The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Medal Performance

7.9.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 6)

I write as a United States Marine who has drunk his quota of two cans of Budweiser sitting on a 100-degree flight deck on a United States Naval warship floating around the Persian Gulf during a steel beach party. A small part of it was, "damn this cold beer tastes good," but the biggest part purely symbolic, because the main reason that those cans of Budweiser tasted so good was that it tasted of home, it tasted American, those simple red and white cans of Budweiser was a testament of everything that is and will be American. Those two cans represented New York City, Seattle, Portland, and every American city, village and town across our country and it validated at least on a personal level in why I was sitting on that flight deck in the middle of nowhere.

Oh sure my opinion will be scoffed at by the globalists and free market purists, but then again as Americans who cares what the globalists think anyway, come to think of it, they don't even like drinking beer anyway, it isn't considered chic.
-- Melvin Leppla
Jacksonville, North Carolina

I have no problem with InBev buying Anheuser Busch, mainly because AB has squandered an opportunity.

Simply put, AB is the GM of beer companies. They produce mediocre beer and depend on marketing/patriotism to keep sales up.

Their strategy will ultimately fail. Americans are realizing that Budweiser is a boring, bland lager and that Bud Light should have lost the ability to be called "beer" years ago.

AB is on a downhill slope even if they are lucky enough to stay intact. Tricking people into consuming a bad product is not a sound strategy.
-- Brian

IT'S A BEAUTIFUL DAY
Re: Mark Tooley's Swimming in Drag to Help the Poor:

Mark Tooley fails to point out that "ONE: The Campaign to Make Poverty History, launched by Bono of the band U2" is the "perfect" charity for the liberal wing of the United Methodist Church. The campaign does not do anything so mundane as actually give food to the hungry or provide malaria-preventing bed nets in Africa. Rather, ONE lobbies the U.S. government and other governments to tax their people more so that the governments can give more money to the poor or spend more taxpayer money on other schemes to eliminate poverty. If these people actually interacted with the poor they could use that interaction to testify about the riches that come with a life in Christ. They could even model Christ's love. However, by lobbying government instead of actually interacting with the poor, they crowd out those Christians who might provide spiritual sustenance with their material gifts, reducing the likelihood that the poor who are helped will hear the good news of Jesus Christ. Seeing the liberal wing of my church act in that fashion instead of personally showing Christ's love to the world is a lot more irritating than seeing them make fools of themselves by swimming in drag.
-- John Hockert
Albuquerque, New Mexico

It is interesting and reassuring that the churches that support (dare I say, flaunt) gay marriage are suffering declining memberships. Meanwhile, churches that support the "California Marriage Protection Act," such as the Evangelicals, Protestants, Roman Catholics and the Mormons, are growing, or at least, keeping up with the population growth. Fanatics on the left are driving people out of their own churches, it would seem.

There are really three aspects to marriage, in my opinion - spiritual, legal and religious. The spiritual aspect is between the two people that are married. Despite the recent emergence of "thought crime" (also called hate crime), there really is nothing the government or anyone else can do to control the spiritual thoughts of marriage. What two people united in marriage think and feel about each other and their relationship with God is beyond the control of even the most earnest and zealous bureaucrat, and it is also none of their business.

However, laws can be made that affect the legal rights and "privileges" of married couples. Traditionally, laws have been created to help out those that wish to marry and raise future citizens, since, and I speak from experience, raising children is no way to get rich or live an easy life, but it does help to guarantee the future existence of society. This has been recognized by civilizations for many thousands of years. Hence, today's tax deductions and marriage tax brackets exist to soften the struggle to raise future members of society. Government has a rightful place to control the legal aspects of marriage, as long as our government is of the people and still respects the rights of individuals (thank God for the Constitution!).

Religion is the 3rd aspect to marriage. Religions are groups of people with similar spiritual viewpoints, and they each deploy institutionalized systems of attitudes, beliefs and practices (see Merriam-Webster). They are run by people, and are therefore susceptible to imperfection, but these institutions are protected by the 2nd Amendment. The government may not interfere with a religious groups practices - if a certain religion says that marriage is between a man and a woman, that is there right, and the government may not interfere. Conversely, even if a religion stated that a marriage is only between two men or between two women, the government may not interfere.

I propose a solution to today's marriage political issues. Let states have the right to grant civil unions between any two human beings, regardless of sex. Gay couples in a civil union may enjoy the same legal benefits of marriage as any couple in a more traditional marriage. While the majority of religious people in this country do not believe in gay marriage, most will not vigorously oppose this with one condition: the government must not interfere with the religious rights of any church that does or does not believe in gay marriage, and they must not ever force a church to conduct such a ceremony against their principles, nor may they ban a church from conducting such a ceremony. Also, the government must not deny the right of any individual to have an opinion on gay marriage, and they cannot force one to behave or act in a manner that is against their beliefs.

This solution should stop the antics of the pro-gay marriage crowd, if it was only the legal aspects of marriage that they were interested in. However, I suspect that they will also want to influence our spiritual and religious beliefs, too, and will try to use legal methods to do so. Perhaps a new constitutional amendment on gay marriage, as outlined above, is needed to protect the rights of everybody on both sides of this issue?
-- Mike Spencer
Missouri City, Texas

WILL O'THE IRISH
Re: Doug Bandow's The Irish Exception:

Letter to the Editor

topics:
John McCain, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Economics, Business, Religion, Global Warming, Constitution, Law, Military, Russia, European Union, NATO, Africa, Unions