Episode-953- Listener Feedback for 8-6-12 — 48 Comments

  1. My initial reaction to the Audit the Fed was that if it had some momentum/footing; and if it were to be taken seriously and they did an actual audit, it would expose how devalued the currency is , and a subsequent rush to metals would happen out of fear. I am not well versed in how a Bill gets passed in the U.S, but as you outlined, does not sound like it will amount to much at this point. I am however watching Silver creep up again over the last few weeks. My sweet spot is anything under $30

  2. Spot on about Chik-Fil-A.
    I had been thinking the exact same way.
    That is what makes America great. We can have different opinions.
    Chik-Fil-A is a great company, does tons for the communities they are in, does right by their employees. I do not agree Mr. Cathy’s personal opinion on gay marriage but he certainly has the right to have it.

  3. I just don’t get all the hub-bub over Chick-Fil-A, etc.

    Someone’s sexual orientation is completely irrelevant unless you want to sleep with them. =)

  4. I don’t care about anyones personal views on sexual orientation, I personally just do not live to giving my money to people who give said money to groups that support what I believe to be hateful.

    That being said, I’m not a fan of fast food unless its Sonic 🙂


    September 1 – Battle of Mokra – 19th Volhynian Uhlan Regiment took by surprise the elements of German 4th Panzer Division, which retreated in panic.[5][8] During the charge, lances were used. In fact, the cavalry charge in the traditional sense was neither planned, nor executed. The mounted infantry rode over behind the attacking German armor in behind the tankettes with the tank men throwing smoke grenades to cover the approach. Indeed, the mounted infantry did repel the German support infantry and forced part of the German armored regiment to continue to advance while deprived of the infantry support.

  6. i typically never give money to panhandlers. growing up i used to see the same guy in one of three different spots depending on his mood. it was laughable to me. he would change off ramps around the same intersection and be there almost daily.

    i think jack had it dead on – there are people that legitimately need help, but the amount of people abusing panhandling and doing it as a profession ruin it and hurt the rest.

  7. —The following is “one man’s opinion”—

    I guess the “safe” way to approach the marriage issue would be “I don’t care”.
    As a Libertarian, I don’t have a problem with “free will”.- We ALL have been granted “free will” by God-
    OR, if you prefer,
    Nature, ( if someone happens to be an athiest, which is also a “free will” choice.)
    “Marriage”, as founded in America, has always been according to the biblical understanding- or a “nature’s god” view (i.e. a man + a woman = children.)

    I personally look at the attempted distortion of traditional marriage the same way I look at a “Girl” wanting to join “Boy Scouts”-… or…, play on the boys football team. Or visa versa.
    To me, it is simply an intrusion for the sake of intruding.

    Live together and call it something else. -maybe, civil unions- (with the same lousey governmental dictated rules and regs.)

    Now I just wish I had a resturant chain. 😉

    • @TrekFanDan, take if from me as one who has expressed the opinion of “I don’t care” it is far from SAFE only someone who has never expressed it in public view would call it safe.

      As far as your claim that, ““Marriage”, as founded in America, has always been according to the biblical understanding- or a “nature’s god” view (i.e. a man + a woman = children.)”

      That exact same argument was at one time used to keep blacks enslaved and later to regulate them to second class citizens. What people like you seem to miss is two gay people that want to be married are absolutely NOT in anyway intruding on you and your definition of marriage. It is you and others that intrude on theirs.

      I am actually shocked that a person with your mind would make that claim. What harm could anyone saying we are married do to you. Seriously people get over your homophobia.! We do not have the time for such bullshit from either side. Seriously!

      The fact that this is even an issue while we are sixteen trillion in debt and have congressman that are permitted to legally inside trade just shows that my claim that we have been murdered intellectually is factual.

      The fact is no one can point to any harm that would be caused if two men or two women could be married to anyone else. It always comes back to tradition. Frankly more harm has been done in the names of tradition and religion then just about anything else in the world’s history.

      Gay people want equal status in their relationships because they want equal status not because they want to interfere. Telling a gay person to accept domestic partnership in a few states as equal to marriage is similar though not anywhere near as bad as telling a slave hey just get north of Maryland and become a “freeman” and stop complaining.

