I’ll Tell You What…

I must not be in a very good mood as far as politics go. I just came across an interesting article . It seems that there is a photograph in the War Remnants Museum (formerly the “War Crimes Museum”) in Saigon that honors Sen John Kerry “as a hero in their victory over the United States in the Vietnam War”. Very interesting.

Here’s a quote:

In the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum (formerly known as the “War Crimes Museum”) in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), a photograph of John Kerry hangs in a room dedicated to the anti-war activists who helped the Vietnamese Communists win the Vietnam War. The photograph shows Senator Kerry being greeted by the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Comrade Do Muoi.

Extreme Glow

The short-sightedness of some people amazes me. Of course, this is Washington that we’re talking about. In an almost partisan vote, the Senate voted against stopping the filibuster blocking a vote on the Defense of Marriage Act, which would amend the Constitution (click Read More… for the entire Act).

There were 48 YEAS, 50 NAYS and 2 Not Voting. Who were the two not voting? It was none other than Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and John Edwards (D-NC). I suppose campaigning is more important than doing their jobs…

To find out how your senator voted, click Read More… or the Senate web site.

The Defense of Marriage Act

To affirm the Defense of Marriage Act. (Introduced in Senate)

SRES 275 IS

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. RES. 275

To affirm the Defense of Marriage Act.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 25, 2003

Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. SANTORUM, and Mr. ALLARD) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

To affirm the Defense of Marriage Act.

Whereas, marriage is a fundamental social institution that has been tested and reaffirmed over thousands of years;

Whereas, historically marriage has been reflected in our law and the law of all jurisdictions in the United States as the union of a man and a woman, and the everyday meaning of marriage and the legal meaning of marriage has always been defined as the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife;

Whereas, families consisting of the legal union of one man and one woman for the purpose of bearing and raising children remains the basic unit of our civil society;

Whereas, in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled 4 to 3 that the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts prohibits the denial of the issuance of marriage licenses to same -sex couples;

Whereas, the power to regulate marriage lies with the legislature and not with the judiciary and the Constitution of the State Massachusetts specifically states that the judiciary `shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men’; and

Whereas, in 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act under which Congress exercised its rights under the effects clause of section 1 of Article IV of the United States Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the Sense of the Senate–

(1) Congress should take whatever steps necessary to affirm the fact that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman;

(2)(A) same -sex marriage is not a right, fundamental or otherwise, recognized in this country; and

(B) neither the United States Constitution nor any Federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups; and

(3) the Defense of Marriage Act is a proper and constitutional exercise of Congress’s powers under the effects clause of section 1 of Article IV and that no State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

I try to keep an open mind about associating people-tracking devices with end times prophecy but it is interesting to see how advancements in technology resemble such things. This story from Yahoo! News (AP) is one of those technologies.

The President’s radio address on July 10, 2004: Good morning. The United States Senate this past week began an important discussion about the meaning of marriage. Senators are considering a constitutional amendment to protect the most fundamental institution of civilization, and to prevent it from being fundamentally redefined…

This difficult debate was forced upon our country by a few activist judges and local officials, who have taken it on themselves to change the meaning of marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the state’s highest court have ordered the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. In San Francisco, city officials issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. Lawsuits in several states, including New Jersey, Florida, Nebraska, and Oregon, are also attempting to overturn the traditional definition of marriage by court order.

In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act, and President Clinton signed it into law. That legislation defines marriage, for purposes of federal law, as a union between a man and a woman, and declares that no state is required to accept another state’s definition of marriage. Yet an activist court that strikes down traditional marriage would have little problem striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. Overreaching judges could declare that all marriages recognized in Massachusetts or San Francisco be recognized as marriages everywhere else.

When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution — the only law a court cannot overturn. A constitutional amendment should never be undertaken lightly — yet to defend marriage, our nation has no other choice.

