Is There A Pot Of Gold At The End Of This Rainbow?

rainbow dollar sign   So of course the big national news this week, is the Supreme Court of the United States, has decided that same-sex marriage is protected by the U.S. Constitution.  And man I just don’t care anymore!  Look I was once the type of conservative who felt I was right on this issue, and that homosexuality was a sin, and it would lead to the destruction of our society, and mankind in general.

I based this on my religious views, and to be honest, on the views of those around me. I felt it was my duty, as a conservative, to protect the sanctity of marriage at all cost, that my belief, that marriage was only between a man and a woman, was the only truth.

Let me say, I still feel that marriage is only between a man and a women in the eyes of God, that is my view. I still believe that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God.

supreme court The SCOTUS decision does nothing to change that, this is exactly why every person of faith must insist upon a complete, and undeniable separation of church and state. Let there be not the slightest thread of a connection, in either direction, beyond what each person brings from within themselves.

I am still waiting for someone from the religious right to explain how this will affect anyone but homosexuals. Well of course divorce lawyers must be holding parties all around the nation today, since this will create a whole new customer base for them.

Look, even though as a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, it is not my sin. Sin is an individual sport friends. Each person make a personal decision that causes them to sin. And just because I know a sinner, does not make me a sinner.  Just because I witness a sin, does not make me a sinner. And before someone tries the wedding cake argument, just because I sell someone a wedding cake for what I might consider a sinful wedding, does not make me a sinner. (THOUGH I DO DEFEND ANY BUSINESS OWNER’S  RIGHT TO DENY THEIR SERVICES FOR ANY REASON. I AM WRITING THIS IN CAPITAL LETTERS SO THE FRINGE, WHO READ WITH NARROWED EYES, WILL SEE IT.) Selling that cake to a homosexual couple, no more make a person a part of the sin, than it does a drug store sales clerk, who rings up the condom sale.

The SCOTUS decision will not affect my thirty-two year marriage, it will not affect my twenty-three year old daughter who has grown up to be a heterosexual woman. The decision will not affect my personal belief on what is, or is not a sin. My faith is strong enough to weather this decision. This decision will not force anyone to become homosexual.

First of all, the government really has no business being in the wedding business at all, but one of the looming issues for homosexual couples was inheritance. There is no reason a person should not simply be able to leave their possessions to whomever they choose at the end of their life, of course the problem is inheritance taxes. If a man and a woman are married and one dies, the other inherits the property without tax because it is considered shared property. But if a man dies and wants to leave his wealth to his partner, then that wealth is taxed. The easy way to have settled this part of the problem is to stop taxing inheritance altogether. If a person dies and wills their wealth to another person, whoever it may be, then why should there be a tax? After all, that wealth was taxed when the first person acquired it.

Another issue that causes many people concern is the adoption of children. Many believe that only a man and a woman can properly raise children. And again, while I may believe that children need both male and female role models in their lives, I am not sure that a real case can be made that traditional parents have such a stellar track record. After all, how many serial killers, drug addicts, wife beaters, bank robbers, child abusers, and all the rest of society’s troubled souls, were raised by traditional parents? So simply having a male and a female parent is no guarantee that the child will grow up to be a productive member of society. It is far more important that the child be brought up in a safe and loving home.

So, having said all of this, I am honest enough to say that I am happy to be who I am, I am happy that my child is who she is, my faith is strong enough to weather any storm that sin might cast in my path, while I am concerned with the direction of the nation as a whole, I also believe that in the larger scheme of things, it matters very little. My salvation is not based on what another man or woman does, it is my actions, and my actions only, which  I will be judged upon, by God. I would recommend that those who are so concerned with the SCOTUS decision take a long look within and ask themselves, are they prepared to stand before that judge?

I will quote James Madison as the Father of the Constitution,

In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.”

Now, some may be wondering about the title of this post. Well to be honest I am just to lazy to write two post in the same day, and I wanted the rest of the weekend off. The big news locally is the upcoming budget vote in the Delaware General Assembly. The proposed budget has been posted for all to see.   As I have asked before, are all of the social issues being debated and voted on, nothing more than smoke and mirrors, to distract the people from the fact that the state of Delaware is facing nearly a $40 million short-fall?

The 2015 FY State of Delaware Budget is a 304 page document, it was released late on Friday, it will be voted on, I would assume in the wee hours of Tuesday night, into Wednesday morning. After all, Delaware has a constitutionally mandated balanced budget. (okay right here everyone should imagine a 1950s style laugh track playing in the background!)

So, that gives the members of the General Assembly four whole days to digest the 304 pages of mind numbing material. The truth is, all that most of them will do, is scan through the sections that should include their pet funding to make sure it got into the budget as promised. No matter the level of intelligence of the individual legislator, there is no way they can possibly read and understand and weigh the consequences of each of the items held within this document in so short a time.  And these are the people who are supposed to be in charge of putting it together and voting on it. Now imagine the average citizen trying to comb through this minefield of double speak and numbers. By the way, the average citizen also only has four days to review and, if they actually find some troubling funding held within, only four days to contact their Representative and Senator, and convince them to attempt to change it. (Cue the laugh track here!) 

