A Special Election Day Post

Before you shut me off, please understand that my political beliefs are driven by one mantra: The government should provide basic infrastructure, and other than that should allow me to take care of my own needs and give others the opportunity to do the same. I am an Ayn Rand Libertarian to the core.

I have many friends and family on either extreme and everywhere in between, and I only ask that people vote their values. Eschew party lines and research your candidates and what they stand for, and vote appropriately. When you only follow party politics, you are allowing people to make decisions for you that are completely out of touch with your family's needs. Also, never overlook your local government, right down to school board and county commissioners. These are the people that make decisions that affect your daily life. I will never understand people who only vote every 4 years.

So, besides taxes and the economy, here is the *radical* idea that I support in regards to one of the biggest hot button issues out there:

The government should not recognize marriage.

(Collective gasp, now gather yourselves and listen.) Marriage was never designed to be a legal contract, it was designed to be an expression of commitment between people in love, and at times their God. Where our country went wrong was recognizing this as a legal union and assigning tax benefits and other benefits just because people made a commitment to one another.

If we all had to enter our own taxes as our own person, imagine the possibilities. People who are in support of marriage between one male and one female ONLY could make sure that their church only accepted and performed marriages in those types of unions. Likewise, our gay and lesbian citizens would be free to marry one another and make the exact same lifelong commitment in their own religious organizations, and if you are okay with that, then I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem attending services there. Imagine if we all the freedom and liberty to marry who we want, and the GOVERNMENT DIDN'T HAVE A SAY IN THE MATTER AT ALL**.

Why do we have to make it about getting special rights only allowed by the government to certain unions? Why should we even allow the government to decide who we can marry? Why do I get "special credit" for choosing to enter into a legal union with my husband? Before I met him, I always said that I didn't need a piece of paper to make a commitment to someone. What I meant then is on the opposite end of the scale of how I think now, but I still feel the same way: my marriage ceremony was a promise to my husband and my God that I would spend my life with one and only one person. Signing a marriage certificate didn't change that in any way. I don't even remember the marriage certificate now. I remember the service and making that commitment in front of all the people I love.

I know that this idea will never fly in our current government, because the Right wants to define marriage their way, and the Left wants to make sure everyone can get special insurance, but I encourage everyone to think about the possibility of a country with true liberty and what we can do when the government isn't busy protecting us from ourselves.

**Also, there would never be another child referred to as a Bastard.**

This Post is Non-Baby-Related. Or Maybe It Is.

I am a Christian. I am a Libertarian. These two statements sometimes mix, and sometimes they combat against each other. Politics and religion are hard to mix, as we see every day, yet also they sometimes must go hand in hand. I would like to think that Jesus would be a Libertarian, albeit an outspoken one that would remind people not following the Law of God when they err. In any case, I cannot imagine who will be more shocked by my view on the "Ground Zero Mosque", my conservative friends and family, or my liberal ones.


I am having trouble understanding the controversy and the hate rhetoric being spewed (mostly on the side of those against the building of this community center) about this issue. As far as I can remember from my school teachings, which happened well before Under God was taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance, our first amendment in this country explains that we have the right to worship freely, speak freely, and live freely.


Do I think it's in the best interest of the practicing Muslims involved in the fight to build this community center two blocks from other people that happened to practice the same religion committed a horrible act of treason against our country? Maybe...it depends on their interests. If they are willing to accept that this may be a sore spot in the eyes of a lot of Americans for a while, and if their hope is that eventually (not immediately, but somewhere down the road as trust is built) this building could be a beacon of American freedom, acceptance, and unity, then I don't think it's that far reaching to assume that this is a possibility. I know that I, for one, do not want to be held accountable for what Jim Baker, Jerry Falwell, or Pat Roberson have ever said, and I cannot judge all people of Islamic faith by what a small, fanatical group of Muslims have done.

When it comes to other issues in the Muslim-American-Religion wars, I have the same viewpoint as I try to take in most of my political views: take care of yourself, and allow others the same freedom. Do I think it's fair to reschedule football practice for a month at a high school in Michigan because most of the team is Muslim and celebrating Ramadan? Well, if everyone on the team and their parents (because for high schoolers, parents are still supposed to be the household decision-makers) feels that it is an acceptable option, of course. A team is a team.

If we are going to be a country that is open and accepting to people of all race, religion, geographic background, without discrimination, then we can't pick and choose what we feel is acceptable to be tolerant of. If the Muslims who want to build the community center are tied to Al-Qaeda and beat their women into submission and promote the rape of children, then of course they don't have the right to build a mosque anywhere because they are breaking the law. If they are like the vast majority of American Muslims, who believe it or not may have left their home country because of the persecution they felt at not practicing certain orthodox parts of Islam, then extend an olive branch and let them build their mosque, which is far more likely to bring good service to the community than what the far-right are imagining.

Freedom of religion means freedom of religion. Period. I would be furious if the government told me I couldn't build a Baptist church on a piece of land I owned. The least I can do is extend the same courtesy to others.

