Visit My Site: CongasGuayaberas.com

I started my own online company. My family owns and operates a Guayabera store, and I decided to start the online sales website. I’m currently the Manager of our retail location in Coconut Grove, and I’m now also the Director of Online Sales & Marketing.

It’s quite exciting being my own boss. Let’s just hope this Cuban-American entrepreneurial spirit gets me far.

Visit My Store Here: http://CongasGuayaberas.com

Gay Marriage.

I have always felt, or came to understand through debate, that an important component in Liberalism is the emotional lure of it’s arguments. By no means do I discredit experience, as it’s an important factor of understanding reality, but a political theory founded in emotional principles is weak at best.

I have engaged myself in various political debates where my proponent steeps themselves in an argument of emotion, and from this sandy foundation they try to develop a logical reasoning for their argument. I’ve found it my duty in these positions to expose that foundation in the hopes of removing the emotional presupposition and thus their designed argument.

Mind you, every liberal does not steep to this design of an argument, but the cases I’ve discovered are worth making the generalization. Again, I am not saying EVERY Liberal argues on this ground, but I would say the movement, intellectually bankrupt as it is, does.

I will use one discussion I had with a gay friend of mine to explain this point. It was on the dreadfully emotionally dangerous topic of Gay Marriage, which he wished to discuss after finding out I’m getting married and stating so was he. I will summarize the exchange with paraphrasing (just the ideas I could remember being exchanged):

Friend: Banning Gay marriage is unconstitutional. It’s like segregation, but on the grounds of sexual orientation. Are you telling me you don’t agree with the High Court’s decision in California?
Leonard O: Of course I don’t agree. Besides it being one of the most liberal courts, let me ask you something. Where in the Constitution does it say you or I have a right to get married?
Friend: I don’t know. It’s implied.
Leonard O: There is no constitutional right to marriage. As a High Court, you need to mainly see an issue in terms of it’s constitutionality. If there was an amendment to the constitution allowing gay marriage, then it would be different, but you cannot imply there is this ‘right’ when it is not written in it. The liberal court has enough problems understanding rights clearly spelled out (2nd Amendment), but they still have this terrible ability to interpret rights (Privacy). There is no right to Marriage, and as such, the People & States in the form of a legislature and the government have a right to define marriage, and it’s been defined as a Man and a Woman. The benefits are given to such so they can be in an environment that promotes children (aka future labor and tax payers). Let me ask you another question, after having explained there being no constitutional right for such. How is this like segregation?
Friend: They’re discriminating people.
Leonard O: Segregation was discrimination on race. This is not an issue of discriminating between race or gender.
Friend: Yeah, but why can’t I be able to marry? I’m discrimated on the basis of my sexual orientation.
Leonard O: You can get married. You have the same right as I do to marry a woman.
Friend: Thats not what I mean. Why can’t I marry the person I love? Why don’t I have that right, and the Benefits?
Leonard O: You can. Go to the United Church of Christ and you can have a huge ceremony and all. Occams Razor tells us “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”. Why make this situation so difficult when you can get many of those rights by merely writing wills and other options?
Friend: Yeah, but the government shouldn’t decide that only men and women can get married.
Leonard O: First, we have the same rights to marry, you just choose not to use them because of your orientation. Second, the government can define marriage. They have certain requirements for certain benefits. Not everyone is eligible for Medicaid, or Social Security benefits (we’re not being discriminated on age because we haven’t retired, but we still all have the right to those benefits when we do). Me and you have the same right to marry, you’re just asking for a ’special right’.
Friend: What do you mean ’special right’?
Leonard O: Well, say me and a best friend are living together. Say we apply for a marriage licence because we both want the healthcare benefits.  Should the government give us marriage benefits?
Friend: No, because that’s not a loving relationship.
Leonard O: Wait, so in other words I’m being discriminated because of my sexual orientation of being straight, even though I would want to do the same thing as you and ‘marry’ another man. What you desire are ’special rights’, bestowed on the basis of sexual orientation. In our original model, we both have a right to marry a woman (regardless of race, religion, etc). You had a problem with states & government defining marriage this way. Yet, your solution to this problem is to have government define marriage, just in the form of a loving relation? Whose to stop people, family, friends, polygamists, and others from asking of their government these benefits? Do you discriminate them? Your problem was that the government defined marriage, and your solution was for government to define marriage (just in this ‘in love’ concept). Don’t you see how this is logically problematic? How does the government discriminate one group and allow special rights to another? How does it define love? With that Occams Razor issue, why even go here when many of the things you desire can be solved through legal means (wills, etc)?
Friend: Yeah, but we should still have the right to get married.
Leonard O: Then move to a state that recognizes it, and don’t impose some ‘interpreted’ right upon society when it wishes to define it as something else. Society has the real constitutional right of a legislature and the ability to define law, as associated with marriage benefits. After recognizing there being no constitutional right to marriage, the government being able to define something that receives benefits, and the problem of the ’special rights’ issue, you should understand why ‘gay marriage’ is problematic.
Friend: We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Leonard O: Understandable.

