Civil Unions, Marriage, Religion, and our Government
Posted by Andrew | Filed under Here's an Idea
I got an “A” on this in my Political Science class. It’s pretty long for a blog post, four pages printed out, but I think it’s some of my best work personally. I would still think that even if I got a “D.”
Hillary and Julie Goodridge are not names that many people here in Utah know, but in Massachusetts, they are seen by some as heroes. They came to attention in March of 2003 when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court argued the case of Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health. Months later, on November 18th, the Court passed down a 4 to 3 ruling finding that the state may not “deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.” Then Republican Governor Mitt Romney ordered town clerks in the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples on May 17th of the next year. Among the first people to become a legally married same sex couple in the United States were Hillary and Julie Goodridge in Boston. Prior to the decision, same sex marriages were performed in the Netherlands, Belgium, and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, no marriages for same sex couples were performed in the United States. For the first time, the conventional Christian view of marriage between a man and a woman was really being challenged in the United States.
In May of 2008, the Supreme Court of California made a 4 to 3 ruling overturning the state’s ban on same sex marriage that was brought about in 2000 by ballot measure Proposition 22 amending the state’s constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Chief Justice of the Court Ronald M. George stated in the ruling, “Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects ‘second-class citizens’” Within a month of the ruling, same sex couples in California were legally obtaining marriage licenses. But even before the ruling was passed down, groups were petitioning to continue the definition of marriage in the state’s constitution. Their efforts were manifested as Proposition 8 which was a measure to add section 7.5 to Article I of the state’s constitution stating “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” The measure passed with over 52% of the vote, and California became to the first state to allow same sex marriage only to appeal it shortly after.
Some of the main proponents of Proposition 8 were religious organizations, mostly the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or LDS Church. The LDS Church leadership went as far as to write a letter to all of their congregations in California encouraging them to donate as much time and money as they possibly could to supporting the Proposition. The main argument of the religious organizations is that a marriage between two individuals of the same sex is that marriage is an institution of religion sanctioned by God. Pope Benedict XVI said in 2006 “Only the rock of complete and irrevocable love between man and woman is capable of acting as a foundation for a society that can be home to all human beings.” In 1995, the leadership of the LDS Church published “Family, A Proclamation to the World” in which they state “We solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God.”
Many people may wonder how marriage made the switch from an institution of Religion into an institution of the Government. According to the United States Government Accountability Office in a letter to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in 2004, there are 1,049 benefits, rights and privileges guaranteed to married couples in the United States. These include access to programs like Social Security Veteran’s Benefits and Medicaid and certain tax benefits. In 1996, the Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act or D.O.M.A. whose Measure Title states “A bill to define and protect the institution of marriage.” The Act defines marriage as being between a man and a woman and essentially denies any homosexual couple married or not all of these benefits. In addition, employers in many states aren’t required to extend benefits like health care and retirement packages to someone who is not recognized by the state or federal government as a spouse.
That is the main argument of individuals supporting same sex marriage is that the government is denying these benefits and rights to people because of their sexual orientation. Like Chief Justice Ronald M. George said in his ruling, “…same sex couples are in some respects ‘second class citizens.’” Second class citizens in the same respect as African Americans before the civil rights movement and women before suffrage. The trials facing homosexual couples in today’s world are different from those facing others who have been repressed in the past. In most cases, homosexuals can’t share employer provided health care with their partner, neither can they social security or retirement benefits and other benefits. All of these are benefits that every heterosexual married couple can have.
If marriage is an institute of religion, it stands to reason that neither the federal or a state government should not be involved with deciding who can and can’t get married. It is a violation of the first amendment of our Constitution which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If a religion decides to allow same sex couples to marry, should the government stand in the way of them receiving the same rights of heterosexual couples. At the same time, a religion like the LDS Church should not have to have their version of marriage scrutinized by the government by the legalization of same sex marriage. It stands to reason that the government should not be involved in the institution of marriage at all.
What the government should do is only issue Civil Unions to both heterosexual and homosexual couples that give them the same benefits, rights and privileges as a marriage does currently. Then allow the different religions to define marriage for their membership as they see fit. This would give equal rights to same sex couples while at the same time allowing them to seek a marriage from a religious sect allowing the practice. As long as marriage remains under the control of the government, religions and activists on both sides of the issue will continue to be at odds with this issue. At the same time, the religions and the activists will be seen as intolerant towards one another.
Shortly after Proposition 8 passed, a protest demonstration was organized in Salt Lake City outside the headquarters of the LDS Church. Responding to the protest, Church officials in a statement said, “It is disturbing that the Church is being singled out for speaking up as part of it’s democratic right in a free election.” Bishop William Weigand of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento stated, “I personally decry the bigotry towards the members of the Church of the Latter-day Saints, coming from opponents of Proposition 8, who ironically, have called those of us supporting traditional marriage intolerant. The largest civil rights issue of the last generation was that of the marginalization of African Americans. As Dr. Dan Jones of the University of Utah said in a class recently, “This is the largest civil rights issue of this generation.”