I quote James Madison,

    “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
  I know I quote Madison a lot, but when talking of the foundation of this nation, go to the source.
  Just one simple example from this years budget, and granted it is taken out of context of the entire document, but judge for yourself,

“Section 348. Section 1 of this Act makes an appropriation to Public Education, Department of Education

(95-01-01) for Scholarships and Grants. Of that amount, $36.7 shall be used for the Herman M. Holloway, Sr. Scholarship program per the provisions of 14 Del. C. c. 34; $305.0 shall be used for the FAME Scholarship program; $50.0 shall be used for the MERIT Scholarship program; $275.0 shall be used for the Professional

Librarian/Archives Incentive program; $64.2 for the Charles L. Hebner Scholarship; $125.0 for Critical Teacher Scholarships; $250.0 for Delaware Teacher Corps; $20.0 for the Washington Center for Internships; and $20.0 for the Democracy Project Washington D.C. winter session fellows program. Any funds excluding the Herman Holloway, Sr. Scholarship program remaining after payment to the prescribed Scholarships and Grants provided in this appropriation may be awarded to students with financial need who applied to the Scholarship Incentive Program

(SCIP). Any Herman M. Holloway, Sr. Scholarship program funds remaining after payment of the Holloway

Scholarships may be awarded to Delaware State University students with financial need who applied to SCIP. “

  So, this section appears on page 299 of the 304 page budget document. Just how may of the legislators do you suppose will get this far in four days?
  This is just one small example, but notice the reference to state code. For our legislators to actually be doing there jobs correctly, would require them to be reading this document and reading the reference material, and weighing the cost benefit, and whether or not this document actually follows the law.
  I am sorry, and I may be underestimating some or all of our legislators, but I find it hard to believe that this is happening at all, or if so, on a very small scale and number of legislators.
  The larger question, and problem for myself is, the average citizen has little chance of understanding all of the nuances of this document, and really no chance to lobby their elected officials about that which they do.
  So I ask my question once again, have we been distracted for all these years over social issues while elected officials play the proverbial shell game with our tax dollars? Have we allowed them to wait until the last moment to push through the important business of spending our hard-earned money in a matter of four days, when we have allowed them to spend months talking about same-sex marriage, and marijuana?
  Delaware is but a mini-me version of what goes on at the Federal level, it is time that conservatives, and liberals alike, realize that it may not be the opposing ideology that is really the problem here, but is actually the fact that we have allowed our personal wants and desire to blind us to what has been going on right before our very eyes.
  So to tie this in a pretty little rainbow bow. Unless there is a pot of gold at the end of that Gay Pride Rainbow to pay for all of the things in this years budget, the people of Delaware had better get involved and demand real accountability from their elected officials.
 (Cue laugh track and fade to black!)


18 Comments on "Is There A Pot Of Gold At The End Of This Rainbow?"

  1. Geezer says:

    So let me get this straight, you want to save money — a pittance, really, if those dollar amounts are in thousands — by taking scholarships away from worthy students? How commendable of you.

  2. Frank Knotts says:

    OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD OH MY GOD OH MY GOD OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Geezer, my point had nothing to do with taking money away from anyone, can no one read without their built in bias and agenda?
    The point was that the document is too complicated and large for anyone to be able to do their due diligence and read and understand it in four days, and that the people have no chance to communicate with their elected officials. let me just say once more, OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD OH MY GOD OH MY GOD OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. Jaded Observer says:

    Frank Knotts wrote:

    (THOUGH I DO DEFEND ANY BUSINESS OWNER’S RIGHT TO DENY THEIR SERVICES FOR ANY REASON. I AM WRITING THIS IN CAPITAL LETTERS SO THE FRINGE, WHO READ WITH NARROWED EYES, WILL SEE IT.) Selling that cake to a homosexual couple, no more make a person a part of the sin, than it does a drug store sales clerk, who rings up the condom sale.

    Frank, perhaps you’re not old enough to remember the signs in the windows of restaurants all over the South: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” That meant, no black people here. And it was enforced. So many brave people went to jail for nonviolently violating these signs. They were called sit-ins. That was the face of blatant segregation.

    So now you’re willing to revive this terrible phrase under the cover of religious liberty?

    What’s the difference here?

  4. Honi Soit says:

    Frank: Let’s say two obviously gay men go into a mattress store looking to make a purchase. Let’s further say that the business is named Sleep Cheap Mattresses, that it’s located in Dover and that the salesperson is named David Anderson. David feels he surely would be abetting abominable ungodly behavior if he sold them one of his mattresses, and he tells him so before sending them packing.

    Not that our David would do that–but if he did, then that’s perfectly OK in your book?

