if you ask me, not knowing 9th grade American history is a whole lot more problematic then not fully grasping the "Bush Doctrine" .....at the same time I can't help but admit that I somehow find Joe Biden's silly little comments endearing...he doesn't care about saying the right thing...he just lets whatever come out of his mouth!!!
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/biden-fdr.html
24 September 2008
18 September 2008
Marriage Amendments and my smart husband
One more political matter. Since the LDS church has come out so strongly in favor of state constitutional amendments to define marriage as between a man and a woman the topic has dominated some conversations we have been having lately. Awhile ago Cory felt compelled to send the email below to bunches of people and I just wanted to post it to get some of our thoughts out there. While I have always been one that has been persuaded by arguments that people should be able to live their lives as long as they are not hurting anyone else the fact is that legally redefining marriage does have huge societal (cost, litigation, etc) and religious freedom ramifications.
Dear all,
As discussion of Proposition 8 in California has increased, better known as the "Protect Marriage Amendment," I have become increasingly convinced that this issue is of paramount importance. For those that know me well, you will know that I am not one for conspiracies, nor do claim that such-and-such thing or person will "destroy" our country/society/culture or whatever. You will also know that I am not a racist, bigot, hatemonger, or homophobe.I hope you will also notice that I NEVER send along, or forward mass emails. This is an obvious exception and is written by my hand. I hope you will appreciate why I have broken track record for this.My reasons for feeling as strongly as I do are based on what is actually happening in Massachusetts as a result of their "legalizing" homosexual marriage, not necessarily what could happen.As a result of allowing same-sex marriages, since 2005 Massachusetts hospitals have been advised to cross out "Father" and write in "Second Parent" for lesbian couples (I could not find any instance of either one of a male gay couple bearing a child so the issue of male-male "parent" birth certificates has not come up...yet). For reasons why this has a substantial impact beyond the need to reprint a batch of birth certificates I will refer you to this article from 2005.In 2006, The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities discontinued it's very successful adoption program inside Massachusetts because the new state law made it illegal to refuse to adopt to same-sex couples. In this article the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities explained that the state law infringed on their religious freedom and concluded that they must withdraw from the state in order to continue practicing their faith.After Governor Romney's failed attempts to prevent the adoption of same-sex "marriage" in the state of Massachusetts, the Governor began enforcing the states long standing residency requirements for marriage to ensure that Massachusetts did not become "the Las Vegas of gay marriages." This prevented gay couples from outside the state to come in, get married and go back home where they could then have a claim that their "marriage" was valid. On July 15th 2008, the Massachusetts Sate Senate voted to repeal those residency requirement sections of the Massachusetts State marriage code, "The Senate acted by voice vote, allowing the senators to avoid putting their individual positions on record during this election year". The bill then went to the house and on July 30th, in an emergency session, they adopted and immediately enacted the bill, opening the flood gates to all same-sex couples in the country to get married in Massachusetts and claim validity in other states.No such provision was offered with the California Supreme Court overruled the vast majority (61% of the population) in the 2000 Prop 22 ballot and, being elected to no office, and accountable to no one with out a state wide recall, by the slimest of margins created law that will force a minority's opinion in one state upon the entire country.This is what HAS happened, and the problems will only grow from here. Attached is a pdf from Family Leader Network, an organization committed to the preservation of the family with marriage between a man and a woman as its central tenant. If you are not 100% convinced that getting involved is the right thing to do, read it. If you are looking for good arguments to counter those who seek to undermine the family, read it.I will be posting this letter on my blog and I would love your comments there. Thank you for your friendship and your support in any way you can on this vital matter.
