Investigative Report:
God v. The Constitution...Part 2 of 2
By: Craig Andresen and Diane Sori / Right Side Patriots on CPR Worldwide Media cprworldwidemedia.net

Yesterday, in Part 1 of our report 'God v. The Constitution' we laid out the legal aspects of the upcoming Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage but, at the bottom of all the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth however, is the mantra chanted endlessly by those on the far, far right and the holier than thou set...that being...”traditional biblical marriage is only between one man and one woman.”

What this really is, is the ultra-religious ascribing words either to the Bible or directly to God that simply aren’t true but let’s give them a chance and see how it lines up with the facts.

To imply that biblical marriage is between one man and one woman would need a Bible verse or passage as backing to make it fact however, no such verse or passage exists. In fact...the Bible never uses the word “marriage” nor in fact does the Bible ever define marriage. Sure, there are plenty of verses and passages regarding love or husbands and wives that one can look up but none of them, not one, offers any definition regarding the institution of marriage.

That said however, the Bible does offer a great deal of insight into what's called “traditional” marriage.

Throughout history, including a wide swath of biblical history, “traditional marriage” is a topic which has received a good deal of written examination and while not laying out a definition of it or providing hard and fast rules to be followed at all costs, biblical history does make clear what “traditional marriage” was.

Abraham for example, had a traditional biblical marriage which included his wife Sara and his other wife...Sara’s handmaiden Hagar. One might well question the wisdom of Solomon after realizing that his biblically traditional marriage consisted of some 700 wives and around 300 odd concubines.

Tradition in those days stood on the principle that if a man takes extra wives, he would have to continue to provide for his previous wives as per Exodus 21:10 and let us not forget that, as per Exodus 21:16 "...if a man were to have sex with a virgin"...he would be required to marry that virgin...as per tradition of course.

In fact, the traditions written of in the Bible makes it clear that marriage was the norm between a man and the woman he had raped and historically, if an army conquered a city or a nation, the wives of the men so conquered would then become the spoils of war and were to be married to the conquerors.

Biblical tradition also held that girls of the age of ten were acceptable wives and should a man die, his younger brother, by biblical tradition, was required to marry the widow and to produce heirs that would not be considered his heirs but those of his dead brother.

But, if the whole marriage is between "one man and one woman" thing is ordained by God, how can certain biblically historic relationships be explained? There was Ruth and Naomi where it was written..."Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."

Sure sounds like a marriage doesn’t it? Especially when one reads just a bit further and sees these words..."Ruth clave onto her." For the record, the Hebrew word translated as “clave” is the exact same word describing marriage in Genesis 2:24.

There were also the relationships between David and Jonathon recounted in the Book of Samuel where it was written...”The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul,” and..."From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house,” and... "And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt."

Jonathon, stripping naked in front of David doesn't sound platonic either biblically or currently does it?

However, perhaps the most telling verse regarding this relationship came later in Samuel where it was written..."I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

Sounds like a marriage there too doesn’t it?

And then there was the relationship between the two eunuchs, Daniel and Ashpenaz as related in the Book of Daniel as another example of a same-sex, biblical union, and none of these relationships was ever besmirched in any biblical texts to follow.

Now, before the ultra-religious start in on the notion that these are Old Testament traditions which are thousands of years old and have no bearing on Christian traditions let us remind them that the Old Testament is the only place in the Bible where the actual laws, the only laws ever ascribed directly to the hand of God...the Ten Commandments...can be found and even there...not a single definition or law regarding who can marry whom can be found and not a single condemnation of same-sex relationships is there either.

In the New Testament...again...no definition of marriage nor the word “marriage” exists. In fact, St. Paul himself was no great fan of the institution stating that marriage itself was a compromise between the ideal of celibacy and the human nature regarding the desire for sex. “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.’ But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” (I Corinthians 7:1-2)

There are those who point to this being the decisive "marriage is between one man and one woman” tradition but, in fact, that is a far stretch of what Paul was actually saying. Paul was simply providing a remedy for people having multiple sex partners and nothing more.

Throughout the New Testament, arranged marriages were the tradition and remained the tradition up until about 250 years ago with the idea that people would meet, fall in love, and get married by happenstance regarded as wholly inappropriate.

