The Question Is. . .

Republican Senator Mike Lee, the junior senator from Utah, posted an op-ed in the Deseret News (4/27/2015), in which he purports to discuss the question before the Supreme Court; namely, should same-sex marriage be legal and honored throughout the United States of America?

However, the good Senator misstated the question. To quote his article:

“Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case involving four separate lawsuits, each dealing with the same question: does the U.S. Constitution require the redefinition of marriage?”

Sorry, Senator, but you misstated the question. The question is not redefining marriage, rather it is "should same sex marriage be given equality with opposite sex marriage?" In America, the civil contract known as marriage grants the individuals participating certain rights, privileges, prerogatives, and responsibilities. These include, but are not limited to, such rights and privileges as visitation at hospitals, end of life decisions, joint ownership of property, right of survivorship, filing taxes jointly; and should include having your marriage recognized as legal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

To further quote you, Senator:

“And unless it’s an issue of specifically national or interstate consequence, the Constitution directs this decision-making process to occur at the state level, to create the space for the greatest diversity of opinions to be expressed.”

Your own sentence, Senator Lee. I suggest you read, and re-read it, carefully. It is one of the best arguments for equality of same sex marriage.

Today, SSM is legal and recognized in 36 states and the District of Columbia. If a same-sex couple is legally wed in Utah, should they not also have the same rights, privileges, prerogatives and responsibilities if they move to Texas?

Marriage has already been defined as a civil right by the United States Supreme Court. Civil rights should not be limited to the current state of residence; rather, they should be recognized throughout the land.

Therefore, Senator, this is an issue of specific national consequence. Thank you for making the case for equality of same sex marriage in the United States of America.

As always, your comments and opinions are welcome.  

R.M. Bob Hartman

Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865627365/Let-people-not-courts-define-marriage.html retrieved April 28, 2015

Missed Opportunities

Republican senator Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz, the junior senator from Texas, participated in a forum at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Summit; a summit called to allow presidential candidates and potential contenders to present their points of view regarding religious liberties in America.

In his comments, Senator Cruz said "there is no room for Christians in today's Democratic Party." He continued, stating “There is a liberal fascism that is dedicated to going after believing Christians who follow the biblical teaching on marriage."

Wow. This from an attorney who graduated cum laude from Princeton University, and continued on to receive his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1995. While at Harvard, he was the principal editor of the Harvard Law Review. One would be inclined to believe, with his education, he would know that liberal and fascism have opposite meanings.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines liberal as “not narrow in opinion or judgment.” The same source defines fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation, and often race and stands for a centralized autocratic, often militaristic government.” The two terms are polar opposites on both political and social scales. For Senator Cruz to use these two terms, together, to describe the Democratic Party is akin to his defying the existence of gravity while his feet are buried in quicksand.

Every individual I have met, who self-aligns with the Democratic Party, as well as the party itself, defines the Democratic Party as being a “big tent” party; that is to say no litmus test exists for membership or active participation as a candidate within the party.  There are those within the party who are strongly pro-life, even as the party defines itself as pro-choice; there are those who are against any form of gun control, even as the party works for stronger gun control legislation. From my own hands-on experiences, I have met and worked with Democrats who held no religious belief, as well as those who have very strongly-held religious convictions, be they Christian, Eastern, Middle Eastern, or Deist.

In my lifetime, I do not remember ever hearing, or reading about, any organized group “going after believing Christians who follow the biblical teachings on marriage.” I wonder, is Senator Cruz trying to form a wedge issue using the current events circulating around the hot-button issue of same sex marriage? Is he creating a boogie man to take the focus off the important issues facing our nation; issues such as stagnant wages, a Congress with the lowest approval rating in decades, a complete lack of compromise between the two major political parties, and much-needed immigration reform?

Presidential candidate Cruz missed a golden opportunity. He could have used his time at this summit to explain how a Cruz administration would work with Congress to ensure that all Americans would enjoy religious freedom while simultaneously guaranteeing the civil rights of all.  He could have explained how discrimination, in any form, goes against not only the constitution, but also the 2nd great commandment, “Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself.”  Senator Cruz could have spoken to the value of diversity in both public and private arenas, and the need for acceptance of diverse religions and lifestyles.

But he didn’t.

You opinion and comments are always welcome. Thanks for reading!
R.M. Bob Hartman

Sources:

CNN http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/26/politics/ted-cruz-liberal-fascism-iowa-speech/index.html ,   retrieved April 26, 2015.

