Tue, 30 Jun 2020 16:04:40 -0700WeeblyFri, 30 Aug 2013 22:29:59 GMThttp://www.williamsharer.com/donate/why-do-the-progressives-fear-the-debateWhy do progressives fear the debate? 

Yesterday I was silent.  No radio or TV interviews.  No web postings, not even any discussions about marriage outside my team.  Then a funny thing happened – hate mail from around the country started flooding in.  I was surprised.   I expect love letters from the “open minded and tolerant” when I publicly engage people in political debates.  However, I had done nothing to solicit so much open-minded and tolerant love as I received yesterday.

I expect and even want criticism of my positions.  While I sometimes receive encouragement to “make love” to myself, I often find flaws in my arguments.  These discoveries then help guide me.  If I find a fatal flaw, I change my position. However, if I am satisfied that I am still correct then I strengthen my position by repairing the flawed argument.  This seems like a reasonable – even open-minded – stance to take in political debate.

So what happened yesterday, I erred.  I forgot that deceitful propaganda disguised as journalism is as old as marriage.  I assumed I was speaking to a legitimate journalist who was interested in telling his readers the story.  Oh, foolish me.  As a westerner (from a western state) I sometimes misidentify eastern rattlesnakes.  I was bitten.  The interesting thing is that virtually nothing that was written about me is true. 

So the question arises, why would a political assassin take a shot at me?  I am willing to engage in the debate even if I lose, so why is the other side so fearful of the debate?  They seem to have all the advantages, the media, powerful politicians, organization.     So why the fear me?

I encourage you to read what I actually wrote, not the deceit of those who seem to fear honest and open debate on the big issues of our day.  Visit the blog the page and read the unfiltered truth.
]]>Wed, 28 Aug 2013 21:42:37 GMThttp://www.williamsharer.com/donate/does-the-statelicense-loveIf marriage is truly only about love and commitment, as our Attorney General has stated, then he is absolutely right, homosexuals are being denied the right of certification of their love.  However, if love and commitment are the ONLY parts of marriage then: 1) The state has no compelling interest in marriage; therefore it should stay out of marriage, 2) The state cannot verify love; therefore it should not certify and license love.  An honest Supreme Court would throw out ALL marriage laws and benefits simply based on the premise that there is NO compelling reason for the state to be involved.

If, however, there is a procreative value to marriage then the state has a compelling interest.  The interest is in organizing society to insure those that create new life care for that life at minimal expense and maximum benefit to society in general.  New human life can ONLY be created through the union of one man and one woman.  No other combination can create new human life.  On the other hand when a man and a woman join new human life can be created, even when it is not desired and even when it is unlikely. 

So either there is no interest by the state what-so-ever or the state has an interest in one man one woman unions.

I have a constitutional right to be a doctor, but I don’t have the right to have the state certify and license my medical practice unless I meet the verifiable requirements.  Just because I have some knowledge and may even help many people, if the state cannot verify my credentials I do not have a constitutional right to a state license.  

Homosexual couples, by their very existence, self-identify as not having the procreative value that is one of the vital components of marriage.
]]>Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:25:55 GMThttp://www.williamsharer.com/donate/who-makes-the-lawsThe Dona Ana County Clerk’s actions should offend the senses of everyone.

In a nation of laws governed by a constitution, the legislators are the duly elected lawmakers.  But even the legislators must have the consent of the executive.  A county clerk simply should not be allowed to create law out of thin air.

There is a way to change the law – little dictators should not be allowed to act as the sole lawgiver in a free society.  My opposition to the County Clerk is based on the simple fact that he is not the dictator.  He cannot change the law of New Mexico.  Read past the first sentence and you will see that the law, as actually written, uses the terms male and female, bride and groom, and husband and wife.

If the law needs to be changed then use the process.  Even those that disagree with me on the issue should be in mortal fear of this way of changing laws.  Soon we may find a county official who declares the death penalty is legal in New Mexico and begins hanging those he feels are guilty.   Be careful of the way we make these decisions.

This is not about marriage – This is about who makes the law.
]]>Fri, 23 Aug 2013 20:24:25 GMThttp://www.williamsharer.com/donate/why-marriageHumanity's very foundation of ‘being’ is rooted with the bond between man and woman.

Archaeology shows the importance of the family unit working together as the first and most basic unit of human cooperation.  There is overwhelming evidence that the unit of ‘mom, dad and children’ has been encouraged from the earliest pre-written record.  The union between one man and one woman was the first and most lasting definition of marriage.

Marriage did not originate from either the state or any religion, and neither has the legitimate authority to change its nature. 

Marriage may have been used for various power and control purposes at various times and by various cultures – but for the average person the basics of marriage have always been about moms, dads and children.

Confucius (551 – 479 BC) – A pre-Christian philosopher said:

“Other things may change – but we start and end with family”

“A married couple is the basic unit of the population.  The very purpose of marriage is the cultivation of virtue.”  