The fact is, the New Testament is replete with mentions of husbands and wives but most of it has to do with how they should live and whether or not they were allowed to divorce but none of it has anything to do with rules regarding who is allowed to marry whom as New or Old Testament times regarded marriage itself as a human condition and not as either a right or a rite.

Marriage rites came later in history and that creates yet another paradox for the ultra-religious.

It wasn’t until the 6th century that laws regarding marriage were created by the church and those laws were written not by God...not by Jesus but by Pope Gregory...a man...and they included such things as outlawing marriage inside of the 4th degree of separation to cut down on inbreeding, outlawing non-related inmarriage to the same degree to cut down on people marrying their in-laws and outlawing concubinage and polygamy as all of these things previously had been considered...traditional.

Here’s a little something else Pope Gregory put into church law or doctrine...both parties in a marriage had to consent to the marriage but not for the reasons we now find to be traditional. Back then, consent was required to keep marriages within the church and those not of the Catholic persuasion were not allowed to consent to marriage. Until Pope Gregory...not consenting to marry was...traditional.

What we have here is societal evolution and as society evolved, so too did traditions but even in those early centuries of Christianity no church law was written prohibiting people of the same-sex from entering into marriage.

In fact, the strongest condemnations of same-sex relationships assessed to the Bible came from later political translations and not from the original Bible itself which does condemn same-sex rape and infidelity just as it does with opposite-sex rape, and infidelity but all of those references in the Bible are the result of interpretations of men and not the direct word of God.

Taken out of context, cherry-picked verses of biblical scripture can be interpreted to mean whatever one wants them to mean in a political light if and only if other parts and verses of scripture are completely ignored but in context, in their original form, those mentions of same-sex relationships are not roundly or wholly condemned at all.

Regardless of what some, the ultra-religious far right, purport to be biblical fact... marriage did not become a religious rite or sacrament until the 12th century, some 1,100 years after the birth of Jesus, and the notion of marriage being between one man and one woman didn’t enter into the picture until the 16th century making both the religious rite and the currently seized upon definition of “traditional” marriage the concept of man, based in political doctrine rather than the law of God based on religious doctrine.

Given that the Constitution does not define marriage and neither does the Bible specifically define the institution...given that the former has everything to do with the rights of all Americans and the latter pertains only to the rites involved with those of certain faiths, given that marriage itself wasn't even a church right until 1,100 years after the birth of Christ and therefore, arguably not a religious but a political matter even in biblical times, and given that marriage has always been a state's issue rather than a federal or Constitutional issue...here is what we believe will be the eventual outcome of the Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage.

If the Supreme Court, as is its mission, upholds the Constitution, it will render a decision that leaves same-sex marriage in the hands of the states with certain stipulations. One stipulation should be that government cannot and shall not interfere with the doctrines or practices of the church meaning that should a state, either by manner of their Constitution or by a vote of their people allow within their individual states, same-sex marriages, neither the state nor the federal government can impose penalties upon a church that refuses to participate or perform such a ceremony.

Another stipulation should require all states, whether sanctioning the legality of a same-sex marriage or not, to recognize all legal adjuncts to such a marriage regarding any and all benefits offered to opposite-sex couples for same-sex couples.

And the last stipulation, we believe, should be that government...the courts...must not redefine the definition of marriage in regards to any and all religious doctrine for that is the purview of only the church. This also keeps Thomas Jefferson's founding principal of 'separation of church and state' intact.

In closing, we do know that there will be a winner and a loser as a result of the Supreme Court's decision but we truly hope that the Court comes down on the side of sending this issue back to the individual states because that is what our Constitution intended.

Investigative Report:
God v. The Constitution...Part 1 of 2
By: Diane Sori and Craig Andresen / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on  CPR Worldwide Media cprworldwidemedia.net

Let's start with the bottom line...the 'social issues' belong to the states...period. And anyone who says otherwise does NOT know the Constitution...you know...that pesky little document Obama so loves to trample on.

