This morning, I was greeted by a beautiful vista, the clouds at the apex of a canyon backlight by a glorious sunrise. This seemingly common daily occurrence, that of the sun rising, set me to pondering the recent actions of the populace in general, and of the rancor and disharmony that seems to overshadow our daily lives. In the words of the poet:
“Brave Helios, wake up your steeds
Bring the warmth the countryside needs”-Graeme Edge, 1967
Personal beliefs in the creation of the universe don’t matter; the sun rises and sets regardless of our opinion. Our status in life, our possessions, wealth, influence or power, all are without meaning or importance to the sun. This all-important luminary gives light and warmth to all, without qualification or reservation.
Compare that state of equanimity to our present situation. Men argue and fight to impose one set of wills or values upon others; based upon perceived differences or avarice, to the final good of no one.
There will always be differences among us; circumstances of birth, property, social standing, etc. But in our dealings with each other, regardless of our differences, can we not be more akin to the sun and treat everyone equally?
Think about it.
(Published in the Salt Lake Tribune March 4, 2014. However, the Tribune removed the quote from G. Edge, and that negatively affected the tone of the letter, in my opinion)
This blog contains some of my personal, political, moral, and social views of our society today. All of the posts here are copyrighted, and may not be used, copied, etc. without the permission of the author. Comments are welcome! All comments must be in a family-acceptable verbiage. Feel free to share this blog with anyone that might be interested in reading and/or discussing the material I present. Thanks for visiting. R.M. "Bob" Hartman
Friday, February 28, 2014
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Opinions Do Matter-Both Yours and Mine.
“Someone’s drawing conclusions
On the wall of destiny
Someone’s getting louder
And that someone is me.”-
Melissa Etheridge.
I did not grow up, planning to be loud. Never thought I would have any influence on anyone else, and I still don’t know if I do. Nevertheless, life happens, regardless of our best intentions. Someone asked me, a few days ago, why I write this blog, why it has turned out so political. That set me to thinking, and some of those thoughts, I would like to share with you now.
.
I grew up in a small town. I mean a very small town; there were 14 children in my first grade class and the same 14 in my ninth grade class. The town consisted of white, conservative, “Christian” Americans. There was a Baptist Church, a Catholic Church, and a Methodist Church. Everybody knew who went to church, and who went to each church. Those who did not go to church, well, they were unsaved. And you know, those who are unsaved, well, they go to hell.
My best friend died of the effects of Agent Orange, way too young. His family was probably the least affluent in the town; but he was the only person I knew who could ride a 10-speed bicycle through the town while reading a book. (Seriously, he did, and often.) Ok, so we did not have a lot of traffic!
My father was a bigot, he did not like (insert your slang terms here); those of different cultures or races. And boy, he knew all the slang terms. I will not insult all of those people by listing the names he called them. Better dead than Red, when we were watching the news and the talk turned to the “conflict” in Southeast Asia. My mother, in typical fashion of the day, agreed with him. Dad, however, walked out when times got hard; from him, I learned that a real man does not run from his problems. One saving grace I had was my grandmother, who tried subtly to convince me that there was no reason to hate people because of their skin, or religion, or their ideas. Surprisingly, grandmother was more liberal than my parents ever thought about being; however, she was very strict about education. And I do mean strict! You did not bring home a bad report card, and you never addressed an adult by their first name. And, she was Grandmother, not any other term. Unless you were talking about President Franklin Roosevelt, you did not swear (long story there).
High school-500+ students- as opposed to the 14 I knew; racial unrest, Vietnam and the draft, rock and roll, drugs, the pill. What is that saying, if you remember the sixties, you weren’t really there? Life changed for this boy from the sticks. It changed, big time. And, I changed, slowly, with those times. Without really thinking about it, I became political. In retrospect, it started with Vietnam, when I, and a lot of other people, realized the President could send us to die, but we couldn’t vote for or against him. The only brush I had with the law was when I decided to sit down. I learned that you and your friends don’t sit down on the street where the President is going to be, when he visits the newest group of flyboy graduates at the Air Force Academy. I have voted, and worked for candidates, in every election since then; I am proud of that fact, and I do not intend to stop.
So, now I am 60, an “old man” according to my grandchildren. I’m willing to put my experience up against any young whippersnapper that comes along. But, that experience has come with a very high price tag; a price that includes standing up for what is right, for what I think is proper, regardless of the popular opinion.
When I create an article, I do research; I look for hard data to back up my thoughts. I have, at times, had my opinion changed by the facts. But, that is result of study, of research, and I welcome that change, that education.
And, I hope that is the same for you. I hope, by creating this blog, by putting my ideas out to you, I can encourage in you a desire to find out the truth, regardless of the sound bites. I hope you will be willing to enter into an honest discussion, to think beyond the right now, to think what is good for the future, for you and I.
Grandmother always had Reader’s Digest, Arizona, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report, and Family Circle on her coffee table. She would often tell me there was an interesting article in one or the other magazine, ask me to read it and then discuss. She never discounted my opinion, but was more than willing to offer her viewpoint. And, my readers, I ask you to do the same. Read what I post, comment, offer your opinion, and discuss the issues I raise. If you have an issue in mind that you would like me to research and discuss, just drop me an email at robertmhartman29@gmail.com and I will look into it.
Thanks for reading! To leave a comment, simply click on the "comment" below.
On the wall of destiny
Someone’s getting louder
And that someone is me.”-
Melissa Etheridge.
I did not grow up, planning to be loud. Never thought I would have any influence on anyone else, and I still don’t know if I do. Nevertheless, life happens, regardless of our best intentions. Someone asked me, a few days ago, why I write this blog, why it has turned out so political. That set me to thinking, and some of those thoughts, I would like to share with you now.
.
I grew up in a small town. I mean a very small town; there were 14 children in my first grade class and the same 14 in my ninth grade class. The town consisted of white, conservative, “Christian” Americans. There was a Baptist Church, a Catholic Church, and a Methodist Church. Everybody knew who went to church, and who went to each church. Those who did not go to church, well, they were unsaved. And you know, those who are unsaved, well, they go to hell.
My best friend died of the effects of Agent Orange, way too young. His family was probably the least affluent in the town; but he was the only person I knew who could ride a 10-speed bicycle through the town while reading a book. (Seriously, he did, and often.) Ok, so we did not have a lot of traffic!
My father was a bigot, he did not like (insert your slang terms here); those of different cultures or races. And boy, he knew all the slang terms. I will not insult all of those people by listing the names he called them. Better dead than Red, when we were watching the news and the talk turned to the “conflict” in Southeast Asia. My mother, in typical fashion of the day, agreed with him. Dad, however, walked out when times got hard; from him, I learned that a real man does not run from his problems. One saving grace I had was my grandmother, who tried subtly to convince me that there was no reason to hate people because of their skin, or religion, or their ideas. Surprisingly, grandmother was more liberal than my parents ever thought about being; however, she was very strict about education. And I do mean strict! You did not bring home a bad report card, and you never addressed an adult by their first name. And, she was Grandmother, not any other term. Unless you were talking about President Franklin Roosevelt, you did not swear (long story there).
High school-500+ students- as opposed to the 14 I knew; racial unrest, Vietnam and the draft, rock and roll, drugs, the pill. What is that saying, if you remember the sixties, you weren’t really there? Life changed for this boy from the sticks. It changed, big time. And, I changed, slowly, with those times. Without really thinking about it, I became political. In retrospect, it started with Vietnam, when I, and a lot of other people, realized the President could send us to die, but we couldn’t vote for or against him. The only brush I had with the law was when I decided to sit down. I learned that you and your friends don’t sit down on the street where the President is going to be, when he visits the newest group of flyboy graduates at the Air Force Academy. I have voted, and worked for candidates, in every election since then; I am proud of that fact, and I do not intend to stop.
