I read a great blog today from Thera P. regarding the passing of a neighbor. I wanted to make a comment about it, and here it is. What follows is a short argument paper I wrote for an English class. The professor gave us a list of controversial topics, and I chose gay marriage. One of the guys I grew up with got married to his life partner during the short time it was legal in California, so though I'm not gay, I have a personal interest in this topic.

BTW- It's the only 100% I got on a paper. I usually score pretty well, but I haven't actually gotten 100% before or since.

 

I kept the citations in, just in case anyone wants to check my work.

 

Same Sex Marriage or Civil Unions: What's the Difference? 

 

One of the chief problems in the debate over the gay or same-sex marriage issue is one of language. Many politicians, when asked, will say they support civil unions, but that marriage, or at least that term, should only apply to opposite sex couples. In other words, as in legislation, such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. While most of these people agree that gays should not be victims of discrimination, and should be allowed to love and commit to a partner, as long as we don't call it "marriage."  What's wrong with that?

The real objection to using the word "marriage" in this context is still primarily a moral one, steeped in religious tradition. This is no surprise. After all, in the Bible, homosexuality is "absolutely forbidden, for it is a terrible sin" (Lev. 18:22, tr. 1971). For the state to allow something that is a "terrible sin" and give it legal status equal to a man and a woman where a man should love his partner as if she were "a part of himself" (Eph. 5:33), just as "Christ cares for...his church"(Eph. 5:25) is, I'm sure, insulting to many believers.

This objection, that many religious people, even if they are only casually religious have, is one that they should have. This is a deeply held belief, and one that is understandable. It has been taught and thought and said for generations. Since these beliefs are written in the religious texts, it is perfectly understandable that clergy and religious groups are against the practice altogether. They should be. It goes against their moral compass.

Many people are against discrimination in any form. Most agree that anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, so long as it's legal, and they have the talent and will to do it. Even religious people believe that gay folks should be allowed to work and find love. Sanctioning that love is a different argument. We've all heard this one, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." So calling a union between two gay people can be legal, but not called marriage.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Court overturned the ban on same-sex marriage, they concluded that to call it something else meant that it was something else. In her opinion Chief Justice Marshall stated that to refer to same-sex unions as anything other than marriage "continues to relegate same-sex couples to a different status" (2003). Again, as long as the legislation confers equal protection, why not?

Vermont has civil unions, for example, and these unions bestow on a couple many of the benefits of marriage, but they only apply to residents of Vermont. They have protection in the family court for matters such as divorce; they have an automatic durable power of attorney, the right to family leave and the ability to file joint state income tax. These unions are not recognized by the federal government, however. So a couple in Vermont would be unable to file a joint federal tax return and realize the savings that a married couple can enjoy (Belge, n.d.).

Since these unions, like domestic partnerships in California, New Jersey, or Hawaii are sanctioned by the individual states, they are not recognized by the country at large. In other words, these protections vanish the moment a couple moves to a state that does not have this legal status on the books. Also, since these are benefits provided by the individual states, they are not uniform among those states (Gannon, 2008).

Across the country there are 1,049 protections and benefits bestowed on a couple that enters into marriage (GAO, 1997). These are automatic the moment a couple enters into matrimony. Automatically a spouse is the next of kin in all matters. If someone needs medical attention, and is unable to consent, all the spouse needs to do is say, "I'm the wife" and instantly that persons wishes are heard without having to hire counsel and without presenting papers. If a person with government benefits, such as a military veteran dies, the surviving partner receives benefits from the government on the deceased partner's behalf. Since civil unions don't have standing in the federal courts, these benefits would not pass to the survivor.

Why should the government even have the debate, let alone sanction this type of union? The answer is simple, equal protection under the law. The argument against it is one of a religious nature, and if religious institutions don't wish to acknowledge these unions, they shouldn't. Civil marriages, performed over by a judge aren't sanctioned by the church, yet in the eyes of the government are just as valid as any given by a clergyman. People that are joined in such ceremonies are as married as anyone that got the benefit of clergy. As far as the state is concerned, what's the real difference? There are 1,049 protections and benefits that marriage automatically gives. Shouldn't all Americans that want them be allowed to have them?

 

 

Bibliography

Belge, K. (n.d.). The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions. Retrieved January 23, 2009, from About.com: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

Gannon, H. A. (2008). Same-sex marriage should be allowed. Retrieved January 22, 2009, from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center: http://find.galegroup.com.webproxy-prod.columbuslibrary.org/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010136208&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=cmlweb&version=1.0

Government Accounting Office. (1997, January 31). Letter to Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Retrieved January 24, 2009, from Gao.gov: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. (2004, February 4). Gay & lesbian marriage decision: letter ot the Senate. Retrieved January 23, 2009, from Find Law: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/maglmarriage20304.html

The Living Bible. (tr. 1971). Wheaton, IL: Tyndale house Publishers.