Cory
Dear all,
As discussion of Proposition 8 in California has increased, better known as the "Protect Marriage Amendment," I have become increasingly convinced that this issue is of paramount importance. For those that know me well, you will know that I am not one for conspiracies, nor do claim that such-and-such thing or person will "destroy" our country/society/culture or whatever. You will also know that I am not a racist, bigot, hatemonger, or homophobe.I hope you will also notice that I NEVER send along, or forward mass emails. This is an obvious exception and is written by my hand. I hope you will appreciate why I have broken track record for this.My reasons for feeling as strongly as I do are based on what is actually happening in Massachusetts as a result of their "legalizing" homosexual marriage, not necessarily what could happen.As a result of allowing same-sex marriages, since 2005 Massachusetts hospitals have been advised to cross out "Father" and write in "Second Parent" for lesbian couples (I could not find any instance of either one of a male gay couple bearing a child so the issue of male-male "parent" birth certificates has not come up...yet). For reasons why this has a substantial impact beyond the need to reprint a batch of birth certificates I will refer you to this article from 2005.In 2006, The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities discontinued it's very successful adoption program inside Massachusetts because the new state law made it illegal to refuse to adopt to same-sex couples. In this article the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities explained that the state law infringed on their religious freedom and concluded that they must withdraw from the state in order to continue practicing their faith.After Governor Romney's failed attempts to prevent the adoption of same-sex "marriage" in the state of Massachusetts, the Governor began enforcing the states long standing residency requirements for marriage to ensure that Massachusetts did not become "the Las Vegas of gay marriages." This prevented gay couples from outside the state to come in, get married and go back home where they could then have a claim that their "marriage" was valid. On July 15th 2008, the Massachusetts Sate Senate voted to repeal those residency requirement sections of the Massachusetts State marriage code, "The Senate acted by voice vote, allowing the senators to avoid putting their individual positions on record during this election year". The bill then went to the house and on July 30th, in an emergency session, they adopted and immediately enacted the bill, opening the flood gates to all same-sex couples in the country to get married in Massachusetts and claim validity in other states.No such provision was offered with the California Supreme Court overruled the vast majority (61% of the population) in the 2000 Prop 22 ballot and, being elected to no office, and accountable to no one with out a state wide recall, by the slimest of margins created law that will force a minority's opinion in one state upon the entire country.This is what HAS happened, and the problems will only grow from here. Attached is a pdf from Family Leader Network, an organization committed to the preservation of the family with marriage between a man and a woman as its central tenant. If you are not 100% convinced that getting involved is the right thing to do, read it. If you are looking for good arguments to counter those who seek to undermine the family, read it.I will be posting this letter on my blog and I would love your comments there. Thank you for your friendship and your support in any way you can on this vital matter.
Cory
BUT IT'S AN ELECTION YEAR!!!!
Everyone probably knows that both cory and I are pretty into politics. I've been meaning forever to post our/my thoughts on the current political happenings and have just been too busy with law school, work, being a large pregnant woman, trying to find matching baby stuff on craig's list, teaching primary, trying to fix up my dad's house, various student organizations, blah blah etc. etc. However, I don't want anyone to think that these topics are not dominating my thoughts and conversations...cuz they are!! We are getting closer and closer to an election that is a) historic and b) will surely affect the direction this country is headed, for better or worse. My wonderful friend and former DC roomie, betsey, emailed me an article on Governor Palin the other day and asked for my thoughts- in the interest of time saving I wanted to post my response since it sums up some of what I'm thinking...as I'm sure you are all dying to know. For some context, Betsey is a beautiful, educated, accomplished woman with a genius husband and adorable daughter...and she just happens to lean a BIT to the left of me :)
SO, here is a link to the article from the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
and here is my rather long-winded response:
Ok, this article is interesting I suppose. The underlying arguments about the need for experienced prudent leaders and how the founders were looking to have citizens elect the best and not themselves certainly has some merit (although they seem like Madison arguments that could be juxtaposed against Jefferson arguments that the working class farmers, citizens, merchants, etc and not the elite should rule-after all weren't the revolutionaries fighting against British monarchy? Even if the founders themselves were aristocrats in some sense of the word they were also much closer to the people then those they were trying to get away from...)