So, now I am 60, an “old man” according to my grandchildren. I’m willing to put my experience up against any young whippersnapper that comes along. But, that experience has come with a very high price tag; a price that includes standing up for what is right, for what I think is proper, regardless of the popular opinion.
When I create an article, I do research; I look for hard data to back up my thoughts. I have, at times, had my opinion changed by the facts. But, that is result of study, of research, and I welcome that change, that education.
And, I hope that is the same for you. I hope, by creating this blog, by putting my ideas out to you, I can encourage in you a desire to find out the truth, regardless of the sound bites. I hope you will be willing to enter into an honest discussion, to think beyond the right now, to think what is good for the future, for you and I.
Grandmother always had Reader’s Digest, Arizona, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report, and Family Circle on her coffee table. She would often tell me there was an interesting article in one or the other magazine, ask me to read it and then discuss. She never discounted my opinion, but was more than willing to offer her viewpoint. And, my readers, I ask you to do the same. Read what I post, comment, offer your opinion, and discuss the issues I raise. If you have an issue in mind that you would like me to research and discuss, just drop me an email at robertmhartman29@gmail.com and I will look into it.
Thanks for reading! To leave a comment, simply click on the "comment" below.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Utah's Legislature is Hurting our Children
Ah, children! The joy of every parent’s life; the happiness they bring to grandparents. We all want our children to grow up safe, healthy, and loved. To accomplish this, we teach them from a very early age to eat well, dress warmly, and wear their seat belts. Our physicians inoculate and vaccinate them, and attend to their various illnesses. As they progress through school, our educators add to the wealth of information that can assist our children to lead happy, productive, and healthy lives.
Unfortunately, there is also pressure to ignore what the parents, doctors, and teachers advise. Peer pressure can lead children into gangs, drugs, alcohol, and sex. As parents, we don’t want this to happen, and we try to educate our children to avoid risky behavior. We rely on the schools to re-enforce the principals we stress repeatedly to our youth.
Why then, would the Canyons School District in Utah physically remove pages 398-417 from the brand new health textbooks for its five high schools? (Rolly, Tribune)
Brand new textbooks, costing $76.19 each, had pages cut out of them by the school administration. Why?
Could it be because our legislature is afraid to have our children taught about sex? They think that if we teach children about sex, they will run out and start copulating like rabbits. Perhaps it is time to send our legislators back to school, to teach them some facts, some reality. Here’s what they need to learn: Utah teenagers and young adults are having sex now, without enough knowledge of how to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. And that, my dear readers, is not good.
Utah had a teenage pregnancy rate in 2011 of 23.1 per 1,000 women. The national average that same year was 31.3 per 1000, so we are doing better than some states, but not as well as others. However, the pregnancy rate is only part of the problem. What life-changes occur when teenage girls become pregnant? Here are some scary national statistics: 79% of teenagers who become pregnant are unmarried; 34 % of sexually active teenagers have at least one pregnancy before age 20, and 80% of teen mothers end up on welfare, for at least some period.
Utah has some scary statistics of its own to worry about, and they are not just about becoming pregnant. There are four major sexually transmitted diseases, and Utah has its share of them. The data here is all from 2011, and all supplied by the CDC. (The links are at the end of this article.) When I use the term population, I am referring to the 15-24 age groups, not the entire population.
Chlamydia, the so-called silent epidemic, is the most common STD in Utah; it was diagnosed in 4740 teenagers in 2011. That is a rate of 1059 for every 100,000 teenagers/young adults. The second most prevalent STD in Utah is gonorrhea, in 2011 there were 119 new cases confirmed in the 15-24 age grouping. The rate for gonorrhea was 26.6 per 100,000 of our teenage/young adult population. Next on the list is syphilis, which was diagnosed in two cases in 2011, for the same population, this puts it at .4 for every 100,000 young adults. Are you concerned about our children’s health yet?
You should be very concerned, in fact we all should be. Here is a statistic that should really frighten you. In 2011, 81 new cases of HIV infection were reported in our target group; and, even more frightening, 2091 of our 13-24 teenagers/young adults were living with the HIV infection.
Let’s do some simple math: in 2011, 5,377 unmarried teenagers/young adults gave birth (23 were under 15!); 4,740 teenagers/young adults were diagnosed with Chlamydia; 119 with gonorrhea, 2 with syphilis, and 2172 had the HIV infection.
Twelve thousand, four hundred and ten of our teenagers/young adults had their lives dramatically changed. 12,410 lives negatively affected in 2011 alone. So why do I want the legislature to go back to school?
The laws in Utah, created by our head in the sand legislature, do not allow discussion, by the teacher or in the textbook, about contraception, STD’s, sexual arousal, masturbation or alternative life-styles. Our legislature believes that teaching about sex in school may violate a parent’s right to control what information (about sex) their children receive. Remember, we are talking about high school students here, students that regularly use the internet, with wireless devices that connect them to the internet 24/7/365, provided by the parents. Well, mom, dad, and legislature, here is a news flash for you. Johnny and Sally are having sex, whether you like it or not. You don’t want to think Utah’s children are in any way sexually active, but that is obviously incorrect. You want to believe that if we raise our children in good homes, and don’t tell them about sex, they won’t get curious, they won’t experiment. Sadly, that is not reality, that is not what the data shows. That is the reason, however, why Canyons School District cut the pages out of 315 textbooks. (Canyons had originally ordered textbooks for 3000 students, so they have now gone back to the publisher to have the textbooks re-created without the offending sections.) It is ridiculous, it is wrong, and it is unfair to our children. It also means that there will not be new health books for the high school students until the next school year.
This legislative session in Utah, the legislators will consider SB31, which will raise the legal age to buy tobacco products in Utah from 19 to 21. The senator proposing this law says that this will prevent 4,740 teenagers/young adults from smoking. That is a good, albeit questionable motive. (If you are old enough to die for your country, I think you are mature enough to decide if you want to smoke.) If the good senator is concerned about the health of our young adults, should not the health of 12,410 teenagers/young adults be a greater concern than that of 4,740?
There are ways to reduce teen pregnancy and STD transmission; they include education at home and at school, availability of effective birth control, and good parenting/mentoring. The CDC has a program to reduce teen the number of pregnancies, here is one of the components that bears strongly on this discussion:
“Providing teens with evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention programs, including youth development and curriculum-based programs that reduce teen pregnancy and associated risk factors.”
Twelve thousand, four hundred and ten of our teenagers/young adults had their health, and their lives, put at risk due to our state-sponsored policy of “Don’t Tell.” It’s time to change that policy, and educate our children.
Thanks for reading my thoughts. Please feel free to add your comments, just click on the pencil to open the comment box!
Paul Rolly’s Tribune article is here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57506243-90/district-books-sexual-policy.html.csp
Utah birth rates are here: http://health.utah.gov/vitalrecords/2011bx_UpdatedFinal_03292013.pdf
CDC Statistics are here: http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/by-age/15-24-all-STDs/state/2011/UT11.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/HSSR_MSA_2013-PDF04.pdf
CDC program to reduce teen pregnancy: http://www.cdc.gov/TeenPregnancy/PreventTeenPreg.htm
Unfortunately, there is also pressure to ignore what the parents, doctors, and teachers advise. Peer pressure can lead children into gangs, drugs, alcohol, and sex. As parents, we don’t want this to happen, and we try to educate our children to avoid risky behavior. We rely on the schools to re-enforce the principals we stress repeatedly to our youth.
Why then, would the Canyons School District in Utah physically remove pages 398-417 from the brand new health textbooks for its five high schools? (Rolly, Tribune)
Brand new textbooks, costing $76.19 each, had pages cut out of them by the school administration. Why?