A great deal is at stake in this matter. The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and the law can teach respect or disrespect for that institution. If our laws teach that marriage is the sacred commitment of a man and a woman, the basis of an orderly society, and the defining promise of a life, that strengthens the institution of marriage. If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost, and the institution is weakened. The Massachusetts court, for example, has called marriage “an evolving paradigm.” That sends a message to the next generation that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages of moral teaching and human experience have nothing to teach us about this institution.

For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that traditional marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, traditional marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of traditional marriage will undermine the family structure.

On an issue of this great significance, opinions are strong and emotions run deep. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another. All people deserve to have their voices heard. And that is exactly the purpose behind the constitutional amendment process. American democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America.

The process has now begun in the Congress. I urge members of the House and Senate to pass, and send to the states for ratification, an amendment that defines marriage in the United States as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Thank you for listening.

I watched with a strange anticipation as the iTunes counter approached 100 million. Of course, I was also entering the contest via Tell-a-Friend instead of purchasing songs. I probably should have gone to bed hours ago but the thought of missing an opportunity to win a 17″ PowerBook was to great. I doubt if I won but it was fun entering the contest and watching the 100,000,000 mark get passed. Thanks, Apple.

Did you ever get something for no apparent reason whatsoever? It could be from anybody including your wife, mom, dad, kids, friend, etc. It feels strange at first and maybe a little uncomfortable. But after the initial shock is over it feels really good to know that someone loves you. In Romans 5, Paul explains that God gave us something out of the love He has for us: reconciliation…

Reconciliation has to do with relationships and if any of you have been through a divorce or even had a close relationship strained you know that it takes two to mend the relationship. If one of the two has made up their mind to leave then the other can do nothing to change their mate’s mind. Begging or reasoning will be for nothing. On the other hand, if both agree that the relationship is important and worth saving then reconciliation is possible since a bridge still exists between the two. But someone had to take the first step to initiate the process.

Paul says that through Adam a gift was given that has been passed down from generation to generation: sin resulting in death (Romans 5:12, NLT). And this death was the result of people’s sin even though they did not have the law to tell them what God expected of them. Adam did not have the law yet sinned (Romans 5:13-14, NLT) due to his disobedience. So what was the purpose of the law? Verse 20 says, “God’s law was given so that all people could see how sinful they were” (NLT). But it also goes on to say, “But as people sinned more and more, God’s wonderful kindness became more abundant.”

So there is hope for us after all! What happened? Verse 8 tells us, “God showed His great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners.” God took the first step towards reconciliation. What did this death do for those of us who put our faith in the Lord? “And since we have been made right in God’s sight by the blood of Christ, He will certainly save us from God’s judgment. For since we were restored to friendship with God by the death of His Son while we were still His enemies, we will certainly be delivered from eternal punishment by His life” (verses 9-10, NLT).

“So just as sin ruled over all people and brought them to death, now God’s wonderful kindness rules instead, giving us right standing with God and resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (5:21, NLT). We are made right before God (righteous). This is wonderful news indeed. “So now we can rejoice in our wonderful new relationship with God – all because of what our Lord Jesus Christ has done for us in making us friends of God” (verse 11, NLT).

Romans chapter 4 is one of those chapters that I find joy in reading because more than one argument is made to prove a central point: Abraham’s justification through faith. Of course, this chapter is not without controversy so I will make a short point concerning justification through the work of Matthew George Easton…

Salvation through faith alone is one of those topics that seem to cause more rifts in the Body than anything else. Many have broken away from mainstream Christianity to form their own groups because they believe that it takes works alone or work in addition to faith to save the soul. That’s not to say that good works is not necessary. James and our Lord Jesus make it clear that good works will follow those who are truly saved (Matthew 7:15-20, Luke 3:1-14, James 2:14-26).