Immigration

Well, the President has done it again. He managed to get several Republican members of Congress mad at him, at least for the sound bites. But why are they mad?

President Obama had made it clear, in his various State of the Union Addresses, that he wanted immigration reform. The Senate passed a bill (in June of 2013), with bi-partisan agreement, that would have pushed some immigration reform forward. House Speaker Boehner has refused to allow the bill to come up for vote in the House of Representatives (the “People’s House”, as he likes to remind us). The bill is still languishing on Speaker Boehner’s desk. . . in November of 2014. The American people want immigration reform; Speaker Boehner, why won’t you do it?

I will grant you that no bill ever before Congress is perfect. It takes months, sometimes years of wrangling before all the kinks are worked out and everything goes as planned. But, and this is a large but, if you don’t do something, nothing changes. Nothing changes.

Speaker Boehner said, when this bill passed the Senate in June of 2013, that he intended for the House to pursue its own immigration reform approach, rather than taking up the Senate bill.
But is has been what? 18 months since the bill passed, and there has been no action –zero- on the part of the House of Representatives to submit a bill or to take the existing Senate bill to committee to work out the differences. Why? Because Speaker Boehner wanted to make President Obama a “one and done”? To tarnish the President’s legacy? That hasn’t work out so well, Speaker Boehner. President Obama beat Mitt “on his white horse” Romney fair and square.

So the President of The United States of America took matters into his own hands, and he issued an Executive Order to impact immigration laws. He did not make a new law; rather he directed ICE and other enforcement agencies on how to enforce the existing laws. That is his right, as President of The United States of America. A right that has been exercised by American presidents for a long time. . . at least back to Eisenhower, and the uprooting of Japanese-American citizens. The President said, focus on the felons, and those who have been here less than 5 years. Why did Speaker Boehner and the Republicans object to that? It makes good sense to this taxpayer, this citizen.

The House of Representatives had an opportunity in the summer of 2013, when they rejected the Senate immigration bill via speaker Boehner, to work with the Senate to resolve differences and create a bill that would address and solve some of the immigration conflicts. But, they chose instead to do nothing. To Do NOTHING.

Why not do something the American people want? In my (certainly anecdotal) discussions with people, American citizens, they want action on immigration, on illegal immigration, on jobs. But the HOR does nothing. So nothing changes, and the American people feel Washington is disconnected with main street, with their homes. Surprised? Sadly, I’m not surprised at all.

So what can be done? I’m no “constitutional scholar” but I have some thoughts to share with you. First, make E-verify the law of the land. E-verify should be strengthened, to make it mandatory that all employers verify the legal status of anyone applying for work. Yes, it takes a few minutes, per employee, to run the check. No, it is not perfect; it is designed to find out if social security numbers submitted are valid. If the SS number comes up in a cross-check, the employee is given time to verify if it is him/her or someone who has stolen a SS number. In doing so, it will weed out those who have stolen SS numbers to gain employment. If you haven’t stolen a SS number, what do you have to fear? Loosing some time, to protect your SS benefits? (Disclaimer: I have been a victim of ID theft; yes it takes some time to straighten it out.) If an employer is found to be in violation of E-verify, fine the living daylights, and profits, out of him, and his corporation. After all, corporations are people too. Put the owner/CEO in prison. We confiscate the property of drug users, and drug dealers, how about confiscating the property of those who hire undocumented workers? Make it public knowledge, first page of the papers. And, yes, jail the person who stole the ID. If he/she is an illegal immigrant, deport them. No questions asked. No Excuse. Fingerprint, DNA Swab, deport and done.

A few years ago, the most expensive, luxurious ski resort in Utah (Deer Valley) was raided by ICE, 40+ undocumented immigrants were taken into custody, and the resort was fined the equivalent of one day’s revenue. One day’s revenue? A drop in the bucket, and it’s a large bucket at that. That accomplishes nothing. Book some more rooms, and we are good.

A meat processing plant in Kansas was raided; same result. Until we hit the “job creators” HARD in the pocketbook, they will continue the practice of hiring undocumented, or illegally documented, workers.

It’s past time to make E-verify the law of the land, and to enforce it with heavy fines and penalties. Don’t fine the head of HR, fine the owner, and put him/her in prison. Not just for overnight, make it 12 months minimum. After all, we have federally-directed minimum sentences for drug users, why not for employers who hire undocumented workers?

