He broke a promise! He broke a promise!

I am extremely disappointed by the lack of discussion on my last entry. I was all ready to post another big long analysis too, this one about Roe v. Wade.

Before I continue, I need to link Seb's post on the Obama fist pound (or terrorist fist jab). Then I need to take a moment to sob bitterly...

Okay. All better.

I try never to use the word "hate" in reference to a person. I openly hate my anthropology class, getting up in the morning, driving at night, egg casserole, Microsoft, the Pentagon, Coca-Cola (the company, not the drink) and the fact that Manchester no longer bothers to have any full-time professors for my major, but I really make an effort not to let myself hate people.



Lou Dobbs regulalry challenges this effort (click that link for a treat). It's not just that he's a xenophobic loudmouth; there are plenty of those. It's the way he comes on CNN, a fairly well-respected news network, proclaiming himself as independent (which he is) and talking like his opinion is the only one that matters. I seriously do not understand why anyone agrees to go on his show - they get four words in edgewise, are belittled and told how wrong they are, and then it's on to something else. And it's all done on a news network from a non-partisan guy, giving the impression that somehow he's the straight talker, cutting through everyone else's bullshit.

I just get sick and tired of the complete lack of respect for anyone else and, what's worse in my opinion, a refusal to see any other side of an issue.

Last night's episode was no exception. This time, he set my blood boiling by talking about Obama's broken promise.

For those of you who somehow missed it, the big issue here is that Obama has chosen not to accept federal funding (and with it, spending limits) for his presidential election bid. No other presidential nominee has done this since the system was set up after Watergate, but it's really an issue because he previous indicated that he would accept federal funding, making this a flip-flop for him or, as Lou Dobbs said six times in his five minute mini-coverage (and unvariably in response to every other point his guests tried to bring up), a broken promise.

Let's get the facts on the table before we continue: Barack Obama did say on a questionnaire in 2007 that he would accept public financing for the general election campaign, adding that he would make aggressive efforts to come to an agreement with his opponent on the matter.

McCain and Obama have very different things to say about this. The McCain camp is hammering home that Obama broke a promise to the American people, while Obama's campaign points to the "aggressive" efforts part. The two campaigns have very different stories about how aggressive the efforts were.

I think, on a matter of fact, that McCain has this one right. I doubt Obama's people made very serious efforts to come to an agreement on public financing, what with his massive fundraising advantage and all. He did, in fact, go back on his word.

Who cares?

When I got my ear pierced my sophomore year of high school, I let my dad think I was agreeing to never get any other piercings or tattoos. I didn't expressly promise (I wanted to keep a window open), but I did allow him to pay for the piercing under that understanding. I ended up having to return the $15, but I didn't pay interest.

I broke a promise. But what should I have done? Gone my entire life not doing something I wanted to do because of a promise I made when I was fifteen? That's ridiculous. I probably shouldn't have agreed to those terms in the first place (though I didn't have a problem with them at the time), but the fact is I changed my mind.

Barack Obama changed his mind. And no, it wasn't the move that showed the most integrity: he's got his foot in his mouth, because he was acting like some champion of public financing before he found out just how much money he was capable of raising, and now he's completely reversing his stance and pretending that somehow his private donor system is better than the pubic one. And just to make his stance look better, he adds some false claims about McCain's donor base.

I was going to make some aside remark about how I wasn't just defending my candidate and how I have a record of playing devil's advocate and apologizing for opponents, but I think I just showed that.

Anyway, back to the broken promise. Get over it. The facts changed, Obama found he could get a LOT more money this way, and he changed his mind. It was a legal decision, an expected decision, and probably a decision most other people in his position would make. To reject all that private money would essentially be to handicap himself and voluntarily surrender one of the real advantages he has over John McCain.

Besides, George W. Bush promised to win the war in Iraq. I think we'll all be thrilled if he decides to break that promise and give up. Sometimes changing your mind isn't all bad.

P.S. - I promise that if John McCain wins the 2008 presidential election, I will be in another country by October 2009.

Moral issues: Gay marriage

I'm sure you're all aware of the California Supreme Court decision last month legalizing same-sex marriage in the state:

The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental
'right to marry' that extends equally to same-sex couples.

The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that
discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be
constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate
by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to
adopt such a stringent standard.