      • America WAS founded on Christian beliefs.

        And as such, our laws were and are supposed to be based on, and reflect those beliefs. (Why did our founders come here in the first place?)

        “Endowed by our Creator ” is THE critical factor of where our Constitutional rights come from.

        What Creator? Our founders knew. The Creator was clear, but, it was, and is mankind that strays and disobeys.

        The Bible is clear , slavery is wrong -period, and has nothing to do with what I said, or inferred.

        Murder, theft, homosexuality, rape, ect. Are clearly against the same “Creators” will.

        Picking and choosing which page of the Bible, (or the Constitution ) we choose to ignore , is the sin nature of man- there enters the ” FREE WILL ” factor.

        According to “our Creator”,
        Just because we “can” have slaves ,”should” we? NO!
        Murder, rape, theft -should we-NO!
        But homosexuality is OK?…hmmmm. sorry , no.

        Not because I say so. Because the Creator says so.
        How can two men, or two women, stand in a church, spit in the face of the “Creator” and take sacred vows (marriage) against His creation ?

        30 years ago, I stood before the same “Creator”, spoke my vows, and Married my wife.
        And I will honor those vows to the best of my ability. According to His Word and His will.

        • Jack-
          I appreciated your comments about the Chick-fill-A issue (even though I was already tired of hearing about it too). As a woman who is in a committed relationship with another woman for 11 years now- I agree completely- Mr. Cathy has the right to his beliefs and the Mayor of Chicago should not keep out a business based on personal beliefs. If anyone wants liberty, they cannot then deny someone else liberty.

          Trekfan- the biblical definition of marriage is:
          one man- seven women…
          Please at least know what you are supporting.

          I am the person God created me to be- and that is a good thing- in my eyes and in the eyes of the Creator.

        • “Trekfan- the biblical definition of marriage is:one man- seven women…”

          Oh snap I am using that one!

        • I respect your opinion but don’t forget that a lot good Americans are not christian. You say that American was founded on christian values but that is not entirely true. Jefferson and some other founding fathers were deist, not christian. Freedom of religion IS one America’s core value – there is no disputing that. If that is true, we cannot revert back to saying we must all abide by “christian values”.
          Morality and religious values are mutually exclusive.

        • @TrekFan, stop listening to such things seriously. It is well known that a significant number of the founders were not christian they were deist. Even many that played to the crowd as Christians were not. Washington went to church but never even mentioned god or asked for a minister or anything like that on his death bed. What you are trying to describe is a theocracy, we are a republic. Yes the word is creator and such a word is 100% universal allowing each citizen their own view of who and what the creator is to them.

          It is you who feel that “the creator” is a he, it is you that call him by the name you choose. All other citizens of your republic are free to do the same. Some call the creator “the architect of the universe”, some call the creator God, some call the creator Allah, some call the creator the universal energy. I am not here to tell you what to believe or say who I think is correct in this view. If you and your church or even most churches want to not recognize same sex marriage, that is fine, that is covered under separation of church and state. Trust me none of these couples want to force a group of people that think the way you do to recognize them in your house of worship.

          The problem here is the state as usual and here the citizens of said state again are sidelined by such nonsense.

          How many other things do religions oppose that are not enforced by the state? This is what people such as yourself seem not to understand if you can force your religious views on others via the state, so can other people with other views many of which you will not agree with. When I say we should not interfere with same sex marriage I am talking about the state not your church or faith. Faith and spirituality is private and the state should have no business inside religious institutions. Most religious people agree. They just don’t seem to like the other side of that.

          I am also sick of the “Christian Nation” argument. Show me the word Jesus in the Constitution. Other then to specify the date show me the world lord. Show me the word god. Show me the word christian. American was a nation founded by great men, the majority were Christian and fortunately they were wise enough to protect their rights of worship and do so in a way that would not interfere with the rights of others to the same. They founded a secular nation that recognized and protected the religious rights of all, right up until said religious views were used to infringe on the individual sovereignty of another.

          That is such a beautiful gift, I am honestly shocked at how many very intelligent people want to change it.

        • Slavery in the bible immoral? I assume you’re joking?

