It's Been A While

Since I felt like writing about our county’s condition; and I can’t say that I am happy about where we are today or that I am comfortable about where we appear to be headed. It seems America is riding in a small lifeboat, lurching badly on an angry ocean of upheaval, lies, distrust, discord, and angst.

Candidate Trump promised to shake up Washington, and to drain the swamp. I’m sorry to say, but he has succeeded beyond even his wildest dreams of shaking things up in Washington; and as for draining the swamp, he appears instead to have aroused every alligator within several thousand miles. I believe there is a lack of common courtesy or even decency in Washington, including in the White House; and I fail to comprehend how our country has managed to become so childish. On both national and international levels, our country’s reputation and honor are being trashed daily, even hourly; and there seems no clear reason for this outlandish style of governing. Although President Trump likes to blame any bad news on the “Fake News,” I don’t think that is accurate; honest reporters tell the news as it is happening, that is, they report the facts and the words said; that honest reporting may not be what the president wants to see or hear, but facts are not to be trifled with, downplayed or excused away. Facts are exactly that, facts; they cannot be changed to fit the President’s wishes.

We are approaching the end of year three of the Trump presidency, and I don’t see America as being better off than we were before Mr. Trump was elected President. The current occupant of the White House has caused great harm to our standing in the world, both by his actions and his words. He has succeeded in distressing our Allies, and in bringing out the worst in the behavior of common Americans.

America has been a world leader for democracy since the end of the Second World War. Our State Department has worked to build and strengthen our relationships with our allies, not only for support in case of war, but also in matters of trade, in dealing with humanitarian crises, and in actions relating to rogue states or stateless terrorist organizations. The Trump administration has been in isolationist overdrive, pulling out of treaties on pressing environmental issues, Iranian nuclearization, and trade with our Pacific Rim allies and our North American neighbors. Most recently, and perhaps most damaging to our standing in the world, President Trump reneged on the working agreement with the Kurdish forces that helped the United States in the war with ISIS.

Here in the United States, decades of hard work, and the sacrifice of many lives, have gone into the process of improving the relations of Americans of different races. It is work that is not complete now, not by a long shot, but progress has been made in the acceptance of our neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin. That is, until the Trump presidency. Even during his campaign for President, and since his election, Mr. Trump consistently fans the flames of racial and ethnical division. He has used the bully pulpit to deride and disparage any peoples he can; people of color, women, academics, political opponents, and immigrants of any nationality; but most consistently, the people of Mexico and South America.  This race-baiting and xenophobic behavior has empowered those who, like the KKK, are afraid of “others,” and who see a conspiracy behind every tree or news report. President Trump apparently does not understand that he is the President of all American citizens, not just the ones he likes.

One thing our current President does understand well is the power of the spoken word. Don Miguel Ruiz, who writes about the philosophy of the ancient Toltec Indians, describes The First Agreement thusly:

“Be impeccable with your word. Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your word in the direction of truth and love.”

Mr. President, please speak with integrity. Be impeccable with your word.  

Thank you for reading; as always, your comments are welcome.

R. M. “Bob” Hartman

A Land of Law and Order

Yes, we are a land of law and order. To prove this point, ICE raided seven food processing plants in and around Jackson, Mississippi on August 7, 2019.

Immigrants-680 individuals-were arrested during the raids. According to the U.S. Attorney General for Southern Mississippi, these raids were conducted to execute federal criminal search warrants and a number of search warrants for people in the country illegally. Brian Cox, spokesperson for ICE said approximately 300 of those arrested were released by Thursday, after being scheduled for hearings before federal immigration courts. There is no word yet on the other 380 people. One might reasonably conclude the ones not yet released were the targets of the federal criminal search warrants.

Arguably, one might agree those that have committed a crime serious enough to have federal criminal search warrants issued for them should be arrested, tried, and if found guilty, punished. That is the way a land of law and order should work, indeed, that is part of what our taxes pay for.

There is something I find disturbing about these raids, however, and it is also based on law and order. Mississippi requires all employers to use E-Verify, the federal system of proving a potential employee is legally able to work in this country.

