Why do we care?

Our country was founded on freedom; Of that, I think we can all agree. Beyond that, our founders' intents are up for debate. And we tend to become emotionally vociferous in our viewpoints. The Religious Right are convinced that we were founded on Christian (biblical) principles. The Left is convinced that we were founded on Secular Enlightenment values. And there is a broad spectrum between these two views that people fall into. Many other issues that we grapple with today are also debated as to what our founder' intentions were. My question is, "Why do we care what their 'intentions' were?"

This question will more than likely raise some eyebrows and may even cause anger. But I believe that this is a very valid question to ask, especially with the varied social, political, economic, international, etc., issues that we're facing in today's climate. Our differing viewpoints have never been so polarized and our ability to argue these points has never been so available, thanks to the internet and social media.

Our founders' most important intents lie within the Constitution, our foundation, our bedrock. They laid out the vision for the young country, allowing for the flexibility of change. Without this flexibility, we would have been doomed to failure before we even started. Some of the most important changes we've faced in the past decades have been issues of civil rights -- voting rights of blacks and women, interracial marriage, and now, we're debating gay marriage. And herein lies the importance of my question.

As we try to determine what they founders' intentions were, beyond what is expressly written in the Constitution, we must realize that the founders lived in a time where only wealthy, white, male landowners were a part of the political process. The slavery issue was hotly debated, but beyond owning a person, most refined men of the time also debated whether blacks, and women, had souls! They could not have envisioned women being independent, strong, contributing to the greater society. They could not have envisioned a Martin Luther King, Jr., let alone a Barack Obama. They couldn't have fathomed a world with nuclear weapons, fighter jets, or Facebook. So aside from the Constitution, I ask, why do we care at all what their intentions were?

As our culture changes, allowing for broader views and broader freedoms, we move further away from the culture, the views, of people who lived in the 18th century -- and I would argue that this is a good thing! We have built upon the stepping stones of so many others who have come before us, not just our Constitution founders. We honor all of those who have made contributions to our country each time we enter the voting booths, each time we engage in researching individual issues and debate them among ourselves. We are the fruits of all of their labors. Why attempt to remain in an antiquated mindset? I believe that our founders would actually be appalled that we try to maintain their supposed intentions instead of using the most amazing tool they left us, the Constitution, to grow, to progress, in this new and exciting and sometimes frightening age. 

Same Sex Marriage

mar·riage [ márrij ]


legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners

specific marriage relationship: a married relationship between two people, or a somebody's relationship with his or her spouse

joining in wedlock: the joining together in wedlock of two people

Synonyms: nuptial, wedding, bridal, matrimonial, marital, conjugal, connubial

See full definition · Encarta World English Dictionary
 
In this definition, does it anywhere state "between a man and a woman"? No! It states, "between two people", the "joining together of two people", "sexual and domestic partners"! So why have states decided to include discrimination in their own definitions of marriage?
 
For many, this is a religous matter. They believe that marriage is a religious institution and that, if gays are allowed to marry, the institution of marriage will be irreparably harmed. Many religious leaders fear having to preside over gay marraige, against their belief-system. They also hold beliefs that children reared in same-sex homes are not given the benefits of living with a parent of opposite sex or same sex, as be the case. And most fearful of all, opponents of equal marriage rights fear that same-sex relationships will be promoted in public schools, brainwashing the next generation of young people into either becoming gay or accepting a lifestyle they find abhorrant!
 
Here is how I feel about those arguments:
 
1) Marriage is not a religious institution in regard to US law.. it is a contractual agreement between two consenting adults. If it were a religious institution, exclusively, then people of NO faith or bi-faith couples would not be allowed to marry either and would be subject to Civil Unions. This is not the case anywhere in the US.
 
2) The institution of marriage is not harmed by the sex of the adults consenting to the union; I would argue that it is harmed by the actions of the two: adultery, abuse, lack  of respect, financial ineptitude, etc. have been the leading causes for divorce in America, and the rates of divorce have increased over the last 50 years as we realize that we don't have to put up with adultery, abuse, lack of respect, etc. etc. The biggest threat to the institution of marriage is the cavalier attitude that many take before entering the contract!
 