          However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

  8. Never give cash to panhandlers or beggars.
    Give them a job, or buy them food and watch them eat it. That’s what I have done.

  9. Jack,

    Re: Chick-Fil-A

    I agree that–so long as no violence is initiated–sexual orientation is the business of the individual and no others. It may be true, like you said, about the gay community missing an opportunity in an attempt to find a common ground, but I think you’re missing the point that “gay rights” or even “marriage rights” aren’t about Freedom, liberty, or any “American” virtue to begin with. Many of these issues are about statists attempting to grind the axe on people who disagree with them; this is how Americans are raised to think now. Does somebody disagree with you? You need to use the violence of the State on them.

    Both sides of the issue have perplexed me for a long time, until I let go of the assumption that the issue itself had anything to do with any real virtue or ideal (such as equality). In some states, gay people have access to domestic partnership which is basically equivalent to Marriage (Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada), and they know that the “other side” disagrees for “religious reasons”, so if the issue was truly about “equality”, they’d just push for domestic partnership to have the universal same rights. Nobody would have to argue about the terms, or the intrusion on religion, and all the same civil status could be conferred. The only reason I can imagine this doesn’t take place is because it’s not about “equality”, it’s about some sort of revenge. We’ve been held down by the State, so now we want to use the State to force people to do as we say”.

    On the other side of the issue, I have yet to hear of an authentic argument against domestic partnerships not having equal rights as marriage. What perplexes me about these people (in general, christians) who disagree with the government allowing gay marriage–why do they never come to the conclusion that government has no legitimate authority over marriage in the first place? Show me in the Bible where the “Justice of the Peace” is involved in the sacrament between two people and God. However, christians–good statist puppets that they are–are so used to using the violence of the state in the attempt to force people to live like christians that they miss the point of christianity or freedom altogether.

    If there was any actual virtue or ideal at stake, both sides could unite in the separation of terms (yet identical legal status), or even unite under the banner that the State has no part to play in the discussion at all. What does the State have to do with a gay relationship? Not any more than a straight relationship…. yet both sides want to force the other side to behave as they do. Equality, Freedom, or any other virtue is not at stake here–only which side will use the violence of the State against the other.

    This is the essential evil of government itself (except when it adheres to the principle of Freedom): it forces people into one of two choices; that of the master or the slave. If you do not use the law against somebody else–force them into your way of living–they will use the law against you. You’re either the master or the slave.

    This issue–like most political issues-is not about any virtue or ideal. It is only about who is going to be the master and who is going to be the slave. Which side will control the violent arm of the State (through law).

    For full disclosure, I am a christian, but I do not believe that christian principles are congruent with State violence.


  10. You talked about Panama, reminds me of the time I was there: There was a mall outside Panama City, my wife and I always shop there, a small boy came up to us and asked for money for food. He said that he was hungry and hadn’t eaten lately. Instead of giving him money we invited him to eat with us. He did. During our meal he told us the story of the way he lives, it tore my heart out. Anyway, we gave him money to take home to his grandmother so that everyone else could eat. Whether his story was true or not, really doesn’t matter. Lesson: give into the heart sometimes.

  11. Jack,
    I like your program and it is your opinion. That being said I really don’t like the phrasing you chose when responding to trekfandan. To be exact “people like you” and stating because he does not agree with the homosexuals he’s a “homophobe”. Your line of reasoning is illogical and goes against your “libertarian” bent. Just because someone does not agree with your line of reasoning it is NOT all right to make assumptions and accusations against them or there character.
    I for one do not want to “get over” this issue. The reason our country is in the crapper is the loss of moral values. And by the way it is not about homosexual getting the same rights, but special rights. What is next “marriage” between children and adults (like third world nations, NAMBLA would love that) or how about animals, or group marriages. And it does infringe on my rights when the schools promote this as normal, that is why I home educate my children so they can reason for themselves and not be spoon feed from public educator. However, that is a different issue.
    Thanks for putting out shows everyday and keep up the good work. I really do enjoy the show, nobody’s perfect or has all the right answers. I just had to comment.