 

 

No matter the language used, the health care debate in the United States comes down to this. Is health care a commodity or is it a human right?

If it is a commodity, then get it if you can afford it, or get what you can afford. I might need a car to get certain jobs, but nobody owes me a car, if I can afford one I get it. If not, the bus for me,  I walk, or I get a different job.

If it is a human right, then like the protection afforded me by the armed forces, law enforcement, and public safety, it should be universal, and paid for by taxes.

We can get caught up in minutiae, but no matter how one thinks it should be administered, it still only comes down to those two realities. There is no third way.

If only the debaters let people know they understood this.

This is an actual letter I sent to President Obama




Mr. President:

I have never written to a politician before, and with the vast amount of correspondence you get, you may not personally see this tome, but I wanted to write you anyway. Perhaps the staff that sifts through the mail, looking for threats and such may find this and send it your way. In that spirit, maybe this humble email might just find its way to your desk in the Oval Office.

You are about to give an address concerning health care. I don't have the information you have on any subject in the world. You have only to make a phone call, and any number of experts can give you the best and most in depth facts on anything, so I'm not about to tell you what to say. I will tell you this though, it is in all of our best interests that you do a good job. I don't say this because I voted for you, though I did. I don't say this because you went to law school with ------------*, a guy that I go so far back with that-- well our fathers were friends when they were both bachelors, that's how far back I go with him. I don't say it for any of those reasons, I say it because if you fail, so goes the country.

So when you address the country, though I know it is your wont to be reasonable,you can't just be reasonable. It's alright to set reasonable goals. It's good to have a reasonable approach, but your address to the nation cannot be well reasoned facts. You must have passion, power and poetry. You must get angry, and let the country see your anger, though through my observance of you, I see you earn your moniker of "No Drama Obama."

Well, forget that. You have to use the same mob psychology that's being used against you, and channel it to your advantage. The people can't just know what you mean, we have to feel it. We have to dance to your drum. We have to in our  bones have the reverberation of your words, your passion, your hopes. In this, it may be better to lose spectacularly, than to win by negotiating away all of your ideas.

No matter what you say or do, the opposition will come at you, and with compassion and clarity you must answer and diminish that opposition. The key is the people. You must rally the people. Government should be more afraid of the common constituent than it is of the complex corporation, and I can't think of anyone, especially with your experience with community organization, that can do it. After all, the United States is just a big community. The only difference is the scale.

Good Luck.

*name redacted, though I really did grow up with one of his mates from law school

I was reading an op-ed piece in the LA Times this morning (it can be found here) where it seems some atheistic scientists are attacking religion, and citing religious beliefs as being the reason for the lack of scientific knowledge Americans have, when compared to the rest of the world. The religious right, on the other hand, want to add religious explanations for the creation of the universe and everything as scientific fact. I understand this dilemma, but I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing.

From the religious side, I really don't understand how an astrophysicist can study the cosmos and all its glory and, at the end of the day, think there is no deity of any kind. On the other hand, I don't understand how a believer can accept as scientific fact any religious creation story, especially when it comes from people that thought the world was flat, and the stars are just points of light in the night sky.

Science will always ask "What was that?" or "What happened?" and try to figure it out by experimentation, observation, and calculation. Religion asks different questions that science cannot answer, like "Why am I here?" or "What's my purpose?" Scientific questions, on the other hand, can be answered by religion just by saying "God did it."

Take everybody's favorite topic when it comes to this discussion, evolution. First, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a theist. I DO believe in a higher power that was and continues to be the architect of the universe, and made everything from the smallest subatomic particle to the largest galactic construct. I am satisfied that it has been shown to me that human beings, over many generations have evolved, through  mutation, to become the creatures we are today. I also think God did it, and that being the case, teaching evolution to our children is not detrimental, and does not teach them to be atheists. If you thinks that it is, send your child to a religious school. That way, if they do independent research, they may reject their religious upbringing, and see it as a lie.

I don't have these conflicts.

I don't believe the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago, I think the Earth is over 4 billion years old and the universe more than 10 billion years old. I believe the calculations. I also think God did it.

I figure if God made all the universe, obviously He/She/It has more understanding of all this phenomena than I do, so who am I to say how it was done, except by experimentation, observation, and calculation? Even so, at the end of the day, God did it.

I may be dense, but I'm having trouble understanding the "birther" movement. In fact, each day I hear something about them, I'm more baffled and confused. When I hear that less than 50% of Republicans believe the President of the United States is a natural born citizen, and is therefore ineligible to hold the office, I am literally at sixes and sevens over this. I just don't get it.

