I am all for equal rights for gays, including getting married if that's what they want to do. However, that said, I believe there is a way around this whole debate over whether gays should be allowed to get married that would probably satisfy all but the most ardent stickler on either side. This isn't my idea, or it isn't new. But I believe it should be the direction that the gay marriage debate ought to take.
Homosexuals want to marry because it gives both parties in the relationship the same rights that married couples now enjoy, both in terms of the tax code and for employment benefits. They also want to be recognized as a married couple by society. But isn't it possible to grant gay couples all those rights without actually calling it a marriage?
Conservatives say they want the "institution of marriage" preserved because, to them, marriage is something that is sanctioned by God. So it really, then, becomes an issue of semantics. Why not keep the definition of "marriage" as a union between one man and one woman that is sanctioned by God. Marriage can then be something performed by and sanctioned by the church. If a denomination does not approve of gay marriage, they would have the right not to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. For gay couples, we could call it something else, such as a "domestic partnership." A domestic partnership would be sanctioned by the government and would require a domestic partnership license. But a marriage would only be sanctioned by the church, and the couple getting married would still need to get a marriage license. Legally, however, it would be equivalent to a domestic partnership license. Denominations that have no problem with alloying gay couples to marry can still, if they wish, call it marriage.
If an atheistic or agnostic heterosexual couple would prefer to get a domestic partnership license rather than a marriage license, that would be their decision to make.
So, for those who are against gay marriage, they would get to retain their definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. And for the gay couple, the domestic partnership would grant them all the legal rights and protections that being married now does. Also, if a gay couple wanted to have a wedding ceremony and even call it "getting married" there would be nothing to prevent them from doing so. It's just that everybody's legal license would read either "domestic partnership" or "marriage" and they would be legally equivalent.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Sunday, June 03, 2012
Pro Rights or Anti Rights?
Let's compare:
Pro-Life - It means you do not believe it's right for a woman to have an abortion. It also means you oppose giving any woman, even those who do not share your belief, the right to have an abortion if they choose. It restricts the rights of others.
Pro-Choice - It means you may or may not believe that abortion is alright. It does mean you agree to allow others to freely choose what to believe and to act on it or not accordingly. No rights are deprived or restricted.
Creationism - It means you believe that the earth and all life on it were created in six literal days, less than 10,000 years ago. It also means you oppose teaching anything other than this belief in science classrooms, despite having absolutely no evidence to back up your belief and despite the mountains of accumulated evidence to the contrary. Children's rights to a good science education are hampered.
"Evolutionism" - It means you accept the scientific evidence at face value because you know it is based on empirical data. It means you agree with allowing actual science educators to develop the science curriculum and include all the latest evidence within it.
Anti-Gay Marriage - It means you believe that being gay and acting upon those feelings constitutes a sin against God. It also means that you do not support granting the freedom to get married to any same-sex couple. It might also mean that you believe that homosexuality is an abomination that must be stamped out.
Pro-Gay Marriage - It means that you accept the rights of others to choose the sex of their life partners and to participate in legal marriage. It means that you believe those who oppose gay marriage have the right not to marry a person of the same sex. No rights are forbidden to anyone.
Anti-Public Health Care - It means that you do not believe that those who cannot afford to pay to go to a doctor or hospital when they are ill should stay sick or die because you do not intend for one dime of your tax dollars to go to pay for someone else's health care.
Pro-Public Health Care - It means that you realize that you don't get to pick and choose line items to support with your tax dollars and that the government's job is to take care of the public welfare, which includes granting those who cannot afford it a health care plan. You believe that a healthy America is good for society and if paying for it with tax dollars goes toward that end, so be it.
Pro Gun Rights - It means that you believe everyone should have the unlimited right to own any sort of weapon and to carry it in public or in private as they wish. It also may mean that you believe it's ok to collect weapons to use against the coming chaos that will reign when the government collapses and anarchy sets in, despite more than 200 years of history showing that will not happen.
Anti Gun Rights - It means you believe the Second Amendment applies to a time when America relied on private militias to defend itself and that in today's society certain types of weapons are inappropriate for private ownership, including automatic weapons and handguns. It means you probably don't have a problem with the ownership of hunting rifles or shotguns. And, yes, it means you agree to restrict certain rights to own weapons because you believe it's a sound trade-off for a safer country. It means you agree with the premise of restricting the rights of Americans to shoot each other.
In the above examples, the conservatives and Republicans are on the side of restricting or removing people's rights in every case but one. It shows that progressives or Democrats are on the side of granting personal rights, except one - the one that allows people to own the weapons with which to shoot each other. So if you're a proud American who appreciates freedom, guess whom you should vote for in the next election!
Pro-Life - It means you do not believe it's right for a woman to have an abortion. It also means you oppose giving any woman, even those who do not share your belief, the right to have an abortion if they choose. It restricts the rights of others.