The Constitution...the very document that defines our freedom and protects us from a tyrannical government (that is until Obama came along)...clearly and unequivocally states which powers will be delegated by law to each branch of government. And while amendments to the Constitution have been added that deal with specific 'human rights' (rights believed to belong equally to every person) those amendments still rightfully place limits on government powers in regards to those rights. And the ubber-religious far right, and even some centrist conservatives, do not understand that when 'social issues' cross the line into political fodder they themselves become what's legally referred to as 'constitutionally improper.' And neither the federal government nor Obama himself...even when yielding his trusty pen and his phone... can legally choose which Constitutionally given 'human rights' to focus on...to fixate on...over the others. But the delegation of the so-called 'social issues' still must adhere with the Constitution not with Obama or with the socially conscious and many times judgmental ubber-religious far right.

And as we all know...or should know...the Constitution limits the government’s power by dividing the government into three separate branches...the legislative branch which makes the law; the executive branch which enforces the law, and the judicial branch which interprets the law. But most importantly, the Constitution, along with Supreme Court rulings, limits the power of the federal government by its deliberate delegation of certain key powers to the individual states, meaning each state is given the right and the ability to make most of its own laws and set most of its own policy...as it should be.

In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws affecting the social issues regarding what's called 'family relations' (marriage, divorce, and adoption), commerce occurring within a state’s borders, and local law enforcement activities, are among those specifically delegated powers given to the states or to the people via the ballot box...the individual state's ballot box that is.

Yet the so-called 'socially-conscious' ubber-religious far right...the very ones who scream they adhere to the Constitution but actually do not... sadly ignore that issues of marriage...traditional or otherwise...legally belong to the states. Too busy making wedding cakes and pizza parlors ground zero for their hate...hate based solely upon words they claim are in the Bible..these people refuse to accept the fact that many mistakes were made in the translating of the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic texts into the more modern texts (https://www.facebook.com/notes/james-dav... or read the complete unabridged version at https://www.facebook.com/notes/james-dav...). Saying that since government did not create marriage...that God alone created marriage...they then argue why should government have a right to define marriage.

And they are right up to a point, however, these same people forget that it works both ways...both ways as in why then should they be allowed to demand that the government define marriage as to their beliefs, in this case being strictly between one man and one women. These are the very people...the very vocal people...who want government completely out of their religion yet they have no problem whatsoever in inserting their religion into government...in fact they relish in it.

Also, what these people refuse to accept is that the entire concept of same-sex marriage is simply based upon legalities as per the Constitution not on religion. And the fact is that the Constitution does not forbid same-sex marriage nor does it condone same-sex marriage as the Constitution does not mention marriage at all nor does the Constitution address what we call issues of 'morality' more commonly known as the social issues. Therefore, logic would dictate that the federal government..that the Supreme Court...should not be adjudicating any decisions whatsoever on the issue of same-sex marriage...that this is an issue that must go back to the individual states to decide even though each state has its own individual requirements concerning people who marry. In fact, after the 'Defense of Marriage Act' became law in 1996, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that, “By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States.”

But, unfortunately, thanks to some it seems not to work that way no matter that Thomas Jefferson's basic founding principal of 'separation of church and state' is now colliding with the mindset of the ubber-religious far right who place the religious words of the Bible above the secular rule of law that is the Constitution. And these people forget that while most Americans take marriage to both legally and religiously mean the union of one man and one woman, the fact is that no actual legal definition of the word 'marriage' itself is to be found in any of our founding documents nor is it specifically addressed by any statute. And that is the crux of the ongoing battle currently facing the Supreme Court and very well may be the determining factor in how they rule next month on same-sex marriage.

The issue of same-sex marriage is not new as it has been an ongoing battle of the ubber-religious far right vs. the liberal left ever since a 1993 decision in Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 74 Haw. 530. In tackling the possibility of same-sex marriage in Hawaii, the court decided that the state law restricting legal marriage to individuals of the opposite sex established a sex-based classification, which then would became subject to constitutional scrutiny when challenged on equal protection grounds. And though the court did not recognize a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it did suggest that the state would have a difficult time proving that same-sex couples were not being denied equal protection under the law.

Jumping ahead to 2000, Vermont became the first state to 'legalize' same-sex civil unions...what many refer to as domestic partnerships. In their trying to afford committed same-sex couples some of the legal protections given straight spouses without actually calling it marriage, Vermont took a giant step towards adhering to these all-important words, “All men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”...words laid down in our Declaration of Independence...words that translate into meaning that equal protection under the law is just that...equal for everyone for nowhere in any of our founding documents does it say equal for everyone except gay people.

