An open letter to Utah State Senator Jim Debakis

Senator Debakis,

I read with pleasure, and in the main agree with, your op-ed in the July 5^th SL Tribune. Education in Utah is in terrible shape, and the largest single contributor to the condition is the lack of funding. I’d like to discuss your article and share my thoughts with you.

As you pointed out, teacher salaries in Utah are an embarrassment to any thinking individual. Utah colleges and universities turn out very well qualified teachers, but they cannot afford to stay in Utah and teach. We are losing this valuable resource to 49 other states. Our teachers should be paid, at the least, the average salary for teachers in the United States; $56,069 is the national average, as opposed to Utah’s average of $46,571. Our teachers, even at beginning salaries, should not be eligible for welfare.

Our class sizes are another point of discussion. Please consider this statement:

The ration of students to teachers must not be confused with average class size, which is the number of students assigned to a classroom for instructional purposes. Class size and student-teacher ratio are very different concepts and cannot be used interchangeably. According to recent studies, the difference between student-teacher ration and average class sizes in K-3 is 9 or 10 students. (Sharp, 2002)

Utah’s S/TR is set at 22.4; so this gives an average class size of 31.4 to 32.4 students per class. This is absurd, to say the least. Not even the most talented K-12 teacher can educate 30 children in a classroom effectively. One of our primary goals should be to reduce actual class size. The average S/TR in the United States is 16/1, which yields a class size of 26/1. This would be a good starting point for Utah to achieve. 

You mentioned Wyoming’s educational funding in your op-ed, I would like to expand upon that. One of the (major) reasons Wyoming can put so much more into education than Utah is willing to afford, is the extractive tax. Wyoming views it’s minerals as a resource owned by all the people, and therefore taxes extraction to benefit all the citizens. Utah can, and should, increase the mineral extraction tax; for example, coal in Wyoming is taxed at 3.75% (underground) or 7% surface, while Utah has no tax on coal extraction. (Source: The Council of State Governments, http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/system/files/7.15_2013.pdf, retrieved July 6, 2015)

This money could be used to offset the effect of returning 100% of the state income tax to funding public education, and in fact could be used to increase our educational funding to national averages.

I do admit, Senator, establishing this tax would be a very hard sell, given the mind-set of most of Utah’s legislators.

Charter schools, in my opinion, are another drag on our educational system. While I realize they are very popular with our legislature, I feel (and on this subject I have only anecdotal information) charter schools serve no educational purpose that is not met by the public system. Charter schools can reject any student, and send them back to the public schools, but they get to keep the funding for that student for the school year. This, in effect, boosts the revenue per student in the charter school, while cutting the revenue per student in the public system, thereby exasperating the public school funding issue. Charter schools exist, in my opinion, only so “my” child does not have to be in a classroom with “those” children. My solution is simplistic: close the charter schools; if parents want to pay for private school education, certainly that is their option.

To address the matter of accountability, I would propose that the State Board of Education consist of educators, not only on the K-12 level, but also college/university educators. They should be advised by members of the business community, who can use their knowledge to drive education to the curriculum needed to prepare students for college, and to compete for good, well-paying jobs. In this vein, we also need a robust trade school sector that can offer good careers for those who do not want college, or would not be successful in obtaining a college degree. The State Superintendent of Education should be held personally responsible for the success or failure of the school system.

Given the above, I would like to see the Utah legislature commit to a 5-year plan to achieve the following goals:

1)     Increase per-pupil funding to the national average;

2)     Increase teacher pay to the national average;

3)     Reduce class sizes to the national average.

Senator Debakis, I appreciate your progressive stance on education, and your willingness to open the much-needed discussion on our educational system.  I wish you the best in reforming our current educational system.

Respectfully,

Robert M. Hartman

Your comments are welcome, as always.

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

Senator Lee again, but not what you think!

It is not often I feel the need to admit that a member of the Republican delegation from Utah has done something I can applaud. Usually, the delegation from Utah follows tea-party lines, policies that I cannot accept.

Yesterday, however, I learned that the junior Senator from Utah, Mike Lee (R), has co-sponsored a bill with  a (gasp) Democrat; Patrick Leahy of Vermont that would reign in the National Security Agency, the agency charged with collecting metadata from all Americans that use email, cell phones, and landlines.

Metadata- the information about we use our communication devices- can be used to trace who we call (or email) and where our devices are located. That information allows the NSA to listen to our private discussions. There is a huge, brand new, data center in Bluffdale, Utah that operates 24/7/365 to follow your calls and emails. The NSA currently traces who we talk to, and what we say. This is the information that the “USA Freedom Act” will not allow the government to have.

Your calls to a grandparent in Europe, or in Topeka, are recorded. Did you mention how you feel about the laws and legislation that affect you and your family? It’s all recorded for future use, under the current law. It can be used to brand you, or your grandmother, as a terrorist. Would my grandmother be a terrorist, under today’s vision? She had strong feelings about Democrats, going back to Roosevelt. God forbid the NSA had listened to those conversations; she referred to him as a dictator! (The only time I heard her use a cuss word was about Roosevelt! That Damned Democrat!)

I grew up in rural Colorado, and we had party lines. Agnes listened to every conversation my family had. We knew that, ok? Mrs. Thompson (also on the party line) subscribed to the Wall Street Journal, and sent a letter off to our congressmen almost every day! (Ok, the postmaster had loose lips.) “Everybody knew” she was a communist because of that.

But for the Government of the United States of America to listen into, record, and more importantly judge, the conversations I now have with my sister, brother, and friends? WHY? I don’t think it is necessary for “national security.”

In the early days of America, groups of people met in bars and taverns to discuss how to birth our country. They were careful as to how they spoke, and if a stranger entered into the room, they became quiet and circumspectfull in their speech. It was illegal to speak wrongly of the King and the Empire. Is it illegal today? Some would say no. I disagree.

Today, we don’t know who is entering into, or listening to, our conversation.

Today, under the current NSA policies, those discussions will be recorded. What happened, friends, to free speech?

When I was younger, I read and studied Ayn Rand. I agreed with a lot of what she said and proposed. Over the years, I have moved away from that philosophy. Does that label me as a terrorist? I don’t think so, but. . . what does the NSA think?

It is my opinion that discussion among friends and co-workers, family, etc., helps us form our opinions, our beliefs. It is the open dialogue about where our country is, and where it should be going, that will propel our country forward. We are a diverse country, and in our diversity, we can form common opinion.

Let me repeat that: We are a diverse country, and in our diversity, we can form common opinion. It is not easy, it is not comfortable, but it is what this country was founded upon. We may have to accept people who do not believe as we do, who do not worship as we do, who form alliances we disagree with.

But, this is what America was founded upon! It took, what?, 10 years, to develop our current constitution and its system of laws and regulation is still being improved upon! It is indeed a moving goal; freedom is not easy nor is it free. In the immediate aftermath of September 11 2001, the so-called “Patriot Act” was passed. Now, 14 years later, Senators Lee and Leahy are acting to correct some of its most obvious mistakes.  

Senator Lee, while I am opposed to a great majority of what you have done in the past, and continue to do so today, I applaud you for this surprisingly liberal stance.

Your opinions and comments are welcome, as always.

R. M. 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.

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