All of the plants raided are privately owned. Four of the companies affected (Koch Foods, Peco Foods, PH Foods, and Pearl River Foods) all issued statements saying in part, they comply with the E-Verify system. MP Food, the fifth company targeted by the raids, has not yet issued a statement.

Which brings me to my concern: is the E-Verify system so easy to circumnavigate that 680 people were able to avoid detection, or are the companies lying about using E-Verify? Given that both Koch and Peco have been cited and/or fined by the US Department of Agriculture, EEOC and OSHA, I think the greater possibility is that management of these companies has failed to actually use E-Verify correctly.

There is no real bite in E-Verify, at least for the employer. There may be fines assessed, but no one goes to jail for hiring illegal workers. Pay the fine, move on. But if the owner of Koch Foods, Joseph Grendys (net worth $3.3 Billion, according to Forbes) were to go to jail as well as being fined a substantial amount of money, I think his company would be much more diligent in the hiring process. (Please bear in mind, I am only using him as an example. I do not know for a fact that he is aware of any improper hiring practices in his company.)

It has been my long-held belief that most of the "illegal immigrants" in this country came here to work, make money, and raise their families. If there are no jobs for them, they will not come illegally, at least in my opinion. If the penalties for hiring illegal workers were stiff enough, and enforced, then illegal immigrants would not be able to find work, and therefore would have much less incentive to come here.

Now imagine if this were applied across the entire American economy. Perhaps we would be one step closer to being a land of law and order for all.

I hope I've given you something to think about, and thanks for reading.

You comments, as always, are welcome.

R.M. "Bob" Hartman 

Politics and Religion

I’ve watched, at times fascinated and at other times sickened, as the various segments of our American politicians and society debate religion, its place in our great country, and in our laws and behavior.

The Declaration of Independence, which took our country away from the dominion of Great Briton, does state: . . . that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. . .

Note that it states, all men are created equal. It does not state that only those of a certain religious belief have these rights, more rights than others. Nor does it say you must have a belief in any one particular, if any, Creator.

It states that all men are created equal. We can argue the statement about “all men,” but at this point, I believe the reference was to all people. Therefore, it includes women as well as men (historical introspection is mine).

The Constitution of the United States of America does not define any religious belief, or any set rules of religious behavior, or belief.

In fact, the 1^st amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (part of the Bill of Rights) states: 
      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof; abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Well, hello freedom! This gives each of us the right to believe what we want about the existence of a Creator, or not. It gives us the freedom to worship or not as we desire. It removes from the discussion the right or privilege to say, the United States was founded as a Christian nation. It does give us the right to practice our religions, or not; to believe or not as we wish, to attend church or not as we wish; however, and this is a BIG however, it does not give us the right to force our beliefs on others, or to use that belief to divide us. We are bigger that that as a nation, as a people. 

Politics in the United States has become a dirty, nasty business. To entice votes, politicians are trying hard to divide and conquer the voters. They are trying, and to a large point succeeding, to divide us upon religious grounds. The rhetoric has become evil, nasty, even putrefying. It is no wonder that the majority of Americans turn away from the debate.  

The American people deserve, and should demand, better. We need to know, politicians, what you plan to do to improve our economy, our health care, our standard of life. We don’t care about where or how often you worship. My belief, or non-belief, in a Creator is “none of your damn business,” as Grandmother would have said. 

Politicians, let’s take your religious belief out of the discussion, for this moment. Do not tell me what your “God” wants us to do. Tell me what you are going to do. Are you going to support health care for all people; are you going to say those who are outside of your comfort zone they have no right in their decision; are you going to allow women to decide how and when they decide to bring new life into the world, or would you prefer to tell them what they have to do? Will you feed the hungry children, provide them education, will you provide daytime child care so mom and dad can earn a living, or would you prefer they end up on welfare for the rest of their lives? Are you going to allow me to make my own end-of-life decisions? Are you willing to allow medical marijuana to ease my discomfort from chemo? Or would you prefer I suffer when the pain can be relieved? Are you going to pay the bills, or would you prefer my family goes hungry?

Or, let’s put your “God” back into the discussion, for the moment. What would He say, what would He do? Would He heal the sick, feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted? Would He say, “Provide for them, and their families?” Would He be there, or would He say, “Well, too bad for you?”