  5. Frank Knotts says:

    Honi, at the risk of being taken down the rabbit hole, yes. I have stated many times that I feel that the “OWNER” of a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone. In your scenario you said David was the salesperson, in that case he would be subject to what the OWNER wanted.
    For me it is a property rights issue. And to save you time in asking the race question, yes I think that a black owner should have the right to refuse service to an Asian couple. A business owner should have a right to ruin his business in any way they see fit. If they choose to limit their customer base strictly to people who look like them, think like them, and mate like them, then I think in today’s world they will be out of business in short order. I also think it is better to let the racist and bigots show exactly who they are so we can avoid supporting them.
    But back to the homosexual question, I would say that the person who thinks that selling a mattress to a homosexual couple, somehow incorporates them into the sinful act, needs to study the Bible more from the perspective of God’s word, and not from the perspective of other men’s interpretation of that word.
    Sorry Jaded, I did not see your comment, but I think this answers your question as well.

  6. delacrat says:


    So you think property rights trump civil rights ?

  7. Frank Knotts says:

    This may blow your mind Delacrat, but property rights are civil rights.

  8. Frank Knotts says:

    “Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” James Madison

  9. delacrat says:


    According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal for public accommodations to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

    Anyone who “DEFEND[S] ANY BUSINESS OWNER’S RIGHT TO DENY THEIR SERVICES FOR ANY REASON” is over a half century behind the times.

  10. Geezer says:

    You chose the example, not me. Your inability to reason or argue clearly are not my fault.

  11. Jaded Observer says:

    To follow up on your honest response to Honi (and me), how does a person who, in Honi’s example, know that the business will just throw them out because they are, in this case, homsexual (or so they seem)? Once this thing gets rolling, I the customer am now really nervous about going into ANY local business (the chains are likely to be okay) because I don’t want to be humiliated in this way.

    Would you have a problem with some of us (probably many of us) picketing the store that does this to a cusomter? How about, in Honi’s example, a “nap-in” at the mattress store, where we enter as a group and lie down on every mattress in the place?

    We’re nonviolent, of course. When the store owner calls the cops and has us arrested, we’ll go peacefully. And as soon as the premises are cleared, more of us will show up. And so on.

    Frank, this happened in the Civil Rights era, where sit-ins happened in Woolworths all over the South. The result was scarifying to the entire community. Those who were arrested took it as a badge of honor. The business owners were hurt, badly, because it was clear that their policies were deeply and morally offensive to a large swath of people who believed in equality of treatment regardless of (in this case) skin color.

    You’ve got a real problem here, Frank. The Public Accommodations laws are a great excuse for any small retail business to just shrug and say, “well, I had to let them in, otherwise I’ll get sued or worse.”

    Do you really want to say to your neighbors that you dislike them that much?

  12. mouse says:

    Not a good week for the bitter clinger crowd. Obama is going to lock you in FEMA camps and make you read science books next, be afraid, be very afraid. Stay in your shelter with your guns lol.

  13. mouse says:

    But hey, you can celebrate that the SCOTUS supported your side allowing more mercury contamination for your kids to consume rather than have the fossil fuel monopoly use cleaner sources as the EPA wanted to do, Congrads!

  14. Jaded Observer says:

    Frank, still waiting for your response to my second posting.

  15. Frank Knotts says:

    Sorry Jaded, your second comment slipped through, sometimes comments go to my trash file.
    No I have no problem with civil disobedience. I think MLK and Gandhi were great men.
    They changed the world. They changed it so much that I don’t believe the people who would discriminate are the majority, or even a large minority. I am different than my parents and my daughter is light years from her grandparents. Are there still people who would discriminate? Yes. But they would be ostracized in today’s society, I believe that the dollar would motivate them to remain hidden rather than risk boycotts.
    Laws will never change people, only love and respect can do that, and we teach that to our children and pass it forward. You can pass all the laws you want, but until people truly believe in equality there will be none. I say let the haters self identify and then ruin them by not supporting them. How many racist are supported today by black dollars because the are hidden behind the law?

  16. delacrat says:

    Frank sez “…MLK and Gandhi were great men. They changed the world.”

    and “Laws will never change people, only love and respect can do that, and we teach that to our children and pass it forward. You can pass all the laws you want, but until people truly believe in equality there will be none.”


    MLK and Gandhi changed the world by getting laws, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed,
    they did not wait “until people truly believe in equality”.

  17. Frank Knotts says:

    Delacrat, the laws never would have been changed if the hearts of enough people had not been changed first. It was the sight of fire hoses and dogs being turned on children and women. The systemic racism of the south was broadcast into the homes of average people who could no longer ignore what was happening. The average white person did not hate black people, but until enough of them were willing to say so publically, there was no political will do change the laws. The civil disobedience of MLK and others brought attention to the plight of the black people.

  18. mouse says:

    Low class whites have always seen blacks as someone to kick around

Got something to say? Go for it!