Those who read my blog regularly will recall that I was elated by this news, both as a gay rights activist and an amateur legal scholar. You see, it's times like these that you can rest assured that our system of checks and balances is working: it is the judicial branch's (sometimes unpopular) job to protect minority groups from the whim of the majority. When the California Supreme Court struck down a ban on interracial marriage sixty years ago, it was an incredibly unpopular decision (90% of Americans opposed interracial marriage), but one we now recognize as correct.

So what's so wrong with a ban on gay marriage (44 states have such laws)? I'd like to know what's right with them. Here are a couple of points:

Victimless crime, or society at risk?

An anonymous quote that I love goes like this: "A great law protects me from the government. The Bill of Rights has 10 GREAT laws. A good law protects me from you. Laws against murder, theft, assault and the like are good laws. A poor law attempts to protect me from myself."

A ban on gay marriage does not protect me from my government, nor does it protect me from you. Now, gay marriage opponents will argue that we're not trying to protect people from each other, we're trying to protect society from a fundamental change in the definition of marriage.

This is a load of crap.

I keep hearing quotes from anti-gay groups in California justifying the now illegal ban by saying marriage has always been an intersexual affair (tell that to Massachusetts, Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands). But since when is that a good argument for anything? If we could travel through time, I'm sure we'd hear people saying, "But it's always been illegal for Blacks to marry Whites," "But we've always had slaves," "But women have never been allowed to vote," and so forth.

Gay marriage will not hurt society or the "institution of marriage." If marriage can survive Vegas, I don't think a couple of dudes walking down the aisle is going to cause marriage certificates to spontaneously combust. And arguing that heterosexual marriages are cheapened by gay marriage is just plain stupid (unless the temptation suddenly becomes just too much). It's been legal is Massachusetts for years, and that state's still there. I guess God's been too busy to go all Sodom and Gomorrah on their ass, what with punishing the sin fest that is New Orleans and all.

Which brings me to my other point...

God said don't be queer.

I won't go into all the things that are wrong with this theology, because it's completely irrelevant. Fortunately for those of us who still like our communion wine (or those of us who prefer not to eat our savior), the United States is not a theocracy, much less a nation founded on the strictest principles of fundamentalist Christianity. In short, what God said (or didn't say) should have no bearing on a country who holds in the higest import the freedom of religion. It is essential to a free society that we base our law not on religious code alone, but on an extrareligious examination of the consequences of our laws and the freedoms we hold dear.

A Christian attitude

Finally, I have to say that I don't think it's particularly Christian of us to focus so much effort on trying to enforce a personal ethic. To quote one of my favorite Facebook groups that I'm not a member of, "Don't like gay marriage? Then don't get one and shut the fuck up." (Ironically, that's not a particularly friendly attitude either, which is why I'm not a member.)

Outlawing gay marriage will not reduce homosexuality, nor will it make the people who pass the law any better. In fact, it might just get them in trouble:

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you (Matthew 7:12).”

In having such a law, we are only succeeding in denying a civil liberty to a group of people. But also, in vocally supporting such a law, we are turning gay and lesbian individuals away from Christianity. Sinners or not, don't we want to bring all people closer to God? Imagine what would happen if we were as hard on people about gluttony as we are about homosexuality - we'd have to cancel our ice cream socials!

Whatever God really thinks about homosexuality, we should be a little more concerned with following the examle of Jesus, and listening to what he said was important: Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Maybe we should save this whole condemning homosexuality thing until we can just get that part right.

Amending the Constitution?

The fight in California isn't over.

But the scope of the court's decision could be thrown into question by an
initiative already heading toward the November ballot. The initiative would
amend the state Constitution to prohibit same-sex unions.

I think this takes the cake as about the shittiest move ever. The Supreme Court ruled that we can't oppress a minority group, so let's change the document they base their rulings on (non sequiter: Dad, it's okay to end a sentence with a preposition). After all, it's the only way to bypass that stupid check on majority whim.

You know what? I support a Defense of Marriage amendment.

I think we should amend the United States Constitution to guarantee the right to marry to all people, gay and straight, everywhere in the country.

Comment away!

Summer Service 2008

I've started up another blog that I'll use for all things related to my internship at Aftercare for Indiana through Mentoring this summer. Obviously I'm not doing the internship yet, but I posted an introduction and a few links to info about Scout Fuller and the summer service award. Check it out at summerservice2008.blogspot.com.