That’s the first step.
Second, close the border. Stop dilly-dallying around, Congress. Stop building a fence, because anyone can build a taller ladder. Intercept, jail, and deport. Put enough National Guard, Border Patrol and DEA troops, as well as drones, on the border 24/7 to stop the flow. Don’t haggle about the costs, we had two unfunded wars for no reason. Congress didn’t worry about those costs. Use the money from the fines of those who hire undocumented workers to fund the border control efforts. Stop the flow of people, and stop the flow of drugs. Blow up the tunnels. Don’t worry about prison space, CCA and MTA will build and man the prisons faster than you can arrest the criminals. Those corporations love full prisons. And they make huge campaign donations.

Yes, if the “job creators” have to hire documented workers, pay taxes, etc., the costs of finished products will probably rise. McDonalds will have to call it the $2 menu. But Americans will be working, at least for minimum wages, and life will go on. As competition for labor increases, wages will go up, and unemployment will go down. People will be able to purchase goods. The economy will improve.

I know, readers, that this is a step back for a liberal (as I am described) to take. But it’s time, no, it’s past time for Congress to do something for the American people, for the American worker. I know the “job creators” will raise bloody hell if Congress does this, they will threaten to cut off the large campaign donations. But corporations and campaign donations don’t vote, the American people do. And the American people are frustrated and angry.

We elected you, Congress. Do what is right this time. Do it for America.

As always, your comments are more than welcome.

Shadows and Straws

It never ceases to amaze me, the deep shadows and thin straws used by those who would project their version of morality and life-style choices upon others in order to deny the constitutional right of marriage to same-sex couples.

Attorney Gene Schaerr authored a commentary, posted on the website of the Heritage Foundation’s The Daily Signal, outlining an amicus brief he had filed with the Supreme Court, wherein he claims that allowing same sex marriage will (a) devalue heterosexual marriage, (b) reduce the percentage of women who are married, and (c) increase the number of induced abortions.

Mr. Schaerr is best known as the lead attorney hired by the State of Utah to defend Amendment 3 of the Utah Constitution, which defined marriage as existing only between one man and one woman. The State of Utah, not surprisingly, lost the appeal, and same sex marriage is now legal in Utah. (I posted my reply to Utah’s court filing on this blog.)

Certainly Mr. Schaerr is entitled to his personal and religious beliefs. He is very well known for his membership in, and support of, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which opposes SSM on religious grounds. However, he is not entitled to his own facts, nor should he be allowed to use those beliefs to deny any American his or her constitutional rights.

To quote Attorney Schaerr:

“For example, an “any-two-adults” model of marriage implicitly tells men (and women) that a child doesn’t need a father (or mother), thereby weakening the norm of gender-diverse parenting. Other norms, such as the value of biological bonding, partner exclusivity, and reproductive postponement until marriage, will likewise crumble.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Schaerr’s opinion and amicus brief, that train left the station a long time ago. The Pew Research Center has studied census data from 1960 to 2013; here are the numbers: In 1960, only 9% of children were living in a single parent household; in 1980, 19% were in single parent households; and 2013, the figure was 34%. From this data, I conclude that the “norms” Mr. Schaerr speaks to have already crumbled. Traditional marriage was the norm in 1960, but it is certainly not the norm in 2015. For Mr. Schaerr to conclude that same sex marriage will devalue traditional heterosexual marriage seems to fly into the face of facts; traditional marriage has been declining (devaluing?) for decades.

As quoted by The Washington Post, the PRC analysis of Americans age 25 and older who have never been married details the following facts. In 1960, 8% of women and 10% of men in this group have never married. The number of never married men and women dropped slightly in 1970, to 8.5% and 9%, respectively, and has increased since; the rate in 2012 was 17% of women and 23% of men. On the surface, this increase of unmarried women and men would seem to support Mr. Schaerr’s arguments, but the details seem to have escaped him. In the PRC analysis, those who are same-sex married (in those states that allow SSM) are considered as married, and therefore are not part of the increased number of those who have never married. I therefore respectfully disagree with Mr. Schaerr regarding the supposed effect of same-sex marriage on the percentage of women who never marry. 

Regarding abortion, Mr. Schaerr stated in his brief that allowing SSM will increase the number of abortions. He is statistically incorrect; the Guttmacher Institute reports the number abortions performed in the United States has declined from a peak in 1981 of 29.3 per 1000 women of child-bearing age to 12.3 per 1000 in 2013. Same sex marriage was not legal in anywhere in the U.S. in 1981, when SSM did not exist; by 2013, 37 states and the District of Columbia legally allowed SSM. And yet the number of abortions has fallen to historic lows. Perhaps Mr. Schaerr should go back to school?