Could it be because our legislature is afraid to have our children taught about sex? They think that if we teach children about sex, they will run out and start copulating like rabbits. Perhaps it is time to send our legislators back to school, to teach them some facts, some reality. Here’s what they need to learn: Utah teenagers and young adults are having sex now, without enough knowledge of how to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. And that, my dear readers, is not good.
Utah had a teenage pregnancy rate in 2011 of 23.1 per 1,000 women. The national average that same year was 31.3 per 1000, so we are doing better than some states, but not as well as others. However, the pregnancy rate is only part of the problem. What life-changes occur when teenage girls become pregnant? Here are some scary national statistics: 79% of teenagers who become pregnant are unmarried; 34 % of sexually active teenagers have at least one pregnancy before age 20, and 80% of teen mothers end up on welfare, for at least some period.
Utah has some scary statistics of its own to worry about, and they are not just about becoming pregnant. There are four major sexually transmitted diseases, and Utah has its share of them. The data here is all from 2011, and all supplied by the CDC. (The links are at the end of this article.) When I use the term population, I am referring to the 15-24 age groups, not the entire population.
Chlamydia, the so-called silent epidemic, is the most common STD in Utah; it was diagnosed in 4740 teenagers in 2011. That is a rate of 1059 for every 100,000 teenagers/young adults. The second most prevalent STD in Utah is gonorrhea, in 2011 there were 119 new cases confirmed in the 15-24 age grouping. The rate for gonorrhea was 26.6 per 100,000 of our teenage/young adult population. Next on the list is syphilis, which was diagnosed in two cases in 2011, for the same population, this puts it at .4 for every 100,000 young adults. Are you concerned about our children’s health yet?
You should be very concerned, in fact we all should be. Here is a statistic that should really frighten you. In 2011, 81 new cases of HIV infection were reported in our target group; and, even more frightening, 2091 of our 13-24 teenagers/young adults were living with the HIV infection.
Let’s do some simple math: in 2011, 5,377 unmarried teenagers/young adults gave birth (23 were under 15!); 4,740 teenagers/young adults were diagnosed with Chlamydia; 119 with gonorrhea, 2 with syphilis, and 2172 had the HIV infection.
Twelve thousand, four hundred and ten of our teenagers/young adults had their lives dramatically changed. 12,410 lives negatively affected in 2011 alone. So why do I want the legislature to go back to school?
The laws in Utah, created by our head in the sand legislature, do not allow discussion, by the teacher or in the textbook, about contraception, STD’s, sexual arousal, masturbation or alternative life-styles. Our legislature believes that teaching about sex in school may violate a parent’s right to control what information (about sex) their children receive. Remember, we are talking about high school students here, students that regularly use the internet, with wireless devices that connect them to the internet 24/7/365, provided by the parents. Well, mom, dad, and legislature, here is a news flash for you. Johnny and Sally are having sex, whether you like it or not. You don’t want to think Utah’s children are in any way sexually active, but that is obviously incorrect. You want to believe that if we raise our children in good homes, and don’t tell them about sex, they won’t get curious, they won’t experiment. Sadly, that is not reality, that is not what the data shows. That is the reason, however, why Canyons School District cut the pages out of 315 textbooks. (Canyons had originally ordered textbooks for 3000 students, so they have now gone back to the publisher to have the textbooks re-created without the offending sections.) It is ridiculous, it is wrong, and it is unfair to our children. It also means that there will not be new health books for the high school students until the next school year.
This legislative session in Utah, the legislators will consider SB31, which will raise the legal age to buy tobacco products in Utah from 19 to 21. The senator proposing this law says that this will prevent 4,740 teenagers/young adults from smoking. That is a good, albeit questionable motive. (If you are old enough to die for your country, I think you are mature enough to decide if you want to smoke.) If the good senator is concerned about the health of our young adults, should not the health of 12,410 teenagers/young adults be a greater concern than that of 4,740?
There are ways to reduce teen pregnancy and STD transmission; they include education at home and at school, availability of effective birth control, and good parenting/mentoring. The CDC has a program to reduce teen the number of pregnancies, here is one of the components that bears strongly on this discussion:
“Providing teens with evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention programs, including youth development and curriculum-based programs that reduce teen pregnancy and associated risk factors.”
Twelve thousand, four hundred and ten of our teenagers/young adults had their health, and their lives, put at risk due to our state-sponsored policy of “Don’t Tell.” It’s time to change that policy, and educate our children.
Thanks for reading my thoughts. Please feel free to add your comments, just click on the pencil to open the comment box!
Paul Rolly’s Tribune article is here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57506243-90/district-books-sexual-policy.html.csp
Utah birth rates are here: http://health.utah.gov/vitalrecords/2011bx_UpdatedFinal_03292013.pdf
CDC Statistics are here: http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/by-age/15-24-all-STDs/state/2011/UT11.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/HSSR_MSA_2013-PDF04.pdf
CDC program to reduce teen pregnancy: http://www.cdc.gov/TeenPregnancy/PreventTeenPreg.htm
Friday, February 7, 2014
The School Lunch Debacle, Chapter II
As I posted here on February 1, the Salt Lake School District has as policy of taking lunches from elementary school students who had negative or zero balances in their lunch accounts, and throwing the lunches into the trash, then offer the child an apple and a carton of milk. Today, responding to national and international pressure, the district has issued a new policy, effective immediately, which corrects the previous policy. The new policy states that the schools will serve full lunches to students, regardless of the account balance. Policies and procedures are being implemented that will improve the communication between the lunchroom staff, the administration and the parents. Other school districts in Utah are also implementing similar policies. (Salt Lake Tribune, 2/7/14)
This is a great step forward, and I applaud the district for establishing this new policy. The bigger question, however, is why did it take national and even international attention to coerce this district into applying common sense to the issue? The elementary school children do not control the purse strings of the parents. (The new policy states that the school administrators discuss the issue with the parents, and leave the students out of the communication.) Have our school districts become so money-centric that the ideal of an educated student body has taken a back seat to money? Yes, I know that school lunch is not directly coupled to a successful education. The larger body of evidence, however, demonstrates that elementary school students who are not hungry tend to pay more attention in class, and thereby have a better opportunity to learn while they are in school. Learning-education- is what they are in school to do.
Utah loves the Founding Fathers of our country. Let us then read what Thomas Jefferson had to say about education:
“The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance”-Thomas Jefferson.
Our nation was not conceived, nor will it flourish, without an educated population. It is imperative that we all consider all children as our future, and that we attend to their education. If that means, as demonstrated, that we provide an opportunity for the children to eat a nutritious meal while they are in school, so be it. That school lunch may be the only decent meal that student receives in that day.
The credit for this change in district policy is due in no small part to an un-aligned group of parents who were angry about the policy, and I congratulate them for speaking out. It is my considered opinion, however, that it is the advent of social media, of user groups, of Facebook and Twitter, and of the internet that brought this issue to critical mass. Without the use of social media, of the internet, perhaps this would have been nothing but a discardable issue for the school board.
I accept that the parents have a responsibility to know what the account balance is. I have been a parent to three school age children, and I acknowledge that the rush of events in my life, and in my spouse’s life, prevented us from reviewing the daily balances of our children’s school lunch account. However, we paid attention to the notices from the school when the balances were close to zero, or negative, and responded accordingly. The Salt Lake School District has admitted that the new system failed to properly notify the parents.
The Salt Lake School District has failed, noticeably, to apologize to the students for the embarrassment the students experienced at having their lunches taken from them in front of their peers.