And legal protections and economic benefits is truly what same-sex marriage is all about...as in the 1400 legal rights afforded to so-called 'traditional' married couples...with the ceremony and marriage certificate being but nice icing on the same-sex wedding cake. Legal protections and economic benefits that cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system...protections and benefits that include all-important tax benefits (the ability to file joint tax returns, etc.); estate planning benefits (involving inheritances, estate and gift taxes, and medical decisions); government benefits (including social security, Medicare, disability, veterans' benefits, and public assistance if need be); employment benefits (receiving insurance through a spouse's employer, deceased and bereavement benefits); medical benefits (hospital visitation rights and medical decision rights); death benefits; family benefits (concerning adoption and divorce); housing and consumer benefits; and other legal benefits dealing with wrongful death, confidential communications, crime victim's recovery benefits, and others.

Now, note that not one of these protections and benefits that legally should, in our opinion, be afforded to committed same-sex couples has anything to do with religious aspects or rites nor do these protections and rights in any way infringe upon the same protections and rights of those who adhere strictly to the Biblical beliefs as to what constitutes a marriage.

And as it stands now even before the upcoming June decision, if a 'married' same-sex couple currently resides in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage...and 26 states already do by court decision, 8 by state legislature, and 3 by popular vote...that couple is entitled to federal benefits under the recent U.S. Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Windsor, with the sole caveat being that certain rules for eligibility will vary by federal agency. And with many agencies looking to the place where the marriage was performed to determine whether same-sex married couples are eligible for said benefits, you can see that same-sex marriage is to some degree already being adjudicated at the state level as per the Constitution.

So when one looks at same-sex marriage as strictly an issue concerning legal rights and NOT an issue concerning or infringing upon religious rites...when one sees same-sex marriage as just another government sanctioned contract of sorts... the legal vs. the Biblical concept of marriage can then clearly be seen as two completely different and separate issues which in turn brings us back full circle to the all-important premise that if you want government out of your religion then you need to keep your religion and your religious beliefs out of government.

Tomorrow, in Part 2 of our series 'God v.The Constitution' the religious angle against same-sex marriage will be discussed and we will point out why the ubber-religious far right is so wrong in their opposition of same-sex marriage.

Op-ed: 
Welcome to 1984...2015...Obama Style 
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on CPR Worldwide Media

Internet access is “too important to let broadband providers be the ones making the rules.” 
- F.C.C. Chairman Mark Wheeler (D)

“The internet is not broken. There is no need to fix it.” - F.C.C. Member Ajit Pai (R)

As expected, yesterday in a straight 3 to 2 party-line vote the F.C.C. (Federal Communications Commission) approved 'Net Neutrality'...as in they approved strict new internet rules, regulations, and governance...allowing Barack HUSSEIN Obama to take a giant step forward in his goal of controlling...of micromanaging...the internet 'super highway.'

In granting the federal government...as in the Obama regime...the authority to regulate internet providers according to the same laws under which public utilities operate...the F.C.C. claims it will NOT seek to impose any new taxes or fees...yeah right...and that the 'Net Neutrality Act' assures that NO content will be blocked by broadband providers...that certain internet pages are NOT given priority over other pages (gee I wonder who will decide those pages...sarcastically said), and that the internet is NOT divided into what the F.C.C. refers to as “pay-to-play fast lanes” for internet and media companies that can afford it while at the same time slowing down “lanes” for everyone else...as in speed up access to Web sites for those that can afford to pay a provider-set extra fee.

And true to government form the F.C.C. plan is long-winded...as witnessed by it being presented to the tune of 332 pages.

And surprise surprise...all three Democrats who voted 'yea' did so by claiming that they had the authority to impose these new regulations under the FDR signed 'Title II of the Federal Communications Act of 1934'...which “regulated interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio”...an act signed decades before the internet existed or was even a glimmer of thought in anybody's mind. Claiming this 'Net Neutrality Act'...like the above said FCA of 1934...applies to today's internet because now, like then, it is an act that strives to make the modern day version of radio and wire...as in the internet...available to all U.S. citizens in a “fast and efficient way” both nationwide and worldwide, and to do so at what the government decides is reasonable charges.

