Back in November, New Jersey elected Republican Chris Christie as governor. This result was and wasn't surprising. It WAS surprising because Corzine, the Democrat, was the incumbent and out-spent Christie. It WASN'T surprising because of the political atmosphere in New Jersey: high taxes, corruption, and a lack of patience with "businessmen" (which Corzine is perceived as being) nationwide as a result of the "bailout."
The election results were depressing, though - really - they were bound to be one way or another. Christie is the worse of the two evils. Corzine isn't ideal either, but I liked that he attempted to rally the true liberal base and didn't really try to cater to the conservatives that he would likely not win over anyway. He chose not to pander to them; he chose not to validate them. Unfortunately, they are the ones who came out and voted for Christie.
The election was probably decided primarily on taxes. Corzine had to raise them despite his promises and, really, they need to be raised. We have - not only a huge federal debt, but - a huge state debt. Christie claims he's not going to raise taxes. Who doesn't promise that? It can't happen with the way the state is run, though, and the things we need. I'm all for major structural overhaul of Trenton, but that's gonna cost even more. It's the whole: "things are going to get worse before they get better" philosophy. That's the problem with reform: it's going to cost a lot before you'll be able to see any return and people are impatient. [For example: the nation was struck by an economic disaster that was in little or no way caused by Obama / his administration, but because his solutions have yet to grant us a full recovery, we are already jumping to the conclusion of failure. It may well fail, but the administration has already admitted that we will not really see any gains until - at the earliest - next year.] Restructuring and change are going to cost: both money and time. There are infrastructures that need to be put in place, people who must be hired and trained. All of that costs.
I can't imagine that Christie will be able to reduce taxes and even if he does, it'll be at the expense of something else. Even if he manages to not raise them, at what detriment? Since I do not agree with his version of "public good," I fear what he'll cut. Education? His kids go to private schools and he supports parents who get their children into private schools, so what happens to my public schools? Health care? If he doesn't think public education is valuable, do you really think he cares about your uninsured son? How many jobs are going to be lost to cut corners? Is New Jersey going to make abortion illegal? He is quoted: "I am pro-life. Hearing the strong heartbeat of my unborn daughter 14 years ago at 13 weeks gestation had a profound effect on me and my beliefs...." (
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-bohrer/another-leading-republica_b_220452.html) which is all fine and good for one's personal beliefs, but not as a legislative mandate, not as a rule by which those who DO NOT share his beliefs should be forced to abide. We need to educate women on choices both before and after they become pregnant (including SAFE sex options and not just "don't have sex" options). We need to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the conservative method has proven to fail over and over and over again. Moving on: are we going to impede even more on the right of homosexuals? We need to move forward. Civil rights aren't matters of beliefs or opinions. Gay rights - or lack thereof - is an area in which New Jersey had begun to progress. At least we allow civil unions and I really had hopes that we would soon be among the elite who've woken up and have thrown fear aside for equality. Now, I'm not so sure. We have a governor-elect now who is willing to veto a gay marriage bill.
[For the record, this is not a "societal change" as Governor-Elect Christie claims. Society is not being asked to change. In fact, no one is being asked to change. No straight person who doesn't want to be impacted by this will be impacted by this. Your faith will not be challenged (and if it is, you should look more closely at YOUR relationship to God and leave me to sort out my own). There are no victims if gays can marry; there are only victims if they are denied that right.]
Currently, New Jersey is scrambling to make gay marriage legal before Governor Corzine relinquishes his power in January. [See: NY Times (Tuesday, December 8, 2009) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/nyregion/08marriage.html?_r=1.]
I guess I'm really a Socialist. I really have no problem with spending a little more now to help the whole of my state or nation to make it a better place (even if it is not in my direct, everyday interest). I only make $12 and hour and I get about $200 taken out of my paycheck every two weeks for taxes. It sucks, but it's needed. It pays for our infrastructure which many people STILL think doesn't run as smoothly as they should (whether this be the running of state business via the state's bureaucracy or the building of roads and buildings). It goes towards our police and fire departments. It goes towards education. And, yes, it probably goes towards things I'm sure I'd rather it not go to, but there is no such thing as a "perfect" union. No ONE person can really get everything he / she wants. Living in a republic, you'll always have to compromise a little.
In particular, we NEED to pour money into public education. We need to get good people in there running the school and we need to treat and pay teachers respectfully. Every once in a while, someone grunts about how high taxes are. People with kids in private schools or without kids at all moan: "why am I paying for public schools?" Well...why are you paying for the fire department? The police? I've never had a fire at my house and I've never had to call the cops, so why should I have to pay those guys? Or, as my mother cites: I don't support the war and I don't have any loved ones fighting over seas, so...why are my tax dollars funding wars I don't believe should be fought?
The answer is: because it's for the overall good of the nation. Or, at least, enough people think it is. I don't approve of the war(s), but we need a military as much as I wish we didn't. We pay taxes for the fire and police departments because we recognize those are services that are valuable. How is education exempt from that category? How is education not a general public good? Good public schools mean that someday, maybe, we'll have legions of really fucking smart people and they can make not only our country, but the world, a really amazing place. We're kind of in the shitter right now. We're allowing capitalism and greed to blind us from the realities: our kids can't compete with kids around the world and this is going to lead to the downfall of America. And on a more expansive note: the downfall - possibly - of humanity. We need smart people to find alternate solutions to problems that don't include guns and tanks. We need smart people who use their brains and not their fears to make decisions on civil rights. It's a cycle that can't easily be broken, but I fear we're only going to move farther and farther from where we MUST be to fix it if we continue to care about ourselves alone. Sometimes it's okay to "spread the wealth" and one of those times is when the wealth is knowledge.
Lastly, New Jersey did have corruption issues under Corzine, but it had corruption issues during pretty much every administration over the last couple decades prior too. This doesn't excuse it, but it'll likely happen under Christie's watch too...unless he really plans to overhaul the whole system. Which could be awesome, but only if he's moving in a progressive direction. Otherwise, I just fear we're going to wind up decades behind. Our goal should not be to end up back where we've been; we've got to keep moving. It worries me, the prospect that New Jersey may be becoming more conservative. Then again, Jersey is weird and even has a history of voting against the party just elected for the presidency in their off-year elections. So, this may not really illustrate much of anything. Corruption is a societal disease. When people seek that which they cannot have or have not earned, an environment is created where cheating is acceptable as long as it is hidden under the table. Politicians have been living in this world for a long time.
On an optimistic note, Christie has a decent environmental record. The New Jersey Environmental Federation actually endorsed Christie, the first Republican they've endorsed in three decades. [See: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/10/nj_environmental_federation_en.html.] If he keeps his promises on the environment, New Jersey could become an example. If he keeps his promises on the environment.
On the whole, though, there is not much optimism here. This election has made me not only question the fate of my government, but the state of New Jersians as people and what we stand for anymore, what they value. It saddens me how much self-interest and a "to hell with everyone else" attitude people seem to have. We are sadly proving Hobbes' theory on human behavior: that we are all "nasty, brutish, and short" and that, without some form a authority, we would probably all live in caves and hit each other with mallets. We are keen on referring to ourselves in the US as "civilized," but our intentions are really no more pure than anyone else's. We need a new social contract based firmly on what's good for the whole. We need a society less driven by markets and more driven by life and living it. We need to stop pissing on each other.
What ever happened to "love thy neighbor"?
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Restoring Marriage And Protecting California Children
While Laughing In The Face of the Constitution
Since the inauguration of Barack Obama, I am less fearful of reading the newspaper or tuning into the evening news. CNN keeps my unemployed ass company during my daily job searches; it sometimes provides whispers while I'm writing. I haven't been compelled to weep for my country much in the last six months.
And then there was May 26th, 2009. The California Supreme Court ruled to uphold Proposition 8: a ballot initiative making gay and lesbian marriages (previously made legal) illegal in the state. It changes the state's constitutional language, making only marriage between one man and one woman constitutional in the state. The initiative was placed on the November ballot and passed; the implication here is that voters who came out in stride to elect Mr. Obama also voted passionately to withhold equal rights from select members of society. I hope the irony of this is not lost on anyone.
Both sides of the battle then went to court and the May 26th decision gave merit to current same-sex marriages, but stated that further same-sex unions would not be recognized as "marriage" in California.
This news brought me to tears despite the fact that I'm not gay. We may never have another civil rights struggle like those for African Americans and women in the 60s and 70s, but I've held the belief for a long time that homosexuals in America are among the most systematically discriminated against across the country today. We legalize the discrimination of this group. (This isn't to say that other social minorities are always treated equally, but - at least - as written law goes, those forms of discrimination are no longer encouraged by the government or the majority of Americans.) My hope that the election of Mr. Obama last November marked a shift in the American ideology was tarnished by the news that Proposition 8 had passed in the first place. Its supporters' continued aggression is nothing short of mind boggling to my poor, young, impressionable mind.
Some arguments against same-sex marriage are explained here:
Protect Marriage is an 'informational' and fund raising website. According to Mormons For 8, 35% of the donations are from Mormon churches. [The Daily Harold breaks the numbers down more here: LDS donate millions to fight gay marriage.] Not surprisingly, the push against same-sex marriage is coming from the religious (arguably, Christian) right.
Upon investigation of their website, 'Protect Marriage,' Proposition 8, and and anti-equality movement are concerned - of course - about religious freedom and the children. Those seem to be their reoccurring concerns. They claim that same-sex marriage is a threat to "traditional" marriage and that the acceptance of gays in society is somehow detrimental to children.
In understanding this first argument, I find it helpful to rediscover simple word meanings. For this, I turn to the ever trustworthy Dictionary.com for a basic definition.
Traditional
- adjective
1. of or pertaining to tradition.
2. handed down by tradition.
3. in accordance with tradition.
4. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the older styles of jazz, esp. New Orleans style, Chicago style, Kansas City style, and Dixieland. Compare mainstream (def. 4).
The definition of "traditional" is interestingly vague. The problem with the abstract concept of "tradition" is that it depends thoroughly upon from whom these behaviors are being "handed down." It is a line drawn by families over generations or cultural and religious groups over ages. A "traditional" marriage in India may amount to what most Americans would refer to as an "arranged" marriage. Arranged marriages are the "tradition" in many parts of the world including such industrialized nations as India and Japan. That doesn't make them practices that are inherently good (nor, granted, inherently bad). (And when I discuss "arranged" marriages, I am not even touching on "forced" marriage or any non-consensual unions, although those may certainly be included under the "tradition" umbrella as well.) This begs the question, then: from whose "traditions" are we taking our definition of "traditional" marriage (that is: marriage between one man and one woman)?
Given the amount of support Proposition 8 has from the Mormon church, it seems that looking at extremists of the Judea-Christian guild is a good place to start. I have to pick on the Judea-Christian "tradition" because it certainly doesn't appear that Prop 8 supporters are supporting arranged marriages or marriages deemed "traditional" outside of Judea-Christian beliefs. Ponder for a moment, this ad also featured on the 'Protect Marriage' website:
The first issue in this ad is: "What [does] it means when gay marriage conflicts with our religious freedoms?" The next shot is a very angry man insisting that gay marriage was "forced" on him by the courts. Then, lastly, they have a very distressed little girl and her mother questioning what same-sex marriage "means" for the little girl.
Keep in mind, none of those questions are answered in the ad nor does the ad tell you where your questions can be directly and unbiasedly answered.
Religious freedom is a foundation of American life. However, the issue of same-sex marriage is not a religious issue: it's a civil rights issue. My decision to marry someone who has the same sexual organs as I do in no way conflicts with your unbreakable belief that such a union is a sin, unless you and I happen to be the same person. However, your passion for denying me that right based on your belief that my union is a sin DOES conflict with my civil rights. Both freedom of religion and civil rights are protected under the US Constitution. However, my marriage doesn't impede on your ability to worship whereas your beliefs are making it impossible for me to have my full rights under the Constitution.
Religion being made the headline of this organization's ad says to me that religion is a driving force even beyond the Mormon church. While Americans often identify themselves as Christians, America is NOT a Christian country. (And I am not even totally sure Christianity still holds the majority, as even Atheism gains in popularity.) We use religious dictum - from many religions - for moral guidance, sure, but "do not murder" is going to be made into law regardless of whether God commanded it to be so because it's good for the whole of society.
Any argument based on religion should automatically be thrown out because we have a separation of church (whatever religious center in which you worship) and state (the government under which you live your daily, civil life). Religious declarations are not by default laws and, unless it is for the mortal protection of society, such declarations should not be made into laws. If God chooses to damn homosexuals then let that job be left for God; it is not the place for mere mortals. Morality is subjective; it is not something that can or should be legislated unless the lack of legislation causes harm (as in : "nah, go ahead, commit that murder").
Moving on to the angry man's argument. I'm choosing not to touch on this at length because of its utter absurdity. Unless a San Francisco judge is forcing people to marry other people of the same sex, no judge is forcing anything on anyone. Similarly to abortion: legalizing gay marriage does not make gay marriage the only legal type of marriage, just as the legalization of abortion doesn't mean every woman must have an abortion. It is simply an option for those who find themselves in those respective positions.
However, the word "force," even without any validity to the claim, is powerfully psychologically menacing. A 30 second spot, on in the background while changing diapers or making dinner, which claims that anything is being "forced" upon citizens, is going to be a powerful, though in this case preposterous, claim. It's going to raise eyebrows, but most people will take it at face value and not research the claim. Any amount of research and one might realize the he/she is not being forced to do anything accept be tolerant of different people and a slightly different lifestyle.
The final argument pulls at your heart strings. Or is supposed to. If I understood the argument, perhaps I could provide a less snarky interpretation, but the best I can offer is as follows: parents fear that the utterance of words like "gay" and "lesbian" will...miraculously...turn their kids...gay? And, apparently, they have a problem with that?
A recent bulletin posted on the site expresses outrage over new curriculum (probably put in place to promote an understanding and tolerance for those who are gay or have gay friends/family) that explores homosexuality as a lifestyle. "Providing yet another example of the threat that gay marriage and the gay agenda provides to school children and parental authority...The newly adopted curriculum specifically elevates respect for gay, lesbian and bisexual students and their families over respect for diverse racial and religious backgrounds" (Elementary School Children to be Indoctrinated with New Gay Curriculum). Apparently, that's...a terrible, terrible thing?
I find it hard to believe that the curriculum "elevates respect for gay, lesbian and bisexual students and their families over respect for diverse racial and religious backgrounds," but even if that is true, perhaps the reason is because racial and religious groups are not legally oppressed anymore. The need to teach children to respect those groups may have dissipated slightly.
