Where Is the Tea Party When It Comes to Marijuana & Gay Civil Unions?
We are country full of self-interested people who care only about our own issues and our own opinions. I don’t actually think that’s a bad thing in most cases. I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged too. I know that self-interest is the motivation behind many of the great inventions we take for granted today. Nevertheless, it really bugs me that a lot could be accomplished if we would focus more on what we agree on and less on where we disagree – at least for now. At least until we get SOMETHING done.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for lower taxes and less government involvement. I think we live in a bloated federal bureaucracy that shoves its nose into every nook and cranny of our lives, despite explicitly being told that it has no business being there by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What bothers me is that the groups fighting for our personal liberty seem concerned with everything BUT our personal liberties. They focus on money issues. They focus on taxation, bailouts, being required to purchase healthcare, and laws affecting business. Meanwhile, they ignore any law that forbids someone to do what they wish with their own body, in their own time, in their own home, without harming or affecting a single other person. They are OUTRAGED at any regulation affecting commerce or freedom OF religion (nevermind freedom FROM it; that’s another topic), but don’t blink an eye when the federal or state government legislates morality.
We have all of this talk about “small government”, “States’ rights” and “personal liberty” going on in our country and state, yet one of the most basic of rights and liberties, that of which herbal medicines and plants I wish to consume, is either ignored or worse. It seems like Republicans and many Libertarians are just fine with the government telling everyone what they can and can’t do with their own bodies, but draw the line at the government getting involved in commerce. Which is more important to you – money or freedom? I’ll take my freedom to do as I please, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else, over money any day of the week!
I don’t think we need to make that choice though. I’m not a Democrat either. I consider myself and Independent, but am probably more Libertarian than most self-described Libertarians because I truly believe that we should be able to do whatever we damn-well please as long as it isn’t hurting anyone else.
Marijuana
Nevermind the fact that we’re throwing 18-year-olds in jail and mandating sentences for marijuana possession in most states. Nevermind the cost of this to tax payers. Nevermind the potential for tax revenue should medical ,or even recreational, marijuana be legalized federally. Nevermind the countless studies showing the efficacy of THC in mitigating pain and the effects of certain illnesses. Nevermind the fact that most or almost half (depending on which poll you look at) of all Ameicans think it should be legalized. Nevermind the lessons learned during the prohibition of alcohol in regard to the relationship between prohibition of widely used goods and criminal elements. Most of all, nevermind your personal feelings on the matter. You have the right to your opinion and if you don’t want to smoke marijuana you don’t have to. End of story.
The fact remains that our government and much of the conservative movement in this country – the very people who claim they are fighting for less government and more freedom – continue to support laws that infringe on OUR personal liberty and seek to force their own moral judgements on everyone else.
I am not a “pot head”. I am a college graduate, a homeowner, a member of a rural community, a respected professional in my industry, and a devoted husband and father. So why make a criminal out of me for exercising my God-given right to ingest a plant that has been growing in our soils since before we arrived on these shores? Is it a case of where you draw the line? How about when people harm other people? How about when the substance is a pharmaceutical (e.g. made in a lab instead of grown in the soil)? There are plenty of lines to be drawn that make more sense than throwing kids and adults in jail for something demonstrably less harmful to themselves, or to society, than alcohol, tobacco or legally prescribed pain pills.
Do you really believe that it is a “gateway” drug? It is perfectly natural for teens and young adults to begin their experimentation with the least harmful substance available. It could also be said that alcohol is a “gateway” drug, or that cigarettes are a “gateway” drug because most crackheads smoke and drank before the did crack. Alcohol and tobacco aren’t ‘good for you’ (and I’m sick and tired of hearing arguments that marijuana IS because that’s irrelevant), but that is why we have laws enacted that forbid our contributing to minors. Those of us over the age of 21 (which seems arbitrary since we can die for our country at 18) don’t need you, the government or anyone else to tell us what plants we can and cannot eat, smoke, chew or grow for any use we please. This is matter of freedom and personal liberty. Where are the Tea Party cries when it comes to the marijuana issue?