3) Religious leaders will not be forced to preside over gay marriages if they choose not to. This type of force goes against our own constitution and would most certainly be overturned if anyone tried to pass such legislation! As it currently stands, religious leaders do not have to marry "unequally yoked" couples (bi-faith couples), athiests, etc. They dont even have to marry couples who do not attend their own church, even if they follow the same denomination! I know this to be true as I tried to find someone to preside over my own marriage 14 years ago! I called every church in the phone book and the only person who would marry us was a retired Unitarian Universalist! My husband and I were, and are, bi-faith.. at that time, I was Christian and my husband was athiest. Today, I am Buddhist and my husband remains athiest. If we were unable to find someone to preside over our wedding, we would have been forced to go before the Justice of the Peace at the courthouse, when I wanted to be married outdoors. I am so thankful to the UU pastor that agreed to marry us!!
 
4) Children are currently being raised in same-sex homes, regardless of the institution of marriage, and that won't end! What I think is a much greater risk for children is to be raised in an abusive home, not a same-sex home! Children of same-sex families that are loving, caring, and provide for their physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual needs are just fine to me!
 
5) Public school curriculum is set by state school boards. We have seen sex education being legislated differently across the states, where some include safe sex information, pregnancy avoidance, and abstinance education; whereas others stubbornly maintain the failed abstinance only curriculum. I believe that any sort of same-sex relationship curriculum would follow the states-rights path, and that any attempt to teach tolerance of same-sex relationships in schools would spark much debate and controversy. But just imagine, for a moment, our schools teaching tolerance! One can hope...
 
6) Finally, I firmly believe in our constitution. And our constitution guarentees us individual rights that even a majority of discriminatory views cannot continue to deny a minority group. Our constitution also guarentees us religious freedoms, and inherent in that right is the freedom from religion. And our constitution separates church (religious ideology) from state (government and law). Therefore, as a free nation, we cannot continue to deny the rights of certain individuals all of the benefits that the contract of marriage grants to other individuals!
 
What do you think? Where do you fall on this subject?

The Truth Behind Healthcare Reform

When Obama was running for election, he promised to pass comprehensive healthcare reform before the end of his first term. Well, he succeeded far sooner than anyone would have thought possible; however, if he hadn't passed it prior to the midterm elections, we know from recent history that he wouldn't have been able to achieve it. We can see this by looking at the Clinton administration's attempt and how the midterms effectively castrated their ability to even discuss healthcare reform. Add to that the intense polarization that Obama's election has created in this country (the rise of hate-groups, the Tea Partiers, and the volatile rhetoric of right-wing pundints), and one can clearly see that Obama has had to move faster than lightening!

Now that HCR has passed, the right-wing pundints have regurgitated numerous bits of misinformation and many instances of downright falsehoods to perpetuate the system of fear and hatred that they have built over the last decade. Democrats from every walk of life are now called "socialists", "communists", and even "facists" (funny, considering facism is a far-right political ideology). Couple this with some fact-stretching by the left, and the average American has 2 choices: 1) to give in to the fear, believing that we will soon be a communist state; or 2) believe that all our problems will be magically erased, with time and the eventual implementation of HCR. The truth lies somewhat to the left, since the right has been spewing outright lies; but falls short of the magical elixer that liberals had hoped for.

First, HCR was not, by any means, shoved down the throats of the Republican representatives, and passed in the dark of night. For many months, the Obama Administration reached across the aisle to garner Republican support and, in fact, held a televised healthcare summit which allowed for several viewpoints from both sides of the aisle. In fact, many Republicans seemed to agree with the healthcare reform bill that was being debated, and offered several additional facets that would make it more attractive to Republicans, such as implementing stronger measures to prevent Medicaid and Medicare fraud and helping small businesses to provide coverage for their employees through a hefty tax incentive.