Perhaps more importantly, it is time for the American voters to wake up, to say, Hello! We need our governing bodies to work for us, for the greater good of America. It is time for us to no longer accept the R or the D in the voting booth. It is time for us to look the politicians in the eye and ask, what are you going to do for us, for our nation? The time is now to ask for answers. It is time for us to look beyond their business connections, beyond their religious affiliations, read beyond the sound bites, to look at what they have done, to ask them what they are willing to do for us as a country.

It is time to ask our politicians what they are going to do for greater good of America. 

As always, your comments are welcome! Thanks for reading. 

RMH

It’s July 4, 2015. Independence Day in the United States of America.

It has not been an easy year; some of us have cried tears of joy, others among us have gnashed their teeth. We have seen changes in our country this year, changes that have taken years to occur yet seemingly happened overnight. People have died, churches have been burned; all in the name of (a) God. But God is not in charge of our secular laws, which are the basis of our freedoms.

Its important today, I think, to remember our founding fathers; who wanted to establish a country free from the 16^th century boundaries of god and country. The founding fathers, in my study of history, wanted America to be a country ruled by the laws of reason, of equal rights, of fair play.

The founders could not imagine the tools and abilities we have now. They had to rely on post by horseback, of letters written by hand, using quill and ink. Today, we have the internet, IM, email; all unfettered by officials and accident of riders. I think, personally, they would have enjoyed the instant communication; the ability to reach out through blogs and social media.

I will agree, that the founders did not envision publicly a country where women and those of color had the right to vote, the right to be equal. I think those ideas were beyond the scope of their vision; but not for the reasons so many think. They were trying (and I think they succeeded well) to establish the original ideas of freedom, they were caught up in the moment of trying to have freedom for white middle class men, they did not dare to dream of the same freedom for women and people of color. It was not an error of omission; rather they were doing, in my opinion, to achieve the best they could at the time. Remember where, and when, they were. Remember what they were trying to achieve. In all of the documents, papers, and letters I have researched from those brave men, there was not any mention of denying those same freedoms to all of the American people; they were simply trying to establish some basic firm ground, a ground from which we could expand and grow.

And grow we have, far beyond even the most fertile imagination of the founding fathers. We have a world-class economy, a growing but frustrated middle class, and an over-expanded military, even as we work to understand our own internal struggles. From their initial work, we have seen women and people of color achieve the right to work, and to be accepted as equals. Is it perfect? Far from it! But we must now continue the work of our founding fathers.

America always has been, is now, and forever (I hope) will be a work in progress. America was, at the time of its creation, the most democratic of nations. We have been an example to other nations trying to work to independence. Many other nations have used our declaration of independence, our methods of laws, and our systems of governance, to establish their own countries. Of that, we should be proud! We, as a nation, are looking for ways to improve, to be more inclusive. That work is hard, difficult, and fraught with peril. We may at times, lean more right, or more left. But it is a work we should always embrace. It is our duty, our debt to the founding fathers, to examine our relationships and to grow; if needed, to change how we deal with the challenges of our times.

It is time, my fellow Americans (thank you LBJ) for all of us to look hard at what we believe, to look at the big picture. It is time to overlook the sins of the few, and look for the good that is present in all our fellow people. Past time, I think, to remember we (America) are the best of what the world has to offer. It is time for us to put that to work, to develop the best that is in us, to allow others to develop their best, to push America forward again to our rightful position as the beacon of democracy and freedom.

Freedom, and democracy, are not easy. It takes guts, willpower, and willingness. It’s easy to sit on our couches and moan. It’s harder to reach out and shake hands with a neighbor. But, it can be done. It’s hard, I know, to have discussions about uncomfortable subjects. But don’t we owe the founding fathers that discussion? They were willing to die for their freedom; can you and I not at the least open lines of communication with our neighbors?

It’s July 4^th! Let Freedom Ring!

As always, your comments and thoughts are welcome.

RM “Bob” Hartman

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.

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

Sunrise on the Wasatch

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)

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

Equal Rights, Anyone?