Pro-Choice - It means you may or may not believe that abortion is alright. It does mean you agree to allow others to freely choose what to believe and to act on it or not accordingly. No rights are deprived or restricted.
Creationism - It means you believe that the earth and all life on it were created in six literal days, less than 10,000 years ago. It also means you oppose teaching anything other than this belief in science classrooms, despite having absolutely no evidence to back up your belief and despite the mountains of accumulated evidence to the contrary. Children's rights to a good science education are hampered.
"Evolutionism" - It means you accept the scientific evidence at face value because you know it is based on empirical data. It means you agree with allowing actual science educators to develop the science curriculum and include all the latest evidence within it.
Anti-Gay Marriage - It means you believe that being gay and acting upon those feelings constitutes a sin against God. It also means that you do not support granting the freedom to get married to any same-sex couple. It might also mean that you believe that homosexuality is an abomination that must be stamped out.
Pro-Gay Marriage - It means that you accept the rights of others to choose the sex of their life partners and to participate in legal marriage. It means that you believe those who oppose gay marriage have the right not to marry a person of the same sex. No rights are forbidden to anyone.
Anti-Public Health Care - It means that you do not believe that those who cannot afford to pay to go to a doctor or hospital when they are ill should stay sick or die because you do not intend for one dime of your tax dollars to go to pay for someone else's health care.
Pro-Public Health Care - It means that you realize that you don't get to pick and choose line items to support with your tax dollars and that the government's job is to take care of the public welfare, which includes granting those who cannot afford it a health care plan. You believe that a healthy America is good for society and if paying for it with tax dollars goes toward that end, so be it.
Pro Gun Rights - It means that you believe everyone should have the unlimited right to own any sort of weapon and to carry it in public or in private as they wish. It also may mean that you believe it's ok to collect weapons to use against the coming chaos that will reign when the government collapses and anarchy sets in, despite more than 200 years of history showing that will not happen.
Anti Gun Rights - It means you believe the Second Amendment applies to a time when America relied on private militias to defend itself and that in today's society certain types of weapons are inappropriate for private ownership, including automatic weapons and handguns. It means you probably don't have a problem with the ownership of hunting rifles or shotguns. And, yes, it means you agree to restrict certain rights to own weapons because you believe it's a sound trade-off for a safer country. It means you agree with the premise of restricting the rights of Americans to shoot each other.
In the above examples, the conservatives and Republicans are on the side of restricting or removing people's rights in every case but one. It shows that progressives or Democrats are on the side of granting personal rights, except one - the one that allows people to own the weapons with which to shoot each other. So if you're a proud American who appreciates freedom, guess whom you should vote for in the next election!
Saturday, May 12, 2012
How Sorry is Romney for being a Bully?
When you're a schoolkid the world is divided into two camps. You are a bully or, as Jean Shepherd so adeptly put it, you are "one of the nameless rabble of victims." I was in the latter category. Drilling down a bit further, though, you find that the victims can be subdivided into those who are merely annoyed at being bullied and those who are terrified. Again, I was the latter.
I had two main bullies throughout my school career. In elementary school, his name was Stanley. On more than one occasion Stanley made me late for class as he chased me through the streets surrounding my school and refused to let me pass. I guess it didn't bother him at all that he was also making himself late. Then in junior high school, there was Allen. He liked to poke people with sharpened pencils. And hardly a day went by that he didn't remember to threaten me with some sort of violence.
There were other, minor bullies along the way. But these are the two I remember most, because they seemed to be perpetual. The others were transient, or less frightening. And in hindsight, I'm not sure I had good reason to be so terrorized by either of them because in all the years I was bullied by them, neither of them ever actually beat me up. They were simply amusing themselves at my expense.
Decades later, when we were all in our 30s or 40s, both of my schoolyard bullies apologized to me. One had become a born-again Christian and as such was verging on becoming even more annoying to me with his Jesus talk than he ever was in elementary school. The other became a firefighter. And he, Allen, once confessed to me that his decision to become a public servant and first responder was motivated by the guilt he felt for having been a bully in school. It was an act of contrition. It wasn't just me he bullied, although at the time it sure seemed like it. He related horror stories of how he may have actually ruined lives because of his actions as a kid.
His confession really meant a lot to me. Here is a man who felt pain himself for having brought pain to others and set out to make it right in a palpable way. He now unselfishly gives back to the community he once terrorized. And he has become a respected citizen.
This past week, the Washington Post broke a story about bullying. The story details former students of a prep school have come forward to reveal that presidential contender Mitt Romney was once a schoolyard buly, too. When confronted with this old news, Romney basically excused himself, implying that he was just a teenager pulling a prank. He then offered a half-hearted apology to those he might have hurt or offended. "Back in high school, I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that,” he said. Compare that conditional apology ("...if anybody was hurt by that or offended...") with the deeply-motivated act of contrition by my former bully, Allen.
