Peter Schiff, the man who called the current economic mess 2 years ago, says we're not near the end of our problems. Not good.
* Update - Here is footage from over two years ago. Also, does anyone take Arthur Laffer seriously anymore? If so, why? The guy obviously had no idea what he was talking about. I hope he paid off his bet with Schiff...
Monday, November 24, 2008
The Emerging Brand of "Christianity"
The Onion gets it. What type of Xian are you?
Preview:
Preview:
Now, granted, there are some Christians on the lunatic fringe who take their beliefs a little too far. Take my coworker Karen, for example. She's way off the deep end when it comes to religion: going down to the homeless shelter to volunteer once a month, donating money to the poor, visiting elderly shut-ins with the Meals on Wheels program—you name it! But believe me, we're not all that way. The people in my church, for the most part, are perfectly ordinary Americans like you and me. They believe in the simple old-fashioned traditions—Christmas, Easter, the slow and deliberate takeover of more and more county school boards to get the political power necessary to ban evolution from textbooks statewide. That sort of thing.
We oppose gay marriage as an abomination against the laws of God and America, we're against gun control, and we fervently and unwaveringly believe that the Jews, Muslims, and all on earth who are not born-again Pentecostalists are possessed by Satan and should be treated as such.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Always Trust the Government
I'm sure many of you have seen the recent news that a Judge ruled that 5 detainees from Guantanamo must be released. The reason for his decision was simple, the Government's evidence was insufficient to justify ongoing imprisonment of a detainee as an "enemy combatant" and there was no credible evidence that the 5 detainees intended to take up arms against the U.S.
These men have been wrongly detained, without credible evidence for seven years. In the aftermath of 9/11, President Bush was given incredible amounts of power in order to fight the "war on terror." In this process, he told a gullible Congress and the American people that he could be trusted with this power. Although it isn't the first time we have discovered that he misused this power, it is clear that we cannot trust the government to use its power without abuse. How do we plan on winning the "war against terror" when we arrest and detain innocent people without giving them due process? Why would any person or country look up to us as a beacon of liberty or a morally superior country? George Bush's approach to the war on terror has set us back years.
One of the men released was named Lakhdar Boumediene. The name may sound familiar if you followed the presidential campaign or recent Supreme Court decisions. Earlier in the year, the Supreme Court ruled that Habeas did apply to Guantanamo detainees and those rights could not be suspended by the Military Commissions Act. Thus, the court invalidated Sec. 7 of the Act and declared the only way to suspend Habeas Corpus is to follow the procedure proscribed in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of the United States Constitution.
At that time, so-called conservatives and Republican's, even 4 of the Supreme Court justices stated that the detainees should not have Habeas rights and this ruling was dangerous for our country. John McCain said the ruling was "one of the worst in the history of this country" and Sarah Palin made yet another asinine statement during her VP acceptance speech stating that "[Barack] is worried that someone won't read them their rights." (Yet again, in proving she is an ass, the case had nothing to do with Miranda rights or notifying them of their protections.) But if these people would have gotten their way, these men would still be locked up in a cage for having done nothing wrong. How can anyone support the stance that these detainees should not have a right to a trial to even determine if they should be there? How can you still trust Bush when he says all the detainees in Guantanamo are terrorists? There are innocent people there, but if John McCain and countless others would have had their way those innocent people would still be rotting away in prisons as we speak. Unbelievable.
These men have been wrongly detained, without credible evidence for seven years. In the aftermath of 9/11, President Bush was given incredible amounts of power in order to fight the "war on terror." In this process, he told a gullible Congress and the American people that he could be trusted with this power. Although it isn't the first time we have discovered that he misused this power, it is clear that we cannot trust the government to use its power without abuse. How do we plan on winning the "war against terror" when we arrest and detain innocent people without giving them due process? Why would any person or country look up to us as a beacon of liberty or a morally superior country? George Bush's approach to the war on terror has set us back years.
One of the men released was named Lakhdar Boumediene. The name may sound familiar if you followed the presidential campaign or recent Supreme Court decisions. Earlier in the year, the Supreme Court ruled that Habeas did apply to Guantanamo detainees and those rights could not be suspended by the Military Commissions Act. Thus, the court invalidated Sec. 7 of the Act and declared the only way to suspend Habeas Corpus is to follow the procedure proscribed in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of the United States Constitution.
