Saturday, March 13, 2010

Friday, March 12, 2010

The Sanctity of Marriage and using Jesus to Push Children Around

To really get into a good discussion about why gay people should be allowed to marry in the United States, one must first begin with a very basic vocabulary lesson.  When people start screaming about why gay and lesbian couples should not be treated the same as everyone else, conservatives almost always jump to "preserving the sanctity of marriage."  This is a completely flawed argument, and here is why:

From  Sanctity:   1.holiness, saintliness, or godliness.

                                                  2.sacred or hallowed character
                                                  3.a sacred thing.

From Merriam-Webster online: Sanctity:  1. holiness of life and character
                                                                                                         2. the quality of being holy or sacred

Anyone getting a theme here?  We live in a country where people are to have freedom of religion (and from religion, if they so choose).  To make an argument that an action, such as marrying two men and two women, goes against the "sanctity" of a concept, you are already using religious language.  People feel safe doing this because using one's religion to promote bigotry is somehow still safe in this country.  A politician can't just come out and say, "I don't like gay people."  But he or she feels great about saying, "I believe in the sanctity of marriage."  The holiness.  The sacred.  The religious-based right or wrongness of the act.

And there is no basis for not allowing homosexual marriage except a religious one.  The Religious Right, a group who cannot and/or will not separate their religious values from their political practices, believes that homosexuality is wrong according to the teachings of Jesus.  Therefore we shall not have gay marriage.  I'm sorry, but when did we become a country ruled by their version of What Jesus Would Do?

Take it a step further, and you have people trying to push their religious values about homosexuality onto the publically funded schools of their community.  It's bad enough that the Archdiocese of Denver has decided to outlaw children of gay people in their privately funded schools.  Their private funding grants them license to make their own rules, unless discrimination can be proven.  But this school, in Mississippi, gets taxpayer dollars to keep it's doors open.  When the loudest group of religious zealots can use their voice to push even school children around, we have a serious problem. 

If you don't like homosexuality and it's against your religion, don't hang out with gay people.  Don't attend their marriage ceremonies.  Attend a church that refuses to perform them.  Enroll your children in the Christian school of your choice (might I recommend Sacred Heart of Jesus in Boulder, CO) where gay and lesbian parents or students will not be tolerated.  But you absolutely must stop using our taxpayer money to fund your relgious bias.  And stop telling me you "hate the sin but love the sinner" while you treat some human beings with less dignity and respect than you do others.  You do not love anyone who you would deny equal treatment under the law.

If you believe that today's treatment of homosexual people will one day be looked at as we now look at the segregation of the pre-civil rights movement America, then you must speak out.  If you believe that sexual orientation is not a basis to decide whether or not a child can attend a prom, then you must speak out.  If you believe that every loving couple deserves the full benefits of marriage, you must speak out.  Speak out against every hateful act and every hateful email.  We must make the treatment of gay and lesbian people in this country a shameful part of our past. 

Thanks to the following thoughtful posts that made me finally sit down and write about something I've been meaning to for awhile:,,, and a FaceBook link from a friend to this:

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Hustling Over the Border

From The Huffington Post:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- who has gone to great lengths to hype the supposed dangers of a big government takeover of American health care -- admitted over the weekend that she used to get her treatment in Canada's single-payer system.

"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. "And I think now, isn't that ironic?"

The irony, one guesses, is that Palin now views Canada's health care system as revolting: with its government-run administration and 'death-panel'-like rationing. Clearly, however, she and her family once found it more alluring than, at the very least, the coverage available in rural Alaska. Up to the age of six, Palin lived in a remote town near the closest Canadian city, Whitehorse.

Officials at several hospitals in that area declined to give out information on patient visits.

Two Mommies Not OK with the Archdiocese of Denver

I saw this first over Fat Jack's place.  WTF?!?!

It appears that the Archdiocese of Denver has decided that children whose parents are gay or lesbian cannot attend the Sacred Heart of Jesus School.  In part, their statement reads:

". . .what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society. The Church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ."

I wonder if any children of unmarried heterosexual couples are allowed to attend there?  I wonder if the children of anyone who ever had premarital sex and confesses it are kicked out?  Can children of those who have committed adultery attend?  What about children of single adults who have consensual heterosexual sex outside of marriage?  That statement covers a lot of ground.  If they are not expelling children for all of these reasons, then they are, in fact, discriminating against homosexual people.  This would be illegal, even in a private school.

Tommy Sowers Supports Term Limits

If you've read many of my comments on other blogs, or were around back in the days of Corner of the Sky, you know I'm always harping on term limits.  I feel strongly that a federally mandated term limits are the only way to really change the way things operate in Congress.  Everyone knows that individual states cannot implement term limits successfully.  The way things are currently run in Washington, that state would never have any effective power.  We need federally mandated term limits to get rid of this idea that Congress is a career, not a temporary job serving the public interest.

Tommy Sowers is a veteran running for the House of Representatives in the Missouri 8th Congressional District.  He is the one who is finally going to boot career politician (and carpet-bagging lobbyist) Jo Ann Emerson out of office.  I was so glad to hear him out saying publically:

". . .as a challenger facing an entrenched D.C. incumbent, I face long odds. For a cancer of incumbency infects our nation. This disease has all but killed the citizen legislators our Founders envisioned. At the root of this disease sits our current Congress, the longest serving in history.
Instead of producing experienced, effective legislators, the cancer grows a partisanship of paralysis, so distasteful that moderates like Sen. Evan Bayh flee. With a game of grudges to settle when in the majority, and uniform opposition when in the minority, we, the American people, lose.

It is past time we isolate and cure this disease. This is why I support a primary treatment--term limits for Congress. Incumbents will say the ballot box serves as a term limit, plausible only if evidence could support this claim. Yet despite decades of abysmal approval numbers under 20%, we see Congress re-elected 95% of the time.

Only a Constitutional amendment would cure the cancer of incumbency. While amending the Constitution is difficult, it can be done. 63 years ago, Americans recognized an imperfect Constitution and passed an amendment to limit the terms of the President. 18 years ago in Missouri, 75% of voters supported a constitutional amendment limiting legislators to eight years in the House and Senate.

My belief in term limits also reflects a belief in the inherent quality of America. In a nation of 300,000,000, no group of 535 individuals could or should be found irreplaceable." 

You can go here to read the full article.

Monday, March 8, 2010

Lack of Posts Update

Sorry, folks.  I've had a sick kiddo for a week so I've been unable to keep up the writing.  Click some of the relevant reading links and I'm sure some of my fellow bloggers have great things to say.  I'll be back on track soon.