7/6/15
No surprise! The Supreme Court ruled recently by a predicted 5 to 4 margin (RNR#9), that state laws banning "gay marriage" were unconstitutional, and that "marriage" now must allow men to marry men, and women to marry women! No matter that this overturns a definition as old as mankind itself. Or that all through history on occasion men have lived with men, and women with women! Hmm!! I wonder why such associations in the past were not considered "marriages??"
Hey! I wonder if it is not motivated by a concern to get your "married" spouse on your health insurance?? Or to claim them as a deduction on your tax statement? After all, I have heard of no medical breakthrough that will allow such common gender marriages to procreate children!! Thus it seems to me that a nation of all gay marriages will die out, unless.... there might be some secret agreement between a female couple and a male couple to "cooperate" somehow so that a new life could be brought into existence!
In fact, I am so curious, I await an explanation by someone in the know who will explain just how the human race can continue in such an environment!!
Meanwhile, we need to return to the Davy Crockett and Horation Bunce meeting that we started last week. Recall that Davy had agreed with fellow congressmen to allocate a sum of $20,000 to several burned out families in Washington D.C. Meeting with Bunce later, he received a lecture about giving away money that "Was Not His to Give." Money that could easily have been taken from people less well off than the burned out recipients.
(In complete agreement with this conclusion, I remember several "burned out families," including my own on the Prairie that received no help from a national legislature!)
Bunce continued "If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all..., and any amount you may think is proper." And he added, "You will easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism..." Concluding, he said, "No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much as they please but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose." And he added, "So Colonel, I cannot vote for you!"
Needless to say, Crockett was stunned by the lecture and the logic behind it, so a further reading of the account published years ago by the Foundation for Economic Education in New York will tell you that Crockett convinced Bunce to gather his neighbors together, at which time he admitted his mistake and promised not to repeat it. Consequently, elected again in the coming election, Crockett returned to Congress, and very soon had his promise put to the test. A bill before the legislature proposed a substantial pension for the widow of a deceased war hero. Rising in opposition, Crockett essentially repeated the Bunce argument, and proposed instead that each member of the house donate to a fund of about the same size. 
You guessed it! The very men who were so willing to donate out of the public treasury were not willing to donate an equal amount from their own pockets, though the account said that most were wealthy and could easily have done so with no problem!! Hmm!!!
Do we find this strange, or does it make sense!!! And is there a valuable lesson here?
Jake Wren

Home

Classified Ads