Sally in the 4th grade does not understand all the politics and uproar behind the district’s action that day in the lunchroom. All she knows is, her lunch was taken from her and thrown in the trash, and she was embarrassed in front of her classmates. The ball, so to speak, is now in the hands of the Salt Lake School District. It is now their responsibility, and their duty, which they will evade, to speak to each of the 40 students (and their parents) affected, to admit that they made serious mistakes, and to let the children know this is the effect of adult (mistaken) hubris on their part.
Congratulations to the Salt Lake School District for taking late but corrective action. The punitive actions the district took against the students have been exposed to public scrutiny, worldwide. Now, the district management needs to apologize, in front of media cameras, to the students. The lunchroom supervisor who cried when ordered to take lunches from students deserves a public accommodation, not paid leave while the district administrators cover their respective backsides.
Utah, a state that “promotes family values.” A state that declares positive concern about children. A state, however, that has demonstrated that money is more important than children. The people in charge of the Salt Lake School District have responded to the legislature, a legislature that decries any potential waste in public schools. A legislature that prefers charter schools over public schools.
It is time, Utah voters, to wake up. It is time to vote for legislators that will defend your children’s right to public education. It is time to challenge the status quo. It is time to say, I want my children to do as well, or better, than I did. That is the American dream, that is the future of America.
I know some of you will have divergent opinions on this subject. I challenge you to present them here, this is a forum for discussion. Click on the "comment" below, post your thoughts, let’s talk.
I challenge you. Will you respond?
Source: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57512768-78/district-parents-balances-negative.html.csp doiwnloaded 2 7 14
This is a great step forward, and I applaud the district for establishing this new policy. The bigger question, however, is why did it take national and even international attention to coerce this district into applying common sense to the issue? The elementary school children do not control the purse strings of the parents. (The new policy states that the school administrators discuss the issue with the parents, and leave the students out of the communication.) Have our school districts become so money-centric that the ideal of an educated student body has taken a back seat to money? Yes, I know that school lunch is not directly coupled to a successful education. The larger body of evidence, however, demonstrates that elementary school students who are not hungry tend to pay more attention in class, and thereby have a better opportunity to learn while they are in school. Learning-education- is what they are in school to do.
Utah loves the Founding Fathers of our country. Let us then read what Thomas Jefferson had to say about education:
“The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance”-Thomas Jefferson.
Our nation was not conceived, nor will it flourish, without an educated population. It is imperative that we all consider all children as our future, and that we attend to their education. If that means, as demonstrated, that we provide an opportunity for the children to eat a nutritious meal while they are in school, so be it. That school lunch may be the only decent meal that student receives in that day.
The credit for this change in district policy is due in no small part to an un-aligned group of parents who were angry about the policy, and I congratulate them for speaking out. It is my considered opinion, however, that it is the advent of social media, of user groups, of Facebook and Twitter, and of the internet that brought this issue to critical mass. Without the use of social media, of the internet, perhaps this would have been nothing but a discardable issue for the school board.
I accept that the parents have a responsibility to know what the account balance is. I have been a parent to three school age children, and I acknowledge that the rush of events in my life, and in my spouse’s life, prevented us from reviewing the daily balances of our children’s school lunch account. However, we paid attention to the notices from the school when the balances were close to zero, or negative, and responded accordingly. The Salt Lake School District has admitted that the new system failed to properly notify the parents.
The Salt Lake School District has failed, noticeably, to apologize to the students for the embarrassment the students experienced at having their lunches taken from them in front of their peers.
Sally in the 4th grade does not understand all the politics and uproar behind the district’s action that day in the lunchroom. All she knows is, her lunch was taken from her and thrown in the trash, and she was embarrassed in front of her classmates. The ball, so to speak, is now in the hands of the Salt Lake School District. It is now their responsibility, and their duty, which they will evade, to speak to each of the 40 students (and their parents) affected, to admit that they made serious mistakes, and to let the children know this is the effect of adult (mistaken) hubris on their part.
Congratulations to the Salt Lake School District for taking late but corrective action. The punitive actions the district took against the students have been exposed to public scrutiny, worldwide. Now, the district management needs to apologize, in front of media cameras, to the students. The lunchroom supervisor who cried when ordered to take lunches from students deserves a public accommodation, not paid leave while the district administrators cover their respective backsides.
Utah, a state that “promotes family values.” A state that declares positive concern about children. A state, however, that has demonstrated that money is more important than children. The people in charge of the Salt Lake School District have responded to the legislature, a legislature that decries any potential waste in public schools. A legislature that prefers charter schools over public schools.
It is time, Utah voters, to wake up. It is time to vote for legislators that will defend your children’s right to public education. It is time to challenge the status quo. It is time to say, I want my children to do as well, or better, than I did. That is the American dream, that is the future of America.
I know some of you will have divergent opinions on this subject. I challenge you to present them here, this is a forum for discussion. Click on the "comment" below, post your thoughts, let’s talk.
I challenge you. Will you respond?
Source: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57512768-78/district-parents-balances-negative.html.csp doiwnloaded 2 7 14
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Amazed, But Not Amused
Wow, where do I begin? The State of Utah filed its brief, outlining the State’s position on denying same-sex marriage rights in Utah, on Monday, February 3rd at 11:30 PM. (A scant 30 minutes before deadline.) I’ve spent a good part of yesterday and today reading the brief, looking up references, making notes; and I must admit my amazement. I’ve listed the major points, as I see them, here; and I have added my own comments. If you want to download the brief, it is available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/204554071/State-of-Utah-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-brief#download, you do have to create a sign in for Scribd.com, but it is free. All page references made refer to the brief as submitted to the court.
What happens if Utah allows same-sex marriage, on an equal footing with opposite-sex marriage?
“Same sex marriage creates. . .(2) a risk of increased fatherlessness (and motherlessness), with all the emotional, social, and economic damage that has been shown to create.
(3) A risk of reduced birthrates, with the demographic and economic crises that could bring.” (Pages 2-3)
These are certainly interesting viewpoints. I would like to see the peer-reviewed papers that create both of these positions; none were cited in the brief. I fail to see how the presence of two loving committed adults in a relationship creates an increased risk of fatherlessness or motherlessness for the children. How will allowing same-sex marriage reduce the birthrate? If same-sex marriage is allowed, will opposite-sex couples stop creating children? That is an extremely doubtful outcome! Should same-sex marriages be denied, it is highly unlikely that the individuals involved will decide to engage in opposite-sex marriage and procreate. It is much more likely the participants will simply choose to cohabitate, without the legal benefit and protection of marriage. The two terms, fatherlessness and motherlessness, really? Who created those terms?
The voters in the general election held in November of 2004 passed Utah Amendment 3. Article 1, Section 29 of the Utah State Constitution now reads:
“(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic unions, however denominated, shall be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.”
I have covered this, in depth, in a previous article. Suffice it to say, due to all of the uproar and rhetoric on both sides, our Governor and some in the legislature are now openly talking about allowing “civil unions” for same-sex couples, which they would not consider before. It’s too late for that, Governor. The horse has left the barn, at a gallop. The point the Governor and his supporters are not accepting is that civil unions do not provide all of the benefits accorded to married couples, as per existing federal and state laws. Separate but equal has been tried before, it failed then and it will fail now. Additionally, providing now for civil unions would invalidate paragraph 2 of this section, and as that is a constitutional change, it would have to come before the voters.
Under a section titled “Summary of Argument”, the State argues, among other things, that:
“. . . maintaining the man-woman definition increases the likelihood that children will be raised by their biological mothers and fathers-or at least a mother and father in intact families.” (Page 26)
I cannot follow that argument; if a heterosexual couple is raising their children now, how will allowing same-sex marriage decrease the likelihood they will continue to do so? Is the State saying, if we allow same-sex marriage, fathers or mothers in existing marriages will run off to be with a same-sex partner? Personally, I do not think so. I do not think it will matter to the parents at all, I cannot see same-sex marriage destroying any existing marriages/relationships. Characteristically, Utah is again tilting at windmills.