Abercrombie &…What’s That Smell?
Posted by Andrew | Filed under Here's an Idea
You are walking through your local mall. It’s a convenient place to shop at all of your favorite stores and get tons of errands done in one shot and even grab a bite to eat at a Panda Express. So, you’ve just left the Payless with a new pair of running shoes that you intend to use, but never will, and you’re on your way to buy an over-priced pack of batteries from the Radio Shack. Suddenly, you stop dead in your tracks. A horrible disgusting over powering smell has just hit you like a brick wall. You have walked in front of the Abercrombie & Fitch store.
You can tell it’s an A&F store not only because it smells like an Axe delivery truck collided with a manure truck, but just the appearance of it. First of all, you can’t see the interior of the store until you actually walk in and get tag teamed by sales people with double digit IQs. All you can see is wooden facade and provocative banners featuring shirtless men. I don’t think Abercrombie sells shirts for men, and if they do, they should really rethink their advertising strategy.
But that smell drives me up the wall and makes me want to raid the Proactiv kiosk and shove two whole tubes up my nostrils. I think it’s some special formula developed in a bio-lab somewhere (most likely underground) that was especially designed to attract douche bags. That’s the reason why you can’t see into the store from the hall, no one in there wants to admit that they shop there. If only it wasn’t for the fact that every single thing that they sell has there logo on it. By the way, you are going to pay a premium for the privilege. A regular blue t-shirt costs a buck to make and Wal-Mart will seel it to you for 5, but stamp “Abercrombie” across the front and it’s going for $36.
Now, I’m a Mac user, you can start throwing the whole “Apple tax” rubbish, but at least Macs are original over their competitors in terms of design and innovation. I don’t think there is much innovation going on in the clothing and apparel industry, I think all of the concepts and designs have been ironed out. So, here’s an idea (that’s the category I’ve chosen for this), if you shop at this store or one of it’s clones, known as competitors, like American Eagle, Aéropostale, and Abercrombie’s subsidiary for real adventurers, Hollister, you should stop. I hear that Goodwill has some great deals, and it goes to a good cause.
Here’s an Idea: Ice Dispenser Edition
Posted by Andrew | Filed under Here's an Idea
Look at it, it’s utterly stupid. The freaking “medium” size soda cup they give you at my local Burger King doesn’t even fit under the Ice Dispenser. What is this? The 1950’s? You guys think 12 ounces of soda is enough? Why don’t you give the consumers an Ice Dispenser that caters to our new and improved 32 once “medium” sized drinks.
I don’t usually order the “medium” size because I’d prefer not to gain 10 pounds in an afternoon, but I had skipped breakfast and I was starving. I didn’t even want to go to Burger King, but there wasn’t any proper food establishments in the area. Never going to do that again, I had to throw half of the fries away, and I only drank half of the freaking drink. Seriously, who finds it necessary to drink a bucket of sugary soda with their greasy burger and trans-fat laiden fries?
By the way, I put “medium” in quotes, because in Europe, that wouldn’t be called a “medium.” It would be called “here piggy piggy, here piggy piggy.” It’s no wonder the major health crisis in America is obesity, especially when we have people in this country a smoke eight packs a day and drink a brewery a night.
Oh, and Burger King should make the darn cups fit in the darn Ice Dispenser. That’s the idea I wanted to share.
Here’s an Idea: Give that Filet-o-Sanity back
Posted by Andrew | Filed under Here's an Idea
Here’s an Idea is an occasional segment on Duo Citizenship dedicated to bringing good ideas to the for front and making our crappy world a little better.
Here’s an Idea: If you are a multi-national multi-billion dollar corporation that makes all of it’s money on destroying the physical health of the general public with trans-fats, you aren’t allowed to destroy their mental health with your advertising. And I thought the original singing fish on a wall stuff was awful, but every time this commercial comes on the air, I want to send a baseball bat through the tube of my television.
Hasn’t McDonald’s done enough to destroy society? They are the ones, along with Burger King, Wendy’s, Jack in the Box, and Carl’s Jr., who are destroying our country. Everyone in America is so fat, that the Germans and the Japanese have to make special editions of their cars so that we can fit in them. Baseball parks and Football stadiums across the country have to install new seats so that we can fit in them.
I’ll give McDonald’s one thing. They definitely caught their target audience in this commercial. A big fat bearded guy sitting on a weightlifting bench that he clearly never uses in a garage downing a full bag of fast food? Yeah, that is some smart marketing there Micky D’s. The next thing you know, they’ll be putting pictures of greasy long haired teenagers on their job application pamphlets. Preferably of the kid wiping his nose on a burger bun.
I’ll give them a point for some honest advertising, but they are still in the negative for that annoying song. Here’s the commercial if you’ve never seen it, and now that you’ve read this, you will see it all the time: