Women's March

If you are a man and you're scratching your head struggling to understand why all these women were marching yesterday, well let me help.

Let's transport into an alternative universe, one where a woman has been elected president, a woman vice-president and there is a virtually all-female congress.

That new president and congress have publicly stated that men shouldn't have the right to decide what happens in their bodies related to reproduction, that they...the women running the federal government...know best.  In fact, some of these women have also publicly stated that, even in cases where a man was raped or assaulted by a family member, that they still should be the ones who decide what healthcare options would be available to men.

They've also threatened to cut off funding to a national organization that provides significant healthcare services to economically poor men...all because these women running the federal government have a religious objection* to 3%** of the services that the organization in question provides.  Oh, in many of the locations where this organization exists, there simply are no alternative providers of these services, especially in rural areas of the country (example).

These new women leaders are also hostile to marriage equality.  In fact, the new vice-president once said that being gay was a choice and that "societal collapse was always brought about following an advent of the deterioration of marriage and family" (source:  Businesinsider.com).  The new president has committed to appointing justices to the United States Supreme Court who will overturn marriage equality (source:  HRC), apparently because state governments (in our alternative universe also filled with mostly women) should be able to decide whether two consenting adults who love each other should be allowed to marry.  Why?  Because they believe that government...run by women...knows what's best, especially for men.

Frightening, isn't it?  If you're a man...living in our real universe...what I'm suggesting is that you engage in some basic empathy.  Many women are genuinely fearful, and in my opinion, rightfully so (hence this posting).

In the end, I have no doubt that my wife and I will be okay during the Trump years.  Heck, we may even get a tax cut.  But I worry about my daughters living in a world where a federal or state government can reach into their bodies to make reproductive choices for them or decide whether or not they can marry the person they love.  I simply don't want any government to have that much power.

* * * * * *

(*) Count me firmly in the court of fully respecting the religious choices of every American.  But I also ask that other Americans not insist on making their religious choices policy for everyone else.   Put another way, if your religion teaches you that abortion is murder and that homosexuality is a sin, well, then you better not be gay and you sure as heck better not have an abortion...but you shouldn't have the power to make those choices for those who have sincerely held but different convictions.

(**) http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/ 

In the Trump Era - What Should We Do?

Well, the election is over and the actual electors have voted.  Donald Trump is our President-elect.  If that frightens you, well just what should you do?

Something along the lines of the "what should we do" question was posted by my sister-in-law on Facebook, in a far more eloquent way than I am describing.  It's a good question, and while I don't have an eloquent answer, I do have a few thoughts.  For whatever it's worth, here they are...

Act - I'll speak out about and financially support the causes that matter to me.  This includes promoting basic human rights for the LGBT community, helping organizations that address women's health issues*, and supporting a local organization that helps the homeless.  Curling up in a ball isn't an answer as far as I am concerned.

Remember - I'll also use these next few years to remind myself that we can NEVER truly and entirely rely on the government to do the good work. At best, the government is amoral, as in doing no harm; at worst I think it's immoral.  In my opinion, this is one of the biggest blind-spots in the liberal/progressive community, namely this idea that the government can or should fix most things.  That too easily gets the collective "us" off the hook.  The commandment is to "love your neighbor as yourself", not "have the government do that for you", or worse yet, "force you to love your neighbor".  Handing stuff off to the government seems to me to be something of a cop-out, a way for us to have someone else do the dirty work.  

This is not to say that we shouldn't hold the government...and it's inhabitants...accountable, because we should.  However, we have to remember that government is really about doing essential things for the common good, for making sure that there is an even playing field for everyone, and for protecting us from each other (as sad as that sounds; sorry, I don't want my neighbor to open a pig farm or install an anti-tank gun on their roof).  We want government to be amoral precisely because morality is a human quality, not a bureaucratic or institutional one.  The fact that the incoming administration can potentially take rights way from a group of people proves my very point as to the lack of morality inherent in government.  

Be Hopeful - I'll remind myself that sometimes you need to take two steps backward in order to take three steps forward.  That's as true in politics as it is in our personal lives.




(*) Done in honor of my three daughters and my late mother.