I think that a majority of us have longed, at one point or another, for “the good old days,” when Mom stayed home and raised the children, Dad worked one good-paying job, and everybody was June and Ward Cleaver happy. Reality, however, was not always that sunny. People of color were regarded as inferior; many women (and some men) stayed in abusive, destructive relationships because divorce for any reason was frowned upon by society, or not a legal option; family planning and reliable birth control were not discussed, and women could not apply for credit without their spouse’s approval.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the rise of social knowledge of (and disgust for) spousal and child abuse, the availability of higher education to both men and women, the availability of reliable birth control, and the acceptance of women as men’s equal in the workplace and the home allowed society to move forward and, albeit slowly, accept changes in the mores of American life. (These are just a few of the changes, used only as examples.) The actual acceptance of these changes has taken, and will continue to take, time to become a true reality for all Americans. But as a nation, as a people, we are moving in the right direction.

Now, as a society, we are on the cusp of another major paradigm shift; one which I view as a positive change in America’s social network. When the Supreme Court rules on same sex marriage in June, it is my hope, and my belief, that the constitutional right of all couples to marry as they desire will become the law of the land. 

As always, your opinions and comments are valued.

R.M. Hartman

Sources:

The Daily Signal http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/17/forcing-states-to-recognize-gay-marriage-could-increase-number-of-abortions/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social retrieved April 23, 2015

Pew Research Center:http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/22/less-than-half-of-u-s-kids-today-live-in-a-traditional-family/

The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/24/i-do-no-thanks-the-economics-behind-americas-marriage-decline/ 

Guttmacher Instutite: https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Through the Eyes of a Child

As adults, we rise up and power through our days, focusing on the concerns and employments that affect our own existence, and the affairs of the world. We forget, sometimes, how the simple things can provide immense pleasure to our lives. . .

This morning, as I was at my desk ruminating on world and local events (courtesy of the internet and the local paper), a small sound came to my ears. My youngest granddaughter slowly and carefully opened the door of my office, peered around it, and very quietly said “Good morning, Grandpa.”

She looked out the window. “The sun woked up. And I woked up. Does the sun eat breakfast, Grandpa?” I smiled, and said, “I don’t know, but I bet you would like some breakfast.” So we went to the kitchen, and I prepared her a bowl of cereal (colored circles, please, Grandpa, and orange juice). I fixed a cup of coffee, and listened to her chatter on about how dogs have four feet, but they are called paws, and people don’t have paws, people have only two feet, but we have hands; the reflection of her bowl of cereal on her glass of juice, and so forth, as she ate her cereal and drank her juice. I reflected on how much she enjoys life, enjoys taking each minute of life and finding wonder in it. How much she revels in sharing her thoughts, openly, without worrying if she is talking too much or making a fool of herself.

On our kitchen wall, we have an impressionist painting of a street scene that my wife and I purchased some time back; it reminds us of Seville, and a wonderful trip we had taken to that ancient Andalusian city. She looked up at it, as if seeing it for the first time, and asked me about it. How do you explain the emotions of a trip down memory lane to a four year old? I did my best, and then she looked at our dog, and commented about how he had so much hair, and never had to wear clothes. On to the next subject!

Now she is joined by her older sister, and I am treated to a continuous litany of (to me) unconnected thoughts running rampant through their minds.
How today was a no school day. They like to play outside, but it was raining, so they would stay inside. But they can’t go outside unless an adult is with them. Jonathan can’t walk yet, ‘cause he is a baby. And on and on.
I lost track of the events I was studying so hard a half hour ago, and become entranced by their view of the world and life in it.

I forgot, for that brief moment in time, about the tragic plane crash, the terrorist attack on a college in Kenya, the letters and bills on my desk that demand attention. My arthritis drifted to the back of my mind, as I watched them toss their hair around, smile and giggle at each other.

“With the eyes of a child
You must come out and see
That your world’s spinning round
And through life you will be
A small part of a hope of a love that exists
In the eyes of a child you will see.”
(John Lodge, 1969. The Moody Blues: To Our Children’s Children’s Children)

Yes, it is cloudy and misty today in the Salt Lake valley. The yard needs the moisture. . . etc., etc. Today, however, my world is full of springtime, sunshine and life!

Thank you, Esther and Martha, for bringing my feet back to the ground, and lifting my mind to the sky.

RM Hartman

Your thoughts and comments are, as always, welcome.