It's been a few weeks now since California voters decided to take away the civil rights of a group of citizens in our state. In the time since, I have been to a protest, I have donated money to the cause of overturning Proposition 8, and I have engaged in several discussions with people both for and against gay marriage. In that time, my resolve for the equal rights of all citizens has only grown stronger. In the many people I've talked to, and many arguments I've heard, I have not heard one logical point to support the banning of gay marriage. Every claim that is made in support of banning gay marriage is either religiously based, or is a lie. If you ask people to take their religion completely out of the equation (which they should be doing anyway when it comes to state legal issues), they cannot come up with one logical reason why homosexuals should not have the same legal rights that everyone else does. I have not been able to find anybody against gay marriage who is not religious.
My wife's cousin had a simple yet, I believe, accurate way of looking at it. People who are against gay marriage are really against gay people period. This is the way I have always felt, particularly in the last few months with all the lying advertisements in favor of Proposition 8. I think the people who are against gay marriage would really prefer it if there were no gay people at all, but they will take what they can get at this point. Take gay adoption, for example. One of the claims I heard about Proposition 8 was that if it failed, certain adoption agencies would be forced to allow same-sex couples to adopt. But of course, this point is irrelevant because gay marriage and adoption are two separate issues. Homosexual couples are already afforded the right to adopt children of their own. But what I find interesting is that the anti-gay marriage crowd uses examples like this, that the best home environment for a child is one with one mother and one father. But at the same time, they claim that Proposotion 8 will still allow gay couples the same rights as married couples (which obviously includes the right to adopt). My point is that, besides their arguemnts being completely flawed and irrelevant, they will say whatever they can to scare people into shying away from gay marriage, even when they use points that have no bearing on the issue. When it all comes down to it, they turn to religion to solidify their argument.
I'm still unhappy that Proposition 8 passed, but it doesn't bother me as much as it used to. The 60 + age group had the highest percentage of yes votes, and as the years go on and they die off, and the younger generation begins voting, it will be overturn. I am very confident in that. It only passed by 52 to 48 percent this time, which is a much smaller margin than in 2000. My demographic is overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage, and as new voters start registering over the next ten years, those votes will begin to shift in favor of gay marriage also.
It's unfortunate that gay marriage only lasted for six months, but like all major steps in our country's history, it will take time. But we will get there.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Election Day
I voted for Obama this morning. Today may turn out to be the most important day in America's history in terms of what it could mean for it's future. I believe that Obama will win, but nothing is set until all the ballots are counted. If Obama wins, we have a real chance to turn this country around from the terrible road it has been going down the last eight years. If McCain somehow manages to steal the election, America is in real trouble. The course of America's future is at stake today. There are two dramatic directions this country can take, and I just pray that it goes the right way.
Obama/Biden 2008
Obama/Biden 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Presidential Experience
When you apply for a job, what is one of the most important qualities you can bring to the table? Experience. Sure, a college degree is great. But the one thing that can most quickly put you over the edge of the competition is experience. Anyone has been there before. I know for myself, it was very difficult to land my first job out of college, because the jobs I was interviewing for wanted somebody with experience in the field. But how do you get that experience? At some point, someone is going to have to take a chance on you, which is what happened for me.
Why am I talking about this? Well, during this Presidential campaign, a lot of talk has gone around about Barack Obama and experience. He's too young. He hasn't been a U.S. Senator for long enough. He doesn't have executive experience. But my grandmother brought up a very interesting point when I talked to her about this. She said that when you're talking about the Presidency, NOBODY has enough experience. And after thinking about it, I say she is right. How can any one man or woman possibly have the kind of experience, knowledge, and qualifications to be fully prepared for a job as the President? Whatever job you held immediately prior to taking the office of the Presidency, it couldn't possibly have fully prepared you for your responsibilities of your new job. Now, that isn't to say that experience doesn't make a difference whatsoever, but we can't judge a candidate's ability to be President simply based on his lack of experience. Again, I say this only because nobody has the experience and qualifications to take on that job. Whoever wins next week will be responsible for 300 million people's lives, jobs, health, and overall prosperity. Needless to say, our current President has been a failure in all of those arenas, and he had eight years of executive experience prior to taking office.