The real issue here is that parents don't want there little boys and girls to know anything about sex. Ever, apparently. Therefore, discussing sexuality and why Tommy has two mommies is a sticky situation. Sex and sexuality are sensitive issues, but lying to children or pretending "those" sorts of people aren't out there, is no way to protect your child from the inevitabilities of the real world. If you won't teach your children tolerance towards gays, someone has to. Or someone should. Homosexuality is not a choice. Who would chose this kind of hate a discrimination for him or herself? Learning about a different lifestyle does not by default turn you into a practitioner of that lifestyle any more than learning about slavery makes you a slave or even an African. Learning about Islam doesn't make you Muslim. There's a difference between being something and understanding / empathizing with something.
And if your child is gay, wouldn't you want to foster a home that embraces that child regardless? Isn't that moral? Homosexuality is not a disease. There is nothing about it which should make gays second-class citizens.
That is how to teach your children about homosexuality. It is nothing to be afraid of nor is it anything about which one should ever feel any shame. It is two people who love each other and want to dedicate their lives to each other. How is teaching that a bad thing?
Other arguments for Prop 8 are discussed here: What Is Prop 8? Most of these arguments are concerned with religion and children too. Many are knit-picky. It's worth a skim.
The bottom line is that regardless of the inconveniences the opposition addresses, you CANNOT deny members of society certain rights unless protecting that group's rights is gravely detrimental to the whole of society. (For example, "ageism" is okay in certain situations because you don't want twelve-year-olds driving or drinking or going to war.) The 14th Amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and of the state wherein
they reside. No state shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(Cornell Law: US Constitution, 14th Amendment, emphasis added)
The moment one of these cases reaches the Supreme Court, there is no way same-sex marriage can be denied short of a US Constitutional Amendment banning it (which George W. Bush threatened to do, more-or-less proving that denying same-sex marriage is currently unconstitutional). The basic philosophy behind the Equal Protection Clause is that separate-but-equal is inherently unequal. Granted, it was written with freed slaves and segregation in mind, but the "othering" of blacks and the "othering" of gays in terms of legislation seem to run parallel. Proposition 8 would not pass a rational-basis test: there is no mortal danger to society posed by same-sex marriage; nor should it pass the court's strict scrutiny of the law where a party must prove a compelling state interest in denying people their rights. If all gay-marriages included human sacrifice, then maybe they'd have a case, but - with the exception of "this makes me feel icky" - there is no reason for citizens of California to feel threatened by same-sex unions.
Same-sex couples can be just as devoted and loving to each other and their children as heterosexual couples. They have the same ups and downs as any couple in any sort of relationship may have. I think any abandoned child would gladly chose adoption by a same-sex couple over life in orphanages or foster homes.
Let us remember that same-sex couples were accepted in ancient Egypt as well as Rome before Judaism and Christianity became popular. (So, if you're really talking "traditional," don't forget it's buried deep in history as well...even the history of Judaism and Christianity.) Let us also remember that heterosexual couples don't necessarily provide a happy or healthy family for children. The sexes of the parents don't make or break family life; it's how well the partners interact with one another.
Six states in the US have already legalized gay unions (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont). New York and Washington, D.C. recognize out-of-jurisdiction same-sex marriage, but do not perform any. Several states have legalized civil-unions. The tide is going in a progressive direction. And it has to. Throughout history, Americans have abolished status-quo doctrines that prohibit rights. (Note: prohibition didn't last long, right? Blacks can now marry whites, right? Women can now vote, right?) Maybe the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, but the Bible says a lot of things that we chose not to write laws banning. And, on that note, I shall end this post on an upper. Enjoy:
"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more...
Since the inauguration of Barack Obama, I am less fearful of reading the newspaper or tuning into the evening news. CNN keeps my unemployed ass company during my daily job searches; it sometimes provides whispers while I'm writing. I haven't been compelled to weep for my country much in the last six months.
And then there was May 26th, 2009. The California Supreme Court ruled to uphold Proposition 8: a ballot initiative making gay and lesbian marriages (previously made legal) illegal in the state. It changes the state's constitutional language, making only marriage between one man and one woman constitutional in the state. The initiative was placed on the November ballot and passed; the implication here is that voters who came out in stride to elect Mr. Obama also voted passionately to withhold equal rights from select members of society. I hope the irony of this is not lost on anyone.
Both sides of the battle then went to court and the May 26th decision gave merit to current same-sex marriages, but stated that further same-sex unions would not be recognized as "marriage" in California.
This news brought me to tears despite the fact that I'm not gay. We may never have another civil rights struggle like those for African Americans and women in the 60s and 70s, but I've held the belief for a long time that homosexuals in America are among the most systematically discriminated against across the country today. We legalize the discrimination of this group. (This isn't to say that other social minorities are always treated equally, but - at least - as written law goes, those forms of discrimination are no longer encouraged by the government or the majority of Americans.) My hope that the election of Mr. Obama last November marked a shift in the American ideology was tarnished by the news that Proposition 8 had passed in the first place. Its supporters' continued aggression is nothing short of mind boggling to my poor, young, impressionable mind.
