Mother’s Day and Same-Sex Marriage Issue

Today is Mother’s Day, May 13th, 2012.

Mitt Romney, unless he changes his mind, is not supporting same-sex marriage.

It is a response to Obama’s position on it — simply that the federal government must oversee and govern every aspect of private social life. Before Obama made it so, it was not an issue in the presidential 2012 campaign. It shouldn’t be because it is not within the power and responsibility of the federal, central government.
Huffington Post, Obama and sociocrat mouthpiece reported:

The president would conduct an interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts, during which he would explain how he had come to take the final step in an 18-month-long evolution of his stance on marriage equality. …“The question is, is there a risk?” a prominent Democratic Party official who requested anonymity told The Huffington Post just days ago. “It is not nationwide [polling] we are talking about. We are talking about Virginia, North Carolina and other swing states. And we are talking about, would Karl Rove and his team stoop to using horribly grotesque and hateful tactics … and would that peel off 10,000 votes?”

Whatever anyone’s views are on the subject, it is NOT the responsibility or within the power of the federal government (White House and/or Congress) to pass that legislation that is up the state government. Marriage is a matter that must be left to the state governments. This is just another example of the federal unconstitutional power that has risen since the Woodrow Wilson administration and it is up to We the People to reform the government – after they educate themselves in constitutional law.
Unfortunately, those in government that preach constitutional law, like Ron Paul, are depicted by the media and the traditional political two-party establishment as radicals or just plain goofy. And why not? If the government would go back to being the republic that was formed, the media would be informed by the government that freedom of speech does not include withholding facts, rearranging facts, and nonobjective news reporting. The media is important in any nation because the People rely upon information and a nation whose people are educated and knowledgeable is a better nation unto itself as well as in dealing with other nations.
I go along with Christians that marriage is a very old and ancient tradition that is between a man and woman, and any other way is realistically against the laws of nature.
I will also add that this talk of same-sex marriage will dwindle once the government reforms the tax system, for if a flat income tax is passed with no deductions and no progressive tax rate nomenclature, people will not be so interested in such marriages. I cannot prove it, but I feel the big issue is economics. If the importance that government puts upon marriage in terms of civic laws and regulations was reduced and nullified – keep out of it, and leave it to the state or county governments, the issue would also dwindle. 
In reality, any two people can proclaim they are married and there is no need for any civic agency to sanction it. Marriage has always been intertwined with religion and its ceremonies, doctrine and rites; therefore churches should have authority over marriages within their religious environment.
The only sensible thing about marriage license is the blood test for aids to protect people in terms of health situations, but today the is moot because most couples are having sex before marriage anyway.
The issue is complex and quite difficult to address, even taking a neutral stance and accepting views and beliefs from both sides.
Traditionally, besides commitment to each other for life-time partnership, the main object was procurement. Same-sex couples are not able to do so; so that brings up another complaint about and from that group – advocacy of legal adoption of children by same-sex couples.
Romney most likely took that stand against same-sex marriage because of his religious faith, which is okay; however, when it comes to government policy, his decision making on policy or proposed policy must always rely upon the Constitution. The Founders took into account that God, the Supreme Being, provided the original freedom of choice that is coupled with the acceptance of responsibility of the results of a choice – good or bad.
I don’t think that the legal act of marriage is the issue in so much as the economics of it all because of laws in place, in particular within the income tax system. If this were corrected, I am sure there would be little issue in life partnership within same-sex scenario. After all, in the venue of civil law, it is part of freedom of choice, whether the majority agrees or not. However, moral law is another issue, and once again freedom of choice. It is why I believe that children should not be taught about homosexuality in educational institutions in the veil of being sex education — especially when parents, who have the right, do not want their children exposed to such things. Children will tend to do things just because it is “cool” and peer pressure, whether it be right or wrong, morally or against the virtues established by humans long before there was civic law.

There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation. James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
Bottom Line:

When it comes to national leadership where there are people of several different faiths and different views, our leaders must remain focused upon the Constitution and be objective and not put their personal preferences above civic issues. 

Individual state government need to decide about same-sex marriage within their states, by a majority vote By the People; for that is where the state marriage license and laws originate – not the federal government.
America is going to be a better place if that is the way our leadership governs and society learns and accepts that they cannot have the government dictating how personal life is lived just because a minority says so; we well as expect free stuff as part of their “rights”; but procure it within the private sector and society. 
Nothing from the government is “free” – someone is paying for it and taking (by force) from one group to give to another is wrong, without their permission. Redistribution of wealth and income is straight out of the book of Marxism, and any politician who denies this is lying to himself/herself and YOU.
Enuff said on this subject, this May 13th, 2012.

I wish all the mothers around the world, where it is celebrated, a great day with their families. Being a mother is such an important job, just as being a father. Each have their responsibilities to raise children to become productive and develop character – which ultimately will make them happy; and our founders wanted to create a government that supported the people’s pursuit of happiness.

In memory of my mother, Inez Joy Peek-Lehman