What I'm trying to say is that I look at a Presidential candidate like I look at someone interviewing for any job. Sure, you would like a candidate with high qualifications and experience, but you also need somebody who you can trust to do the best they possibly can to get the job done. And sometimes, just like when you hire that person going for their first job out of college, you have to take a chance. Me? I'll be taking my chances on Barack Obama. In my opinion, his lack of political experience is an asset to this election. He is a fresh face to a failing institution. We have had leadership problems from Washington for far too long now. The Presidency is in need of a dramatic shift in the way it handles business, and Obama represents the best hope for that change.
Why am I talking about this? Well, during this Presidential campaign, a lot of talk has gone around about Barack Obama and experience. He's too young. He hasn't been a U.S. Senator for long enough. He doesn't have executive experience. But my grandmother brought up a very interesting point when I talked to her about this. She said that when you're talking about the Presidency, NOBODY has enough experience. And after thinking about it, I say she is right. How can any one man or woman possibly have the kind of experience, knowledge, and qualifications to be fully prepared for a job as the President? Whatever job you held immediately prior to taking the office of the Presidency, it couldn't possibly have fully prepared you for your responsibilities of your new job. Now, that isn't to say that experience doesn't make a difference whatsoever, but we can't judge a candidate's ability to be President simply based on his lack of experience. Again, I say this only because nobody has the experience and qualifications to take on that job. Whoever wins next week will be responsible for 300 million people's lives, jobs, health, and overall prosperity. Needless to say, our current President has been a failure in all of those arenas, and he had eight years of executive experience prior to taking office.
What I'm trying to say is that I look at a Presidential candidate like I look at someone interviewing for any job. Sure, you would like a candidate with high qualifications and experience, but you also need somebody who you can trust to do the best they possibly can to get the job done. And sometimes, just like when you hire that person going for their first job out of college, you have to take a chance. Me? I'll be taking my chances on Barack Obama. In my opinion, his lack of political experience is an asset to this election. He is a fresh face to a failing institution. We have had leadership problems from Washington for far too long now. The Presidency is in need of a dramatic shift in the way it handles business, and Obama represents the best hope for that change.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Proposition 4
Another measure on the California ballot this year is Proposition 4, which will require physicians to notify parents of unemancipated minors at least 48 hours prior to performing an abortion. This measure was also on the ballot of the wonderfully successful "Special Elections" in 2005. The measure failed that year, and I believe it will fail this year, but I would still like to talk about it now. It hasn't received nearly as much press as Proposition 8, so I won't delve into it that deeply.
If Proposition 4 passes, no one under the age of 18 in California will be able to obtain a safe abortion without the doctor notifying the child's parents or legal guardian. While the measure will not require the parent's permission in order to proceed with the abortion, privacy is still a fundamentally important right which should not be infringed upon.
Now, there are good points both in favor and against this proposition. Many will say that parents should indeed be informed of these kinds of things. I agree that parents, if they are supportive and caring, should know if their daughter is having an abortion. However, I also know that there are parents who would not be supportive if their daughter attempted to have an abortion. The repurcussions could be quite serious. Yes, there will be exceptions to the law, including notification waivers for medical emergencies or abusive parents. However, the child must go through the court system in order to obtain a waiver. If a girl lives in a broken home, needs an abortion, and can't tell her parents, she now has to file a claim in court. How simple is that going to be for her? And if she doesn't go to court, what is her alternative besides notifying an abusive father? She can go have an illegal and unsafe abortion somewhere.
I like to simplify this measure and think of it like this. If parents are good, their children will tell them if they want to have an abortion. If parents are abusive and unforgiving, the child will not tell them. If this measure passes, a waiver can be issued for abusive parents. But, as I said, children will tell their parents if the parents deserve to know. To me, this measure does no good but to put teenagers in an even more difficult position than they are already in if they have to make a decision like having an abortion.
If Proposition 4 passes, no one under the age of 18 in California will be able to obtain a safe abortion without the doctor notifying the child's parents or legal guardian. While the measure will not require the parent's permission in order to proceed with the abortion, privacy is still a fundamentally important right which should not be infringed upon.