Some arguments against same-sex marriage are explained here:
Protect Marriage is an 'informational' and fund raising website. According to Mormons For 8, 35% of the donations are from Mormon churches. [The Daily Harold breaks the numbers down more here: LDS donate millions to fight gay marriage.] Not surprisingly, the push against same-sex marriage is coming from the religious (arguably, Christian) right.
Upon investigation of their website, 'Protect Marriage,' Proposition 8, and and anti-equality movement are concerned - of course - about religious freedom and the children. Those seem to be their reoccurring concerns. They claim that same-sex marriage is a threat to "traditional" marriage and that the acceptance of gays in society is somehow detrimental to children.
In understanding this first argument, I find it helpful to rediscover simple word meanings. For this, I turn to the ever trustworthy Dictionary.com for a basic definition.
Traditional
- adjective
1. of or pertaining to tradition.
2. handed down by tradition.
3. in accordance with tradition.
4. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the older styles of jazz, esp. New Orleans style, Chicago style, Kansas City style, and Dixieland. Compare mainstream (def. 4).
The definition of "traditional" is interestingly vague. The problem with the abstract concept of "tradition" is that it depends thoroughly upon from whom these behaviors are being "handed down." It is a line drawn by families over generations or cultural and religious groups over ages. A "traditional" marriage in India may amount to what most Americans would refer to as an "arranged" marriage. Arranged marriages are the "tradition" in many parts of the world including such industrialized nations as India and Japan. That doesn't make them practices that are inherently good (nor, granted, inherently bad). (And when I discuss "arranged" marriages, I am not even touching on "forced" marriage or any non-consensual unions, although those may certainly be included under the "tradition" umbrella as well.) This begs the question, then: from whose "traditions" are we taking our definition of "traditional" marriage (that is: marriage between one man and one woman)?
Given the amount of support Proposition 8 has from the Mormon church, it seems that looking at extremists of the Judea-Christian guild is a good place to start. I have to pick on the Judea-Christian "tradition" because it certainly doesn't appear that Prop 8 supporters are supporting arranged marriages or marriages deemed "traditional" outside of Judea-Christian beliefs. Ponder for a moment, this ad also featured on the 'Protect Marriage' website:
The first issue in this ad is: "What [does] it means when gay marriage conflicts with our religious freedoms?" The next shot is a very angry man insisting that gay marriage was "forced" on him by the courts. Then, lastly, they have a very distressed little girl and her mother questioning what same-sex marriage "means" for the little girl.
Keep in mind, none of those questions are answered in the ad nor does the ad tell you where your questions can be directly and unbiasedly answered.
Religious freedom is a foundation of American life. However, the issue of same-sex marriage is not a religious issue: it's a civil rights issue. My decision to marry someone who has the same sexual organs as I do in no way conflicts with your unbreakable belief that such a union is a sin, unless you and I happen to be the same person. However, your passion for denying me that right based on your belief that my union is a sin DOES conflict with my civil rights. Both freedom of religion and civil rights are protected under the US Constitution. However, my marriage doesn't impede on your ability to worship whereas your beliefs are making it impossible for me to have my full rights under the Constitution.
Religion being made the headline of this organization's ad says to me that religion is a driving force even beyond the Mormon church. While Americans often identify themselves as Christians, America is NOT a Christian country. (And I am not even totally sure Christianity still holds the majority, as even Atheism gains in popularity.) We use religious dictum - from many religions - for moral guidance, sure, but "do not murder" is going to be made into law regardless of whether God commanded it to be so because it's good for the whole of society.
Any argument based on religion should automatically be thrown out because we have a separation of church (whatever religious center in which you worship) and state (the government under which you live your daily, civil life). Religious declarations are not by default laws and, unless it is for the mortal protection of society, such declarations should not be made into laws. If God chooses to damn homosexuals then let that job be left for God; it is not the place for mere mortals. Morality is subjective; it is not something that can or should be legislated unless the lack of legislation causes harm (as in : "nah, go ahead, commit that murder").
Moving on to the angry man's argument. I'm choosing not to touch on this at length because of its utter absurdity. Unless a San Francisco judge is forcing people to marry other people of the same sex, no judge is forcing anything on anyone. Similarly to abortion: legalizing gay marriage does not make gay marriage the only legal type of marriage, just as the legalization of abortion doesn't mean every woman must have an abortion. It is simply an option for those who find themselves in those respective positions.
However, the word "force," even without any validity to the claim, is powerfully psychologically menacing. A 30 second spot, on in the background while changing diapers or making dinner, which claims that anything is being "forced" upon citizens, is going to be a powerful, though in this case preposterous, claim. It's going to raise eyebrows, but most people will take it at face value and not research the claim. Any amount of research and one might realize the he/she is not being forced to do anything accept be tolerant of different people and a slightly different lifestyle.