At that time, so-called conservatives and Republican's, even 4 of the Supreme Court justices stated that the detainees should not have Habeas rights and this ruling was dangerous for our country. John McCain said the ruling was "one of the worst in the history of this country" and Sarah Palin made yet another asinine statement during her VP acceptance speech stating that "[Barack] is worried that someone won't read them their rights." (Yet again, in proving she is an ass, the case had nothing to do with Miranda rights or notifying them of their protections.) But if these people would have gotten their way, these men would still be locked up in a cage for having done nothing wrong. How can anyone support the stance that these detainees should not have a right to a trial to even determine if they should be there? How can you still trust Bush when he says all the detainees in Guantanamo are terrorists? There are innocent people there, but if John McCain and countless others would have had their way those innocent people would still be rotting away in prisons as we speak. Unbelievable.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
No Bailout. Bankruptcy Please.
One of the most visible arguments for a government bailout of the big 3 is that it will help save jobs. However, Jim Lindgren from Volokh says that giving the big 3 a government bailout will end up costing us more jobs in the future:
He then continues to pile on by beating down the people that are abolishing their own jobs - the unions.
Unions usually include provisions in their labor agreements where there is a mandatory pay or benefits increase each year, regardless of how large or small the overall profits are. Does anyone else find it ridiculous that a company losing billions of dollars a month gives pay increases to its employees? If your blood isn't already curdling, does it incense you that many of these employees view this pay raise as an entitlement?
In regards to above, lets note the reference to the pension plan and how much the employees are paid. GM provides retirement benefits to its former employees. Part of these benefits are health care benefits. Why the hell did GM agree to such a thing?! Well, I'm guessing the dumb-ass unions demanded it, but why is this such an important issue when health care benefits are not hard to come upon when one is retired? Social Security provides Medicare to all persons over the age of 65 who qualify (GM workers would qualify). This money is automatically taken out of their SS benefits and even the most complete supplement plans are not that expensive. Why pass this cost off to GM? Did the Unions not think that paying these entitlement costs out the ass would end up taking their toll one day? Every time I read or hear someone on the news say we need a bailout or else retired GM employees are going to lose their health care I want to shoot someone. That is utter bullshit. Stop the propaganda. And why is the MSM lending a microphone to these people saying that?
I know it is a touchy subject for many people. I live in Ohio and I have family members who rely on the continuance of the big 3, but the government should not reward failed businesses, greedy unions and mismanaged corporations. I don't see why I should have to subsidize the wages of overpaid union employees. I am within the top 4% of educated people in the world (it may be different now that I am in law school) and I have yet to make over $15 an hour. Also, I eat the same meal almost every day in the week to save money. Well, who am I kidding, I don't have any money, yet you don't see me expecting other tax payers to subsidize my rent or food budget.
We have heard the ridiculous PR stunts of the big 3 execs this week, such as arriving to Capitol Hill in a Ford hybrid, even though the execs took their own private jets from Detroit in order to ask for federal bailout money but this has gone far enough. If Ford, GM or Chrysler buy an ad during the Superbowl, I'm going to get a pitchfork and drive my foreign car to Detroit looking for someone. My money will not be used for a friggin Superbowl ad.
Let's let Lindgren get in one more word.
If an industry is contracting and there is an oversupply of productive capacity, then the worst thing we could do is prop up that industry by taking jobs away from the healthier portions of the economy (including better run automakers). If government planners really were a lot smarter and better planners than business people (they aren’t), then the government’s strategy should be to try to drive bad businesses out of business quicker, not try to destroy the healthy companies by propping up the dying companies.
He then continues to pile on by beating down the people that are abolishing their own jobs - the unions.
