Archive for the ‘amendment one’ Category

1. Weight… One of the main purposes of this blog was accountability in my ongoing battle with my weight. I haven’t written in a couple of weeks, so much for accountability.
I have been using the scale in the shop, which we use to weigh items we are shipping out. It has been non-functioning for a week or two, which gave me an excuse not to weigh in. It is now working, and I weighed in at 306. Going the wrong direction, last weigh in was 303. OK, gotta get serious about this thing. Today’s menu= breakfast, a v8 juice, 12 oz, 70 calories…morning break, one cup peach chunks in water, 60 calories, running total now at 130…One cup size yogurt, 140 calories, running total now 270. (I am taking antibiotics for a tick bite, yogurt is to replace “good” bacteria). Lunch, McDonalds (59cent hamburger day), two burgers, 250 cal. each, one small fry, 230 cals, diet coke, zero cals. Lunch total 730 cals, running total now 1000. My goal is 1800, if I have a salad for dinner and go easy on the dressing, I will be under.

2. Sports…
Derek Jeter is batting .400 and playing good defense. To those idiots who last year said he was getting old, I hope he wins the MVP this year.

3. Amendment One…
I am reading and seeing ads that ask to please vote against the amendment in order to keep domestic violence protection in place for some victims. I don’t understand this, maybe someone can explain it to me, but I thought it was against the law to beat someone up whether you are married to them or not.
“The second ad, which is running online, features Andrea McConnell, a New Bern resident whose younger sister was murdered by her boyfriend in 2009. McConnell urges voters to oppose Amendment One because it will deny domestic violence protections to unmarried couples.”
According to this, if the amendment passes, I am in trouble if I kill my wife, but not so much if I killed my girl friend. Really? Come on. I am against the amendment, but let’s be realistic in our arguments about it, let’s use facts instead of rhetoric.


Amendment One

Posted: April 13, 2012 in amendment one

A good friend posted on her blog about the upcoming vote for or against an amendment to the NC state Constitution. It is a good read and I recommend it, you can find it here:

And here’s my two cents on the same issue. I actually wrote this a couple of years ago when it was first discussed to introduce a constitutional amendment for (or rather against) gay marriage. It was posted on my old blog and is recycled here…

Christian Constitutionalist

Let me begin by saying I am a born again Christian. I have been washed by the blood of the crucified Lord and I praise Him for who he is and for all he has done for me. I believe in the virgin birth, the sinless life and the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I want to make sure, up front, that this is stated, and plainly stated, so there is no doubt of my beliefs.  I also believe that the Bible is the word of God and is true.

Believing that the Bible is the word of God, I further believe that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of the Lord. The Bible says that it is an “abomination” in more than one place, in both the Old and New Testaments. I want to make sure, before going any further, that my position on this is clear.  I think, based on my religious beliefs, that homosexuality is a sin.

I feel that as a Christian, I have been blessed in many ways, and I am thankful for these blessings. One on the greatest blessings I have, in my opinion, is having been born an American,  in a country that is based on freedom for the individual and the rule of law.  I am thankful that in this country some radical Islamist (or Buddhist or Taoist or Pagan or whatever) cannot force his beliefs upon me, that I have the freedom to worship (or not worship) as I see fit.

Now, here is where a lot of my so-called Christian brethren, drop the ball. The only way for this freedom to work is for it to work for ALL.  Just as it is wrong for Osama to tell me that I must be a Muslim, or that I must agree with his beliefs, it is also wrong for me to say someone must be a Christian or that they must agree with MY beliefs.

The Bible is the document by which a Christian should lead his life, and the Constitution of the United States is the document by which the country should be governed. I have no problem with this and see no conflict.  According to my religious beliefs, a homosexual couple, living together, are living in sin. According to the constitution, two consenting adults, living together are none of my business.

A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is, in my opinion a ridiculous waste of time. (I also think it is only a political smokescreen, but that is another matter).  What are we actually talking about anyway? A homosexual couple who want to live together and act as a married couple can already do so almost anywhere in the US. Sure, there are places where they would catch more hassle than other places, but even in those places the “state” would defend their rights as consenting adults to live as they please. So actually, what we are talking about is the “official” recognition of their “partnership” or “union” or “pick a name”, by the state.

Now this is where I think all the talking heads have their terminology backwards. Marriage existed before this country existed, and before the Bible existed, too, for that matter. My marriage is a sacred covenant between my wife and myself with our God as our witness. (If you are an atheist, your marriage is still a covenant between you and your spouse.) In either case, the “state” is not part of these covenants.  Now, if I want to put my wife on my insurance or if one of us is physically incapacitated and the other needs to make a decision, the state wants to recognize our (partnership, union, covenant, marriage, whatever) to LEGALLY recognize these decisions. This recognition by the state is of our “civil union”, not our marriage, regardless of the way the words are being used in the present debates.

Bottom line – – In my opinion, if a gay couple want to make that commitment, to be together for life, with all that goes with that, including making that commitment a legally binding one, and one that is not lightly entered into or dissolved, why should they not be allowed to do so?

As I stated earlier, according to my religious beliefs, this couple would be living in sin, but I see nothing in the constitution that prohibits that.  Why should they not be allowed to make that commitment, and to have it a legally binding commitment?

My religious beliefs are for me to live by, not for me to tell others how to live. If you ask me for my opinion I will, respectfully, in love, give it to you.  I will not tolerate you shoving your beliefs down my throat, nor will I force mine on you.

Vaya Con Dios