Gay Civil Unions / Gay Marriage
I know what the bible says about homosexuality. I grew up in a Pentecostal church so you don’t have to tell me about the bible. But I also know that most of the stuff the Old Testimate says we should do or forbid is just downright sadistic in today’s world. 1 Corinthians 14:34 says that women aren’t allowed to speak in church. Deuteronomy 22:13, 14 – 22:20, 21 says that all the men of the city should stone your wife to death if she isn’t a virgin when you marry her. Mark 9:43 implies that you should cut your hand off if it causes you to sin. Deuteronomy 23:2 says that bastard children can’t go to church. But nevermind all of that… What the bible says about it doesn’t matter (when it comes to the law of the land) because it is very clear that the authors of our Constitution wished religion and State to be separate entities. You are free to practice or not practice any religion you wish as long as it isn’t harming someone else or infringing on their rights. By passing laws banning gay marriage or civil unions we are infringing on someone else’s right to the pursuit of happiness in their own fashion. They aren’t harming anyone else. If you don’t like it, don’t attend the wedding service. If we are to agree that “wedding” is a biblical / religious function, then a “civil union” shouldn’t cause any problems with that definition.
Personally, I can’t see how a man could even kiss another man on the lips, much less do anything else. But hey – that’s my own opinion that is confined to my own actions. It shouldn’t affect anyone else. What two (or more, because I can apply this same logic to bigamy) adult human beings do between themselves is none of my business.
The next time you find yourself criticizing the government for being too big; for getting into your business too much – think about the fact that we all have different issues of personal freedom that are important to us. One of mine is my freedom to buy and drink unpasturized, raw milk if I knowingly and willingly purchase it from my neighbor. Maybe you care about your right to not take part in a government-run healthcare program. Or maybe you just don’t want to wear your seatbelt.
But know that if we allow – or worse, contribute to – the withholding of another American’s right to make personal choices that affect none but themselves, we don’t deserve to have our rights either. We might as well just give up because we’ve already lost the fight.
Really?
This is the “off grid” post for the month?
“”"You are free to practice or not practice any religion you wish as long as it isn’t harming someone else or infringing on their rights.”"”
Same sex marriage does infringe on my rights. The Catholic Church used to be the largest adoption service in Mass. Now they aren’t permitted to participate in that state as it is against their faith to place children with same-sex “couples.”
Wedding photographers, venue rentals (even church halls, religious camps, etc.), fertility treatments, any form of religious education, all are at risk of having their rights violated if they don’t acquiesce to the tyranny of the minority. Every one of these and countless more can be put out of business by a single law suit claiming discrimination. In America, we are giving the option of either violate your conscience or stop doing business. Hardly in line with the idea of personal freedom.
If you think it’s a good idea to subject a constitutionally enumerated right to the limitations of an “implied” right, you are not taking the Constitution very seriously.
No one is stopping 2 people from doing whatever they want. Some are merely maintaining the idea that “the life-long union of one man and one woman ordered towards there common good and towards the procreation and education of children” (marriage) is a reality that deserves it’s own word.
I’m a man. I can never be a mother. My civil rights are not thereby violated. Reality stops me from being a mother, precisely as reality stops 2 men from being married to each other, no matter how loving or sexually active their relationship may be. The reality is that relationship is something other than marriage.
Enacting laws to pretend reality doesn’t exist is not a good thing.
I consider myself a ‘Tea Partier’, and kind of Republican (since we have no legitimate 3rd party yet) and I’m all for legalizing marijuana, and civil unions between two consenting adults. I don’t care what anybody else does in the privacy of their home. The problem is, we lump people into stereotypical groups, when the reality is, that it is just a few of the whackos who are extreme, left, right, libertarian who make the most noise.
Plus, you have an older generation of people who were brought up believing that marijuana is evil, being gay is evil. And those opinions won’t change overnight, if ever.
Red Beard,
A law created concerning the Catholic Church and adoption may be infringing on your rights to adopt through the Catholic church. You can’t say that Bob Smith and Joe Smith getting married is what has caused that. Fight the things that take away your freedoms. Don’t take away someone else’s freedom as a response to losing yours. That just doesn’t make any sense.