Heavily unionized businesses usually have trouble competing with non-unionized
businesses. Unions are successful in getting above-market wages and benefits, which makes it difficult for the businesses to compete. In the auto industry, there are many more dealerships than necessary. And, according to Larry Kudlow, the average compensation and benefit rate for auto workers in Detroit is $72 an hour, compared to $44 an hour for foreign car workers at US plants. Even if two of the three Detroit automakers were to go out of business, most of their workers and the workers for their suppliers would be able to get some sort of job. That the jobs they would get would pay a lot less suggests just how much they are overpaid now. If General Motors has become a health and pension plan that makes cars on the side – in other words, unions pressured bad management to make promises they couldn’t keep – then inducing GM to go out of business should be on balance good for the economy. Any government bailout should go to the Federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, to provide money to cover partial pensions for the employees of companies in the bankruptcies certain to come.
Unions usually include provisions in their labor agreements where there is a mandatory pay or benefits increase each year, regardless of how large or small the overall profits are. Does anyone else find it ridiculous that a company losing billions of dollars a month gives pay increases to its employees? If your blood isn't already curdling, does it incense you that many of these employees view this pay raise as an entitlement?
In regards to above, lets note the reference to the pension plan and how much the employees are paid. GM provides retirement benefits to its former employees. Part of these benefits are health care benefits. Why the hell did GM agree to such a thing?! Well, I'm guessing the dumb-ass unions demanded it, but why is this such an important issue when health care benefits are not hard to come upon when one is retired? Social Security provides Medicare to all persons over the age of 65 who qualify (GM workers would qualify). This money is automatically taken out of their SS benefits and even the most complete supplement plans are not that expensive. Why pass this cost off to GM? Did the Unions not think that paying these entitlement costs out the ass would end up taking their toll one day? Every time I read or hear someone on the news say we need a bailout or else retired GM employees are going to lose their health care I want to shoot someone. That is utter bullshit. Stop the propaganda. And why is the MSM lending a microphone to these people saying that?
I know it is a touchy subject for many people. I live in Ohio and I have family members who rely on the continuance of the big 3, but the government should not reward failed businesses, greedy unions and mismanaged corporations. I don't see why I should have to subsidize the wages of overpaid union employees. I am within the top 4% of educated people in the world (it may be different now that I am in law school) and I have yet to make over $15 an hour. Also, I eat the same meal almost every day in the week to save money. Well, who am I kidding, I don't have any money, yet you don't see me expecting other tax payers to subsidize my rent or food budget.
We have heard the ridiculous PR stunts of the big 3 execs this week, such as arriving to Capitol Hill in a Ford hybrid, even though the execs took their own private jets from Detroit in order to ask for federal bailout money but this has gone far enough. If Ford, GM or Chrysler buy an ad during the Superbowl, I'm going to get a pitchfork and drive my foreign car to Detroit looking for someone. My money will not be used for a friggin Superbowl ad.
Let's let Lindgren get in one more word.
The only job-saving justification I can think of for a Detroit bailout is if the problem were only temporary; then destroying jobs might be imprudent. If Detroit’s business model were strong, if there were little or no overcapacity, and if Detroit’s problems were only temporary, then one could reasonably think that a bailout might be efficient. But there is no temporary market failure here to redress. Detroit’s problems have been here since the late 1970s. Anyone who thinks that giving money to a company losing 2-3 billion dollars a month — with overpaid workers and overpaid executives – would usually save jobs in the long run, rather than lose them, doesn’t understand economics.
The Problem with Single Issue Voters.
In discussing the now Republican base, Andrew Sullivan, Daniel Larrison and now Daniel Keennelly talk about the waining influence of white, married, evangelical voters.
Keennelly:
Keennelly:
Larison is right that they’re reliable and not influential. That’s what happens to political groups who join coalitions for negative reasons rather than any positive support for their platform or ideology. They don’t vote for Republicans; they vote against Democrats. Republicans only attract the religious conservative vote to the extent that Democrats are portrayed as—and, more important, to the extent that they actually willingly play the part of—the Boogeyman on the Left in the culture wars (e.g. the “Party of Death” who will sacrifice your First Amendment religious liberties on the altar of enforced acceptance of gay marriage). There’s a reason that white, married, Christian support for the Republicans began to surge in the late ’60s and ’70s, after all. That era saw the heating up, especially with Roe v. Wade, of the culture wars. (H/T Andrew for the study that shows this).