    • @kaywil simply put you do not have any right to use force (the state) to force your religious or traditional beliefs on another person simply because they are based on religion or tradition. You are SOOOOOOOOO being deceived by this. Considering I just stuck up for Dan Cathy’s right to his view your response here is highly myopic. I would defend your right to your view on this but I will also tell you what I think about it. Your nation is in total decay, it is based on debt, loss of community and complete ignorance of the population as to how the nation is being run at its core. Then you are decieved into thinking, we got to keep them gays from gettin married it will destroy the nation.

      Like is typical when called out you reach for things that are NOT related. NAMBLA, really? What kind of false flag bullshit is that? Last time I checked statutory rape was a felony.

      On more thing this entire argument is right up there with the big redneck argument on every talk radio segment on the subject. Callers will make valid points about separation of church and state, etc. They will make a very decent and reasoned argument and it always happens, some dumb hick calls in sounding like he is already into his 2nd sixer of PBR and say, “all I’ve got ta say on this is, God make Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”, with a drawl that makes me sound like a British Noble on my worst southern boy day.

      Now here is the thing, it is your right to believe that, it is your right to be part of a church or private community that believes it and doesn’t recognize it between same sex couples. It is not your right to use the force of the state to prevent to other ADULTS from their belief or to regulate them to second tier status.

      I know this is hard to let go to when you have been so deceived for so long.

    • I knew that it was only a matter of time until someone brought out the “marriage to animals” argument.

      • @sburkey, isn’t it the dumbest argument you ever heard? We are talking about humans, human rights only apply to humans. Jeez! You know a person has no argument other than one of religion when they resort to this or the old “adam and steve” hick argument.

        • I don’t think you regarded my original statement about using they old “bigot” or “hick” line of reasoning. I never stated the state has a right to force values or moral on anyone. However, as stated before the state does enforce their beliefs on my through the public school. I was hoping for an answer on why you turn toward making rude comment about a person. I thought you handled the Chick-fila very well on the pod cast. I hope I didn’t offend you by saying nobody is perfect. This is a true statement and I think everyone has a right to their own opinion. I never stated once that I wanted government, national, mandate this issue. It is best left to the state to define this matter for themselves. I am for government to have less power over the people not more. We are being ruled to death. I do feel political people on both side use this very issue to divide people and to continue the petty arguments so we can’t consecrate on pressing issues. I do not trust any political party and do not feel I I’m being lied to without my knowledge. I know they lie! How do you answer the fact that the public schools do force their beliefs on children, even when going against the parents? Every person believes in something: God, gods, themselves, the nation, mother earth. It is nearly impossible not to impose your beliefs on others. Also where in the Bible does God say to have seven wives? It is an honest question not being sarcastic. I know many people in the Old Testament had multiple wives, but I can’t recall where God spoke this. That seems to be another way to put down the dumb old Christian hick that doesn’t know any better. I am really sick of all the name calling. That is a sure fire way to stop a logical debate.
          Thanks for commenting on post, however not the way you answered. I was not expecting a response that put me and my character down. Hopefully, we will just agree to disagree.

        • @kaywil noting an argument is no better then an old hick argument is a comparison not calling the person with the argument a name.

          My stance is simple, your religious beliefs, or mine, or the next guys have no place in the legal system of our republic other than how they influence our vote. Further the liberties of individuals are protected regardless of majority vote.

          That does always lead to dumb arguments though. Many religious people (not all and in fact you don’t even know my faith do you?) will argue for instance that things like murder, rape, etc are also forbidden by the bible and we have laws against them. Sure we do but not because of the bible, we have laws against murder because most people would agree it is wrong and harms another person, it certainly infringes on their liberty does it not? No one needs to be religious in anyway to see that, same with rape, etc.

          Many people feel the bible says we should not dance, should not drink alcohol or that we should not allow for divorce unless the spouse commits adultery. Many faiths follow these and similar tenets but the state isn’t going around enforcing them and when they have it has generally been a violation of individual rights and a disaster. I don’t know about you but I don’t want the eighteenth amendment reinstated? I don’t want divorce outlawed, do you? I don’t want a man and woman told they can’t marry because one was married to another person and that former spouse isn’t dead yet.