In response to the equal rights discussion currently being held in Utah, state Senator Stephen Urquhart (R-Washington county district 29) has again proposed a bill that would make housing and job discrimination, based on sexual orientation, illegal in Utah. A television and web advertising campaign is now under way to defeat his bill.

First Freedom Coalition (which I will refer to as FFC) has posted a webpage (http://fairtoall.org/) where they list their concerns and issues with this proposed legislation. The three TV advertisements they are currently running against this bill also are posted on the webpage, as is their First Freedoms Compact. Here are the 5 items in the First Freedom Compact, and my thoughts on those items.

“First Freedoms
All people in a free society share equally the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and the right to make a living.”
I could not agree more with this statement! All people, I believe, should have all these rights, without discrimination. Unfortunately, in Utah, it is currently legal to discriminate in those areas if someone is of a sexual orientation that is not strictly heterosexual. I would not want to be denied an apartment based on my sexual orientation, what about you?

“Tolerance
Pluralism within a free society requires all people to adopt a “live and let live” approach to secular and religious expressions intended for the betterment of mankind. This is especially true when people of varying beliefs disagree about those expressions.”
Then by all means, be tolerant. Be tolerant of those of a different nationality, race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation. Be willing to have an open discussion, and listen to other points of view. Does anyone else remember “you can’t trust anyone over 30?”

“Fairness
All people are to be treated reasonably and with fairness in their public and commercial interactions. No single group should be elevated to a “special class” above others with special rights that infringe on the first freedoms of everyone else.”
I believe we have hit upon the real core point that FFC is striving to make. No one, least of all Senator Urquhart, is trying to create a “special class” above any other. All his bill will do is make discrimination against people, because of their sexual orientation, illegal in Utah.

“Mutual Respect
Conflicting rights are inherent in a free society, and conflicts requiring public mediation should be handled rationally, respectfully and lawfully. Rational disagreements on sensitive issues are not justification for accusations of hatred, intolerance or bigotry.”
I agree that a lot of hatred, intolerance, and bigotry has been shown on the same sex marriage issue. Reading the op-ed, letters to the editor, or comments section of The Salt Lake Tribune, one can see both sides behaving in a disrespectful manner, with some writers being very intolerant of another’s viewpoint. In the discussion of mutual respect, should we not also have respect for people whose sexual orientation is different from ours? Should we respect their rights as much as we expect them to recognize ours? I believe we should.

”The Common Good
Governance in a free society must differentiate between private and public concerns – respecting the right of people to work out their lives as they see fit while also respecting public policies intended to protect freedom and advance the common good.”
Indeed, the common good. Let’s talk about the difference between private and public concerns. By accepted legal definition, a business with less than 15 employees, that does not do business with any governmental agency, or accepts any government payment (such as TANF) is a private concern. Mom and dad renting out the studio apartment over the garage is a private concern. A private college that does not accept government money for any of its programs, or accept government payment for tuition; this is a private concern. A public concern is one that deals with the public, such as a transit agency, a utility, a business (with more than 15 employees) selling its goods and services to the general public. A university that uses public grants for research, or accepts federal student loans, is a public concern. An apartment complex of five units or more, renting to the general public, is a public concern. The corner store that accepts TANF is a public concern.

Regarding the advertisements produced by FFC: in one, the case is made that a photographer was fined for not photographing at same sex commitment ceremony. Although, as it was argued in court, the company had an unwritten policy not to be a participant in any same sex ceremony, that was not disclosed to one of the participants. In another, the baker did not disclose in his advertisements that he would not prepare wedding cakes for a same sex couple. In both cases, a simple written policy, a simple written declaration, would have been sufficient to have the cases thrown out in court. Don’t get me wrong, I have been involved in small business since I have been able to wash dishes. I’ve built them, I’ve watched them succeed, I’ve watched them fail. But one thing I know, PUT IT IN WRITING. Another video talks about discrimination, by facility, of a student at Missouri State University. She had refused an assignment, based upon her faith; the University held up her rights, after a lawsuit was filed.

One video really disturbs me. It talks about setting up a “special class”, saying that the new law proposed by Senator Urguhart sets up a special class that is above other people in the country. This is, as near as I can tell, complete bulls**t. This legislation is designed to reduce discrimination against people of same-sex relationships. This legislation says a gay couple cannot refuse to rent an apartment to me, a heterosexual, based on my sexual orientation. It says that a florist cannot refuse to arrange the flowers for me because I am a heterosexual, again, based on my sexual preference.