Now, there are good points both in favor and against this proposition. Many will say that parents should indeed be informed of these kinds of things. I agree that parents, if they are supportive and caring, should know if their daughter is having an abortion. However, I also know that there are parents who would not be supportive if their daughter attempted to have an abortion. The repurcussions could be quite serious. Yes, there will be exceptions to the law, including notification waivers for medical emergencies or abusive parents. However, the child must go through the court system in order to obtain a waiver. If a girl lives in a broken home, needs an abortion, and can't tell her parents, she now has to file a claim in court. How simple is that going to be for her? And if she doesn't go to court, what is her alternative besides notifying an abusive father? She can go have an illegal and unsafe abortion somewhere.
I like to simplify this measure and think of it like this. If parents are good, their children will tell them if they want to have an abortion. If parents are abusive and unforgiving, the child will not tell them. If this measure passes, a waiver can be issued for abusive parents. But, as I said, children will tell their parents if the parents deserve to know. To me, this measure does no good but to put teenagers in an even more difficult position than they are already in if they have to make a decision like having an abortion.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Proposition 8
I would like to discuss some of the arguments in support of Proposition 8. Proposition 8 is a measure going on the California ballot which, if it passes, will overturn the current law allowing same-sex marriages. This post is based on the arguments in the video found here.
I feel this is a very important issue in the upcoming election, so I have addressed each point that is made in the video. I want to expose this video for the complete lie that it is, with the hopes that someone might be able to see through the false claims and make an informed opinion. My commentary follows each point.
“If Proposition 8 fails, there’s a whole bunch of consequences. Did you know that churches that rent out their facilities for marriages could be forced to allow same sex marriages on their properties?”
The “forcing” of churches to allow same sex marriages on their property would only occur if churches were already renting out their property. If this did happen, it would only be as a result of current state anti-discriminatory laws that prohibit the refusal of services based on sexual orientation, not based on the passing or failing of Proposition 8. As it is, there have been no court cases one way or the other, so the argument is purely speculative. Churches that do not rent out their facilities will not be affected at all by Proposition 8.
Religious and state marriages are two different entities. Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheists all enjoy the right to marriage, both religious and state-recognized. Is there a problem with Christian churches being forced to marry Muslims on their property? Have Muslim Mosques been forced to allow atheists to marry? People of all different spectrums of life are able to share the right to marriage without conflicting with the beliefs and values of others. Why should same sex marriage be any different?
“Because the California Supreme Court has made same sex marriage a fundamental right, legal defenses based on religious freedoms are less likely to succeed.”
Again, this argument is purely speculative. The video provides no examples of this happening since the imposition of gay marriage. And what religious freedoms do they fear will be lost, specifically? Why do people have such a hard time differentiating religious freedoms from state law?
Somehow people seem to fear that the passing of gay marriage is going to destroy religious tolerance. The people who believe this tend to think inwards. They think that everything revolves around them, and that people should adjust to their way of thinking, and never the other way around. They can’t comprehend that not everyone believes the same things as them, and that not everything has to be about them. This is what religious freedom is all about. You are free to your own religious belief, but your religion should not interfere with the law. Your beliefs are protected by the Constitution of the United States, and so are mine, even if they are completely different.
This particular point is really more about scaring people than presenting any kind of logical argument.
“If Proposition 8 fails, religious adoption agencies may be forced to place children in same sex marriages, or discontinue providing adoption services altogether. That’s what happened in Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, after its courts imposed same-sex marriage.”
Gay marriage and the right of homosexuals to adopt are two different concepts. Catholic Charities was not forced to place children in homosexual households as a result of the gay marriage ruling in 2004, but of the state law passed in 1993 requiring that gay couples be allowed to adopt children. Catholic Charities stopped their adoption practices in 2006 not as a result of the gay marriage ruling, but due to pressure from 4 arch-bishops to gain a state exemption of the law requiring gay parents to be allowed to adopt. After this failed, Catholic Charities discontinued its adoption services.
“Based on past experience, those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds will be increasingly labeled as intolerant, and subjected to legal penalties or social ridicule. It’s already happening in the debate over Prop 8. Some who support traditional marriage are having their careers threatened. This won’t be limited to California as its powerful influence is felt across the country.”
Again, there is no solid evidence to this vague statement. Who is having their career threatened?