Your second argument is a fallacy called the “slippery slope”. You’re worried about laws being enacted to say that a wedding photographer has to accept work from a gay couple, even if it goes against the photographer’s religious or personal beliefs. So far that I’ve heard, no such law is even being considered anywhere. But if it is, again, you’re fighting the wrong enemy. Bob and Joe Smith aren’t the ones making that law. The government is. And this is precisely my point. The government would have been, in your hypothetical situation, making a law infringing on the rights of the photographer. How can you give the government the right to ban gay marriage and then expect them not to infringe on someone else’s rights? The point is, they DO NOT have either right under the Constitution of the United States. By asking the government to ban gay marriage (or marijuana, but this is the topic you chose to disagree with so…) you are giving them power. You are saying that you think they should have the POWER to tell people who they can and cannot marry. And in the same breath you COMPLAIN about them having too much power – enough to step on the rights of photographers and small businesses?
My point is the government doesn’t have that power. They shouldn’t, at least. And the only reason they THINK they do is because of people who ask them to enforce their own personal belief systems.
I don’t think a law should be “enacted” to pretend anything. The people who want gay marriage banned are the ones who want to enact a law. I’m saying DO NOT enact a law. STOP MAKING MORE LAWS! We have enough damned laws already! I’m pretty sure we have more laws than any other country in history of the world, and we keep making new ones year after year.
Enacting laws to force your morality onto someone else is not a good thing.
And yes, this is the Living Off the Grid post of the month because it is an important issue. It is important that we all stop being hypocrites. If you want less government control of your life, then accept the fact that there will be less government control over everyone else’s life too. If you can’t accept that then we’re all doomed because our government will just keep growing and growing and growing and getting more and more powerful. If the very people who say they want less government then want more government when it comes to issues of personal choice, either way we’re going to get bigger government. And THAT is the point of this post. Gay marriage and marijuana legalization are just two issues that I’m using to make the point.
Lora,
I appreciate your common-sense approach to these issues. I hope I did not offend you by lumping “Tea Partier” people in together. The post is just meant to make people think. And, as you’ll see from other comments that this post is bound to get, it’s not just “a few whackos” on the extremities that think this way. It is actually a huge portion of the conservative movement. And I wouldn’t call them “whackos” unless they try to harm someone. I’d just say that they haven’t sat down and thought about how they are contributing to the problem of a larger, more powerful government themselves while simultaneously calling for smaller, less powerful government. I think they have built up a tolerance for some serious cognitive dissonance, but that doesn’t make them whackos.
To be clear to anyone else reading this, I’m not a liberal or a Democrat by definition. But like Lora says, you can’t lump people into groups because we’re all different. I’m socially liberal in so far that I think people should be able to do whatever they want if it doesn’t hurt anyone else. But that’s actually more Libertarian than liberal. And I don’t think laws should EVER be passed that take away someone’s freedom in any way unless they have harmed someone else or someone’s property. But that’s actually more of a Conservative stance than Liberal if you look at the history and meaning of political (not religious) conservatism. I’m for less government all-around, including State, but especially Federal. I’m for lower taxes, which would be a happy byproduct of less government. I am for religious freedom, but also the separation of church and state. And, like everyone else in America – no matter how much we disagree – I think my views are directly in line with those of our founding fathers when it comes to this. I guess that means we all interpret the Constitution through our own eyes, which sucks considering how explicit they tried to make the “living” document.
This post is bound to make some enemies and lose us some readers. I figured it might. But if I let that keep me from speaking my mind on an issue then that would just make me a coward.
OH, one more thing. When people talk about how the “minority” has protected rights despite the “majority” thinking that they shouldn’t have them, it would be wise to remember that this is precisely why we are a Republic and not an absolute Democracy. To be an absolute democracy would be akin to asking 51 wolves to look out for the best interest of 49 sheep.
Here’s a Benjamin Franklin quote as retold by Ron Paul in 2000:
“At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
“A republic if you can keep it” responded Franklin.”
I agree with Red_Beard. Homosexuality is a bane on the human existence. It always has been so. Ever since Biblical times, the exercise of homosexuality has been deemed to be evil and contra to the family that is necessary to continue the population of the tribe or nation. Homosexuality is not “gay” – that is a term that was determined by the pervert homosexuals to be the least offensive to their chosen way of life. There is nothing positive about homosexuality. Think about it. What can possibly come from homosexuality that is good? Nada. The people who wrote the Bible said that homosexuality is evil and must be wiped from the nation. That holds true today.