Do I have a dog in this fight? No, and yes. I am in a heterosexual relationship, my wife and I own our home (with the bank), and I see no problems on the horizon created by our relationship. However, when I moved to Utah in the mid 70’s with a significant other, we were denied housing and bank accounts because we could not produce a marriage license.

Discrimination is wrong, whatever the basis. Agree or disagree, I welcome your comments.

Wasting Taxpayer's money, Utah style

Utah is a place of spectacular beauty and grace, from the granite peaks of the Wasatch to the red rocks of Zion National Park, lakes and streams, deserts and forests. I consider myself fortunate to be living in this place, at this time. Now I am watching history unfold in Utah, an historical event I never thought I would see.

On November 2, 2004, Utah, and indeed all of the United States, held elections. One of the items on Utah’s ballot was Amendment 3 to the Utah State Constitution; the Amendment reads as follows:
”Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.” (Utah Constitution, Article 1 Section 29).

This amendment passed, 65.86% in favor. So that makes it majority rule, correct? Not so fast. . . only 57.21% of the registered voters turned out for the election. That’s right folks, 37.68% of those registered to vote decided what a marriage should be. (Utah voted George Bush for president, 71.54%, the highest percentage in the United States to vote for Bush) (2004 Presidential Election Results)

My grandmother used to say that all things of value take time. On December 20, 2013, Federal Judge Robert J. Shelby wrote a decision that brought equal rights to Utah. “The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry,” wrote Shelby, “and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason.” (Dallasvoice.com)

I’ve listened, carefully, to the arguments against same-sex marriage.

One of the State of Utah’s arguments was that the state is promoting relationships that can procreate, it was in the best interest of the state to license only those relationships that can result in offspring. This, as you may imagine, created a groundswell of opposition. There are many people who desire to be joined as a married couple who cannot, or do not desire, to procreate. My wife and I are both now medically sterile, does that mean the state is not interested in our marriage? Two of my friends became a married couple and made the decision not to have children before they were married. Should the state have denied them a marriage license?

There is the argument that “this is the way it has always been.” This argument went to the gutter a long time ago, when slavery became illegal; when women were franchised to vote, and when the Jim Crow laws were declared illegal.

Then, there is the argument that homosexuality is forbidden for Christians. Could someone please give me the scripture passage where Jesus said that? I cannot find it, however I can find Christ saying, love they neighbor as thyself. Second to that, not all people in the United States are Christian, and not all sects of Christianity have the same views regarding same sex marriage. (Regarding other religions, I apologize, but I have no training or knowledge of other religious groups’ views on same sex marriages.)

One of the most vocal arguments is that “same sex marriage destroys traditional marriage.” I don’t understand this point of view. What another couple does in the privacy of their own home does not damage my marriage. It does not demean my marriage, in truth, it does not affect me at all.

The rights of marriage are many, including: the right of jointly owned property, to make decisions regarding the end-of-life cycle, to file taxes as a married couple, to adopt a child, to be declared eligible for insurance under a spouse’s employer, to have your marriage recognized in all 50 states, and so forth. The least of those is the sexual relationship between the people married.

I cannot understand the thought process that denies marriage to those of the same sex, any more than I could understand the thought process that denied the rights of marriage to those of different races. And yet, that is what Utah is want to do. Upon being sworn in as our “Interim” Attorney General, Sean Reyes told a press conference that his office would continue to press this case, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, no matter now much it costs. The recent estimate from the AG’s office is $2 MILLION, for an outside law firm to assist the AG’s office.

So this is how Utah is wasting taxpayer money? Trying to legislate some “morality” at a high cost to the taxpayers; while we remain dead last in per-pupil spending on K-12 education? This is Governor Herbert’s “best managed state” in action?

I don’t think so.
Your comments are appreciated.