“. . . maintaining the man-woman definition helps to insure adequate reproduction by parents willing and able to raise their children in stable homes. . .The state has a compelling interest in ensuring adequate reproduction. . . ” (Page 27)
It is a biological fact that procreation requires involvement of opposite sexes. However, I do not understand how allowing same-sex marriage will reduce adequate reproduction by opposite-sex parents. Furthermore, what is the “compelling interest” the State has in ensuring adequate reproduction? The decision to reproduce, or not, belongs to the prospective parents, not to the State. Is this a behind the back maneuver to outlaw birth control in Utah? Could the State be saying, you must reproduce or your marriage is not valid?
“And although sex between men and women naturally- and often accidentally-produces children, it does not necessarily produce stable families dedicated to protecting and nurturing those children” (Page 52)
Well, here is a statement I can understand and agree with. Producing children does not mean a stable relationship, not by a long shot. Given the current number of single parent households in Utah, either because of divorce, desertion, or lack of commitment on the part of either parent, I think this statement is a no-brainer. My real question is, what does this statement have to do with the issue at hand, that is, same-sex marriage?
“Because of its critical social functions, marriage is also one of our most important social institutions.” (Page 53)
“Marriage (n): the state of being united to another person as a usual contractually relationship according to law or custom” (Merriam-Webster) It is indeed one of our most important social institutions, and as such, how would the State benefit by not allowing individuals to marry the person they wish to contract with? When two people decide to marry, to form that contract, they are formalizing their joint desire to enter into a long- term commitment to each other, for better or for worse, as the saying goes.
“. . . the law often supports social institutions, in order to give them formal recognition, bring legal and administrative arrangements into line with them, facilitate their use by members of the community who wish to do so, and encourage the transmission of belief in their value to future generations.” (Pages 55-56)
Let us then allow formal recognition of same sex marriages. Let those who wish to marry, to make a contract with another person, do so without segregation by race, creed, national origin, language, or sexual orientation. Provide all marriages the same legal and administrative arrangements currently enjoyed by opposite sex marriages. As I understand it, that is at the crux of the argument for same-sex marriage.
Utah has listed seven arguments against “redefining” marriage as the union of two people (as opposed to the current wording, one man and one woman.) The State refers to this as genderless marriage. Here are Utah’s seven arguments:
“First, redefining marriage in genderless terms would break the critical conceptual link between marriage and procreation. . . the redefinition ordered by the district court would tend to encourage more parents to raise their existing biological children without the other biological parent.” (Pages 72-73)
This argument has some serious flaws. What is the critical conceptual link between marriage and procreation? Many couples enter into marriage knowingly without the ability or desire to procreate. Further, the State offers no peer-reviewed documentation or studies that conclude allowing same sex marriage would encourage more parents to raise children without the other biological parent involved. Is the State trying to blame a shadow-figure for the incidence of single-parent households? That bucket doesn’t hold water, we already have children being raised in single-parent households and we currently do not have genderless marriage.
“Second . . . the loss of the State’s clear message in favor of biological mother-father parenting within marriage would likely result in a higher percentage of couples conceiving children without the stability that marriage would otherwise bring.” (Page 73)
I agree that the ideal situation for raising children is a two-parent, financially secure, loving household. The State does not explain how allowing same-sex marriage will cause that “clear message” to be lost. Nor does, or can, the State demonstrate how same-sex marriage will encourage couples to conceive children without marriage. Where did they come up with this argument?
“Third. . . would undermine the existing social norm that often leads parents in acceptable but not ideal marriages to make self-sacrifices and remain married to the parents of their children.” (Page 73)
Ok, sadly, I have heard this one before. The State is encouraging parents to stay married for the sake of the children. It wants parents to remain in a perhaps loveless or tumultuous relationship for the sake of a theoretically existing social norm. To keep up the (false) appearance of Utah as a family-centered state, the State expects and desires parents to remain in a relationship that may be damaging to their mental or physical well-being. This is not just a bucket-load of cattle by-product; instead, it is a whole trainload! All of which having been said, how does this social norm bear on the subject at hand, which is the recognition of same-sex marriage? I cannot make that connection, no matter how hard I try.
“Fourth . . . would also undermine the current social norm (weakened though it may be) that those who wish to have children-or engage in conduct that could lead to children-should get married. “ (Page 75)
Let us remember what this lawsuit is about, the validity of same-sex marriage. These same sex couples want to get married. They want to raise children, if any are involved, in a two-parent, loving household. If anything, they want to strengthen the social norm of being married when raising children. I am beginning to wonder about the validity, and appropriateness, of the State’s arguments.
“Fifth, and most obviously, a genderless definition of marriage would likely increase the number of children being raised by same-sex parents. That could happen because the couple decides to raise together an existing child of one of the partners. Or it could be the result of the conception of a new child through surrogacy or sperm donation.” (Page 76)
For this to be a valid argument against same-sex marriage, the State needs to demonstrate (which they haven’t) how this arrangement would be detrimental to the State, or to the children involved. Previously, the State has argued that is it important for children to be raised in a two-parent household; a two-parent household provides a better environment for the children. Why, then, does the State not want to support marriage? This sounds like circular reasoning, and not very good reasoning at that.
“Sixth. . . it would likely lead to other innovations. . . for starters, if homosexual marriage is OK, why not group marriage?” (Page 77)
Ah, the good old slippery slope again. Let’s all go out to the slide in the playground. Polygamous marriage is not legal under current Federal law, although that law is currently being challenged in federal courts. Polygamy, however, is not the question here. Is the State creating a diversion because they don’t feel they have a strong enough argument in this case? If so, Utah should remember that it had to renounce and outlaw polygamy in order to gain admission into the Union.
“Seventh. . . a court-ordered redefinition of marriage could well lead to its wholesale “privatization”-for example by enactment of a civil union regime for all couples, with religious and other organizations being free to offer the title of “marriage” as they see fit.” (Page78)
The individual(s) responsible for this paragraph needs to go back to law school! In order to be legally married, the couple-opposite-sex or same-sex- must first obtain a marriage license from the state. This license creates a legal, binding contract between the two people; if they wish a religious component to the marriage, they can be wed in a ceremony by a faith that allows that marriage. Conversely, they can be wed by the county clerk, or by a justice of the peace, even Elvis, if they wish to go to Las Vegas. Is the State, not too subtly, suggesting that marriage require a religious component? Given this is Utah we are talking about, that is not a big stretch of the imagination.
The State continues to focus on the fertility rates, arguing that:
“By implicating endorsing the adult-centric model of marriage, a genderless redefinition would send a powerful message that it is entirely appropriate-even expected-for adults to forgo or severely limit the number of their children based upon concerns for their own convenience. “ (Page 88)
This argument shows arrogance, sheer unadulterated arrogance on the part of the State. It is altogether appropriate for adults to consider their own circumstances in the decision to have children, and how many children to have. Career, financial, health, and lifestyle choices can and should be an important part in the educated decision to have, or not have children, and in the decision of how many children to have. It is my observation, having lived in this state for almost 40 years, that many people feel it is their (religious) duty to have children quickly, and frequently, regardless of their ability to support the children, or their personal desire or physical/mental condition to have children. This “duty” can, and in some cases does, cause severe social/economic stress on the parents, and on society as a whole. Our overcrowded, under-funded educational system comes to mind, but that is a discussion for another day.
