Marriage for All

It's taken me a few days to put this together.  Anytime a conservative wades into the gay marriage debate, a few proviso's are required.  Here are mine:

1.   I do not care (nor want to know) what consenting adults do in their own bedroom.  I don't want to share what happens in my bedroom and I don't want to hear about what happens in yours.
2. In Matthew, Jesus tells us that the Law can be boiled down to two commandments, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind...the second is to Love your neighbor as yourself."  I have no hate for anyone in the LGBT community.  I love you all and would welcome you with open arms to church. 
3. I do not judge the LGBT communities lifestyles.  Paul says, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save all sinners, of whom I am chief".  If someone like Paul admits that he is burdened with sin, then I too am burdened with sin.  And if I am burdened with sin, I cannot possibly pass judgement on another sinner.
4. Finally, I despise destroying the English language.  Words have meaning, to dilute that meaning is to dilute our language.  To dilute our language is to make us less human. 

The Supreme Court has decided that an amendment passed in the 1860's had a hidden provision to provide same sex couples with legal marriage.  I'm not sure this would pass the smell test on a modern day high school history test.  Immediately after the Supreme Court ruled to legalize gay marriage, the Politico ran an article arguing that it's now time to legalize polygamy.  Supporters of gay marriage where quick to argue that their arguments don't apply to polygamy. 

I won't rehash the arguments against gay marriage in this post, though I plan to in a future post.  Supporters of traditional marriage must continue this fight. Some who have fought hard for gay marriage are now celebrating and are happy for their victory.  Others, such as the Politico writer, see this as the first step in radically changing our culture.

Without question, there are legal problems that homosexual relationships faced.  Anyone should be able to declare who will make their end of life decisions and who will inherit from them.  Adults living in the same home should be able to pool their resources, including insurance and benefits, to better the home.  However, overturning and redefining something like marriage is the wrong way to solve this problem.

I fear this decision will be used to now discriminate against Christians.  Under the banner of "equality" Christian run businesses have already been fined.  I think we will soon see the government force churches to perform marriages that are against the doctrines of that church.  Time has now argued that churches that disagree with the new court appointed definition of marriage should have their tax exempt status removed.  While this argument has been cloaked in "equality for all" that equality is about to go out the window.  The government will now force you to support gay marriage.

Our job now is to continue to defend traditional marriage and to begin to win this battle in the culture before we try to win it in the courts again.  We must defend every step along the way where activists argue for further expansion of the definition of marriage.  We must shine a light on every instance where the government forces a business or church to sacrifice it's beliefs in the name of the new government beliefs.

More Change Coming....

After a rather long absence from blogging in general, and this blog in particular...it is once again time for a change.   More info to follow, and new posts to follow after that!

Time For A Change

I have been writing this blog since October of 2006. In that time, I have had some readers come and go. I have also had a core group of readers that have stayed with me. I have always dreamed of taking this blog off of Blogger and moving it to it's own website. That dream has now come true. I am moving Political Friends to Political Friends Blog. The new url is simply http://politicalfriendsblog.com . In about a week, I will install code to automatically redirect anyone from this site to the new website. You may also see a few changes to the new blog over the coming week as I get feedback on it and as readers comment.

Take a minute and stop by the new blog. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

My Interview with Gerry Purcell (Part IV)

In this segment, I wanted to explore two issues I found about Mr. Purcell that caused me some concern. Mr. Purcell has campaigned on lowering health and auto insurance costs for Georgians. I get a little nervous when conservatives start promising to lower insurance costs. Also, Mr. Purcell has campaigned on making Europe pay "their fair share" in research and development costs on new drugs. Again, whenever a politician wants someone else to pay "their fair share" I start to worry. I would soon find some very interesting answer.

I asked Mr. Purcell, specifically, how he would lower insurance costs for Georgians. He has campaigned very heavy on this issue, and it's one of the first things you notice if you go to his Facebook page. I thought his answer was very interesting. Discussing health care, Mr. Purcell pointed out that while we are fighting to repeal Obamacare, we should simultaneously look for ways to improve health care. He called this method "Fight and Fix". Gerry Purcell is a proponent of allowing insurance companies the ability to sell across interstate borders. However, he believes the insurance commissioner should have the right to audit any company selling insurance in their state, even if that company is located out of state. "We set up a compact of four or five southern states, we tell the Federal government to stay out of it, we got it," he stated. He pointed out that we currently do this with long term care and other types of insurance. He also pointed out that Alabama, one of our neighbors, has cheaper insurance. Why? They have lower taxes on health care, and fewer mandates. Mr. Purcell gave an example of a tax in Georgia that drives up our health care costs. It's the health care tax, it runs 4.75%, and 99% of Georgians don't know it's there. Mr. Purcell stated that if he is elected, he will work to have all embedded taxes clearly shown to the consumer.

Another way to lower our insurance costs would be to allow businesses and smaller groups to pool together. Mr. Purcell pointed out that, "if you're a small business with 25 employees and you compare your rates to a business with 2500 employees you start out with a 20% punishment. You could be the healthiest group of 25 people in America; your rates are still going to be 20% higher right off the bat than the 2500 group." Gerry Purcell also told me that more transparency might help drive costs down. Most people have no idea what a doctor's or hospital visit really costs. Health savings accounts are great way for people to save for their insurance costs, and for them to see exactly what a doctor's visit costs.