My thoughts on Marijuana? I think it is a gift from God and nature, just like alcohol. Ben Franklin said that beer is living proof that God wants us to enjoy ourselves and enjoy life. I’m ok with that.
No, it does not conflict with my views on homosexuality.
Whoa! I think I am going to have to find an alternative resource because I was wanting to get “Off the Grid” not “Off my rocker”. I keep my personal issues to myself. Why ruin a good resource by “muddying” the water with this kind of junk. The Ten Commandments are a whole lot more important than the tenth ammendment you mentioned. In this publication, why are you trying to promote or abuse this venue for this type of agenda. I came to learn about living off the grid, but still on God’s Grid????????????????????????????
red beard
well said.
See Lora?
Spatin I respect YOUR views on homosexuality. But I fail to see how two people getting married affects your chances of getting into Heaven. I don’t want to make this a religious argument because not everyone practices the same religion. But we DO all live in the same country under the same laws. This is about laws. It’s not even about whether homosexuality is wrong, or whether it is a sin. This is about Big Government. It should have no effect whatsoever on your own moral compass. If we start to try and control what the rest of the people in our country do based on our own moral beliefs then our form of government will be no better than Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan. We are a Republic, not a Theocracy.
Michelle,
This isn’t about “my” personal issues so there’s no need to keep it to myself. The reason this is on LivingOffGrid.org is because this website is about, among other things, getting the government OUT OF OUR BUSINESS. Whether that’s the building inspector, the FDA, USDA, or the marriage police. But if you want to leave nobody is stopping you.
Don’t get me wrong folks. I’m not advocating for gay marriage. That is to say, I’m not saying “it’s good to be gay” or trying to put a big rainbow flag on this website. I am using that topic as a tool to make a point and that point is the more power you give government to take away someone else’s rights, the more power they have to take away yours. It’s as simple as that. Like it or not, it’s the truth.
We can pontificate all day long about whether something’s ” right or wrong” but natural consequences are axiomatic. Therefore, if one engages in a homosexual activity and one contracts AIDS as a result, that’s a natural consequence that’s devoid of any moral judgement. Likewise, if one smokes dope and contracts lung cancer as a result the same dynamic applies. Therefore, these idiots who want to argue on behalf of retaining their right to kill themselves are more than welcome to do so. But please, don’t come crying to me with an entitlement mentality after you’ve f***ed yourself over!
Mountainman – I agree. It’s their problem. So let it be THEIR problem. Why pass a law saying they can’t kill themselves (not that I necessarily think all pot smokers or gay people are “killing themselves”) but screw it – it’s their prerogative anyway. As to entitlements, I agree with that too. You’ll notice I always preface or postscript everything with “as long as it isn’t hurting anyone else” or “as long as it isn’t infringing on someone else’s right”. Making me PAY more in taxes or be REQUIRED to buy government health insurance to cover the costs from pot smokers (what about the fat asses who drink too much Mountain Dew and eat too many Cheesburgers?) is just not right.
My point remains: The more power we give government over the personal decisions made by people we disagree with, the more power we’re giving government over our OWN personal decisions. If we want pot illegal because it gives people lung cancer or makes them stupid and lazy, that makes it easier for beer, soda-pop or cigarettes to be outlawed for the same reason. If we get our lawmakers to make a law banning gay civil unions that makes it easier for them to pass a law banning something else. For instance, how would you like it if there was a law (like in China) telling you how many kids you can have because of “overpopulation”? Yea screw that right!? But you’ve let the government get one step closer to having that power if you ask them to tell someone that they can or cannot have the same rights (taxation, next-of-kin, healthcare, etc…) as a heterosexual couple.
Disagree with their choices all you want. But when you try to get laws passed to keep them from behaving that way you’re just shooting yourself, or your children or grandchildren, in the foot. And you’re not practicing what you preach when it comes to small government. I’m really not sure how much more clearly I can explain this concept.
I think one of the most important reasons that humans survived and didn’t become extinct like so many other species is our ability to cooperate with each other and work together for the common good. Tribes had better survival rates than lone individuals, and thousands of years ago banishment from society was a deadly punishment.