If my religion believed that your religion’s institution of marriage was wrong, should I have the right to decide that your group should not be afforded the right to a legal, state-recognized marriage because it conflicts with my way of thinking?
“Did you know that nearly all public schools in California provide education about health and sexuality? If prop 8 fails, children will be taught that marriage is between Party A and Party B, regardless of gender.”
So, what you’re saying is that if gay marriage is legal, children will be allowed to know what it is? And your point?
“Children will be taught that same-sex marriages are the equal of traditional marriages. There will be serious clashes between the public schools and parents, who desire to teach their children their own values and beliefs.”
Schools are already required to teach children about tolerance based on sexual preference, and this was in place before gay marriage was legal.
As it states in the California Educational Code:
220. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.
If parents don’t approve of the education their children are receiving at the public school, they are free to enroll them at a private school that better fits with whatever kind of beliefs they want to raise their children with. Schools will only teach what is allowed by state law, not what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ based on someone’s religious beliefs. Just as now, students learn about roe vs. wade; that it is legal to have an abortion. That does not mean the school is teaching them that it is right or wrong to have one. That responsibility belongs to the parents.
“If Proposition 8 fails, it will affect everyone. For example, the change of the legal definition of marriage could narrow personal liberties. Some have already been lost. Like photographers, who prefer not to photograph gay weddings, and doctors, who prefer not to perform artificial inseminations of gays, even when there are other willing doctors.”
This point is un-related to Prop 8. Whether or not same sex marriage is legal, there are still gay couples who will have parties and hire photographers or want to adopt children, or be artificially inseminated. Public businesses that refuse to work with gays will be going against anti-discriminatory laws that are already in place, not the legalization of same sex marriage. Any doctor or other public business that are told not to discriminate is because of current state laws; this will not change whether or not the legal definition of marriage changes.
On the "Preserving Marriage" website, it states “Proposition 8 will not hurt gays and lesbians.
In California, the law provides for marriage-related benefits to be given to civil unions and domestic partnerships. Proposition 8 does not diminish these benefits.”
If Proposition 8 does not diminish marriage-related benefits from homosexual couples, why is their commercial advertising against the ideas of gay couples being afforded the right to a wedding ceremony, or the right to have children?
“It’s been said, the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. You see, although the argument of redefining marriage is couched in happiness, or equal rights, it’s really about gaining control; forcing all of us to give up the very foundation of speech, and religious freedoms on which this country was founded."
As much as you'd like to believe, the religious freedoms on which the foundation of this country are based do NOT allow persons of one religious spectrum to dictate the personal liberties and religious beliefs of others. Religion and the state are two separate entities. You cannot tell someone that they are encroaching upon YOUR personal liberties while in the same breath demand that THEIR personal liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution be taken away.
I feel this is a very important issue in the upcoming election, so I have addressed each point that is made in the video. I want to expose this video for the complete lie that it is, with the hopes that someone might be able to see through the false claims and make an informed opinion. My commentary follows each point.
“If Proposition 8 fails, there’s a whole bunch of consequences. Did you know that churches that rent out their facilities for marriages could be forced to allow same sex marriages on their properties?”
The “forcing” of churches to allow same sex marriages on their property would only occur if churches were already renting out their property. If this did happen, it would only be as a result of current state anti-discriminatory laws that prohibit the refusal of services based on sexual orientation, not based on the passing or failing of Proposition 8. As it is, there have been no court cases one way or the other, so the argument is purely speculative. Churches that do not rent out their facilities will not be affected at all by Proposition 8.
Religious and state marriages are two different entities. Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheists all enjoy the right to marriage, both religious and state-recognized. Is there a problem with Christian churches being forced to marry Muslims on their property? Have Muslim Mosques been forced to allow atheists to marry? People of all different spectrums of life are able to share the right to marriage without conflicting with the beliefs and values of others. Why should same sex marriage be any different?
“Because the California Supreme Court has made same sex marriage a fundamental right, legal defenses based on religious freedoms are less likely to succeed.”
Again, this argument is purely speculative. The video provides no examples of this happening since the imposition of gay marriage. And what religious freedoms do they fear will be lost, specifically? Why do people have such a hard time differentiating religious freedoms from state law?