          Now my friend Brad has worked for 5 years now with the Catholic Church to get a previous marriage annulled so that the Catholic Church will recognize his relationship and let him marry a woman he is currently with. He finally got approval but again it took 5 years and there was no guarantee it would ever happen. To me this is the business of the Catholic Church not the state. But how would you like it if the Catholics decided this should be the same for all and wanted a constitutional amendment to support it?

          It is very simple religious institutions have their view of marriage, that view is inherent to the faiths themselves and it should be up to each group how to police and recognize such a union inside their faith. This is completely fair and reasonable.

          The state has defined marriage as a legal contract enforceable with the state’s court system. As such any citizen should be entitled to equal recognition and protection under the law.

          Personally I would prefer that the state and the State both get out of the business of marriage and allow any two people to define the legal parameters of a relationship only if they choose to and call it what it is “contract law” and as such each contract should be entered into with full discourage and agreement by both parties. However, due to the fact that the state and State have chosen to regulate all marriage they then should be compelled to make such contract available to any citizen regardless of sex, race, natural origin, etc.

  12. Jack, something you missed on the politicians and Chick-Fil-A…all the ones that attacked CFA completely support Obama and had no problem allowing Obama into their cities a few months ago when he had the same position as Dan Cathy…and Chicago’s mayor, the day after attacking CFA, embrace Louis Farrakhan..wbuts tracked Obama when he switched and started supporting gay marriage..but I didn’t see that hypocrisy pointed out anywhere except for a couple blogs…it’s sad that the average citizen doesn’t even notice these things..

    I’ve been saying the same thing as you on this issue everytime it’s come up anywhere, online of real life. As long as he does nothing illegal, he can have, and say, any oppinion he wants. If you don’t like it, feel free to vote with your dollar, but the extreme this was taken to..personal attacks, death threats, hateful comments when CFA’s PR guy died last week, etc is disgusting. As someone working towards starting a small business, it scares me to see us in a world where I can treat all races, ages, sexual orientations, etc equally, but still receive death threats for a personal opinion. Scary.

    • @Brandon, actually by then the Assclown had completed his flip flop on the issue. He was largely silent on it until it was time for reelection. You are correct though that he was opposed to it the first time around.

  13. $3 is a panhandling sweet spot on the street according to a man I know who used to effectively do this for a living here in Mississippi. He gave a few reasons, which, I suppose, are about as scientific as the theories of alchemy, but here’s what he said (fancied up so you can read it in English).
    – Most folks don’t have $3 in their pocket, they have $1-2, $5, $10, or $20. $3 is low enough and exact enough to sound as if there is something specific for which I need the money and not high enough to be off-putting. [My marketing translation: the request is anchoring that they need more than $1 but not anchoring so far away from a potential price as to foul up the deal.]
    – If you ask for $1, you get it easily, but so easily you know you could’ve gotten more. If you ask for $5, folks just walk on by. But asking for $3 gets you $5 a lot of the time. [My marketing translation: You bait and switch them based on what you know most folks carry on them and their unwillingness to do things like get change vice hand over extra money.]

    My thoughts: exactly like the other listener said, when this happens we’re thinking about a) safety, b) is this a legit request, and c) do I have $3. Once we’re past safety, the specificity of the request makes it seem more legit, regardless of how screwed up the appearances may be. The fact that we’re thinking about making change and whether or not it’d be easier just to hand over a $5 or even a $10 means the strategy of the battle is already lost for us. When I lived in DC I was often panhandled. I refuse to give people money. If they want help, I’ll offer it I reasonably could based on the situation – pay for a bus fare, buy them a hamburger (something good can come from McD’s), give them my “doggy bag” from a restaurant – even if it took an extra few minutes. Many times my real and material aid wasn’t accepted, which unfortunately confirmed my suspicions. But my humanity demands I attempt to help. My humanity also demands that I don’t pass off an attempt to ignore the problem with the same fix that my Uncle Sam uses… $$$.

  14. Pocket Veto

    Jack, you’re correct that when the DBag in chief does not sign a bill it will become “law.” There is a nuance to this though; if congress has adjourned–making it effectively impossible to return the bill to congress for the time being–the bill will be effectively vetoed if the DBag does not sign it. If congress is in session, and the bill remains unsigned, it becomes “law.”