Reasonable charges and even more new regulations...infamous words brought to you by the same Democrats who think ObamaCare's premiums, rules, and their playing doctor, are reasonable and in the public's best interest...sigh...

Now putting the internet in the same regulatory category as the telephone...meaning that internet providers will be reclassified as "common carriers"...this act bans providers from so-called “unjust or unreasonable business practices” saying that high-speed internet providers...including wireless carriers for smartphones and tablets in addition to wired lines...providers like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile...will now have to act in what they...the F.C.C. and the Obama regime...deem to be in the “public interest” when providing a mobile connection to your home or phone. Also, this act claims it will make it illegal...as in criminal...for companies to slow down the streaming of videos, games, and other online content going out over their networks.

Again becoming the government's and the government's alone decision as to what is in the best “public interest.” So much for free enterprise and such...so much for investment possibilities, innovation, and the wishes of the public...the wishes of 'We the People'...to decide what is or is NOT in our best interest.

And if truth be told this 'Net Neutrality' nonsense all came about on the federal level...where else...because of a January 2014 decision by the ubber left D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that did away with key elements of the F.C.C.'s previous NOT as strict 'Open Internet' proposals. And of course Obama relished in this decision and pushed hard for it to be passed in his personally sanctioned guise of this so strict, so over-regulated, 'Net Neutrality Act.'

Over-regulated puts it mildly and while the F.C.C. says they will NOT...at this point in time anyway...get involved in pricing decisions...as in initiating or pushing for new tariffs or taxes...or in how individual companies manage their networks...know that will NOT last long as this government loves NOTHING better than to be involved in every aspect of our lives including how and where we spend our hard-earned dollars. Thankfully, Republicans in Congress have vowed to first, continue their argument that neither the F.C.C. nor Obama should get to decide how to regulate the internet as such a power should be afforded to Congress...and second, some Republicans are pushing 'Open-Internet' legislation that would supersede the F.C.C. rules. And while these new regulations will soon...as required by law...be published in the Federal Register and will become effective 60-days after publication...many Republicans feel this act will NOT survive judicial scrutiny and will result in numerous law suits. In fact, AT&T, Comcast, Cox Communications, and Verizon, are (rightfully) revving up to challenge the new rules in court.

And if this 'Net Neutrality Act' in and of itself was NOT bad enough, in conjunction with this vote, the Democratic majority voted to override current state laws to prevent community-run broadband networks in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, from expanding their geographic reach, thus preventing these locally managed networks from being able to compete with the larger cable and telecom companies. And this translates into what amounts to the F.C.C. unconstitutionally meddling in state's affairs...shades of Obama's loving to put the federal government's wishes...to put his personal wishes...above what are the all-critical, all-important, constitutionally mandated 'state's rights.'

And how will this disaster in the making affect 'We the People' both in a general sense and on the individual level...beyond the as expected 'Big Brother is Watching You' aspect. Simply stated, 'Net Neutrality' hinders and/or completely negates commonplace safety practices unless specifically excluded, provides too many loopholes for unethical exploits and practices to happen, and cannot in any way keep up with continuously improving and changing internet technology updates.

Also, 'Net Neutrality'...as passed...seems to have eliminated 'unbundling' (rules requiring service providers to lease out their lines on fair and nondiscriminatory terms)...translating into real service competition, like that which happened in the early days of the internet, to become a thing of the past.  Also at issue is how this act will specifically address ISP interconnection practices that are deemed "unjust and unreasonable." And lest we forget the important issue of how will the F.C.C. address consumer complaints as to what is “unjust and unreasonable”...would it be on a case-by-case basis that could result in litigation and law suits that could drag on for years at a huge expense to all concerned. And know in the end that it, as always, will be our taxpayer dollars that will have to pay for all this.

So when all is said and done 'Net Neutrality' is but another way for the federal government...for the Obama regime...to regulate free speech on the internet most especially opposing political speech...to control the free flow of uncensored information...and to keep records of what each person looks at, searches for, and gains access too.

Again, welcome to 1984...2015...Obama style.