God Hates Fags

Did that get your attention? Now imagine it coming from the mouth of a 6 year old. I couldn't, until I watched 20/20 last night. I was appalled like I have never been before. Now, my second journey into Christianity is still fairly new, but I'm pretty sure that what I've read in the Bible does not contain those three words, or anything about God hating anyone, anywhere in it.

Everything I've seen is about God's love for us. ALL of us. And the fact that we are all sinners and that no one sin is greater than another. Except blasphemy. And I think that what this "church" is doing borders on blasphemy to me:

The Baptist Confession of Faith says: “Therefore, to swear vainly or rashly by the glorious and awesome name of God…is sinful, and to be regarded with disgust and detestation. …For by rash, false, and vain oaths, the Lord is provoked and because of them this land mourns.”

In my humble, non-Bible-scholarly opinion, these people are using the name and Word of God to promote ideals that are not Godly in any way. They are giving Baptists and Christians a bad name. All of Jesus' teachings are to promote love, acceptance, and caring towards others. Even murderers and enemies, because again, all sin is equal in God's eyes. Tiger Woods' adulterous actions with multiple women are the same sin as a woman lying to her boss about being ill to get a day off from work (hmmm....don't know where I came up with that example...never done that before).

I am neither Democrat, Republican, pro-war, or anti-war, but regardless I am proud and indebted to the men and women fighting for my freedom. The thought of anyone choosing to picket the funeral of someone who lost his life fighting to give those very people the right to even have this church and "worship" this way is vile to me. And the fact that they are ingraining their hateful rhetoric into their childrens' brains is even more despicable. It honestly borders on child abuse. And while as a Libertarian I in no way agree or support the ruling recently about a dad who is forbidden by the court to take his daughter to a non-Jewish church, part of me kind of wishes that someone could forbid these people to take their children into this awful, hate-spewing environment.

Last night, my husband and I watched this story with a mixture of disbelief, sadness, and revolt. I don't even have words for people who do this kind of thing. If I were the fighting type, I would be tempted to give them a taste of their own medicine, driving by their house with signs saying something like "America hates you and you give religion a bad name, you scum of the Earth".

But that would go against the teaches of Christianity that I'm trying to follow.

So, not to get all political, but...

For those that are getting to know me, I am a proud Libertarian. The motto I try to most adhere to in my own political leanings is pretty much "give everyone the freedom to take care of themselves". I think that most Federal government initiatives are a complete waste of taxpayer money and resources, and that more rights should be left to the states. During the last "big" election, I found it abhorrent that so many people were much more interested in the Presidential election than their Senatorial and Gubernatorial races.

But I digress. The real reason I'm discussing my politics is for one thing: food. I like it. I like to cook it. I like to read about it. I especially like to enjoy it. Three things that will almost always be in my refrigerator are butter, milk, and heavy cream. How else would I be able to make steak au poivre or a luscious chocolate souflee topped with whipped cream? Valentine's Day is coming up, and dear hubby and I will more than likely be spending it at home, making a nice meal after our little one goes to bed. I need butter!

I used to laugh every time I saw that "can't believe it's not butter" commercial where they point out that Sweden or somewhere is the only place in the world so far to ban trans fat. Except some US States have also done that, or are trying to. The fact that there are people out there that want to live in a place that tells them what they can and cannot eat astounds me. What's next? No red meat, because it clogs the arteries? Although I guess if they ban red meat there is no longer any reason to drink red wine, so wine could be out, too.

Now, I am an avid fan of wine and beer, but let me play devil's advocate. Do you seriously think that obese Americans are putting more of a burden on other Americans than drunk drivers? Yet we continue to allow people to drink, despite the various other health problems it causes. I am a working mom with a little blog for my own enjoyment. I am not going to go google-crazy trying to find statistics to back up my argument. I am simply pointing out my own common sense view that if I want to eat chocolate and butter and whipped cream, I am going to do it anyway. Like most drugs, I would just do it behind my government's back, and they would still be paying my higher health costs eventually. By the way, at this point in time what I eat has little effect on most people since I do pay for my own health insurance. Maybe it affects a few other people that work for my company since we share health insurance costs, but I'm sure some of them smoke. Some are alcoholics. Some are just old and have many more health problems than I do. In fact, the fact that I have a 5 month old probably has more bearing on my co-workers insurance burden than the fact that I am overweight. The kid has been to the doctor more times in the last 5 months than I had been in 5 years until I got knocked up.

So, thanks-but-no-thanks to our government trying to ban trans fats, or any other food product for that matter. I'm Southern. I eat Spam. I'm sure there's something in Spam that I can't pronounce that could do just as much damage as any trans-fat. Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to eat it? No...it should just be our choice whether or not we want to put that crap in our bodies.

If you think I'm wrong, I dare you to come over to my house, indulge in my chocolate-on-chocolate made from scratch cake, and argue your point. What's sinful is not that cake. It's taking away my right to bake it.