Author Archives: MzEllen

• 2 Comments

•

This one should be a no-brainer

Proposal 06-4
A proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit government from taking private property by eminent domain for certain private purposes

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

  • Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue
  • Provide that if an individual's principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125% of property's fair market value
  • Require government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking is for a public use; if taken to eliminate blight, require a higher standard of proof to demonstrate that the taking of the property is for a public use
  • Preserve existing rights of property owners

• 3 Comments

•

I found this here...

1. Your rockstar name (pet & current street name): Simone Emerald

2. Your movie star name (grandfather / grandmother on your mom's side & your favorite candy): Rhea Ghiradelli

3. Your "Fly Guy / Girl" name (first initial of last name, first three letters of your middle name): F Rhe

4. YOUR DETECTIVE NAME: (favorite color, favorite animal): Pink Cat

5.YOUR SOAP OPERA NAME: (middle name, city where you were born): Rhea Lapeer

6. YOUR STAR WARS NAME: (the first 3 letters of your last name, first 2 letters of your first name, first 2 letters of mom's maiden name and first 3 letters of the town you grew up in.) Freelcalap


7. SUPERHERO NAME: ("The", your favorite color, favorite drink): The Pink Espresso

8. NASCAR NAME: (the first name of both your grandfathers): Robert Schley

9. FUTURISTIC NAME: ( the name of your favorite perfume/cologne and the name of your favorite shoes) Chanel Sneakers

10.WITNESS PROTECTION NAME: (mother/father's middle name) Joyce David

•

There's this block of text that is overlapping posts about halfway down the page.

It's not part of a post, because it was overlapping two different posts...

And it looks like it wants to be here for a long time, since it's not moving with the posts it's overlapping!

I don't know what I did...

UPDATE:  The nice person that wordpress.org figured it out!  the text from the article that I linked to had html coding in it that made the text "absolute" in position... 

•

Proposal 06-3
A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 160 OF 2004 – AN ACT TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HUNTING SEASON FOR MOURNING DOVES

Public Act 160 of 2004 would:

  • Authorize the Natural Resources Commission to establish a hunting season for mourning doves.
  • Require a mourning dove hunter to have a small game license and a $2.00 mourning dove stamp.
  • Stipulate that revenue from the stamp must be split evenly between the Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund.
  • Require the Department of Natural Resources to address responsible mourning dove hunting; management practices for the propagation of mourning doves; and participation in mourning dove hunting by youth, the elderly and the disabled in the Department’s annual hunting guide.

Watch this. (Anti 3)

And here is a "pro" article...

I'll probably vote "no" just because I like the birds.

• 3 Comments

•

PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR CONTRACTING PURPOSES

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

• Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by the proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.

• Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)

(Thoughts on this one? One of the things that it would ban is same-sex grade and high schools)

•

PROPOSAL 06-1
A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE THAT MONEY HELD IN CONSERVATION AND RECREATION FUNDS CAN ONLY BE USED FOR THEIR INTENDED PURPOSES

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

• Create a Conservation and Recreation Legacy Fund within the Constitution and establish existing conservation and recreation accounts as components of the fund.
• Use current funding sources such as state park entrance and camping fees; snowmobile, ORV and boating registration fees; hunting and fishing license fees; taxes and other revenues to fund accounts.
• Establish the current Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Nongame Fish and Wildlife Fund within the Constitution.
• Provide that money held in Funds can only be used for specific purposes related to conservation and recreation and cannot be used for any purpose other than those intended.

Should this proposal be adopted?

The Detroit Free Press says :

It would protect forever the license and user fees people pay for activities such as fishing, hunting, camping and snowmobiling to make sure the money is used only for recreation and conservation.

The measure would convert 13 existing accounts under the Department of Natural Resources into three constitutionally protected, raid-proof funds. In his last term, Gov. John Engler's administration took $7.8 million from the Waterways Fund to balance the state budget. The proposal is to prevent that from happening again.

As a camper, I know that one of my favorite state campgrounds has doubled their camping fee - this year.  And that the money I pay for camping and entrance fees are being used elsewhere.

Also, a few years ago one of our governers raided the school employee's pension fund and ended his term with a balanced budget...this should not happen.

If funds are supposed to be protected, they should be protected.  I think I'll vote yes on this one.

• 91 Comments

•

From jswranch, is a comment on this post that begins with a statement "...before we can begin to look at something like annulments, we have to understand marriage is indissolveable. If it is dissolveable, the whole annulment thing is bunk. Is marriage dissolveable?"

I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.

But does this mean that it cannot be dissolved? What does the Bible say?

First, what is a covenant? Strong's says, b@riyth {ber-eeth'},
1) covenant, alliance, pledge
..a) between men
....treaty, alliance, league (man to man)
....constitution, ordinance (monarch to subjects)
....agreement, pledge (man to man)
....alliance (of friendship)
....alliance (of marriage)
..b)between God and man
....alliance (of friendship)
....covenant (divine ordinance with signs or pledges)
2)(phrases)
..a) covenant making
..b) covenant keeping
..c) covenant violation

Covenants are not meant to be broken, but can they be?

Between men (or - in the case of marriage - a man and a woman) can treaties be broken, or agreements between monarchs and subjects? Obviously, treaties are broken nearly every day. Between humans, covenants can be broken.

(NOTE: Before the next accusation comes, this does not mean that I think they should be; I do not. Repeat: I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.)

If we take the stand that marriage covenants cannot be broken, then divorce cannot happen. Or, at the very least, breaking a covenant in order to divorce would be a sin and that puts God in the difficult position of regulating (and not prohibiting) sin (Search the Levitical Law). Levitical priests were the only men who were prohibited from marrying divorced women, and they were also prohibited from marrying widows.

We know that covenants have terms.

Can a Covenant be broken? Can a divorce (for Biblical cause) validly break a covenant?

God seemed to say so. Jeremiah 3:6-8

The LORD said to me in the days of King Josiah: "Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore? And I thought, 'After she has done all this she will return to me,' but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore.

God sent Israel away (for the cause of adultery) with a writ of divorce. This is a clear confirmation that sexual sin within a covenant is cause for a divorce.

What does this do to the covenant?

From Hebrews 8:6-7

But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

Verse 13

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Note: In this passage, the author writes (verses 8-9):

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.

God will make a NEW covenant with Israel and Judah - IT IS NOT THE SAME COVENANT, THE OLD ONE WAS BROKEN.

(NOTE: Before the next accusation comes, this does not mean that I think they should be; I do not. Repeat: I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.)

Biblically, we cannot say that a covenant cannot be broken, because God Himself has demonstrated that covenant can be broken.

Biblically, with God as the model, God Himself has demonstrated that there is Biblical cause to break a marriage covenant - because God Himself has done it.

(NOTE: Before the next accusation comes, this does not mean that I think they should be; I do not. Repeat: I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.)

This is Biblical and I have used Scripture as a foundation for my belief.