    Article 1 Section 7

    “… If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”

    Great show, as usual, Jack. Keep up the good work!


  15. I am so tired of hearing about the Chik-fil-A item too. Obviously this was blown way out of proportion by the liberal media. Dan Cathy was merely stating his own opinion and belief. It’s not like Chik-fil-A as a company issued a corporate policy against gay marriage.

    Seriously people get your panties out of wad!

    The comment regarding the biblical definition of marriage is incorrect, or I don’t which book lisapaintergirl is reading.

    the biblical definition of marriage is:one man- seven women…”

    The Christian faith primary follows the New Testament. In Mark, Jesus says

    10:6 But from the beginning of creation he 12  made them male and female. 13  10:7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, 14  10:8 and the two will become one flesh. 15  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 10:9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    • @admin, so you are saying God changed his mind? God very much did seem to be okay with multiple wives among the patriarchs. I believe that is where she is referring to.

  16. Jefferson and some other founding fathers were deist, not christian.

    This is not an absolute and continues to be debated among liberal and conservative historians.

    In fact, many historians would argue Jefferson was in fact Christian and believed the Bible as the word of God.

    • Fact, Jefferson created the “Jefferson Bible” which was the gospels with all miracles and similar removed. Why? Do you know, with your handle you should.

  17. Keep in mind, I’m no preacher guy. I do encourage those wanting to learn more, to just open up the Bible and read for themselves.

    From the beginning, the design according to Genesis was 1 man and 1 women. It goes further to state that ‘God saw that it (the relationship) was good’. This was before the fall; in the garden of Eden.

    For a brief period of time (200~300yrs) during the Old Testament years, it appears that a few of the Jewish kings choose to take on more than one wives. God didn’t say that it was ok. It was just another mistake that the Jewish kings made. The Jews made a lot of mistakes during the Old testaments, and God punished them several times with invading armies. Honestly, its only by God’s grace that they are still on the Earth.

    That was Old testament. New Testament, which covers Jesus’ teachings reasserts that people are to stick with the original 1 male & 1 woman design of marriage.

    Regardless of people’s choices, we are to be loving and non-judgmental toward other people. I have 2 gay friends, we get along just fine. It’s the non-judgmental part that some believers forget about.

    It’s in there people, open the book and read it.

    • All of which has 100% nothing to do with a state enforced version of contract law which the state side version of marriage is. Again do what you want within your faith and I will lay down my life to defend your right to do so. You just haven’t made a point, don’t you get it? When it comes to people that don’t believe the bible what the bible says doesn’t matter.

    • The 10 commandments were in the old testament too.
      Should we throw those out too or fight about whether to put them in front of the courthouse?
      If the New trumps the Old, that’s fine but Christians can’t pick and choose when it suits their fancy.

    • admin:
      Since Jesus NEVER spoke on the topic of homosexuality- why is it such a hot button issue for his followers? (Check out a red-letter bible. He never did.)

      I am also a christian, by the way.
      The Creator gave us 10 laws, Christ gave us 2.

      The rest of those rules in Lev. and Deut. are a bunch of crap written by man. They don’t even make sense. Why does God care if you plant a field with 2 kinds of seed, or wear clothes with two different materials, or trim your beard, or sleep with your wife while she is on her period, or if a priest is a dwarf? (you think I need to read the bible? – I have!) I reject those 2 books as scripture, they do not describe the God I know and love.

      And, yes most of the Patriarchs had multiple wives- this is never condemned in scripture. It is purely a cultural thing right now to say one woman-one man, not scriptural.

      just my 2cents.
      But the main point is: everyone has the right to believe what they believe and not be forced by the majority, or the state to live a certain way. If one wants liberty and freedom of religion then they must also accept liberty for all- even those they disagree with.
      If I want to stand before God and get married that is between me, God, and the one I make the vow too. Period. The state can’t (and shouldn’t) force a church to conduct such marriages if they don’t want, but there are plenty of churches that will. And thankfully, God is my judge, not man.

  18. @Jack

    As for as your claim about religious opposition to gay marriage being.