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The far-right's Newest Argument - howobamagotelected.com
I can understand people who voted for John McCain being upset with the outcome of the election, but using unscientific and biased "push polls" funded by undisclosed 3rd party interests to demonstrate that Obama voters are misinformed or the media was noticeably unfair is just ridiculous. Both sides have voters who are misinformed.
Furthermore, why would anyone use the research and documentary produced by a non-objective source as credible or compelling evidence? If this was Michael Moore using the same deceptive techniques, the right would be up in arms. Instead, in this situation, the right is complicit and there are no signs of outrage.If you want more background on the poll and the source of the documentary and website, check out the interview with the author/creator. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/interview-with-john-ziegler-on-zogby.html
Does critical judgment and vetting mean anything to these people?
Furthermore, why would anyone use the research and documentary produced by a non-objective source as credible or compelling evidence? If this was Michael Moore using the same deceptive techniques, the right would be up in arms. Instead, in this situation, the right is complicit and there are no signs of outrage.If you want more background on the poll and the source of the documentary and website, check out the interview with the author/creator. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/interview-with-john-ziegler-on-zogby.html
Does critical judgment and vetting mean anything to these people?
Friday, November 7, 2008
Transforming the Republican Party
One of the reasons I voted for Barack Obama is because the current GOP does not reflect the principles of limited government, rational policy-making, fiscal responsibility and conservative foreign policy. They needed to get a thrashing in the hopes that they would see their mistakes and fix them. Well, it seems the process is starting to take place and Jon Henke is giving some advice:
There is nothing wrong with real conservatism, but no party in Washington offers that anymore. We have a strong interest in seeing the GOP rebound because like I said before, having the Democrats in power with no strong opposition party will not lead to good things. Moderation and the checks of power are essential to our government functioning properly.
- Some of you will say "we have learned our lesson", and then try to pass off cosmetic changes as Reform. You are the problem.
- Some of you will say "Republicans need to fight/hold Democrats accountable", as if it is sufficient to be against Democrats. The pendulum may eventually swing back
to you, but you won't know what to do with it.
- Some of you will say "Republicans need to carry our message to the American people", as if the problem is that Republicans haven't been saying "tax cuts and limited government" loudly enough. The problem is not the inability to
communicate; the problem is that you have no idea how to actually deliver on those ideas.
- Others will say "Republicans need to be more principled", as if the problem is a mere lack of personal courage and principle by Republicans. Even the best people can't limit government if there is not an effective strategy for implementation - for getting "from here to there". You don't need better people. You need a better strategy.
There is nothing wrong with real conservatism, but no party in Washington offers that anymore. We have a strong interest in seeing the GOP rebound because like I said before, having the Democrats in power with no strong opposition party will not lead to good things. Moderation and the checks of power are essential to our government functioning properly.
Attention All Palin 2012 Supporters
Former aid of Jerry Falwell and leading Christian public relations executive, Mark DeMoss discusses the issue of values and competence. He also urges those supporting Sarah Palin to wake up:
Too many evangelicals and religious conservatives are too preoccupied with values and faith and pay no attention to competence. We don't apply this approach to anything else in life, including choosing a pastor." Imagine, he said, if a church was searching for a pastor and the leadership was brought a candidate with great values but little experience. "They've been a pastor for two years at a church with 150 people but he shares our values, so we hired him to be pastor of our 5,000 person church? It wouldn't happen! We don't say, 'He shares our values, so let's hire him.' That's absurd. Yet we apply that to choosing presidents. It blows my mind.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
“Family Values” Voters Divorce Thousands of California Couples
No, this headline isn’t from the Onion, it is the unfortunate result of Proposition 8 in California. This past spring, the California Supreme Court ruled that the ban against same-sex marriage rights was unconstitutional. If you are going to argue that this was an unfortunate occurrence of judicial activism, hold your breath. Prior to the court’s ruling, the people of California lobbied their state legislatures, and twice the legislature approved the measures granting same-sex couples equal rights before Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill declaring it was the job of the Supreme Court to decide the issue. In response, the Christianists petitioned to get a ballot initiative to amend the constitution of California to strip gay couples of their legal marriage rights. Last night, by a narrow margin, Proposition 8 passed.