In researching Gerry Purcell, I discovered that he has called for, when speaking of healthcare research and development, a "… bold trade policy to address the inequities, especially with the European Commission, Canada, and other nations who can afford to pay their fair share of research and development costs."

I asked him how would this work and how could he possibly force foreign governments to pay their fair share? Mr. Purcell quickly admitted that he couldn't do it by himself, that to fix this really required Congressional action. However, he pointed out something I had never considered: Insurance Commissioners actually have an interesting amount of power on a national level. He pointed out that Insurance Commissioners are considered experts in their field, and that many legislators really don't understand insurance. As such, an insurance commissioner can have a real impact on a national insurance discussion.

He then pointed out that over the last year there has been a lot of misinformation in the healthcare debate. One of the error's is when people compare healthcare costs in Europe to those in the United States. One of the reasons this is an apples vs. oranges comparison is that the U.S. heavily subsidizes Europe's health care. Mr. Purcell went on:

"I will give you an example: the last eight or nine blockbuster drugs came out of the United States and so the problem is that we pay. We use about 35% of the world's pharmaceuticals, which is high, but we pay for 60% plus of them. There are 29 industrial nations in the world, and it's time they pay their fair share. It's time that the President of the United States looks at Europe and says, "We're not subsidizing your healthcare costs anymore."

But what would this look like? How would we enforce such a thing? While it wouldn't be easy, or painless, we could do it very effectively with the correct trade policies. Mr. Purcell argues that we need to talk to our trade partners and explain it's time for a fair and free trade agreement. We won't continue to pay for their healthcare anymore.

In the next installment, I ask Mr. Purcell to look into the future and predict the challenges that our next Insurance Commissioner might face.

The Road to Greece?

We are almost at the point where the rubber meets the road. One of the rules of life that everyone should memorize is: Actions have Consequences. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Reid pushed and fought and arm twisted to pass Obamacare. As our economy has continued to suffer, and as jobs have disappeared, the Democrats in Washington have continued to spend money as if the Washington Monument was loaded with cash.

Whether you agree with these policies or not, the policies of the Democrat controlled congress has come with a price tag. The Tea Parties have argued that President Obama and Congress are taxing our children and our grandchildren. We have word now that the reality may be worse: our children and grandchildren may not have the jobs to get taxed. Dick Morris writing yesterday says:

Meanwhile, the nation watches nervously as the same policies Obama has brought to our nation are failing badly and publicly in Europe. When Moody’s announces that it is considering downgrading bonds issued by the government of the United States of America, we find ourselves, suddenly, in deep trouble. We have had deficits before. But never have they so freaked investors that a ratings agency considered lowering its opinion of our solvency. Not since Alexander Hamilton assumed the states’ Revolutionary War debt has America’s willingness and ability to meet its financial obligations been as seriously questioned.

And the truth begins to dawn on all of us: Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us than he does about how to clean up the oil spill that is destroying our southern coastline.

If our bonds are being downgraded, then we can see the road to Greece from here. A combination of lowered credit, mounting debt in the form of Social Security and Medicare, with a good, strong helping of national health care puts us on a path towards Greece. As we rush to implement national health care, Canada is looking for a way out of it. Canada has discovered what the Tea Parties have said for months now: Free health care is very expensive. We have two choices. We can continue down this road. We may even have some good times, but at some point, we will have to pay the bill for this. When that happens, we will be in the same place Greece is today.

Or we can get off this road. We can realize that a national health care system will cost money. We can stop trying to cut our own throats and start using all the energy at our fingertips: oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal. You name it, we use it. At some point we have to make a decision: Will we continue to be the world's Superpower, or will we follow Greece?

Lt. John William Finn (U.S. Navy ) 1909 - 2010

If you have ever seen a World War II movie about Pearl Harbor, you have probably seen the following scene during the attack. As Japanese planes strafe Pearl, a lone man runs out to a machine gun and starts firing at the Japanese. That lone man was Lt. John Finn. His Congressional Medal of Honor citation reads as follows:

For extraordinary heroism distinguished service, and devotion above and beyond the call of duty. During the first attack by Japanese airplanes on the Naval Air Station, Kaneohe Bay, on 7 December 1941, Lt. Finn promptly secured and manned a .50-caliber machinegun mounted on an instruction stand in a completely exposed section of the parking ramp, which was under heavy enemy machinegun strafing fire. Although painfully wounded many times, he continued to man this gun and to return the enemy's fire vigorously and with telling effect throughout the enemy strafing and bombing attacks and with complete disregard for his own personal safety. It was only by specific orders that he was persuaded to leave his post to seek medical attention. Following first aid treatment, although obviously suffering much pain and moving with great difficulty, he returned to the squadron area and actively supervised the rearming of returning planes. His extraordinary heroism and conduct in this action were in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.

Lt. Finn died at the age of 100 this week. Admiral Chester Nimitz presented Lt. Finn with the Medal of Honor on September 15, 1942. When presenting the medal, Admiral Nimitz said that Lt. Finn, like many of those who serve out nation, never intended to be a hero. He just did his duty.

Admiral Nimitz would probably say the same thing of all of our hero's who have died serving our nation. I hope you have a good Memorial Day, and thank you to all the soldiers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect our freedom.