Sunday, June 12th

I spent today doing three things: Writing, writing and writing (I have a research paper due next Sunday). In between writing stints, I kept abreast of the terrible events that occurred in Orlando early this morning. The thought of some many people being cut down like grass under a mower is disheartening, at best. There will be a time to unpack all of this over the days, weeks and months to come, but until then I'm just left with one thought: To not allow this to make me fall into anger. I'm reminded of something said by Dr. King...

If anything, the events in Orlando point to the fact that we need less violence and hate in the world. Whatever comes of this, it's my hope that we're better...not bitter...as a result.

Road Apples, #168

Led Zeppelin...It occurred to me that the band's movie, "The Song Remains the Same", is aptly titled, given their propensity for borrowing material from other artists.

The Donald...It's pretty clear that those who support "The Donald" for president are simply running on some kind of emotional autopilot.  Sadly though, being the leader of the free world probably isn't something that should be decided purely on the basis of emotion.  Saying that you're going to vote for "The Donald" because you're angry at Washington DC is a bit like saying you're going to stop eating entirely because McDonald's served you warm french fries.

The Real Pickle...It occurred to me that I'd have a heck of a tough time if the general election for President came down to Bernie Sanders and "The Donald".  That's a bit like having to decide between cancer or diabetes.  Not that Hillary Clinton is anywhere near a great choice either, but she does have the advantage of not making endless promises for everything and as well as simply not being an incompetent walking ego with hair.  Interestingly enough, I'll be in Florida on vacation when the election happens; we've already decided that we'll file a write-in ballot as every single vote will count in order to prevent the thrice married, four times bankruptcy declaring reality television star from becoming President.

Graduate Degree...I'm soon going to be 70% of the way done with my graduate degree.  I can't find the words to describe just how happy I will be when this is over.  It's tedious.  And time time-consuming.  At times frustrating.  In other words, it's probably worth it.

Speaking of Graduates...My youngest daughter "officially" graduated from Marywood University recently.  In addition to being, well, officially old, I am also extremely proud of her, as I am of all my children.  All will make the world a far better place.  Love You Stinky!

Back to Politics...Both parties are, to one degree or another, are built upon a fundamental lie.

Democrats - Want us to believe that government is the answer. To everything.  And that we should all be in labor unions, whether we want to or not (because big powerful institutions are always inherently good, right?).  Government is the answer when it comes to essential services and protecting us (from foreign powers and, sadly, from each other), and that's pretty much it.  Otherwise, it simply becomes this giant, impersonal, all-consuming thing that grows continuously larger without rhyme or reason.

Republicans - Want us to believe that somehow taking care of the wealthy and business interests will, almost by magic, make everything better for everyone else.  Sorry Cletus, but you and your relatives in rural Pennsyltucky have been sold a massive bill of goods.  We've had decades worth of practice when it comes to favoring the wealthy and business interests and nothing really to show for it, other than stagnant wages, spiraling executive pay and a tax code that favors those that make the most.

The real solution, in my estimations, is to scrap the two party system in this country.  We are, after all, one party away from a one party state.  Having multiple political parties will force greater compromise and alliances, something that's nearly impossible in the polarized region of the planet known as Washington DC.

Bathroom Bills...Speaking of ridiculous issues, there is far too much talk about manufactured bathroom issues.  For Pete's sake, if you look like a woman, than use the woman's rest room.  Ditto for males.  In fact, I'll take it one step further...

Enough...of the politics and other such stuff.  I started this posting on a musical note, so I'll end on one as well.  Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Vince Gill.

I love that song.

Marriage Equality: What Happens Next?

Gays will get married.

What will not be happening?

1. That pastor will not be setting himself on fire.
2. The federal government will not force priests, ministers, pastors, rabbis or any other religious to marry gay people.
3. The federal government will not "go after" the tax-exempt status of churches that disagree with marriage equality.
4. Politicians of both parties will not stop using this as a wedge issue for the sole purpose of garnering more political power for themselves.
5. Hypocritical bigots like Rush Limbaugh will not shut up.
6. ETWN, Ave Maria Radio, the Westboro Baptist Church and the like will not stop continuing to claim that this is an abomination by selectively quoting biblical scripture*.
7. No one will go to Canada to escape marriage equality (which has already existed in the Great White North for about a decade already).
8. There will not be more gay people, although hopefully more gay people will be comfortable being their authentic selves now.
9. No heterosexual couple will have their rights taken away.
10. This will not result in people marrying animals, inanimate objects or polygamy. 