The final argument pulls at your heart strings. Or is supposed to. If I understood the argument, perhaps I could provide a less snarky interpretation, but the best I can offer is as follows: parents fear that the utterance of words like "gay" and "lesbian" will...miraculously...turn their kids...gay? And, apparently, they have a problem with that?
A recent bulletin posted on the site expresses outrage over new curriculum (probably put in place to promote an understanding and tolerance for those who are gay or have gay friends/family) that explores homosexuality as a lifestyle. "Providing yet another example of the threat that gay marriage and the gay agenda provides to school children and parental authority...The newly adopted curriculum specifically elevates respect for gay, lesbian and bisexual students and their families over respect for diverse racial and religious backgrounds" (Elementary School Children to be Indoctrinated with New Gay Curriculum). Apparently, that's...a terrible, terrible thing?
I find it hard to believe that the curriculum "elevates respect for gay, lesbian and bisexual students and their families over respect for diverse racial and religious backgrounds," but even if that is true, perhaps the reason is because racial and religious groups are not legally oppressed anymore. The need to teach children to respect those groups may have dissipated slightly.
The real issue here is that parents don't want there little boys and girls to know anything about sex. Ever, apparently. Therefore, discussing sexuality and why Tommy has two mommies is a sticky situation. Sex and sexuality are sensitive issues, but lying to children or pretending "those" sorts of people aren't out there, is no way to protect your child from the inevitabilities of the real world. If you won't teach your children tolerance towards gays, someone has to. Or someone should. Homosexuality is not a choice. Who would chose this kind of hate a discrimination for him or herself? Learning about a different lifestyle does not by default turn you into a practitioner of that lifestyle any more than learning about slavery makes you a slave or even an African. Learning about Islam doesn't make you Muslim. There's a difference between being something and understanding / empathizing with something.
And if your child is gay, wouldn't you want to foster a home that embraces that child regardless? Isn't that moral? Homosexuality is not a disease. There is nothing about it which should make gays second-class citizens.
That is how to teach your children about homosexuality. It is nothing to be afraid of nor is it anything about which one should ever feel any shame. It is two people who love each other and want to dedicate their lives to each other. How is teaching that a bad thing?
Other arguments for Prop 8 are discussed here: What Is Prop 8? Most of these arguments are concerned with religion and children too. Many are knit-picky. It's worth a skim.
The bottom line is that regardless of the inconveniences the opposition addresses, you CANNOT deny members of society certain rights unless protecting that group's rights is gravely detrimental to the whole of society. (For example, "ageism" is okay in certain situations because you don't want twelve-year-olds driving or drinking or going to war.) The 14th Amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and of the state wherein
they reside. No state shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(Cornell Law: US Constitution, 14th Amendment, emphasis added)
The moment one of these cases reaches the Supreme Court, there is no way same-sex marriage can be denied short of a US Constitutional Amendment banning it (which George W. Bush threatened to do, more-or-less proving that denying same-sex marriage is currently unconstitutional). The basic philosophy behind the Equal Protection Clause is that separate-but-equal is inherently unequal. Granted, it was written with freed slaves and segregation in mind, but the "othering" of blacks and the "othering" of gays in terms of legislation seem to run parallel. Proposition 8 would not pass a rational-basis test: there is no mortal danger to society posed by same-sex marriage; nor should it pass the court's strict scrutiny of the law where a party must prove a compelling state interest in denying people their rights. If all gay-marriages included human sacrifice, then maybe they'd have a case, but - with the exception of "this makes me feel icky" - there is no reason for citizens of California to feel threatened by same-sex unions.
Same-sex couples can be just as devoted and loving to each other and their children as heterosexual couples. They have the same ups and downs as any couple in any sort of relationship may have. I think any abandoned child would gladly chose adoption by a same-sex couple over life in orphanages or foster homes.
Let us remember that same-sex couples were accepted in ancient Egypt as well as Rome before Judaism and Christianity became popular. (So, if you're really talking "traditional," don't forget it's buried deep in history as well...even the history of Judaism and Christianity.) Let us also remember that heterosexual couples don't necessarily provide a happy or healthy family for children. The sexes of the parents don't make or break family life; it's how well the partners interact with one another.
Six states in the US have already legalized gay unions (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont). New York and Washington, D.C. recognize out-of-jurisdiction same-sex marriage, but do not perform any. Several states have legalized civil-unions. The tide is going in a progressive direction. And it has to. Throughout history, Americans have abolished status-quo doctrines that prohibit rights. (Note: prohibition didn't last long, right? Blacks can now marry whites, right? Women can now vote, right?) Maybe the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, but the Bible says a lot of things that we chose not to write laws banning. And, on that note, I shall end this post on an upper. Enjoy:
"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more...
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Optimism Within Realism
A New Era Of Compromise In Washington
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 was truly something else.
