OPINION: You cannot defend your rights unless you know what they are

Frank Gillispie

OPINION: You cannot defend your rights unless you know what they are

Posted by

in Opinions

Monday, June 29. 2009

Comments (11)

You often hear the claim that ours is a government of law. The idea is that government draws its rights to govern from a series of legal principles, and not from the will of some dictator or king. Those principles are established by three important documents, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And they base their authority on the will of the governed.

Anything any government does, whether national, state or local must be authorized by these documents to be legitimate. The Constitution assigns to the federal government specific powers and duties and prohibits if it from engaging in any activity not specifically authorized by it. Many people, including myself, are convinced that the major part of our present federal government violates this principle. If we were to force the federal government back into the limits set forth by the founding documents, 80 percent of it, along with the associated taxes, would be eliminated.

On Saturday, July 4th we will celebrate the signing of the first of these documents, the Declaration of Independence. That is what the day is about. All the parades, speeches, festivals barbecue and fireworks are supposed to remind us of the freedoms we declared were ours by natural rights. Yet, I doubt if most of you will even hear the document discussed. Most of you have never read it, or if you did read it in school, you have forgotten what it says. The same holds true of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

There exists an organization dedicated to the preservation of these governing principles. It is called the Heritage Foundation. It has assembled these key documents into a shirt-pocket-size pamphlet that everyone ought to have. It fits easily in a pocket, a purse, or a brief case. You can order one from the Heritage Foundation web page, heritage.org, for a dollar.

Or, stop by the Madison County Greys, Sons of Confederate Veterans booth at the Colbert Independence Day festival for a free copy. That’s right. I said free! We have secured 150 of the pamphlets and will give one to each of the first 150 people who stop by and ask for it.

Every person should have two documents at their fingertips at all times: the Bible and our nation’s founding documents. Several churches will probably have copies of the New Testament of the Bible available for free at the festival. They had them at the Hull Spring Festival and I assume they will also have them at Colbert. Each of you should make sure you have these critical documents available for instant reference. They explain our individual rights and responsibilities as granted by “our creator.”

You cannot defend your individual rights and freedoms unless you know what they are and where they come from. Our goal is to put these documents in your hands so you can see for yourself the nature of your personal freedoms and responsibilities. So make sure you get a copy of these important documents, read them, then demand that our elected and appointed governments officials follow the rules they contain. That is how you ensure your freedom and that of your children and grandchildren.

Frank Gillispie is founder of The Madison County Journal. His e-mail address is frankgillispie671@msn.com. His website can be accessed at http://frankgillispie.tripod.com/

Defined tags for this entry: Frank Gillispie, Opinions

Related entries by tags:

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 Anonymous on 06/30/09 at 07:47 AM [Reply]

I hope your opinion wouldn't change if the issue of marriage was brought up, especially same sex marriage. According to the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia, marriage is a fundamental right. If something is a right, it belongs to everyone, gay or straight. It's sad to hear the reasons why a "right" should be denied to people.

#1.1 Jean on 07/01/09 at 10:04 AM [Reply]

Below is what the court wrote regarding it's decision in 'Loving v. Virginia-

~~"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."~~

-Notice how the court wrote that marriage is- "fundamental to our very existence and survival".....because of the ability of a man & woman, together, to reproduce, indeed it would be considered "fundamental to our very existence and survival".

-Note also where it says- "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes" & -"The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination" & -"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State".......These 3 statements all have something in common, a common theme, and that is 'race'. This ruling came about because of actions taken by a white man & a black woman who left the state of Virginia, where interacial marriage was illegal, to get married in a state where it was not & upon their arrival back to Virginia, to live, they were arrested.

-When you wrote- "According to the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia, marriage is a fundamental right", you left out the whole interacial 'thing'.....as well as the details on this ruling. I don't get how in your mind, this ruling equals gays should have the right to marry? -Besides marriage is a religious 'thing', if you will. The state only recognizes it for purposes such as spousal benefits, decision-making abilities & such.

-Sure, you can argue that denying the 'right' to marry to gay people is the same as denying it to interacial couples, but come on.....where do you stop......where is the line drawn? -Should child molesters, rapists & murderers demand these 'rights' too? -What about if a man decides that he should have the 'right' to marry his mistress, as well as remain married to his wife, because after all, he loves them both & his wife is all for it? -What if a 'bisexual' woman demands the 'right' to marry both her male lover, as well as her female lover...because as she puts it- "She wants the best of both worlds; so why should she not have the 'right' to get what she wants and the 'right' to be happy". -And you can bet that both the married man w/ his mistress & the woman w/ a lover of each gender will argue that they're not hurting anybody else & to deny them the 'right' to marry the people they want to is a violation of their 'rights'!

-Where do these people get off thinking they have all these imaginary 'rights'? Notice how they have all these 'rights', but they never speak of any responsibilities, or of the Almighty that gave them the rights that they do have...-Do they ever question where all these rights come from? -Do they ever wonder why they are so entitled in their minds? -Were they just born special or what?...Well, special in a w-....I'll stop at that~

#1.1.1 Dan on 07/01/09 at 03:06 PM [Reply]

I found your response so enlightening! I am very glad you researched and provided exactly what was stated in that case. If I may, I would love to copy and keep your response for future use when I too am confronted by the left wing liberals and their anything goes ideas.

#1.1.2 Anonomous on 07/02/09 at 10:43 AM [Reply]

-Besides marriage is a religious 'thing', if you will.

If so, why do we let atheists marry? And if so, why are people allowed to marry at the court house where NO religious personage are involved? And if so, why are people divorced in court and the church (other than Catholics) have NOTHING to do with making a divorce legal?