“Preserving Utah’s marriage definition furthers the State’s vital interest in accommodating religious freedom and reducing the potential for civic strife.” (Page 90)
I believe we have finally arrived at the core of the State’s position. The very predominant religion in the state of Utah is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; the Church does not accept or condone same-sex relationships or marriages. Its position is that homosexuality is a sin, and a choice; a choice that can be “corrected” by faith, prayer, fasting, and marriage to a person of the opposite sex, with procreation following. The Church maintains this position regardless of the mounting scientific evidence that homosexuality is a biological factor that is decided while the child is in utero; that it is not the “fault” of the mother or the father, and that it is not genetically related.
No logical, thinking individual could or should deny the Church its right to its beliefs. Nor will that same individual deny the members of the Church their right to practice their religion, insofar as that practice does not conflict with the rights of those who do not believe the same.
In reference to the quote above, the State does have a vital interest in promoting religious freedom and reducing civil strife. That religious freedom, however, is a double-edged sword. The sword does protect the right of a church, and its members, to believe and practice as they wish. It also protects others in the same fashion; that is, they have the right to believe and practice, according to their own personal dictates and conscience.
The narrow issue in this matter before the court is civil rights, or equality. There are no less than 15 Supreme Court decisions that have delineated marriage as a civil right, beginning in 1888; the latest decision was US vs. Windsor. (The following quote is from Lawrence vs. Texas., 2003)
“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”(Lawrence vs. Texas)
The majority of Utah’s citizens are members of the LDS church, and support and participate in the Church to varying degrees. That is fine, but majorities do not decide or control civil rights. The laws and courts of our nation are there to protect the civil rights of minorities as well as majorities. In this particular matter, it is the civil right of homosexual persons to be married, the same as heterosexual persons, and to enjoy the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage, that is under discussion. This case is not a discussion of procreation, though the State would like to make it that. Nor is it a discussion of morals, because morals are as individual as you and I are. It is a matter of the rights of individuals to marry as they choose, and to enjoy the protection and benefit of marriage.
After reading and studying this brief, I have several opinions. (Surprise!)
First, the State has failed to show why or how same-sex marriage will harm the State, its citizens, or the children. In constructing this document, the State refers to the incidence of single-parent families, and attempts but miserably fails to connect same-sex marriage to single-parent households.
Second, the State has raised the specter of same-sex marriage causing a decrease in the number of children born in Utah, without demonstrating causation. This thinking flies into the wall of reason, and falls hard to the ground. I hope that it will stay there. It certainly does not deserve reincarnation.
Third, the State has claimed, without justification, that same-sex marriage will increase the number of children born of causal, non-committed sexual congress. Excuse me, how did the “crack legal team” hired by the Attorney General come up with this idea? Marriage will lead to an increase in childbearing casual sex? Anyone following that road deserves to drive off the cliff.
Fourth, and in my opinion most dangerously, the State has tried, however subtly, to inject majority religious opinion into secular law. I know this is Utah, but come on; we are in the 21st century, not the dark ages. Religion –any religion-does not belong in secular law!
Finally, patient reader (I know this has been a long document, even for me), I believe the State has wasted good money on this brief, and indeed is wasting money on this entire case. That is money that should go to education, for education is the best defense of civil rights, and of liberty. I also believe that while this case is about Utah law, the decisions reached will, long-term, effect the entire United States of America.
I hope you have enjoyed this discussion, I know you have opinions that may agree or disagree with mine. However, that is the beauty of America, we are all entitled to our opinions, and I would like to hear yours. Please leave your comments below.
Thanks for reading, as always!
One final housekeeping item: In this article, when I use the term marriage, I am referring to the arrangement between two consenting adults, of legal age to enter marriage.
Sources:
For Utah’s brief: http://www.scribd.com/doc/204554071/State-of-Utah-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-brief#download
For Lawrence vs. Texas: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79449919/Lawrence-vs-Texas
What happens if Utah allows same-sex marriage, on an equal footing with opposite-sex marriage?
“Same sex marriage creates. . .(2) a risk of increased fatherlessness (and motherlessness), with all the emotional, social, and economic damage that has been shown to create.
(3) A risk of reduced birthrates, with the demographic and economic crises that could bring.” (Pages 2-3)
These are certainly interesting viewpoints. I would like to see the peer-reviewed papers that create both of these positions; none were cited in the brief. I fail to see how the presence of two loving committed adults in a relationship creates an increased risk of fatherlessness or motherlessness for the children. How will allowing same-sex marriage reduce the birthrate? If same-sex marriage is allowed, will opposite-sex couples stop creating children? That is an extremely doubtful outcome! Should same-sex marriages be denied, it is highly unlikely that the individuals involved will decide to engage in opposite-sex marriage and procreate. It is much more likely the participants will simply choose to cohabitate, without the legal benefit and protection of marriage. The two terms, fatherlessness and motherlessness, really? Who created those terms?
The voters in the general election held in November of 2004 passed Utah Amendment 3. Article 1, Section 29 of the Utah State Constitution now reads:
“(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic unions, however denominated, shall be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.”
I have covered this, in depth, in a previous article. Suffice it to say, due to all of the uproar and rhetoric on both sides, our Governor and some in the legislature are now openly talking about allowing “civil unions” for same-sex couples, which they would not consider before. It’s too late for that, Governor. The horse has left the barn, at a gallop. The point the Governor and his supporters are not accepting is that civil unions do not provide all of the benefits accorded to married couples, as per existing federal and state laws. Separate but equal has been tried before, it failed then and it will fail now. Additionally, providing now for civil unions would invalidate paragraph 2 of this section, and as that is a constitutional change, it would have to come before the voters.
Under a section titled “Summary of Argument”, the State argues, among other things, that:
“. . . maintaining the man-woman definition increases the likelihood that children will be raised by their biological mothers and fathers-or at least a mother and father in intact families.” (Page 26)
I cannot follow that argument; if a heterosexual couple is raising their children now, how will allowing same-sex marriage decrease the likelihood they will continue to do so? Is the State saying, if we allow same-sex marriage, fathers or mothers in existing marriages will run off to be with a same-sex partner? Personally, I do not think so. I do not think it will matter to the parents at all, I cannot see same-sex marriage destroying any existing marriages/relationships. Characteristically, Utah is again tilting at windmills.
“. . . maintaining the man-woman definition helps to insure adequate reproduction by parents willing and able to raise their children in stable homes. . .The state has a compelling interest in ensuring adequate reproduction. . . ” (Page 27)
It is a biological fact that procreation requires involvement of opposite sexes. However, I do not understand how allowing same-sex marriage will reduce adequate reproduction by opposite-sex parents. Furthermore, what is the “compelling interest” the State has in ensuring adequate reproduction? The decision to reproduce, or not, belongs to the prospective parents, not to the State. Is this a behind the back maneuver to outlaw birth control in Utah? Could the State be saying, you must reproduce or your marriage is not valid?
“And although sex between men and women naturally- and often accidentally-produces children, it does not necessarily produce stable families dedicated to protecting and nurturing those children” (Page 52)
Well, here is a statement I can understand and agree with. Producing children does not mean a stable relationship, not by a long shot. Given the current number of single parent households in Utah, either because of divorce, desertion, or lack of commitment on the part of either parent, I think this statement is a no-brainer. My real question is, what does this statement have to do with the issue at hand, that is, same-sex marriage?
“Because of its critical social functions, marriage is also one of our most important social institutions.” (Page 53)
“Marriage (n): the state of being united to another person as a usual contractually relationship according to law or custom” (Merriam-Webster) It is indeed one of our most important social institutions, and as such, how would the State benefit by not allowing individuals to marry the person they wish to contract with? When two people decide to marry, to form that contract, they are formalizing their joint desire to enter into a long- term commitment to each other, for better or for worse, as the saying goes.