Another difference is that Stanley and Allen were simply motivated to be bullies because it amused them. It was twisted and sad, but they apparently did not hate their victims. I actually believe if their victims had all been absent on the same day they would have been disappointed. And even in the process of bullying me Stanley would sometimes yell out, "Oh come on. I'm just playing!" But Romney was motivated by sheer hatred. He and his bully buddies chased another student down. His friends held him down while Romney actually cut his hair. Apparently, his hair was too long for Romney because it made him look like a girl. The Post story also told of other times that Romney had made fun of students because he thought they looked or acted gay.
If Romney's attitudes toward homosexuals has changed, if he does not loathe them as much as he did in his youth, he missed his opportunity to set the record straight. Instead of offering a half-baked conditional apology why didn't he take the opportunity to not only show real remorse over his actions but come out strongly against bullying, and specifically bullying of gay students? He could have said, for example, something like, "I regret, terribly, what I did to those classmates of mine. It was a terrible thing and I have to live with myself every day, knowing what I did to them. I want to offer my sincere and humble apology to all those I hurt and I want to try to make amends the best way I can. I'm not that person anymore and I don't like that part of the person I used to be. I only hope those who were victims of my cruelty can forgive me." That would be an apology with meaning. But that isn't the kind of apology that was given. The conclusion that begs to be drawn is that Romney still feels the same way about homosexuals now as he did then. But his bullying methods have changed to a more socially acceptable form of trying to limit people's rights through the process of law instead of holding them down and cutting their hair.
I had two main bullies throughout my school career. In elementary school, his name was Stanley. On more than one occasion Stanley made me late for class as he chased me through the streets surrounding my school and refused to let me pass. I guess it didn't bother him at all that he was also making himself late. Then in junior high school, there was Allen. He liked to poke people with sharpened pencils. And hardly a day went by that he didn't remember to threaten me with some sort of violence.
There were other, minor bullies along the way. But these are the two I remember most, because they seemed to be perpetual. The others were transient, or less frightening. And in hindsight, I'm not sure I had good reason to be so terrorized by either of them because in all the years I was bullied by them, neither of them ever actually beat me up. They were simply amusing themselves at my expense.
Decades later, when we were all in our 30s or 40s, both of my schoolyard bullies apologized to me. One had become a born-again Christian and as such was verging on becoming even more annoying to me with his Jesus talk than he ever was in elementary school. The other became a firefighter. And he, Allen, once confessed to me that his decision to become a public servant and first responder was motivated by the guilt he felt for having been a bully in school. It was an act of contrition. It wasn't just me he bullied, although at the time it sure seemed like it. He related horror stories of how he may have actually ruined lives because of his actions as a kid.
His confession really meant a lot to me. Here is a man who felt pain himself for having brought pain to others and set out to make it right in a palpable way. He now unselfishly gives back to the community he once terrorized. And he has become a respected citizen.
This past week, the Washington Post broke a story about bullying. The story details former students of a prep school have come forward to reveal that presidential contender Mitt Romney was once a schoolyard buly, too. When confronted with this old news, Romney basically excused himself, implying that he was just a teenager pulling a prank. He then offered a half-hearted apology to those he might have hurt or offended. "Back in high school, I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that,” he said. Compare that conditional apology ("...if anybody was hurt by that or offended...") with the deeply-motivated act of contrition by my former bully, Allen.
Another difference is that Stanley and Allen were simply motivated to be bullies because it amused them. It was twisted and sad, but they apparently did not hate their victims. I actually believe if their victims had all been absent on the same day they would have been disappointed. And even in the process of bullying me Stanley would sometimes yell out, "Oh come on. I'm just playing!" But Romney was motivated by sheer hatred. He and his bully buddies chased another student down. His friends held him down while Romney actually cut his hair. Apparently, his hair was too long for Romney because it made him look like a girl. The Post story also told of other times that Romney had made fun of students because he thought they looked or acted gay.
If Romney's attitudes toward homosexuals has changed, if he does not loathe them as much as he did in his youth, he missed his opportunity to set the record straight. Instead of offering a half-baked conditional apology why didn't he take the opportunity to not only show real remorse over his actions but come out strongly against bullying, and specifically bullying of gay students? He could have said, for example, something like, "I regret, terribly, what I did to those classmates of mine. It was a terrible thing and I have to live with myself every day, knowing what I did to them. I want to offer my sincere and humble apology to all those I hurt and I want to try to make amends the best way I can. I'm not that person anymore and I don't like that part of the person I used to be. I only hope those who were victims of my cruelty can forgive me." That would be an apology with meaning. But that isn't the kind of apology that was given. The conclusion that begs to be drawn is that Romney still feels the same way about homosexuals now as he did then. But his bullying methods have changed to a more socially acceptable form of trying to limit people's rights through the process of law instead of holding them down and cutting their hair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)