Matthew George Easton (1823-1894) explains justification better than I ever could in his dictionary, Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition (1897, Thomas Nelson):

a forensic term, opposed to condemnation. As regards its nature, it is the judicial act of God, by which he pardons all the sins of those who believe in Christ, and accounts, accepts, and treats them as righteous in the eye of the law, i.e., as conformed to all its demands. In addition to the pardon (q.v.) of sin, justification declares that all the claims of the law are satisfied in respect of the justified. It is the act of a judge and not of a sovereign. The law is not relaxed or set aside, but is declared to be fulfilled in the strictest sense; and so the person justified is declared to be entitled to all the advantages and rewards arising from perfect obedience to the law (Romans 5:1-10).

It proceeds on the imputing or crediting to the believer by God himself of the perfect righteousness, active and passive, of his Representative and Surety, Jesus Christ (Romans 10:3-9). Justification is not the forgiveness of a man without righteousness, but a declaration that he possesses a righteousness which perfectly and for ever satisfies the law, namely, Christ’s righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 4:6-8).

The sole condition on which this righteousness is imputed or credited to the believer is faith in or on the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith is called a “condition,” not because it possesses any merit, but only because it is the instrument, the only instrument by which the soul appropriates or apprehends Christ and his righteousness (Romans 1:17; 3:25,26; 4:20,22; Philippians 3:8-11; Galatians 2:16).

The act of faith which thus secures our justification secures also at the same time our sanctification (q.v.); and thus the doctrine of justification by faith does not lead to licentiousness (Romans 6:2-7). Good works, while not the ground, are the certain consequence of justification (6:14; 7:6).

From the Concerned Women for America website: “The Human Rights Campaign recently held a press conference to present a new ad campaign telling senators to “stop wasting time debating the Federal Marriage Amendment.” Hear CWA’s Vice-President for Government Relations, Michael Schwartz, as he rips the mask off this homosexual attack.”

Listen to the report now. (mp3 format)

From the Concerned Women for America website: “The National Education Association has honored noted homosexual activist Kevin Jennings. In his own book, Jennings admits that as a teacher he did not report a case of teacher-on-student sexual abuse. Jennings, who now heads the GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, has also taught homosexuality to kindergarteners, and participated in a conference where graphic sexual practices were taught to teens among other notable misdeeds. Bob Knight, director of CWA”s Culture and Family Institute has more.”

Listen to the 3 minute report now. (mp3 format)

I did something I thought I’d never do: I ordered a Mac. It’s funny how things happen like that. You spend years saying you won’t do something and then one day you do it. Let’s see, I said that about working for my dad selling insurance, joining the military, going to college, going through a divorce, living in Massachusetts, having Ted Kennedy as a senator! Yikes! I know there are other things that I can’t remember. My life has been a great big block of irony. Lol.

A friend of mine at work, a fellow system administrator, went to a perl conference last year and noticed that many of the laptops were macs. This was interesting. Some of the heavy hitters in the UNIX development arena used macs. Why? It turns out that today’s Macs run OS X (pronounced “oh ess ten”). Interestingly enough, OS X is built on BSD UNIX technology.

In 1996, Apple bought NeXTStep and incorporated much of their technology into Apple’s development, which turned into Rhapsody. Fast forward to around 2001… There have been four releases of this “modern” operating system: 10.0 (named Cheetah) in March, 2001, 10.1 (named Puma) in September, 2001, 10.2 (named Jaguar) in August, 2002, and 10.3 (named Panther) in October 2003. 10.4 (named Tiger) is expected next year. There are supposed to be some really nice features in that release.

I spent last week at the USENIX Annual Technical Conference in Boston. While I was there I noticed that Apple dominated the laptops of almost all the plenary speakers and all the major names in the Unix and Internet industry including Rob Pike of Google, Eric Allman of Sendmail and Alan Nugent the VP & CTO of Novell. If you don’t know who they are, believe they are big names in the UNIX world. So, last Thursday night I was nosing around the Apple website and came across Steve Jobs’ keynote speech at WWDC where they demoed some of the current features and a handful of applications that are going into OS X Tiger. It just blew my mind. It was then that I decided to buy a Mac.

I should get it in a few weeks from now and will write about it once it’s all hooked up and running. I’m excited about it.