“. . . the law often supports social institutions, in order to give them formal recognition, bring legal and administrative arrangements into line with them, facilitate their use by members of the community who wish to do so, and encourage the transmission of belief in their value to future generations.” (Pages 55-56)
Let us then allow formal recognition of same sex marriages. Let those who wish to marry, to make a contract with another person, do so without segregation by race, creed, national origin, language, or sexual orientation. Provide all marriages the same legal and administrative arrangements currently enjoyed by opposite sex marriages. As I understand it, that is at the crux of the argument for same-sex marriage.
Utah has listed seven arguments against “redefining” marriage as the union of two people (as opposed to the current wording, one man and one woman.) The State refers to this as genderless marriage. Here are Utah’s seven arguments:
“First, redefining marriage in genderless terms would break the critical conceptual link between marriage and procreation. . . the redefinition ordered by the district court would tend to encourage more parents to raise their existing biological children without the other biological parent.” (Pages 72-73)
This argument has some serious flaws. What is the critical conceptual link between marriage and procreation? Many couples enter into marriage knowingly without the ability or desire to procreate. Further, the State offers no peer-reviewed documentation or studies that conclude allowing same sex marriage would encourage more parents to raise children without the other biological parent involved. Is the State trying to blame a shadow-figure for the incidence of single-parent households? That bucket doesn’t hold water, we already have children being raised in single-parent households and we currently do not have genderless marriage.
“Second . . . the loss of the State’s clear message in favor of biological mother-father parenting within marriage would likely result in a higher percentage of couples conceiving children without the stability that marriage would otherwise bring.” (Page 73)
I agree that the ideal situation for raising children is a two-parent, financially secure, loving household. The State does not explain how allowing same-sex marriage will cause that “clear message” to be lost. Nor does, or can, the State demonstrate how same-sex marriage will encourage couples to conceive children without marriage. Where did they come up with this argument?
“Third. . . would undermine the existing social norm that often leads parents in acceptable but not ideal marriages to make self-sacrifices and remain married to the parents of their children.” (Page 73)
Ok, sadly, I have heard this one before. The State is encouraging parents to stay married for the sake of the children. It wants parents to remain in a perhaps loveless or tumultuous relationship for the sake of a theoretically existing social norm. To keep up the (false) appearance of Utah as a family-centered state, the State expects and desires parents to remain in a relationship that may be damaging to their mental or physical well-being. This is not just a bucket-load of cattle by-product; instead, it is a whole trainload! All of which having been said, how does this social norm bear on the subject at hand, which is the recognition of same-sex marriage? I cannot make that connection, no matter how hard I try.
“Fourth . . . would also undermine the current social norm (weakened though it may be) that those who wish to have children-or engage in conduct that could lead to children-should get married. “ (Page 75)
Let us remember what this lawsuit is about, the validity of same-sex marriage. These same sex couples want to get married. They want to raise children, if any are involved, in a two-parent, loving household. If anything, they want to strengthen the social norm of being married when raising children. I am beginning to wonder about the validity, and appropriateness, of the State’s arguments.
“Fifth, and most obviously, a genderless definition of marriage would likely increase the number of children being raised by same-sex parents. That could happen because the couple decides to raise together an existing child of one of the partners. Or it could be the result of the conception of a new child through surrogacy or sperm donation.” (Page 76)
For this to be a valid argument against same-sex marriage, the State needs to demonstrate (which they haven’t) how this arrangement would be detrimental to the State, or to the children involved. Previously, the State has argued that is it important for children to be raised in a two-parent household; a two-parent household provides a better environment for the children. Why, then, does the State not want to support marriage? This sounds like circular reasoning, and not very good reasoning at that.
“Sixth. . . it would likely lead to other innovations. . . for starters, if homosexual marriage is OK, why not group marriage?” (Page 77)
Ah, the good old slippery slope again. Let’s all go out to the slide in the playground. Polygamous marriage is not legal under current Federal law, although that law is currently being challenged in federal courts. Polygamy, however, is not the question here. Is the State creating a diversion because they don’t feel they have a strong enough argument in this case? If so, Utah should remember that it had to renounce and outlaw polygamy in order to gain admission into the Union.
“Seventh. . . a court-ordered redefinition of marriage could well lead to its wholesale “privatization”-for example by enactment of a civil union regime for all couples, with religious and other organizations being free to offer the title of “marriage” as they see fit.” (Page78)
The individual(s) responsible for this paragraph needs to go back to law school! In order to be legally married, the couple-opposite-sex or same-sex- must first obtain a marriage license from the state. This license creates a legal, binding contract between the two people; if they wish a religious component to the marriage, they can be wed in a ceremony by a faith that allows that marriage. Conversely, they can be wed by the county clerk, or by a justice of the peace, even Elvis, if they wish to go to Las Vegas. Is the State, not too subtly, suggesting that marriage require a religious component? Given this is Utah we are talking about, that is not a big stretch of the imagination.
The State continues to focus on the fertility rates, arguing that:
“By implicating endorsing the adult-centric model of marriage, a genderless redefinition would send a powerful message that it is entirely appropriate-even expected-for adults to forgo or severely limit the number of their children based upon concerns for their own convenience. “ (Page 88)
This argument shows arrogance, sheer unadulterated arrogance on the part of the State. It is altogether appropriate for adults to consider their own circumstances in the decision to have children, and how many children to have. Career, financial, health, and lifestyle choices can and should be an important part in the educated decision to have, or not have children, and in the decision of how many children to have. It is my observation, having lived in this state for almost 40 years, that many people feel it is their (religious) duty to have children quickly, and frequently, regardless of their ability to support the children, or their personal desire or physical/mental condition to have children. This “duty” can, and in some cases does, cause severe social/economic stress on the parents, and on society as a whole. Our overcrowded, under-funded educational system comes to mind, but that is a discussion for another day.
“Preserving Utah’s marriage definition furthers the State’s vital interest in accommodating religious freedom and reducing the potential for civic strife.” (Page 90)
I believe we have finally arrived at the core of the State’s position. The very predominant religion in the state of Utah is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; the Church does not accept or condone same-sex relationships or marriages. Its position is that homosexuality is a sin, and a choice; a choice that can be “corrected” by faith, prayer, fasting, and marriage to a person of the opposite sex, with procreation following. The Church maintains this position regardless of the mounting scientific evidence that homosexuality is a biological factor that is decided while the child is in utero; that it is not the “fault” of the mother or the father, and that it is not genetically related.
No logical, thinking individual could or should deny the Church its right to its beliefs. Nor will that same individual deny the members of the Church their right to practice their religion, insofar as that practice does not conflict with the rights of those who do not believe the same.
In reference to the quote above, the State does have a vital interest in promoting religious freedom and reducing civil strife. That religious freedom, however, is a double-edged sword. The sword does protect the right of a church, and its members, to believe and practice as they wish. It also protects others in the same fashion; that is, they have the right to believe and practice, according to their own personal dictates and conscience.
The narrow issue in this matter before the court is civil rights, or equality. There are no less than 15 Supreme Court decisions that have delineated marriage as a civil right, beginning in 1888; the latest decision was US vs. Windsor. (The following quote is from Lawrence vs. Texas., 2003)
“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”(Lawrence vs. Texas)
The majority of Utah’s citizens are members of the LDS church, and support and participate in the Church to varying degrees. That is fine, but majorities do not decide or control civil rights. The laws and courts of our nation are there to protect the civil rights of minorities as well as majorities. In this particular matter, it is the civil right of homosexual persons to be married, the same as heterosexual persons, and to enjoy the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage, that is under discussion. This case is not a discussion of procreation, though the State would like to make it that. Nor is it a discussion of morals, because morals are as individual as you and I are. It is a matter of the rights of individuals to marry as they choose, and to enjoy the protection and benefit of marriage.