The majority of voters who voted to strip their rights were 1) evangelicals and 2) blacks. (Exit polls) While Obama can be credited with increasing black-voter turnout, this was a cost of that benefit. I’m stunned that out of all minority groups, blacks would be the ones to refuse marriage rights to a minority group. Prior to the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967, only 40 years ago, blacks were prohibited from choosing who they could marry if their partner was white. Now, they have declared that a person – white, black, Hispanic or Asian - cannot marry who they want if their partner is of the same sex. How soon they kick the ladder from underneath them.
As I mentioned above, the other group that voted to strip gay couples of their legal rights were evangelical Christians. I’m not going to determine who is and who isn’t a Christian, but being a Christian myself and looking at the readings and teachings of Jesus, I cannot find any support for stripping legal rights from same-sex couples. These Christianists give tradition arguments that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, and has been throughout history. They also give policy arguments that if gays are given the right to marry, it will destroy the family. We need to protect the sanctity of marriage - we do not need to redefine marriage they argue. Just the other day, I visited the website of The Call, since my sister and some friends of mine had attended their gathering in Washington D.C. earlier this year. Their website talked about the upcoming gathering in San Diego for a day of “fasting and prayer in the fellowship of other believers.” Also, there was a video promotion talking about the gathering. The entire focus of the advertisement was the upcoming vote on Proposition 8. The narrorator declared “a confrontation between light and darkness” . . . “A battle to save the very sanctity of marriage, to the victor goes the soul of the nation.” “Cry out to God for the deliverance of the homosexual, and for the salvation of their lives, and for the love of God to be poured out over their hearts. Where there is no hope, there is no human remedy, God still has a Holy Prescription. We are calling the whole nation to 40 days of prayer and fasting for California, in a day of humility, and cleansing.” “Pray for a wave of freedom and deliverance the state has never seen.”
First, I’m confused on how restricting the choice of who gays are allowed to married is in any way related to “a wave of freedom and deliverance the state has never seen.” Restricting is the opposite of freedom, and that is exactly what the Proposition is doing. Second, nothing says I love you and care for you more than actively pursuing the remedy of taking away people’s legal rights and divorcing their marriage. I’m sure that is the most effective way to win over gay people to “the will of God.” Really though, what planet do you have to be on to think that gays will see your efforts of taking away their legal rights as an act of love and compassion?! Incredible. Third, I’m not quite sure how acts of love, commitment and compassion for someone else is “evil.” Yes, I’m aware that Christianists find the sexual acts between the partners as evil, but in heterosexual marriage, are the sex-acts between the husband and wife really the defining feature of their relationship? Is that all that marriage is? Any rational thinker will tell you no. It is the public announcement and recognition of their love, commitment and compassion for each other that defines a marriage for heterosexual couples and in this regard, there is no difference between those who are gay and those who are straight. Finally, why state that your efforts are out of “humility?” Earlier this year Andrew Sullivan, a Catholic, had a debate with atheist Sam Harris and in a response described humility. He stated, “You ask legitimately: how can I, convinced of this truth, resist imposing it on others? The answer is: humility and doubt. I may believe these things, but I am aware that others may not; and I respect their own existential decision to believe something else. I respect their decision because I respect my own, and realize it is indescribable to those who have not directly experienced it . . . The attempt to force or even rig laws to encourage others to share my faith defeats the point of my faith - which is that it is both freely chosen and definitionally dealing with matters that cannot be subject to common consensus.” Please don’t call Proposition 8 an attempt at humility. That is insulting.
Let’s go back to their arguments on why same-sex legal recognition should not be allowed. First, they argue that traditionally, marriage has been defined between a man and a woman. Clearly this is their strongest argument. Yes, traditionally it has been, but I would argue there are competing interests or emerging traditions. Utilizing tradition doesn’t always lead to the right outcome, however. For example, look at slavery or preventing marriage between blacks and whites. Christianists in each instance argued that scripture supported those views and they should be upheld by it. Due to that, I’m hesitant to strip people of their rights simply because it does not gel with tradition. We need to be asking, what is the cost of keeping that specific tradition and what will happen if we discard that tradition? This leads to the next argument that the sanctity of marriage needs to be protected. While that sounds great, I don’t think it really has much substance behind it. What needs to be protected? Who needs to be protected? Who is going to be harmed? I cannot be certain, but I don’t really see anyone being harmed by extending legal marriage rights to same-sex couples. I am getting married (to a woman) next July. If gays are given equal rights and allowed to marry 2 months after I am already married, how will my relationship be harmed? What is going to happen to me? The answer is clear. There is no way I am going to be harmed. My marriage and my legal rights under the law and between Beth and I are in no way going to be affected. My rights are guaranteed regardless of whether or not same-sex couples are allowed to marry. Will extending those rights to same-sex couples cheapen my marriage? Please. If there is no valid reason to “protect” anything or anyone, then what reason is there to prevent gays from being viewed equally under the law? It seems clear the answer is not to “protect” marriage; instead it is to simply stigmatize a certain group of people and make them second-class citizens under the law. The sad part is, people on the other side of the debate are unwilling to acknowledge it. Did Jesus demand that the adulterer’s legal rights be stripped when she was confronted by the angry mob?
Our country was founded on the principals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, stating that these rights are inalienable and endowed by our Creator. Our Declaration hints at these rights and our Constitution guarantee’s them - especially the rights to marry, due process and equal protection under the laws. I’m not going to discuss the cases (Meyer, Loving, Moore, Zablocki, Skinner…etc), but part of liberty is allowing people to do whatever they want, even if you don’t agree with it, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. That is what our country stands for, and that is what our Constitution protects. I can’t find any real evidence that gay marriage harms anyone and I have yet to hear a compelling argument. Therefore, stripping same-sex couples of their legal rights merely because you find it unchristian isn’t a compelling reason. One day we will promote the ideals taught by Jesus of inclusion, tolerance, love and commitment instead of marginalization and second-class citizenship. The Gospel is supposed to be the “Good News,” yet Christianists only seem to use it as a weapon to attack, hurt and belittle others.
All civil rights movements have their ups and their downs, but one day these couples will no longer be stigmatized and declared second-class citizens under the law. However, in the end there is not much I can really say to those who supported Proposition 8 other than what Jesus taught me to say . . . I forgive you.
The majority of voters who voted to strip their rights were 1) evangelicals and 2) blacks. (Exit polls) While Obama can be credited with increasing black-voter turnout, this was a cost of that benefit. I’m stunned that out of all minority groups, blacks would be the ones to refuse marriage rights to a minority group. Prior to the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967, only 40 years ago, blacks were prohibited from choosing who they could marry if their partner was white. Now, they have declared that a person – white, black, Hispanic or Asian - cannot marry who they want if their partner is of the same sex. How soon they kick the ladder from underneath them.
As I mentioned above, the other group that voted to strip gay couples of their legal rights were evangelical Christians. I’m not going to determine who is and who isn’t a Christian, but being a Christian myself and looking at the readings and teachings of Jesus, I cannot find any support for stripping legal rights from same-sex couples. These Christianists give tradition arguments that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, and has been throughout history. They also give policy arguments that if gays are given the right to marry, it will destroy the family. We need to protect the sanctity of marriage - we do not need to redefine marriage they argue. Just the other day, I visited the website of The Call, since my sister and some friends of mine had attended their gathering in Washington D.C. earlier this year. Their website talked about the upcoming gathering in San Diego for a day of “fasting and prayer in the fellowship of other believers.” Also, there was a video promotion talking about the gathering. The entire focus of the advertisement was the upcoming vote on Proposition 8. The narrorator declared “a confrontation between light and darkness” . . . “A battle to save the very sanctity of marriage, to the victor goes the soul of the nation.” “Cry out to God for the deliverance of the homosexual, and for the salvation of their lives, and for the love of God to be poured out over their hearts. Where there is no hope, there is no human remedy, God still has a Holy Prescription. We are calling the whole nation to 40 days of prayer and fasting for California, in a day of humility, and cleansing.” “Pray for a wave of freedom and deliverance the state has never seen.”
First, I’m confused on how restricting the choice of who gays are allowed to married is in any way related to “a wave of freedom and deliverance the state has never seen.” Restricting is the opposite of freedom, and that is exactly what the Proposition is doing. Second, nothing says I love you and care for you more than actively pursuing the remedy of taking away people’s legal rights and divorcing their marriage. I’m sure that is the most effective way to win over gay people to “the will of God.” Really though, what planet do you have to be on to think that gays will see your efforts of taking away their legal rights as an act of love and compassion?! Incredible. Third, I’m not quite sure how acts of love, commitment and compassion for someone else is “evil.” Yes, I’m aware that Christianists find the sexual acts between the partners as evil, but in heterosexual marriage, are the sex-acts between the husband and wife really the defining feature of their relationship? Is that all that marriage is? Any rational thinker will tell you no. It is the public announcement and recognition of their love, commitment and compassion for each other that defines a marriage for heterosexual couples and in this regard, there is no difference between those who are gay and those who are straight. Finally, why state that your efforts are out of “humility?” Earlier this year Andrew Sullivan, a Catholic, had a debate with atheist Sam Harris and in a response described humility. He stated, “You ask legitimately: how can I, convinced of this truth, resist imposing it on others? The answer is: humility and doubt. I may believe these things, but I am aware that others may not; and I respect their own existential decision to believe something else. I respect their decision because I respect my own, and realize it is indescribable to those who have not directly experienced it . . . The attempt to force or even rig laws to encourage others to share my faith defeats the point of my faith - which is that it is both freely chosen and definitionally dealing with matters that cannot be subject to common consensus.” Please don’t call Proposition 8 an attempt at humility. That is insulting.
Let’s go back to their arguments on why same-sex legal recognition should not be allowed. First, they argue that traditionally, marriage has been defined between a man and a woman. Clearly this is their strongest argument. Yes, traditionally it has been, but I would argue there are competing interests or emerging traditions. Utilizing tradition doesn’t always lead to the right outcome, however. For example, look at slavery or preventing marriage between blacks and whites. Christianists in each instance argued that scripture supported those views and they should be upheld by it. Due to that, I’m hesitant to strip people of their rights simply because it does not gel with tradition. We need to be asking, what is the cost of keeping that specific tradition and what will happen if we discard that tradition? This leads to the next argument that the sanctity of marriage needs to be protected. While that sounds great, I don’t think it really has much substance behind it. What needs to be protected? Who needs to be protected? Who is going to be harmed? I cannot be certain, but I don’t really see anyone being harmed by extending legal marriage rights to same-sex couples. I am getting married (to a woman) next July. If gays are given equal rights and allowed to marry 2 months after I am already married, how will my relationship be harmed? What is going to happen to me? The answer is clear. There is no way I am going to be harmed. My marriage and my legal rights under the law and between Beth and I are in no way going to be affected. My rights are guaranteed regardless of whether or not same-sex couples are allowed to marry. Will extending those rights to same-sex couples cheapen my marriage? Please. If there is no valid reason to “protect” anything or anyone, then what reason is there to prevent gays from being viewed equally under the law? It seems clear the answer is not to “protect” marriage; instead it is to simply stigmatize a certain group of people and make them second-class citizens under the law. The sad part is, people on the other side of the debate are unwilling to acknowledge it. Did Jesus demand that the adulterer’s legal rights be stripped when she was confronted by the angry mob?
Our country was founded on the principals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, stating that these rights are inalienable and endowed by our Creator. Our Declaration hints at these rights and our Constitution guarantee’s them - especially the rights to marry, due process and equal protection under the laws. I’m not going to discuss the cases (Meyer, Loving, Moore, Zablocki, Skinner…etc), but part of liberty is allowing people to do whatever they want, even if you don’t agree with it, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. That is what our country stands for, and that is what our Constitution protects. I can’t find any real evidence that gay marriage harms anyone and I have yet to hear a compelling argument. Therefore, stripping same-sex couples of their legal rights merely because you find it unchristian isn’t a compelling reason. One day we will promote the ideals taught by Jesus of inclusion, tolerance, love and commitment instead of marginalization and second-class citizenship. The Gospel is supposed to be the “Good News,” yet Christianists only seem to use it as a weapon to attack, hurt and belittle others.
All civil rights movements have their ups and their downs, but one day these couples will no longer be stigmatized and declared second-class citizens under the law. However, in the end there is not much I can really say to those who supported Proposition 8 other than what Jesus taught me to say . . . I forgive you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