I find it amusing that Religious conservatives always use the phrase "where will it stop?" Then pull out some totally absurd reference like "next they will want to marry ducks." I say to that, "if we let prayer back in the schools where will it end?" Next you'll be telling me which version of Bible I have to read. Before you know it all Methodist will have to convert to Baptist!! And heaven help the poor Mormons and the Walmart brand of under-pants your gonna make them wear!!!

#1.1.2.1 Sardonic Veracity on 07/03/09 at 08:30 AM [Reply]

As long as there is Algebra in school, there will always be prayer.

#1.1.3 Anonymous on 07/02/09 at 11:45 AM [Reply]

Jean, So are you saying that heterosexuals that cannot reproduce for whatever reason should not be allowed to marry?

#1.1.4 Still dont get the point on 07/02/09 at 02:07 PM [Reply]

.where is the line drawn? -Should child molesters, rapists & murderers demand these 'rights' too?

I read through this several times and I still don't get the point you are trying to make. Because child molesters, rapists and murderers DO have the right to get married. Matter of fact, they could be single, commit any one of these crimes, be convicted sent to prison and THEN get married. And in a lot cases, allowed to consummate the marriage.

Then you go on to equate polygamy with homosexual marriage. Odd analogy, but ok. What I don't understand is you seem to go on to infer that God doesn't approve of polygamy any more than he does homosexuals. I have to assume I have missed the point of that argument as well because the Bible is very clear that it approves of and (depending on your interpretation) encourages polygamy. Were we truly a nation of God, and his teachings, polygamy would be a totally lawful action.

The only argument I can see in your post that seems to make sense is homosexuality is a sin (and generally excepted as wrong depending on who you talk to) and shouldn't be recognized as a state of being that can be discriminated against. Although I don't agree I can see that as a valid argument. But in using that argument you would have to concede that any marriage found to have engaged in adultery would have to be voided.(or divorced technically) Regardless of the wishes of the people in the marriage. If you want to apply Biblical teachings to rules of marriage they should, in all fairness, be applied across the board. Of course if you REALLY want to get Biblically Technical about it, they should be dragged from their house and stoned to death, but I would let that side if I were you.

#1.1.4.1 Anonymous on 07/02/09 at 04:45 PM [Reply]

Ok, Let me try it this way. I'm not trying to say I'm right or your wrong. Maybe you can see it differently from this point.

Chances are you probably have someone close to you that is gay, whether it be a brother, sister, cousin, co-worker, or neighbor etc. Those people do not have the same rights as you do and cannot marry their partners. They are not asking for special privileges or to be able to marry more than one person, marry a dog, marry a child, or whatever. They just want to have a legally recognized relationship to the person they love. Imagine if the person you loved for many years got sick or was in an ICU in a hospital and you were told you couldn't see them because you weren't considered "family" by the legal definition. Believe me, this does happen. Gay people aren't asking for the church's acceptance. They are asking for legal rights, which shouldn't have anything to do with what the bible says.

There is no reason to lump gay people into the category or child molestors, raptists, or murderers. Sure those predators are among all groups of people, but just because someone is gay does not mean they will turn into something evil. For instance, if you remember the Dennis Rader (BTK Killer), he was a well respected member of the Lutheran church and ended up being the most dangerous killer than I have heard about in my lifetime.

Let me invite you to take a look at some well known people that are gay and that might direct you away from the negative viewpoint of gays. Ellen Degeneres: She is about as level headed as any person I've ever known. Even my grandmother loves watching her. More than I can say for most other straight talk show hosts. Rosie O'Donnell: She and her partner fostered children that nobody else would even consider. George Takei: Has been in a commited relationship with his partner for 18 years. I've seen many marriages come and go in that time.

#1.2 Sardonic Veracity on 07/01/09 at 02:52 PM [Reply]

That particular ruling was concerned with racial discrimination and challeneged a law banning mixed race marraiges using the 14th Amendment. Unless I am mistaken, this argument has not been used in the US Supreme Court to argue for homosexual marraiges. In Loving v. Virginia, the court stated:

"To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Unless it has been rewritten, the 14th amendment does not mention homosexuality. The 14th is commonly understood to insure rights of peoples without discriminating by race. It is an interesting thought, trying to bootstrap homosexual unions onto this case and perhaps the Court will hear it one day. I believe that, due to the length of time that marraige has been commonly understood to include one man and one woman, however, this will be a tough argument to make. In Loving v. Virginia, the plaintiffs were not trying to redefine marraige, they were arguing for nondiscrimination based on race.

There is a big difference between arguing for one black man and one white woman and two men or two women of whatever race. Rights are not being denied. Men are free to marry women and women are still free to marry men ... just like they always have been.

#2 Dan on 07/02/09 at 02:50 PM [Reply]

I think the next big push will have religious overtones regarding marriage. Those that are in favor of having multiple wives... such as certain Mormons or Muslims... I mean if a man can marry a man, or a woman a woman, why cant a man marry several women?

#2.1 Sardonic Veracity on 07/03/09 at 08:27 AM [Reply]

I see no reason why not. If someone wants that much self-inflicted stress, I say go for it! It's tough enough making one woman happy!

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment: E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.

Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
Phone*

What is nine plus one?
: Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry
: Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

OPINION: You cannot defend your rights unless you know what they are

MadisonJournalTODAY

OPINION: You cannot defend your rights unless you know what they are

Recent Stories

Recent Comments

Sister Sites

Archives

Community

Keyword Tags