After reading and studying this brief, I have several opinions. (Surprise!)
First, the State has failed to show why or how same-sex marriage will harm the State, its citizens, or the children. In constructing this document, the State refers to the incidence of single-parent families, and attempts but miserably fails to connect same-sex marriage to single-parent households.
Second, the State has raised the specter of same-sex marriage causing a decrease in the number of children born in Utah, without demonstrating causation. This thinking flies into the wall of reason, and falls hard to the ground. I hope that it will stay there. It certainly does not deserve reincarnation.
Third, the State has claimed, without justification, that same-sex marriage will increase the number of children born of causal, non-committed sexual congress. Excuse me, how did the “crack legal team” hired by the Attorney General come up with this idea? Marriage will lead to an increase in childbearing casual sex? Anyone following that road deserves to drive off the cliff.
Fourth, and in my opinion most dangerously, the State has tried, however subtly, to inject majority religious opinion into secular law. I know this is Utah, but come on; we are in the 21st century, not the dark ages. Religion –any religion-does not belong in secular law!
Finally, patient reader (I know this has been a long document, even for me), I believe the State has wasted good money on this brief, and indeed is wasting money on this entire case. That is money that should go to education, for education is the best defense of civil rights, and of liberty. I also believe that while this case is about Utah law, the decisions reached will, long-term, effect the entire United States of America.
I hope you have enjoyed this discussion, I know you have opinions that may agree or disagree with mine. However, that is the beauty of America, we are all entitled to our opinions, and I would like to hear yours. Please leave your comments below.
Thanks for reading, as always!
One final housekeeping item: In this article, when I use the term marriage, I am referring to the arrangement between two consenting adults, of legal age to enter marriage.
Sources:
For Utah’s brief: http://www.scribd.com/doc/204554071/State-of-Utah-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-brief#download
For Lawrence vs. Texas: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79449919/Lawrence-vs-Texas
Saturday, February 1, 2014
How to Embarrass School Children
You may have read or seen this story on ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, or NBC News; it has also been on BBC. International attention focused on 40 elementary school students in Utah.
I live in Salt Lake County, Utah; it is an area served by five separate school districts. On Monday, January 27, 2014, the administrators of the Uintah Elementary School in the Salt Lake City School District sent notes home with students that had zero or negative lunch balances. According to their records, they sent emails and made phone calls informing the parents that if the students had zero or negative balances in their lunch funds, they would be denied school lunch on Tuesday, January 28.
Tuesday, January 28th, the students lined up for the regular school lunch program. In Utah, the school lunch program is funded by parental checks, state and federal funds, and by revenues from state-owned liquor stores. (The state owns the only liquor stores in Utah.) Forty -40- students in this school went through the lunch line, with their classmates, only to have the lunches taken away from them at the end of the line, and thrown in the trash. The students were then given a container of milk, and an apple. A “snack lunch” was provided to elementary school students.
If a playground bully had taken their lunch money, the bully would be suspended from school, and the school would have provided the lunch. However, this was not the playground bully, this was the school district taking the lunches, and throwing them away. At the end of the lunch line, in front of their classmates.
A school nutrition administrator (who has a total pay and benefits package of $144,000 annual) had come to the Uintah Elementary school to oversee this process. This person directed the “lunch ladies” to take the lunches away from the students, after they had received the food. (Food handling laws prevent the food from being re-served.)
Forty elementary school students were shamed in front of their classmates because the parents had not kept current with the school lunch checks.
This is not a poverty-stricken area. Only 11% of the students in Uintah Elementary are eligible for reduced-priced lunches.
Elementary school students are forbidden by federal and state laws from employment, they cannot, on their own, pay for the lunches. These students do not have any financial control over money in the household. Yet, they were denied nutritious lunches because of the parent’s lack of response to a 1-day notice.
That’s right; the parents were given a 1-day notice. If you or I are a behind on a payment, we are given, by law, several days to correct the issue. These parents were given a 1-day notice.
A ONE-day notice, before their children were humiliated in front of their classmates.
Of course, the district has offered an apology- in the media. Actually, they put the media response on their Facebook page. The district has placed the blame on the lunchroom supervisor regardless of their news release that a district nutrition supervisor had ordered this action. The lunchroom supervisor was placed on paid administrative leave, pending investigation. On January 31, they announced a “supervisor” also was placed on paid leave, however, they did not indicate if this is an in-school or district supervisor. In later updates, the district has stated that a new notification system to parents may have been at fault, for failure to notify in a timely fashion.
In the local press, previous employees of the district have declared this is a district-wide policy, and failure to follow it will be grounds for dismissal. However, other school districts in Utah make the distinction at the front of the lunch line, to avoid embarrassing the students.
My antidotal research has found this is not a problem particular to Utah; it is widespread through out our nation. A nation that cares for its’ children.
I think this was WRONG!
What is your opinion? Comments and opinions are welcome!
I live in Salt Lake County, Utah; it is an area served by five separate school districts. On Monday, January 27, 2014, the administrators of the Uintah Elementary School in the Salt Lake City School District sent notes home with students that had zero or negative lunch balances. According to their records, they sent emails and made phone calls informing the parents that if the students had zero or negative balances in their lunch funds, they would be denied school lunch on Tuesday, January 28.
Tuesday, January 28th, the students lined up for the regular school lunch program. In Utah, the school lunch program is funded by parental checks, state and federal funds, and by revenues from state-owned liquor stores. (The state owns the only liquor stores in Utah.) Forty -40- students in this school went through the lunch line, with their classmates, only to have the lunches taken away from them at the end of the line, and thrown in the trash. The students were then given a container of milk, and an apple. A “snack lunch” was provided to elementary school students.
If a playground bully had taken their lunch money, the bully would be suspended from school, and the school would have provided the lunch. However, this was not the playground bully, this was the school district taking the lunches, and throwing them away. At the end of the lunch line, in front of their classmates.
A school nutrition administrator (who has a total pay and benefits package of $144,000 annual) had come to the Uintah Elementary school to oversee this process. This person directed the “lunch ladies” to take the lunches away from the students, after they had received the food. (Food handling laws prevent the food from being re-served.)
Forty elementary school students were shamed in front of their classmates because the parents had not kept current with the school lunch checks.
This is not a poverty-stricken area. Only 11% of the students in Uintah Elementary are eligible for reduced-priced lunches.
Elementary school students are forbidden by federal and state laws from employment, they cannot, on their own, pay for the lunches. These students do not have any financial control over money in the household. Yet, they were denied nutritious lunches because of the parent’s lack of response to a 1-day notice.
That’s right; the parents were given a 1-day notice. If you or I are a behind on a payment, we are given, by law, several days to correct the issue. These parents were given a 1-day notice.
A ONE-day notice, before their children were humiliated in front of their classmates.
Of course, the district has offered an apology- in the media. Actually, they put the media response on their Facebook page. The district has placed the blame on the lunchroom supervisor regardless of their news release that a district nutrition supervisor had ordered this action. The lunchroom supervisor was placed on paid administrative leave, pending investigation. On January 31, they announced a “supervisor” also was placed on paid leave, however, they did not indicate if this is an in-school or district supervisor. In later updates, the district has stated that a new notification system to parents may have been at fault, for failure to notify in a timely fashion.
In the local press, previous employees of the district have declared this is a district-wide policy, and failure to follow it will be grounds for dismissal. However, other school districts in Utah make the distinction at the front of the lunch line, to avoid embarrassing the students.
My antidotal research has found this is not a problem particular to Utah; it is widespread through out our nation. A nation that cares for its’ children.
I think this was WRONG!
What is your opinion? Comments and opinions are welcome!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)