Gov't should focus on running the country, not personal lives

Is it acceptable to set a New Year's resolution weeks after the New Year began?

Not that it matters; I've resolved to do something that every liberty-loving American should do: read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence at least once a year.

My renewed zeal for these documents was born of the upcoming GOP primary. I've taken a special interest, since I'd like to see President Barack Obama replaced come November.

I haven't decided upon a candidate, but in my research, I've had to weed through morality business to get to the issues I believe candidates should pay most attention to: Economy, infrastructure, education and taxes.

I expected it.

Republican candidates are known for stumping on family values and amendments banning abortion and same-sex marriages, even though a candidate's stance on these issues doesn't indicate how well he'll lead the country.

Yet, here we are. I'm flabbergasted that people fighting tooth and nail to become the leader of our great country could so terribly misconstrue its basic charters. Granted, they're not fun to read, but before we support amendments, we have to understand these documents and the historical context in which they were written.

Hence my resolution. I've since read each document, including the Bill of Rights, and I feel confident saying amendments banning abortion and same-sex marriages are unconstitutional.

Before you call or write, sit down and read. I'm not being flippant or liberal. These documents were written for specific purposes: The Declaration of Independence to outline the rights of oppressed states to overthrow a tyrant, including a list of all the bad stuff King George III did; the Constitution to define the responsibilities and parameters of the three branches of government, and the Bill of Rights to define the rights of citizens and to further limit Congress in an attempt to avoid future tyranny.

They are not meant to be standards of morality.

If you need further proof, read up on Prohibition, meant to abolish alcohol abuse to preserve the sanctity of family and the home. Sound familiar? For thirteen years, the sale, manufacturing and transportation of alcohol was prohibited, and nearly 80 years later, we're still dealing with the fallout. Prohibition didn't result in a more sober society; it fostered bootleg liquor, organized crime and a jump in costs for law enforcement and prisons. The only good to come from Prohibition, in my humble, redneck opinion, is NASCAR.

The biggest morality argument facing our nation is the legalization of abortion. On Monday, pro-lifers gathered in Washington D.C. to pray and rally to overturn Roe vs. Wade. But before that can happen, we have to get on the same page concerning the death penalty and assisted suicide as well.

I believe abortion is murder, but, in this country, the death penalty is a legal form of punishment, and it's shocking to find many pro-lifers - candidates included - who support the death penalty. It's hypocritical. And why can a woman abort an unborn child, but an adult child cannot help a terminally ill parent peacefully end her own life?

Some believe abortion should be banned in the Constitution because it violates a soon-to-be human the right to life and liberty - a constitutional right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. But, if we're going that route, any amendment defining marriage between a man and woman only violates the right to life and liberty of homosexuals and polygamists (not counting the ones who force children into marriage, but that's another column).

Even if same-sex marriage becomes legal in all states, it doesn't mean those who find it immoral or sinful have to change their minds; it just means those who want to partake in such a union can do so.

Like my best friend, Nikki, says, if you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.

But setting a law defining marriage by the conservative right's standards, i.e. Christian marriage, would pass a law establishing religion, which violates the First Amendment. It's also presumptive and rude because not everyone thinks like the right wing. Like it or not, not everyone in this country is Christian. Our founding fathers were Christian, however, they were careful to keep all mention of God from our originating documents. It's often pointed out that inalienable rights are endowed to men by "their creator," but in the paragraph prior, the Declaration of Independence mentions "the laws of nature and nature's God." Does that mean we are a pagan country?

We don't need a government that sets standards for morality as if we are children; we need a government that can follow a budget, cut unnecessary spending, take care of infrastructure and stay out of the average citizen's way while he or she lives life. God doesn't need a Constitution anyway; He has the Holy Spirit.

(Nicolov is an assistant editor at The News-Item and writes "Don't Get Me Started" for each Friday edition. Contact her at julie_n@newsitem.com)

Sign up for Text Alerts

Sign up for e-mail newsletters