The Embarassing 3rd Party.

The U.S. Green party is an absolute embarassment to the political system. I have been watching the Green Party’s choice for Vice President, Rosa Clemente, on CSPAN and it’s absolute torture! How embarassing it is to have such a terrible candidate. It truely speaks of their weakness. It was visual and audible torture to watch not only the lack of delivery, but the absolute bankruptcy of ideas. She’s been talking about hip-hop for the last 10 minutes…

The Libertarian Party, on the other hand, has chosen a fine candidate. Although he’s not a Ron Paul, Bob Barr has an intellectual attraction to him. Given, the Libertarian party is also lacking as a credible party, but they’re admirable in their fight none-the-less.

How embarassing it is to merely watch the lack-of-caliber in such a looney political party as the Greens. No wonder no one takes them seriously.

http://GOP.com

FIU Judiciary

Student Government Judicial Branch:

The purpose of the Student Judiciary is to uphold the dignity of the FIU Student Constitution. This section of student government is made up of a Chief Justice and four confirmed Justices (which includes an Assoc. Chief Justice and an Assoc. Parliamentarian). The Student Judiciary works as a High Court to determine whether actions taken by the SGC (Student Governing Council) are within the boundaries set by the Constitution. In addition, the Student Judiciary works to maintain the constitutionality of Senate legislation and bylaws.

The Student Judiciary also serves as a neutral and impartial internal standards board for the SGC members, and protects proper division of SGA powers between branches (Executive, Legislative, & Judicial).

Similar to the United State’s Supreme Court, the Student Judiciary remains the chief agent for interpretation of the SGA Constitution, as well as a legal aid to the SGC regarding issues of interpretation. In addition, the Chief Justice serves as the SGC’s Parliamentarian to aid in questions and concerns regarding Parliamentary Procedure.

Judiciary Mission:

Our mission is to aid in the fulfillment and enrichment of the SGA Mission statement, by preserving the dignity of the Student Constitution, its intended separation of powers, and the impartiality and honesty of its Court.

The Judiciary:

Leonard O Goenaga
Chief Justice, SGC-UP
LGoen001@fiu.edu

Juan S. Gil
Associate Chief Justice, SGC-UP
Juan.Gil1@fiu.edu

Saul Perez
Justice & Associate Parliamentarian, SGC-UP
SPere040@fiu.edu

Luis F. Robayo
Justice, SGC-UP

Greg Boulos
Justice, SGC-UP

Complaints & Grievances:

As stated in the Constitution, the Student Judiciary serves as a High Court in hearing complaints regarding the Constitution & SGC Members. The Court cannot initiate action by itself, and as such Students and SGC members are encouraged to file complaints regarding unconstitutional actions by SGC members and legislation.

Feel free to drop by the SGC-UP Office, GC 211 or email the Chief Justice at LGoen001@fiu.edu with such grievances. Grounds for complaints and removal can be found in Article VII of the SGA Constitution.

Downloadable Documents:

Student Constitution
Student Bylaws
Roberts Rules of Order (Public Domain, 1915) (http://books.google.com/books?id=ND8sAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=roberts+rules+of+order&as_brr=1)
Parliamentary Procedure
http://parliamentarians.org/

Two Updates

Two Updates as an explanation for my business and the lack of Blog Entries:

1) I was recently confirmed as my University’s Chief Justice (FIU, SGC-UP). It is sure to be a humbling and exciting opportunity of service.

2) I handle the finances and marketing for a family business. We’ve already doubled our firstmonth’s sales in our third, and our fourth month is looking to show continued growth at a time of economic ‘recession’. What a phenominal family God has given me.

Please pray that these two opportunities may continue to be blessing.

My Psalm 1

Oh Lord,

How my words weep of the disgust of my wrongs.

How my thoughts echo the pains of past sins.

Yet you take them all,

You remove me of my burdens,

You destroy my man-made fears.

You nailed them upon the simplicity of a wooden cross.

How my words rejoice of the beauty of forgiveness!

How my thoughts sing of the profound message of salvation!

You have shown me the error of my ways, yet offered an endless reserve of guidance & forgiveness.

            You have worked in me,

You have forgiven me.

And what have I done to receive such a Pearl? Such Gold? Such Jewels? Such Platinum? Such Credit?

            Nothing.

            Absolutely nothing.

The work is not of my own. My love is flawed. My intellect broken. My words of little value. My thoughts; vague.

Yet you…

            Your intellect defies understanding!

Your wisdom more precious than gravity!

Your love encompasses all meaning!

Oh how I beg to discover your ways! Oh how I beg to reflect your wisdom! Oh how I beg to praise you in actions, words, and deeds!

How my words rejoice of the beauty of forgiveness!

How my thoughts sing the profound message of salvation!

Amen.