Unfortunately, after scrapping some of the strongest parts of reform, such as the Single Payer Option, and adding several Republican ideas, not one Republican voted for HCR. Now, it's important to note that the main thrust of "Obamacare" strongly resembles Mitt Romney's proposal for healthcare reform during the 2008 election. Many liberal pundints are calling this healthcare reform "Romneycare" to counter the conservative mantra.

Immediately following passage of this bill, the barely-recognized Tea Party people began to come out of the woodwork in droves carrying signs that depicted Obama as a Socialist, Communist, or Facist, and yelling about the government having too much involvement in our lives; that this HCR is the first step to a Marxist State, where our individual rights will be trampled upon! But in their other hands were signs demanding that Obama leave their Medicare alone! And they were unable to see the complete irony in that! They yelled that social programs are enabling poor people to be lazy and sponge off a system that eliminates all incentives to make something of oneself. They used public transportation to meet in a public park with police protections, and had food and water that the FDA deemed safe for human consumption while they rallied against social programs that paid for that transportation, paid for the upkeep of that park, paid for the police protection, ensured the safety of the food and water, and on and on. Again, the irony was completely lost on them.

So back to the bill. Why did the Republicans vote against HCR lock, stock, and barrel, even though they actually agreed with much of the bill? Because they are banking on misinformation and outright lies to scare the American populace into voting Republicans into a majority in November, effectively crippling the Obama administration from any further legislation, and then claiming that the Democrats are, once again, ineffectual at leadership. They intend on using the massive hatred and racial division that Obama's election has raised to perpetuate that campaign of fear through the next election cycle, when they see a clear and concise Republican Presidential win. Then they can basically defunct "Obamacare", restructure it slightly to appear more conservative in nature, and resubmit it as the magical elixer for all our problems. However, the Republican form of healthcare reform continues to deregulate insurance companies, and gradually eliminates Medicare and Medicaid funding.

Many top Republicans are currently debating ways to cripple Obamacare before it has the ability to be realized through blocking congressional funding. And several state Attorneys General have filed lawsuits to question the constitutionality of HCR.

Unfortunately, the Democrats helped to cripple this bill before it was passed. There are numerous loopholes in this law that allow the inusrance companies to lobby for lower regulation; in fact, the insurance companies have made substantial contributions to the writing of this bill. Once the single payer option was eliminated, this bill became a boon for corporate America, building on the current system, mandating that everyone be covered (ensuring the coffers of the insurance company will continue to grow). The implementation of the law is so slow that many Americans will be left in the cold waiting for coverage, and some estimate that tens of thousands of Americans will die each year without coverage in spite of HCR being passed into law this March. As time ticks by and loopholes are found through corporate lobbyists, the ability for stronger legislation to pass becomes a harder task to accomplish.

However, this is an important first step. If the Democrats can pull together and become a strong party, perhaps they can pull off a true magical miracle. Already, many people are starting to see the benefits of healthcare reform, such as the continuation of coverage for adult children up to age 26.

According to healthreform.gov, there are several immediate improvements that people will begin to see this year. For example, small businesses have already been receiving information concerning the tax incentives created to assist them with offering healthcare to their employees. And insurance companies can no longer block coverage for children with pre-existing conditions. States are currently working with the government to develop a high-risk pool to help cover people that have been unable to receive coverage due to their pre-existing conditions. And soon, people cannot have their insurance coverage dropped because they get sick.

The hope of the Democrats is that the Republican fear-mongering will give way to reality as people begin to see these benefits. Just as people want government to leave Medicare alone, so they hope healthcare will follow that path. And gradually, stronger legislation will be passed, leading to a single payer option.

It's important to research information and make your own mind up. What are your thoughts? Knowledge is power.. Namaste!

http://www.healthreform.gov/
www.usnews.com/blogs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
and the opposing view:
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare/resources

Return to the Illegal Immigration Debacle

Even though there are more pieces of legislation to look at, I wanted to take a moment to return to the illegal immigration debate. There are some facts that people need to be aware of. Below, I have 3 sources for additional research, and 1 just for a laugh (gotta love Jon Stewart!) 