Somehow people seem to fear that the passing of gay marriage is going to destroy religious tolerance. The people who believe this tend to think inwards. They think that everything revolves around them, and that people should adjust to their way of thinking, and never the other way around. They can’t comprehend that not everyone believes the same things as them, and that not everything has to be about them. This is what religious freedom is all about. You are free to your own religious belief, but your religion should not interfere with the law. Your beliefs are protected by the Constitution of the United States, and so are mine, even if they are completely different.
This particular point is really more about scaring people than presenting any kind of logical argument.
“If Proposition 8 fails, religious adoption agencies may be forced to place children in same sex marriages, or discontinue providing adoption services altogether. That’s what happened in Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, after its courts imposed same-sex marriage.”
Gay marriage and the right of homosexuals to adopt are two different concepts. Catholic Charities was not forced to place children in homosexual households as a result of the gay marriage ruling in 2004, but of the state law passed in 1993 requiring that gay couples be allowed to adopt children. Catholic Charities stopped their adoption practices in 2006 not as a result of the gay marriage ruling, but due to pressure from 4 arch-bishops to gain a state exemption of the law requiring gay parents to be allowed to adopt. After this failed, Catholic Charities discontinued its adoption services.
“Based on past experience, those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds will be increasingly labeled as intolerant, and subjected to legal penalties or social ridicule. It’s already happening in the debate over Prop 8. Some who support traditional marriage are having their careers threatened. This won’t be limited to California as its powerful influence is felt across the country.”
Again, there is no solid evidence to this vague statement. Who is having their career threatened?
If my religion believed that your religion’s institution of marriage was wrong, should I have the right to decide that your group should not be afforded the right to a legal, state-recognized marriage because it conflicts with my way of thinking?
“Did you know that nearly all public schools in California provide education about health and sexuality? If prop 8 fails, children will be taught that marriage is between Party A and Party B, regardless of gender.”
So, what you’re saying is that if gay marriage is legal, children will be allowed to know what it is? And your point?
“Children will be taught that same-sex marriages are the equal of traditional marriages. There will be serious clashes between the public schools and parents, who desire to teach their children their own values and beliefs.”
Schools are already required to teach children about tolerance based on sexual preference, and this was in place before gay marriage was legal.
As it states in the California Educational Code:
220. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.
If parents don’t approve of the education their children are receiving at the public school, they are free to enroll them at a private school that better fits with whatever kind of beliefs they want to raise their children with. Schools will only teach what is allowed by state law, not what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ based on someone’s religious beliefs. Just as now, students learn about roe vs. wade; that it is legal to have an abortion. That does not mean the school is teaching them that it is right or wrong to have one. That responsibility belongs to the parents.
“If Proposition 8 fails, it will affect everyone. For example, the change of the legal definition of marriage could narrow personal liberties. Some have already been lost. Like photographers, who prefer not to photograph gay weddings, and doctors, who prefer not to perform artificial inseminations of gays, even when there are other willing doctors.”
This point is un-related to Prop 8. Whether or not same sex marriage is legal, there are still gay couples who will have parties and hire photographers or want to adopt children, or be artificially inseminated. Public businesses that refuse to work with gays will be going against anti-discriminatory laws that are already in place, not the legalization of same sex marriage. Any doctor or other public business that are told not to discriminate is because of current state laws; this will not change whether or not the legal definition of marriage changes.
On the "Preserving Marriage" website, it states “Proposition 8 will not hurt gays and lesbians.
In California, the law provides for marriage-related benefits to be given to civil unions and domestic partnerships. Proposition 8 does not diminish these benefits.”
If Proposition 8 does not diminish marriage-related benefits from homosexual couples, why is their commercial advertising against the ideas of gay couples being afforded the right to a wedding ceremony, or the right to have children?
“It’s been said, the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. You see, although the argument of redefining marriage is couched in happiness, or equal rights, it’s really about gaining control; forcing all of us to give up the very foundation of speech, and religious freedoms on which this country was founded."
As much as you'd like to believe, the religious freedoms on which the foundation of this country are based do NOT allow persons of one religious spectrum to dictate the personal liberties and religious beliefs of others. Religion and the state are two separate entities. You cannot tell someone that they are encroaching upon YOUR personal liberties while in the same breath demand that THEIR personal liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution be taken away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