“Virtue is rooted in love between husband and wife.”

Confucius identified 5 human bonds:

                             Ruler – subject

                             Father – son

                             Husband – Wife

                             Elder – younger

                             Friend – Friend

Each of these bonds had specific duties and benefits.  Only the bond between husband and wife included sex.  Procreation through the natural acts of men and women is the unique aspect of marriage.

These 5 bonds were the very foundation of Chinese law for almost 2500 years – marriage of one man and one woman is not a new concept.  In fact, it is probably the oldest concept in human history.

Alexander the Great’s - View of Marriage

Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) married a Bactrian woman – modern day Afghanistan.  Alexander may have engaged in homosexual activity, but he married a woman.

He directed his officers to stop “whoring” around and find a local woman to marry.

WHY?

BECAUSE

“It is only through blood relations that hatred and war will end”.  In other words, Alexander the Great thought that marriage was about creating and raising the next generation.  

This is the reason for Marriage – 

The creation and raising of children who have the best chance to grow to be peaceful, responsible citizens.

Aristotle – Another pre-Christian philosopher

Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) – teacher and mentor to Alexander, disagreed with Alexander’s directive to his officers.  Aristotle felt strongly that ONLY Greeks had the virtues necessary to handle the freedoms Greeks had know for a century.  Non-Greeks were less than fully human and the marrying of Greeks and non-Greeks would weaken the virtues of Alexander and his army. --- Notice that Aristotle thought that marriage was about men and women making babies.

Aristotle fully believed that marriage, between Greeks, was fundamental for civilization – marriage between a Greek man and a Greek woman to make virtuous Greek babies.  It was only with virtuous Greek babies that Greek civilization could succeed.

Further, Aristotle wrote in his book “Ethics” (350 BC) that women must rule the family.  The family trained the young and disciplined the rest so they would behave ethically in society.  In modern speak – if momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.

Through out Aristotle’s writing his references to family were always about mom, dad, children and grandparents.  Marriage has always been about raising children.

Indigenous peoples of the Americas

Marriage was a well established system long before any Bible totin’ Christian ever walked on this continent. 

When Pocahontas married John Rolfe in April 1614, the concept of marriage was familiar to both.  The story of Pocahontas and John Smith is famous but she actually married John Rolfe.  This marriage was both for love and peace between the Powhatan Indians and the English at Jamestown.  Notice Alexander’s concept of blood relations ending hatred. 

The Navajo have a maternal clan system.  Since the beginning of time Navajo’s have married from the mother’s clan for the father’s clan.  Notice that this system is based on men and women making Navajo babies.

Nowhere in Native American tradition has marriage been anything but the joining of men and women. – Although some tribes did allow some leaders to have multiple wives.

Marriage is not a Christian concept

What happens if we forget our history, traditions and common sense?

What happens if we forget our underlying foundation for existence?

If we wanted to purposefully establish a culture of poverty and violence we would work to arrange for most children to be born to single teenage mothers with little or no family support.  -- Oh wait, that is exactly what we have done.

Now we seem to be surprised that there is poverty and violence in our culture.  Worse we spend enormous amounts of taxpayer funds to battle these phenomena.

This is why the state has a compelling interest in defining marriage.  We are taking money from one set of citizens to address the problems another set created.  This in itself is not a problem, but the fact that we have a real solution to the problem and we are intentionally ignoring this solution is a problem.  Marriage as the union of one man and one women is the solution.

Do we have the right to define our culture?

In 1912 with the entrance of New Mexico as a full and equal partner in the Union we addressed the issue of how to define our culture.  We intentionally put into our states constitution a ban on polygamy (Article XXI, Sec 1).

The founders felt strongly that defining culture was their duty.  They insisted that we have a way to amend our constitution.  They insisted on proportionate representation so the voice of the people could be heard.  The 10th Amendment to the constitution states:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”.  Clearly meaning, that we have the right to define our culture.

With all that said:

          I know that many single mom’s raise great kids who are “virtuous” and good citizens, but they are by far the exception.

          There are many “walking wounded” who have been lead down the primerose path and now suffer from the effects of allowing our culture to wonder aimlessly over the abyss.  

For those we should:  Stop this cultural slide 

Help them recover

Set the foundation of family

Work to pass laws that strengthen families

Develop social systems to support families

Allow for the differences between men and women

  

Marriage is important because it is the foundation of the family, the family of society.  Marriage is a personal relationship with massive public significance. 

Sex between a man and a woman produces babies – society needs babies – babies need both moms and dads

As marriage goes, so go the children, so goes the nation, so goes the world.

This is a simple foundational move.  Defining marriage as virtually everyone on every continent and in every culture has always defined it.

Marriage in New Mexico is between one man and one woman, period.
]]>