    “That exact same argument was at one time used to keep blacks enslaved and later to regulate them to second class citizens. What people like you seem to miss is two gay people that want to be married are absolutely NOT in anyway intruding on you and your definition of marriage. It is you and others that intrude on theirs.”

    How did that keep Blacks enslaved? In this day we obviously need a definition of what marriage is. Too bad it takes the government’s involvement. They seldom get anything right. If you hold to the biblical definition: it is one man + one woman…period. If you agree with what some in our culture are trying to redefine it as – well, then, it’s definitely open for revision. Our children will suffer (are suffering) for lack of direction.

    In response to your statement that….

    “I am actually shocked that a person with your mind would make that claim. What harm could anyone saying we are married do to you. Seriously people get over your homophobia.! We do not have the time for such bullshit from either side. Seriously!”

    Really? “Homophobia?” – We had better have time for such “bullshit” – it’s a red hot topic that won’t go away (even if you close your eyes and plug your ears) and if we don’t address it now,we’ll have missed the opportunity – sort of like the dichotomy you were talking about with Chick-fil-a. A missed opportunity…then what? Again, our children will suffer.

    • @Willow how? I will tell you how. Many arguments were made in the debates that God approved of slavery and the bible was cited in many debates between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists in the time leading up to the civil war. Do some research into your own nations history.

      No one certainly not gays are trying to redefine you or your faith. Yes this is fear, people always fear what they don’t understand or what is different. You’re right it is a hot topic and it won’t go away, you are also likely to in the end find yourself on the loosing side of the debate. Again though there are two aspects of this.

      1. The religious or spiritual institution of marriage – In this world you are free to acknowledge or not acknowledge any form or marriage you choose. The state largely ignores this and it is a private matter for the individual religious community.

      2. The State’s version of marriage – This is a legal contract that should apply to all citizens of a republic equally.

      Seriously there is no constitutional argument available to prevent same sex marriage. Again it is moronic that anyone really thinks this matters in the grand scheme of things anyway. The people and the emperors dance while Rome burns this time around and debate things that have absolutely no impact on our lives.

      You are correct that the state should stay our of marriage that is my position and I agree with you on it. Yet they didn’t and they don’t. Have you ever heard of the concept of “equal protection under the law”, well the contract of marriage provides many legal protections and hence whether you or I like it or not, guess what, constitutionally speaking it is wrong to deny said protections based on sex of the individual or individuals in question.

      So the opposition says, “let them have domestic partnerships”, really? So now you claim you own a word? How is that different from the USDA saying they claim ownership of the word organic? Or the Dervaes family saying they own “urban homestead”. The problem for your side on this debate is your own arguments on every other issue can largely be used against you here.

      I have no personal dog in this hunt, I have no close gay friends or any family members that are gay (at least to my knowledge) I am just consistent in my view of a republican form of government and my status as a libertarian. I feel no man should have the right to use force to prevent another from living with freedom any way they choose until they harm another. You are going to have to show me how two woman or two men marrying will harm you in some real way other then by offending you or your beliefs to swing me on this issue, and that ain’t going to happen.

      As a libertarian again what you do is your business and what your church does is as well. However as I am also a constitutionalist (I believe we could have more freedom and should be if we are to be in a constitutional republic we should follow said constitution) so I have to say if we have a law or a contract enforceable by government equal protection applies. This by the way is precisely why the opposition wants a marriage amendment, they know long term they can’t win without one. Much as the gun opposition knows they would have to amend the constitution to really ban guns.

      Now please if you want to debate me do so based on law and logic not tradition and religion. I am open to that. You don’t get to put your religious beliefs on your fellow citizens by using the force of the state. Thank god for that because it protects us all, many people would like to do just that and I bet you wouldn’t like many of their ideas.

  19. First off I want to say I agree with the fact about the government getting out of the marriage business…but let me pose a question…

    Would it be possible for a state to ‘impose’ a theocracy upon their citizens, in our current forms of state and national governments, if such laws were voted on by it’s citizens. So in other words, the citizens want to live in a theocracy. Would that even be legal or possible? If not, how would that play out, secession?

    Thanks for the show and the time to respond.