In keeping with his serious and somber demeanor after his election on November 4, 2008, Barack Obama reiterated his charges for change and national responsibility during his inaugural speech. His presidency, he hopes, will be one that focuses on restoring America's reputation in the world and revitalizing her economy and her people. To the disappointment of many, his speech was not the normal chest-thumping to which we've become accustomed. He promised that America would meet her challenges, but he didn't sprinkle the challenges she faces with glitter and flowers. Our challenges are many and America has the will to overcome them, but the strength must come from both her people and her government. Obama's election can't be the end of the road. It has to be the beginning of America's long road towards regaining respect around the world and standing as a strong example of democracy once again.
Not to forget the now former President Bush, George W. and Laura Bush left the White House after Obama's inauguration via helicopter. Personally, it was one of the most satisfying sights I've ever witnessed.
Just for fun:
You can hear happy singing it the background as the helicopter flies off. I wonder if any other departing president has been so happily sent off.
I also have to add that Tuesday night's The Daily Show may be one of the funniest ever. This, alone, proves that:
They, literally, had to push Cheney out of the White House.
The last eight years has left my country in deep debt both monetarily and, I believe, morally. However, I think this new administration will restore some global faith in America, her values, and her people. We're no longer the hillbilly country with the cowboy president. Now, we're a country of adults. Barack Obama is smart, articulate, and respectful: three things the executive branch of American government has been missing for nearly a decade.
If feels good to have faith in leadership. Of course, I don't expect President Obama to change the world over night, but I feel relatively safe in the hands of my government again. I feel like Obama's agenda will be the advancement and well-being on America and NOT the thoughtless kowtowing to corporate buddies. (Part of why I voted for him - both during the primary and the presidential election - is because he IS young. How many corporate buddies could he possible have!?) I don't think he will so blatantly disregard the American people OR the people of the world like Bush did. I don't think he'll let our reputation in the world dip any lower.
The inauguration ceremony was an amazing sight. This president is a symbol of progression and hope to so many in the country who have suffered due to the mismanagement of the Bush years. The crowd was massive. It was unbelievable. I only hope that some of those people keep watch and stay informed. This president will bring change and he'll move the country back to the 'plus' side, but when his work ends, the next president must go even further. We cannot become complacent now. America still has a long way to go. She still discriminates. She still hates. She still starves and bleeds. She still asks God to solve her problems instead of standing up and solving them herself. We have opened a door with this president. Liberals have a shot now to show conservatives that we're not so scary and - maybe - we can win some of them over. We can't treat them with the disdain the Bush administration treated us. That'll only rile their base up against us. Now is not the time for that. Now we need to recognize mistakes, face challenges, and reach out to ALL Americans in order to see our problems resolved.
Obama's inaugural speech did include some religious rhetoric and even some "we won't back down" language. I could have lived without that, but I think that most president wind up calling on God and trying to hype Americans up. They're popular American cliches. In our country, you won't get elected unless you appear to be a "good Christian" and thank God time and time again. When Obama invokes the image of God, though, I think he does so more to placate those who are looking for him to prove his religiosity. Not that I think he's a "non-believer." His religion makes no difference to me so long as his religion is not his only driving force as president. I agree that religion can serve as a handy moral guide, but it should not be the only guide. I think he hopes for God's support and, given the mess he is now charged with cleaning, I can't blame him. I don't think Barack Obama claims to ACTUALLY speak to God in the way George W. Bush did. Further, when Obama says that America WILL defend herself, I don't think he means it in a Bush Doctrine sort of way. I think he plans to defend the country responsibly and - where ever possible - diplomatically.
President Obama has my trust. For now. I'm not saying I won't be skeptical and watch him carefully, but there's no reason to doubt him yet. I have my hopes and I have things I want to see this president do. If he does even some of them, I think that'll be a great improvement. He's not catering to any ONE ideology. He has to try to compromise with all types of people and some people are not as liberal as we are here in the Northeast. I expect some disappointments, but just because there's something I want for this country doesn't mean that that something is good or pleasing for the country as a whole. We NEED cooperation and compromise now. Liberals need to show conservatives that we're not evil. We need to work with people who don't agree with us and try to get them on our side. They, too, need to understand that no president should cater to just their beliefs. Then - maybe someday - we COULD have a liberal and open country. Maybe we COULD take God out of politics. Maybe we COULD see gays legally marrying. Maybe we COULD call a truce on the culture wars.
We're not there yet, though. As early as November 5th, Prop 8 should have shown all us starry-eyed liberals that our dreams had not quite come true yet. But this should be seen as a step. This is a baby step in the right direction. So, for now, I'm going to be proud. I'm going to smile, laugh, and cry happy little tears because even though this administration won't give me everything I want, it's a sign that someday there could be an administration that will get us there, once more of America is ready for it.
National ideologies CAN change. The first white Americans were strict Puritans who would probably put even today's conservative right to shame. We once saw no moral issue with keeping darker colored human beings as captives, objects, worthless workers. We once thought women were too inferior to work or vote. In time, all of these characteristics that once made up America were disregarded. If you're not a progressive, you're living in the past.
History is a series of progressions.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 was truly something else.