Downloaded from: http://le.utah.gov/code/CONST/htm/00I01_002900.htm on December 25, 2013

Downloaded from: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=2004&datatype=national&def=1&f=0&off=0&elect=0 on December 25, 2013

Downloaded from: http://www.dallasvoice.com/utah-gay-marriage-ban-struck-unconstitutional-10164201.html on December 25, 2013

UPDATE: Monday, January 6, 2014: The United States Supreme Court issued a stay in this matter, until an expedited hearing could review the case.

UPDATE: Tuesday, January 14, 2014: U.S. District Court Judge Terence Kern, Oklahoma, has struck down the Oklahoma ban on same-sex marriage, and immediately stayed his order, pending review by the 10th circuit court of appeals.

UPDATE: January 16, 2014. Utah State Tax Commission reverses itself, says same sex married couples can files jointly on 2013 State tax returns.

A Dominant Religion

I live in a society that has a dominant religion, of which I choose not to be a member. These are my choices, both to live here, and to not join the dominant faith. But, as do many, I have opinions on the dominant religion, and its’ relationship to those who choose for what ever reason not to become members (of the dominant faith). This is a discussion of those differences of opinion.

The first amendment to the United States Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In the society in which I live, it is not at all unusual for someone (of the dominant faith) to say, “Well, that is the way we belive (dress, act, pray, socialize) and if you don’t like it, you can leave.” Perhaps-but I do not want to leave or be forced out; I enjoy the land, the outdoor experience, the varieties of cultures, foods and dance that exist here. This section of the country was first populated by Native Americans, then Spanish explorers, trappers, fur traders, gold and silver miners, and finally the Mormons (members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). Along the way, we had immigrants from the “old world”; Greece, Italy, France, Germany, England, Russia, Yugoslavia, Poland, and yes, China and Japan. Now we have peoples from every land here, and I am grateful. I can eat food from Native America, Africa, France, Germany, Lebanon, Vietnam, Korea, Russia, Poland, and various Baltic states; and if I wish, I can observe/participate in (open) ceremonies of those countries. But, back to my point, please.

Yes, you are dominant. You, and your fellows, hold most of the elected offices, most of the appointed posts, and indeed are a major factor in the daily lives of all of the citizens here. But, that does not give you a blank check to discriminate against those who do not have the same beliefs and lifestyles as yours. Nor do I believe the vast majority of individuals –within and without the dominant faith- wish this discrimination to continue.

I will readily grant that you have every right to live a lifestyle that agrees with you, and your beliefs. You deserve the right to worship, eat, dress, study, and live close to those whom you agree with. You have the right to love who you want, and to participate in those relationships you feel are good, worthy, and fair; insomuch as those practices do not cause harm or undue mental duress to anyone, including those who have different religious or social beliefs.

So do I. I, and my family and friends, have every right to live a lifestyle that agrees with us, and our individual beliefs. All Americans deserve the right to worship, eat, dress, study, and live close to those whom we agree with. We have the right to love who we want, and to participate in those relationships we feel are good, worthy, and fair, again insomuch as those practices do not cause harm or undue mental duress to anyone, including those who have different religious or social beliefs.

To make clear a certain point. This freedom I believe in-the freedom I am proposing- does not include those who claim their beliefs entitle them to cause harm to any person or groups of people, i.e., that which is deemed illegal by the laws of this country or state.

We share many factors, you and I. Together, we need to educate all children, provide for our families, and see to the general welfare of the populace. The functions of government should be blind to all mentions of race, religion, national origin, sexual politics, and age. These common needs should not be discussed in language of “us or them,” who “deserves” these items more, or any other manner of separation or division.

It is time-nay, past time-to put divisions of religion and the sad bias it creates, behind us, and work for the good of all the population, the estimable good that will be beneficial for you, I, and all of the peoples of this state. It is time to stand up and say, “I care for all people.” It is time, and this is an election year, for all of us to say to our so-called elected representatives “We ALL deserve your care, your embrace, your consideration. Do not make decisions based upon bias, be it religious, national, sexual, or age-based. Make your decisions instead on what is right for all of the people, decisions based on knowledge not myth; fact not fiction; people not politics.”

It is OUR call, citizens, our call to make. Will you accept and tolerate another election of division and distortion, or will you and I demand better of our politicians?

I will. And I hope you will join me in making the same demands of our officials. It is OUR call.