First, it is important to note that President Obama has asked the US Department of Justice to review the law Arizona passed to determine if it violates constitutional law. I believe they will find that it DOES. The reason is simple, it uses institutional racism to racially discriminate. I found a great website that defines these terms:

Race

All human beings belong to a single species and share a common origin. They are born equal in dignity and rights and all form an integral part of humanity. All peoples of the world possess equal faculties for attaining the highest level in intellectual, technical, social, economic, cultural and political development. The differences between the achievements of the different people are entirely attributable to geographical, historical, political, economic, social and cultural factors. Such differences can in no case serve as a pretext for any rank ordered classification of nations or peoples.
Source: "Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice" adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Article I

Racism

Is any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally.
Source: US Civil Rights Commission

Institutional Racism

A system of procedures/patterns in all walks of life, i.e. education, housing, businesses, employment, professional associations, religion, media, etc., whose effect is to perpetuate and maintain the power, influence and well-being of one group over another. It originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society; and thus receives far less public condemnation than does individual racism. Although more subtle than individual racism, it is more destructive of humanity.
Sources: Various Publications

Racial Discrimination

To treat differently a person or group of people based on their racial origins. Power is a necessary precondition, for it depends on the ability to give or withhold social benefits, facilities, services, opportunities etc., from someone who should be entitled to them, and are denied on the basis of race, colour or national origin.
Sources- The Ideology of Racism

Looking at these definitions, this is clearly a case of discrimination based solely on race and national origin. The bill states that law enforcement is required to stop anyone suspected of being illegal, but when asked what those criteria are, no one can answer that.. or they won't answer that! In fact, Arizona state officials have recently requested assistance from the federal government in identifying what an illegal immigrant looks like.

This bill also infringes on Arizonans civil rights. The bill states that, "A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States." This opens anyone, not just Hispanics, to unlawful detainment. And those who cry foul have no recourse, since law enforcement who enforce this law "...be indemnified by his or her law enforcement agency for all reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees." In other words, the average American citizen will be taking on the entire police force and the state of Arizona in any legal claim, and all of their accompanying resources, moneys, and legal representation. 

In addition, this bill also violates the Supremecy Clause of the constitution which "... gives the federal government exclusive power to regulate our borders, and with very few exceptions, states are not free to create their own laws regulating immigration," the Arizona ACLU stated.  

Another problem with this law is with the writers, themselves. The main writer is Sen. Russell Pierce who has been photographed with a known neo-Nazi, hugging. Another writer is Chris Kobach, who is a member of a group who has made white supremicist remarks, funded racist research concerning race and intelligence in an effort to prove white superiority. One may argue that these individuals are only guilty by association; however, this bill proves that they are guilty as charged - racists white supremicists.
 
Please folllow my links below and feel free to comment.
 
Knowledge is power, and power used appropriately can lead to humanity and compassion of all human beings!


 
reader supported news
world news
the daily show
the rachel maddow show
phoenix new times

The Party of NO! continued...

So last night, we learned that the Republican party fought against equal pay, regardless of race, gender, age, etc., and fought against using college grants as an incentive to encourage community involvement and volunteerism. What else are they against? Let's take a look at the other pieces of legislation that the Obama administration has passed and how the Republican party feels about them.

On February 4th, 2009, Obama signed into law the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, better known as the State Children's Health Insurance Program or SCHIP, which continued coverage for six to seven million children and increased that coverage to four million more. Republicans rallied against this legislation, stating that an expansion would “fund benefits for illegal immigrants,” not “cover poor children” and “push children with private insurance into state insurance.” However, illegal immigrants have always been inellegable for SCHIP, and expanding it did not open the door for them to be covered. In addition, experts stated that the rising cost of healthcare and the stangant payrate for most Americans means that people who are above the threshold for SCHIP are now unable to afford Employment Sponsored Healthcare, if they are even offered it, since many companies found it difficult to continue offering healthcare and stopped. Therefore, many more children have been placed in the space between qualifying for SCHIP and being able to afford insurance. This bill was the first step in the Obama administrations push to allow affordable, quality healthcare for all children, and ultimately, all Americans.