I have a few questions for those that have or entertain this belief, so that I can be clear on this issue. If the President is a foreign national,

1.      How did he get past the Bush/Cheney security machine to become a viable candidate?

2.      How did he get past the Clinton ambition machine to get the party nomination?

3.      Why, after two years of campaigning, and seven months in office is there no compelling evidence to prove his alien status?

4.      Why does he have to show any of his accusers any proof at all, why don't they just prove their allegations?

If you would just clear up those questions for me, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you.

"All of us, no matter from what land our parents came, no matter in what way we may severally worship our Creator, must stand shoulder to shoulder in a united America for the elimination of race and religious prejudice. We must stand for a reign of equal justice to both big and small. We must insist on the maintenance of the American standard of living. We must stand for an adequate national control which shall secure a better training of our young men in time of peace, both for the work of peace and for the work of war." -Theodore Roosevelt

That's an excerpt from a speech given to the Knights of Columbus on October 12, 1915. How is a 94-year old speech relevant to our 21st century world? Ask the "birthers." Ask Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Lou Dobbs. Ask Skip Gates or Jim Crowley. Ask me.

The point of the speech was to warn against "Hyphenated Americanism." Before anyone gets their hackles up, in the speech it is made clear that this term doesn't refer to immigrants that have embraced the U.S. as their home. It doesn't mean those things that make each of us unique should be forgotten. After all, the genius of America is in our diversity. In fact, our diversity should be celebrated. Combining our various points of view to a common purpose can create an outcome that is greater than the equal sum of its parts.

Instead, some people are embracing the very thing the speech warns against. Using the American diversity to divide, rather than unite. This has been the failure, through our history, of the American people. This has been the major obstacle that keeps our country from the true greatness it can achieve.

Because of this view of Hyphenated Americanism, we don't have to worry about al-Queda, Iran, or North Korea. This makes us our own worst enemy. When people question whether or not the duly elected President of the United States in ineligible for a reason that would be easily discovered long before the election, or insist that he hates his grandparents for racial reasons, these people aren't just opportunists, they are, in fact, a national security risk.  These people want to destroy the United States and its potential for true greatness.

The real shame is that these traitors people really believe they are preserving America, but they are hurting and destroying it. If Jim DeMint was really serious about making the country better, he would be advising the president on matters concerning the health care debate rather than use it to "break him." There are plenty of reasons for those on the right to engage in a vigorous debate with the president, and to, from their point of view, to take him to task without using dangerous, base, and worst of all, false arguments. Find those real arguments and use them instead of being traitors.

I know my language is harsh, but the fact is, do you want to live in a country where you can be arrested for being rude to an uninvited guest, and that's OK? Do you want to live in a country where your elected officials snipe at each other rather than lead? If you allow it, it will happen, it has already started.

Dear Sirs:

I hope the two of you are happy. I don't know who said what to whom or how it was said, and I don't care. Very clearly the lack of civility that occurred between the two of you turned what should have been a minor inconvenience into a national debate on racial profiling. In this, the greatest country that has ever existed on this planet, that such a thing can happen is shameful, and, I'm sorry  to say, both of you are at fault.

I know that each of you in your mind can justify the actions you took on July 16, but the fact is that either of you could have diffused this situation rather than escalate it to its shameful conclusion. Instead of either of you taking the high road, if any of either of your stories are true, you both took the low path that lead you to where you are now, as polarizing figures, rather than unifying ones.

Both of you are in positions, through your hard work and perseverance, worthy of respect, and both of you are squandering that respect by your actions on that day and the days following the incident.

Was there racial profiling here? I don't know. In my own experience as an African-American man, with no criminal record more serious than a traffic ticket, I have had police guns pointed at me three times in my fifty years of life. So I know that profiling exists. On each of those occasions, I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. In other words, a crime happened nearby, and since I was in the vicinity, I was checked out. The guns were the tools those policemen used to get my attention. I contend that a wave or an "Excuse me, sir" would have done the job, but getting upset or arguing with an officer on the street is never a good idea.

Dr. Gates, since you come from West Virginia, and grew up during the '50's and '60's, you know better than to "loud-talk" a policeman. Having earned a PhD in English, I would hope you would have the ability to express yourself in a complete, concise fashion without resorting to base language and threats. I wasn't there, so I can't be sure you did that, but you did allow him justification to arrest you when you certainly know better than to do that.

Sgt. Crowley, I am doubly disappointed in you. You are a professional peacekeeper. Whatever your motivation, it is clear that you arrested Dr. Gates to get the last word. I don't think that you are a racist, but you made a poor decision. You represent your community, and you were on the clock executing your professional duty. There is no excuse for not being professional. So, someone got verbally abusive with you, that's the job. You see people at their worst every day, even good people.

As the news organizations and the blogosphere take sides, I don't. I see this axe swinging both ways, and it cuts our civility.