a favor by fixing my belt for free, and I did him a favor by paying him anyway. I gave him ten riyals (less than $3 US), and he was quite happy with that (I'd have spent more than that just buying needle and thread, for crying out loud). Hopefully the other tailor--the guy I stiffed--didn't think too poorly of me. Learning how to think Arab can be very challenging.