    • @Charlie under current law no, absolutely not. That isn’t to say it can’t happen and some of it does trickle in like the same sex marriage debate. I have yet to find a person who objects to this who doesn’t eventually fall back to something to do with religion and while they are the most outspoken it isn’t limited to Christians.

      You also see it in the remaining blue laws, no beer on Sunday, no hunting on Sunday in some states. In Texas a car dealer can be open Saturday OR Sunday but not Saturday and Sunday. This is what happens when states or States start enforcing religion, it gets stupid at best and very dangerous at worst.

      However a true theocracy is rule of religion in a nation. Iran is such a country and I don’t think most people trying to push their religion into law know that is what they are advocating. Talk about your slippery slopes.

      In a theocracy any law could be passed based on the religion behind it this would include things like scripture and more dangerous the interpretation of the rulers who were currently in charge of said scripture. This could be things like what clothes you can wear including based on sex. Burkas anyone? or what about bubushkas? My Grandmother a Ukrainian Catholic wore one often, and did so by choice. So don’t think only those crazy Muslims would do such things guys.

      However in our REPUBLIC the rights of the minority are specifically protected from the opinion or votes of the majority with the sovereignty of the nation starting with the individual and going up from there. The only way theocratic type laws can stand in this nation is for either

      1. The constitution would need to be amended and specifically the separation of church and state would need to be reversed.


      2. The courts, people, congress and the senate at the federal and state level would have to completely ignore the Constitution and do so at a level that would make what has happened so far look like a day at Disneyland.

      Now can the people of this nation have a theocracy if they want one? ABSOLUTELY, many exist, some you may know of are the Mennonites, Huttuerites and Amish. I could make a case that many of the Indian tribes live also in a sort of theocracy though one based on a loose form of shamanism rather then western religion. I would say if you are a devote practitioner of most faiths you have you own chosen theocracy. A devote Catholic clearly does. The Pope has more influence on the life of a devote Catholic then any president. Note the word devote, please.

      In all of these examples though people are free to leave. The catholic can be what is called a “cultural catholic” today, go to church and appreciate the ceremony of mass, etc. The church though can and will deny a catholic living in direct opposition to the church certain sacraments, marriage for one and communion for another. If we look at a group like the Amish or Hutterites it is more cut and dry. You stay in the community and follow the internal rules or you leave and don’t come back, still the individual makes the choice.

      You yourself could get ordained at the Universal Life Church in about 15 seconds and found the “Church of Charlie” and run it as a theocracy and anyone that wants to join can. What you can’t do and I can’t do and no one should be able to do is legislate their religion onto those that don’t want to be part of it, that don’t believe in it. Every time in history that this was ever done it has led to atrocity.

      In response to this someone again will say something stupid like, well we have laws against murder, rape, etc. and those are biblical laws. True but completely secular reasons exist for them as well. To say we do not legislate religion onto the population isn’t to say that no secular law will match any religious law, in many instances they will.

      So again I say to anyone that wants to make a case against same sex marriage to do so with out tradition or religion being your argument and do so in a way that will convince me that banning such a union is constitutional and falls under equal protection. Or show me exactly how Tom and Bill or Susie and Becky being married will harm you other then by offending you or “offending God”.

    • Thanks Jack for the thoughts. That was what I was thinking. My thought process was along the lines of how The Free State Project is trying to influence government for more liberty. I was running with the idea of, if you like a state move there, if you dislike…move away. Such as make/create laws that would adhere to a certain peoples belief standard (ie. religious) and if you agree with these views live in that state, if not move. It seems cut and dry, but I wanted to understand the legal complications like you mentioned of ignoring the Constitution. I’m not saying that this is a good or bad idea, just an idea for thought. In early America some of these ideas abounded, but have went to the wayside as the 20th century rolled around. So, if a group of like-minded people wanted to create a ‘closed’ society, including government, it really can’t exist in These United States of America under current law, correct?

      Again thanks for the time and effort.

      • Just keep this in mind the role of the Federal government should mostly be to protect the rights of its citizens based on the protections of the Federal Constitution or enforcing inter state law and commerce. Domestically that is about all they should be doing, other wise their business should be international. The only time the Feds should be getting in the way of say a Florida law is when said law is in opposition to individually protected rights under Federal law.