It would be a lot easier for us to work together for the common good if we were identical in our beliefs and lifestyle and agreed on absolutely everything, but the fact is that we are diverse. And despite our diversity, we all matter. Not one of us is “better” or more entitled than anyone else, even though as individuals many of us tend to believe otherwise.
Because we disagree, and we think that somehow our religious beliefs or sexuality or whatever make us more “right” or more entitled than others, it’s really hard for us to find a balance in government that protects both the common good and individual rights.
I don’t think going off the grid means cutting ourselves off from society. Regardless of one’s views on homosexuality, abortion, marijuana or taxes, it’s folly to not wish to participate in a world that is better for everyone regardless of religion, sexuality or lifestyle. It’s not just folly – it’s both selfish and suicidal.
“You can’t say that Bob Smith and Joe Smith getting married is what has caused that. Fight the things that take away your freedoms.”
Yes I can. One judge says that they can get married and another judge says that the logical consequence is that you can not live by your conscience or by your faith as that is “discrimination.”
It is either actively support “homosexual marriage” or you aren’t allowed to participate in anything that goes by the term marriage (wedding photography, venue rentals, adoption, fertility treatments, etc.).
Law never factors in, merely the tyranny of those on the bench.
So let me get this straight. Your argument for removing someone else’s rights is so you (as a wedding photographer) can keep yours? What makes your rights more important than someone else’s? And your argument is also that the judicial branch of the Federal government has too much power, so your answer is… to give them the POWER to take away someone’s right to a civil union or marriage? Hmmm…
MY argument, on the other hand, is that the federal government (All THREE Branches of it) should have LESS power. Thus, they shouldn’t have the power to tell a wedding photographer who they can or cannot accept on as client, ESPECIALLY if they are refusing to take a client on religious grounds. Yes, I realize that this has ramifications for race relations, among other things, but I think the free market would take care of that. For instance, I wouldn’t eat at a restaurant that refused to serve black people because I don’t support bigotry.
Now which is the better world? The one where the government stays out of our business and personal choices, such as who we do or do not want to do business with? Or the one where we go whining to the government every time someone makes a lifestyle decision that we don’t agree with and we thereby give them the authority to make our lifestyle decisions FOR us?
Like I said – Fight the things that take away your freedoms. I seriously doubt Bob and Joe Smith would want to hire a wedding photographer who thinks they’re bound for eternity in hell anyway. But that’s besides the point.
Look, I’m not going to change your mind about this fact because you’re obviously not listening to reason or logic. So let’s just drop it. For those who are willing to consider the argument, I think I’ve put it in about every way I possibly can. If you don’t “get it” by now you never will. Comments are turned off because I’m tired of giving the same answer to every half-thought-out argument that can be shown as a fallacy by that answer. But yes, I’m keeping the post up because I want the readers of this site to know that we stand for Liberty, that we will accept nothing less than FREEDOM for all, and that we think the best way to achieve that is by limiting the power government, not asking them to make laws to keep people from doing things that we don’t agree with. Period.
One last note: This is not a political site most of the time. I don’t like arguing about politics because it gets people angry (including me) when they otherwise seem to treat each other with respect and dignity. Also, I think it alienates a good portion of the readership, which probably isn’t a smart move from a business decision (nevermind the fact that this site barely pays for it’s hosting fees) and because politics just is not the most appropriate topic for the site. But I do not regret posting this, and will leave it up, because I think this is one political issue that IS appropriate for the site. Here’s why it is relevant: The next time you’re trying to build your own home and some jerk inspector tells you that it has to be done this way or that way… remember who gives the government power to enforce those hurdles. We do. The next time you try to buy raw milk and are told that they can’t sell it to you because that’s “illegal” remember who gave the government the power to tell you what you can and cannot drink of your own free will. Sure, the big dairy industry probably paid for it, but ultimately WE, the people of the United States, put up with it. That’s because we are blind to everyone else’s “freedom” but our own. The yuppies in the city who are afraid of listeria getting in their milk are blind to your “freedom” to drink raw milk. The consumer-safety bureaucrats who are afraid we’ll all build shanties that will burn down the first time a light switch is flipped are blind to your “freedom” to build your own home without having to get a four-year engineering degree. So yes. This is a relevant topic for an off-grid living website. I will, however, try to refrain from talking politics from now on, as I see what trouble it starts.