Marco Rubio Cancels Debate

Marco Rubio had to cancel the debate on Meet the Press this Sunday due to the deterioration of his father’s health.

Alex Burgos, spokesman for the Rubio campaign released the following statement,

“Unfortunately, the health of Marco’s father, Mario Rubio, has significantly deteriorated in the last 48 hours.  As a result, Marco plans to stay with his father and family during this time, and will be unable to participate in this Sunday’s debate on Meet The Press.

“Mario Rubio is 83 years old and suffers from emphysema and lung cancer.

“We have informed both NBC and Kendrick Meek’s campaign about our need to reschedule this debate, and appreciate their understanding and kind words for the Rubio family during this difficult period.”

Our thoughts and prayers are with the Rubio family during this difficult time.

They fought for us!

Please watch this video and share with the younger generation.

Let’s Talk about Gay Marriage!

Ok, so there seems to be this big issue about Gay Marriage. California is up in arms about it on both sides. Carrie Prejean was drummed out of Miss USA over it. Glenn Beck is being beaten up for his lack of opposition to it, and Brad and Angelina won’t get married until it’s settled. For some strange reason it’s a big issue.

Mike Huckabee said, “I don’t have to prove that marriage is a man and a woman in a relationship for life. They have to prove that two men can have an equally definable relationship called marriage, and somehow that that can mean the same thing.”

Well, Governor, I see how you came to this conclusion.  While we agree on many things, when it comes to this, I respectfully disagree.  When it comes to religion, you are correct. However, when the people in the history of this country, for some strange reason, decided to involve the government in marriage, then it shifted the burden of proof onto those who would tell citizens of this country that they do not have the same rights as other citizens.

So, here is the conundrum: We believe in equal protection under the law, and we believe in freedom of religion. So, how do we allow the people whose religion does not accept homosexuality to maintain their “sanctity” of marriage without discriminating against other citizens of our free nation?

My best friend and I were talking and had worked up a solution. I think the main point was his and we expounded on it enough that I will say it was his idea and I put some window dressing on it.

Anyway what we discussed was this:

First: The government needs to get out of marriage. It should not be defined by government whatsoever. Leave it to the individual churches to define marriage and then people can marry based on their religion. The GLBT community can choose churches where gay marriage is accepted and cherished. Those who oppose it can choose churches that feel the same and can continue to not acknowledge the gay marriages as they see fit.  Everyone can address marriage according to his or her religious beliefs.

Now, what about things like division of assets, custody, things like that? These are huge issues in today’s modern world. We have a solution for that. Each state can draft up a basic generic contract that divides all assets 50/50, grants medical power of attorney, and shares custody of any future children of the relationship.  This contract will be available for the price of the former marriage license. Go down to the courthouse, pay your money, sign the contract and have it notarized and you are good to go.  It’s that simple. But what if it isn’t that simple? What if it’s more complicated? Then you go to an attorney and draft the contract that you want. Then have it signed and notarized. This is essentially the same thing that happens with marriage now, only it reduces the government’s involvement to what it really should be and that is arbiter of the contract.

So now, we have equality across the board without the government getting involved in anyone’s religion. All it takes is the first state to sign on. That state could remove the government’s involvement in marriage. It could give it’s constituents 6 months to obtain a new contract. (For those already married, you could waive the fee. ) Then when someone moves into the state who is married, you could give them 3 months to obtain a contract. After that, they cannot divorce in the state and they have no marital rights in the state. Then maybe it would catch on. I think this would be a good compromise for everyone on both sides of this discussion and I hope we can discuss this more.

Net Neutrality

Let’s talk about Net Neutrality. Recently, Minnesota Senator Al Franken wrote an opinion piece for CNN that touted the need for net neutrality. What is net neutrality you ask? Net Neutrality is defined on Wikipedia as 

Internet traffic should be treated equally.[9] Net neutrality advocates have established three principal definitions of network neutrality: 

Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu: “Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally.”^[2] According to Imprint Magazine, University of Michigan Law School professor Susan P. Crawford “believes that a neutral Internet must forward packets on a first-come, first served basis, without regard for quality-of-service considerations.”^[10] 

Quality of service discrimination as long as no special fee is charged for higher-quality service.^[11] 

Tim Berners-Lee: “If I pay to connect to the Net with a given quality of service, and you pay to connect to the net with the same or higher quality of service, then you and I can communicate across the net, with that quality of service.”^[1] “[We] each pay to connect to the Net, but no one can pay for exclusive access to me.”^[12] 

Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? Well, the concept is very good and most free-thinking Americans both liberal and conservative support it…..in concept.  But therein lies the rub. When you start passing laws to require a thing, you have to put someone in charge of that thing to make sure the law is enforced. Still doesn’t sound bad. However, the last two bills introduced in Congress decided that the FCC should have jurisdiction over the internet in order to enforce net neutrality. The only problem with that, is that all of the other FCC powers would come with that. 

So what they are trying to do is allow the FCC to control the internet in the United States. That means it would be subject to the same rules that television and radio are subject to now. It would give them the power to decide what is and isn’t appropriate. So, while the net neutrality laws proposed take the power away from corporations, it doesn’t give it to the individual, but the government. As we have seen throughout history, a government takeover of anything has never been better. Remember that these are the same people who proposed last year and are pushing again this year to give the President of the United States a “kill switch” on the internet during a national emergency. 

So, this is why you see conservatives and libertarians arguing against something that seems like a no-brainer. Net Neutrality is a no-brainer. Government control of the internet can never be allowed.  Don’t be fooled by the hype, make sure you know what they are proposing under the guise of “net neutrality”.