BUT the article also seems to base its conclusions on some assumptionsI just don't buy. First, it puts Palin against Bush and argues that Palin is not qualified the same way Bush was not and gives Bush as the example of how an "of the people" "regular guy" kind of candidate simply is not fit to lead. Bush is a harvard educated, connecticut raised MBA whose father was president....While the brashness and "overdecisiveness" may fit some of what we have heard about Palin personality wise Bush is certainly a far cry from a university of idaho graduated poli sci minor from Alaska....and also--was experience a huge issue with Bush that the public overlooked when they elected him and now we need to make sure to not make the same mistake again? Idon't really think so.
Second, the article judges Palin as if she was going to be President and not VICE president when it talks about the need for prudence and ability to weigh options and choose the best one (the qualities that only experience can provide)...All of these attacks on Palin seem to do that--or if they are not they certainly aren't framing their attacks to state that Palin would not be qualified for the role for which she was nominated by arguing that she would be unable to make the decisions that a vice president will need to make. All I ever hear is "candidate one heartbeat away from the presidency..." arguments. Basically the only answer to me seems to be that everyone is SO sure McCain is going to die during the next four years and they feel genuine unease at the prospect of Palin being commander in chief. They're right --Palin is NOT qualified to be president--but the fact that she is the only one on either ticket who is NOT a senator and actually has exeuctive experience and is also the type of person Americans can relate to and is not the Washington elite may very well make her qualified to be VP. If Dems are so sure that McCain is goingto die (which I dont think is likely in the next four years even if he is 72 he is too crotchity of an old man to go quietly) they should attack HIM head on and not disguise their attacks as an attack on hisVP choice.
Finally, and I'm sure you will be annoyed by this but I'm sorry I think its totally relevant, when you look at the article's definitionof prudence:
"ability to grasp the unique pattern of a specific situation. It is the ability to absorb the vast flow of information and still discernthe essential current of events — the things that go together and the things that will never go together. It is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and feel which arguments have the most weight...The prudent leader possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who can't, what has worked and what hasn't."
McCain has these qualities but Obama does not. If you were going to put Obama against Palin I don't know that I can go so far to say that Palin is more experienced. Obama has been in national politics, he represented more people in Illinois then live in Alaska, etc.However--we should NOT be piting Obama against Palin. Obama is still a freshman senator. What makes him ready to lead? what makes him able to "absorb the vast flow of information and still discren the essential current of events?"
At the end of the day, McCain was certainly not my first choice for Rep candidate (umm...the economy..HELLO..romney...)-BUT I think Palinwas a great VP choice for him. Politically she has the conservativec redentials that he needs and despite her inexerience and maybe some vindictiveness or other negative personality traits she may have I like her, I was absolutely offended when I heard CNN claim that only uneducated women will support her, and I look forward to seeing how she does at the VP debates. Also, I'm still a Republican--policy wise McCain palin wins for me every time. McCain will not raise taxes on small business or remove the payroll tax cap or TRIPLE the earned income tax credit like Obama wants to do. And by putting Palin on the ticket McCain reinforces his "changed" position and hopefully will be willing to drill offshore which I think is ABSOLUTELY necessary in order for us to bridge the gap between fossil fuels and renewables (my boss here at the Corp Commission is big on energy issues so I've researched it a bit), and with McCain we are much more likely to get conservatives justices on the Supreme Court when Ginsburg, Stevens, and Souter retire..which will likely be soon after a new president is in (although I've always considered myself more of a fiscal then a social conservative with the church coming out so strong in favor of state marriage amendments lately I can't help but shift to the right on social issues a bit).
One other thing...WHY DON'T I KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT JOE BIDEN???
SO, here is a link to the article from the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
and here is my rather long-winded response:
Ok, this article is interesting I suppose. The underlying arguments about the need for experienced prudent leaders and how the founders were looking to have citizens elect the best and not themselves certainly has some merit (although they seem like Madison arguments that could be juxtaposed against Jefferson arguments that the working class farmers, citizens, merchants, etc and not the elite should rule-after all weren't the revolutionaries fighting against British monarchy? Even if the founders themselves were aristocrats in some sense of the word they were also much closer to the people then those they were trying to get away from...)
BUT the article also seems to base its conclusions on some assumptionsI just don't buy. First, it puts Palin against Bush and argues that Palin is not qualified the same way Bush was not and gives Bush as the example of how an "of the people" "regular guy" kind of candidate simply is not fit to lead. Bush is a harvard educated, connecticut raised MBA whose father was president....While the brashness and "overdecisiveness" may fit some of what we have heard about Palin personality wise Bush is certainly a far cry from a university of idaho graduated poli sci minor from Alaska....and also--was experience a huge issue with Bush that the public overlooked when they elected him and now we need to make sure to not make the same mistake again? Idon't really think so.
Second, the article judges Palin as if she was going to be President and not VICE president when it talks about the need for prudence and ability to weigh options and choose the best one (the qualities that only experience can provide)...All of these attacks on Palin seem to do that--or if they are not they certainly aren't framing their attacks to state that Palin would not be qualified for the role for which she was nominated by arguing that she would be unable to make the decisions that a vice president will need to make. All I ever hear is "candidate one heartbeat away from the presidency..." arguments. Basically the only answer to me seems to be that everyone is SO sure McCain is going to die during the next four years and they feel genuine unease at the prospect of Palin being commander in chief. They're right --Palin is NOT qualified to be president--but the fact that she is the only one on either ticket who is NOT a senator and actually has exeuctive experience and is also the type of person Americans can relate to and is not the Washington elite may very well make her qualified to be VP. If Dems are so sure that McCain is goingto die (which I dont think is likely in the next four years even if he is 72 he is too crotchity of an old man to go quietly) they should attack HIM head on and not disguise their attacks as an attack on hisVP choice.
Finally, and I'm sure you will be annoyed by this but I'm sorry I think its totally relevant, when you look at the article's definitionof prudence:
"ability to grasp the unique pattern of a specific situation. It is the ability to absorb the vast flow of information and still discernthe essential current of events — the things that go together and the things that will never go together. It is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and feel which arguments have the most weight...The prudent leader possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who can't, what has worked and what hasn't."
McCain has these qualities but Obama does not. If you were going to put Obama against Palin I don't know that I can go so far to say that Palin is more experienced. Obama has been in national politics, he represented more people in Illinois then live in Alaska, etc.However--we should NOT be piting Obama against Palin. Obama is still a freshman senator. What makes him ready to lead? what makes him able to "absorb the vast flow of information and still discren the essential current of events?"
At the end of the day, McCain was certainly not my first choice for Rep candidate (umm...the economy..HELLO..romney...)-BUT I think Palinwas a great VP choice for him. Politically she has the conservativec redentials that he needs and despite her inexerience and maybe some vindictiveness or other negative personality traits she may have I like her, I was absolutely offended when I heard CNN claim that only uneducated women will support her, and I look forward to seeing how she does at the VP debates. Also, I'm still a Republican--policy wise McCain palin wins for me every time. McCain will not raise taxes on small business or remove the payroll tax cap or TRIPLE the earned income tax credit like Obama wants to do. And by putting Palin on the ticket McCain reinforces his "changed" position and hopefully will be willing to drill offshore which I think is ABSOLUTELY necessary in order for us to bridge the gap between fossil fuels and renewables (my boss here at the Corp Commission is big on energy issues so I've researched it a bit), and with McCain we are much more likely to get conservatives justices on the Supreme Court when Ginsburg, Stevens, and Souter retire..which will likely be soon after a new president is in (although I've always considered myself more of a fiscal then a social conservative with the church coming out so strong in favor of state marriage amendments lately I can't help but shift to the right on social issues a bit).
One other thing...WHY DON'T I KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT JOE BIDEN???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)