In keeping with his serious and somber demeanor after his election on November 4, 2008, Barack Obama reiterated his charges for change and national responsibility during his inaugural speech. His presidency, he hopes, will be one that focuses on restoring America's reputation in the world and revitalizing her economy and her people. To the disappointment of many, his speech was not the normal chest-thumping to which we've become accustomed. He promised that America would meet her challenges, but he didn't sprinkle the challenges she faces with glitter and flowers. Our challenges are many and America has the will to overcome them, but the strength must come from both her people and her government. Obama's election can't be the end of the road. It has to be the beginning of America's long road towards regaining respect around the world and standing as a strong example of democracy once again.
Not to forget the now former President Bush, George W. and Laura Bush left the White House after Obama's inauguration via helicopter. Personally, it was one of the most satisfying sights I've ever witnessed.
Just for fun:
You can hear happy singing it the background as the helicopter flies off. I wonder if any other departing president has been so happily sent off.
I also have to add that Tuesday night's The Daily Show may be one of the funniest ever. This, alone, proves that:
They, literally, had to push Cheney out of the White House.
The last eight years has left my country in deep debt both monetarily and, I believe, morally. However, I think this new administration will restore some global faith in America, her values, and her people. We're no longer the hillbilly country with the cowboy president. Now, we're a country of adults. Barack Obama is smart, articulate, and respectful: three things the executive branch of American government has been missing for nearly a decade.
If feels good to have faith in leadership. Of course, I don't expect President Obama to change the world over night, but I feel relatively safe in the hands of my government again. I feel like Obama's agenda will be the advancement and well-being on America and NOT the thoughtless kowtowing to corporate buddies. (Part of why I voted for him - both during the primary and the presidential election - is because he IS young. How many corporate buddies could he possible have!?) I don't think he will so blatantly disregard the American people OR the people of the world like Bush did. I don't think he'll let our reputation in the world dip any lower.
The inauguration ceremony was an amazing sight. This president is a symbol of progression and hope to so many in the country who have suffered due to the mismanagement of the Bush years. The crowd was massive. It was unbelievable. I only hope that some of those people keep watch and stay informed. This president will bring change and he'll move the country back to the 'plus' side, but when his work ends, the next president must go even further. We cannot become complacent now. America still has a long way to go. She still discriminates. She still hates. She still starves and bleeds. She still asks God to solve her problems instead of standing up and solving them herself. We have opened a door with this president. Liberals have a shot now to show conservatives that we're not so scary and - maybe - we can win some of them over. We can't treat them with the disdain the Bush administration treated us. That'll only rile their base up against us. Now is not the time for that. Now we need to recognize mistakes, face challenges, and reach out to ALL Americans in order to see our problems resolved.
Obama's inaugural speech did include some religious rhetoric and even some "we won't back down" language. I could have lived without that, but I think that most president wind up calling on God and trying to hype Americans up. They're popular American cliches. In our country, you won't get elected unless you appear to be a "good Christian" and thank God time and time again. When Obama invokes the image of God, though, I think he does so more to placate those who are looking for him to prove his religiosity. Not that I think he's a "non-believer." His religion makes no difference to me so long as his religion is not his only driving force as president. I agree that religion can serve as a handy moral guide, but it should not be the only guide. I think he hopes for God's support and, given the mess he is now charged with cleaning, I can't blame him. I don't think Barack Obama claims to ACTUALLY speak to God in the way George W. Bush did. Further, when Obama says that America WILL defend herself, I don't think he means it in a Bush Doctrine sort of way. I think he plans to defend the country responsibly and - where ever possible - diplomatically.
President Obama has my trust. For now. I'm not saying I won't be skeptical and watch him carefully, but there's no reason to doubt him yet. I have my hopes and I have things I want to see this president do. If he does even some of them, I think that'll be a great improvement. He's not catering to any ONE ideology. He has to try to compromise with all types of people and some people are not as liberal as we are here in the Northeast. I expect some disappointments, but just because there's something I want for this country doesn't mean that that something is good or pleasing for the country as a whole. We NEED cooperation and compromise now. Liberals need to show conservatives that we're not evil. We need to work with people who don't agree with us and try to get them on our side. They, too, need to understand that no president should cater to just their beliefs. Then - maybe someday - we COULD have a liberal and open country. Maybe we COULD take God out of politics. Maybe we COULD see gays legally marrying. Maybe we COULD call a truce on the culture wars.
We're not there yet, though. As early as November 5th, Prop 8 should have shown all us starry-eyed liberals that our dreams had not quite come true yet. But this should be seen as a step. This is a baby step in the right direction. So, for now, I'm going to be proud. I'm going to smile, laugh, and cry happy little tears because even though this administration won't give me everything I want, it's a sign that someday there could be an administration that will get us there, once more of America is ready for it.
National ideologies CAN change. The first white Americans were strict Puritans who would probably put even today's conservative right to shame. We once saw no moral issue with keeping darker colored human beings as captives, objects, worthless workers. We once thought women were too inferior to work or vote. In time, all of these characteristics that once made up America were disregarded. If you're not a progressive, you're living in the past.
History is a series of progressions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