Then the Obama administration passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The US General Services Administration describes the act as follows: "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) was signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009. It is an unprecedented effort to jumpstart our economy, create or save millions of jobs, and put a down payment on addressing long-neglected challenges so our country can thrive in the 21st century. The Act is an extraordinary response to a crisis unlike any since the Great Depression, and includes measures to modernize our nation's infrastructure, enhance energy independence, expand educational opportunities, preserve and improve affordable health care, provide tax relief, and protect those in greatest need." Below, I will post a link that allows taxpayers to see exactly where the funds have gone and what has been accomplished. But first, let's look at the Republican stance on ARRA: No House Republicans voted for this bill and only three Republican Senators voted for it. The biggest issue Republicans have with this is the amount of spending, especially considering the current deficit that the US is running under. However, economic experts have stated that without spending on our infrastructure, job creation, education, etc., we won't be able to work on lowering the deficit because our economy will continue to decline. It's the old saying, "you have to spend money to make money."

There are many more to come! I think posting 2 pieces of legislation at a time is enough! There's a lot of information out there and it's important to do the research before assuming that something is either wonderful or awful! Here are some links that may help in your own search. And later, I'll post more legislation.

US General Services Administration
recovery.gov
wonkroom.thinkprogress.org
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=56675

Republicans: The Party of NO!

The Republican Party has set their course of action! And what is that course? Complete and total.. inaction! Yes, that is what they have decided to do to combat the Obama Administration, regardless of what piece of legislation comes before them! Let's take a look at their track record since Obama entered office.

First, Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on Thursday, January 29, 2009. This law helps American workers to be compensated fairly regardless of race, gender, age, etc. "Ultimately, equal pay isn't just an economic issue for millions of Americans and their families, it's a question of who we are -- and whether we're truly living up to our fundamental ideals," President Obama said. "Whether we'll do our part, as generations before us, to ensure those words put on paper some 200 years ago really mean something -- to breathe new life into them with a more enlightened understanding that is appropriate for our time." So where did the Republicans stand on this issue? They tried to block it. Of course. They said that "...this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems," Sen. McCain told reporters. "This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system." Unfortunately, they didn't offer up anything new or try to work with their Democrat colleagues - no, instead, they blocked as best as they could.

Next, we have Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act that was signed by Obama on Tuesday, April 21, 2009. This encourages community involvement and volunteerism across America! This bill was written by Kennedy and cowritten by Republican Orrin Hatch during Kennedy's fight with brain cancer. This bill received a majority vote from across the aisle! However, the Republicans wanted to make one thing clear: they had grave reservations about this, and they expressed their views in a statement to the White House which, in part states, "Republicans do not support paying individuals for volunteering their time, including grants to make their higher education more affordable...Republicans are concerned about the expansion of the federal government at a time of national economic crisis. Volunteerism plays a critical role in meeting many of the needs of our society; however, the federal government should not be paying individuals to volunteer their time, especially when American families – and governments at the local, state and federal level – are already facing budget constraints from all the demands they face. Congress should focus its legislative agenda on policies that stimulate the economy, create jobs and allow Americans to direct their own resources – skills, time and money – toward causes and community needs that they personally care about." But it passed anyway!

What's next? There are lots more that Obama has signed into law! In doing research for this topic, I was amazed at the number of wonderful pieces of legislation that Obama has signed into law, so I will post this one and will continue this tomorrow! I have lots more to share on this! It is truly amazing!

Here are some great sources you might want to look at if you want further information! I will post all the legislation that has passed thus far and what the republican stance on them has been!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/
http://repcloakroom.house.gov/news/DocumentPrint.aspx?DocumentID=116382
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html