In the end, all you need is love.






(*) Refer to THIS posting.

My Remedy for the Mess in Indiana

Here is my official re-write of the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Section 1 - The Church Clause
No church or member of a clergy should ever be "forced" to officiate at a wedding that violated the rules, dogma, teachings or tradition of their sect.  Catholics should't be forced to marry Protestants, Muslims shouldn't be forced to marry Jews, Baptists shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples, Gay Church clergy should not be forced to marry straight couples, Moonies shouldn't be forced to marry just one couple, etc.

(Subsection 1) If a religion operates a not-for-profit business that only serves members of that sect, well then they can discriminate all they want.  If they serve others, as in any others, well then they actually have to serve others, as in all others.

Section 2 - The Public Market Clause
If you run a for-profit business in the public market, where you get all of the benefits of being in that public market, then you have to serve anyone in that public market who:

a) comes to buy your product/service
b) is of sound mind/body and is legally able to enter into a transaction
c) has the money to pay for your product/service

The only color that matters is green, the only orientation that matters is the one that spends money.

Section 3 - The Lawyer Clause
A merchant selling something doesn't equate to that same merchant endorsing the actions of their customer.  For example, a cupcake store that sells cupcakes to an ambulance chasing lawyer doesn't mean that the cupcake store owners endorse ambulance chasing; instead it just means that they endorse selling cupcakes.

Section 4 - Legal Remedy Clause
If you violate any of the rules noted above, then you can get sued, ridiculed, mocked on social media and just generally receive your comeuppance.

My comment made to the blog "Another Voice"

Refer to THIS POSTING on the blog Another Voice:  Reflections about Contemporary Catholic Belief and Practice.


* * * * * * * * * *

This is an easy one: When your compelling reason to believe is acceptance of a bunch of rules simply because (mostly) older white guys wearing funny hats say you have to obey the rules…as opposed to providing a positive, compelling reason to have faith…then of course there will be disenchantment. This isn't 1900 anymore, and younger folks have access to a wide variety of ideas and opinions when it comes to many thing, including faith.

Now I know faith shouldn't be like buying mustard at the supermarket (i.e. you “buy” the cheapest or the nicest tasting), but nor should it be about “we said it should be this way…because we’re Bishops and we say so” either. There are real, compelling reason to have faith in Christ and His Church, but sadly, much of that gets lost in a sea of regimentation, rules, and social issue bantering that sounds (especially to younger folks) more like HATE than it does FAITH. Having religious leaders saying that someone who is gay suffers from being “inherently disordered” precisely proves my point. Where is the evidence of FAITH and COMPASSION in that kind of statement?

Just my two cents.

Love the blog by the way.

Steve Albert
West Pittston, PA

Why no one wants to go to church any more

I had saved this article from a few week or so ago from the Huffington Post...

Why Nobody Wants to Go to Church Anymore

...with the intent of writing a post around it, and as usual it languished in the draft bin until now.

Two items that I think are related to this topic, via the Catholic Church, are:

• Conflict surrounding the Baptism of the infant children of gay couples.  You can read an article on the topic HERE.  
• There is also the Synod on the Family occurring in Rome now; you can click HERE for an interesting read on that event.

Here's what I find distressing in all of this:  The Church may in fact say that two individuals of the same sex can never be married.  The Church can say that two unmarried people should not have children.  The Church can proclaim that only certain kinds of opposite sex marriages are considered valid.  All of that is the right of the Church...their church, their rules.  No one is forcing anyone else to join a specific religious denomination in this country.  However, and related to the above, the Church teaches that access to the sacrament of Baptism shouldn't be denied based on the marital status of the parents, provided that there is an intent to raise the child Catholic (reference HERE).  Failing to follow your own rules seems a bit, well, wrong.  Also, the Church in theory has a "love the sinner, hate the sin" attitude regarding homosexuality in general, yet the rhetoric one hears from conservative Catholics is far from loving.  Want proof?  Go to (conservative) Ignatius Press and search for books using the key word "Gay" and you'll see what I mean.  Heck, I'll even do it for you (click HERE and look at the first book you see).  It's impossible to be welcoming on one hand but then with the other point a finger at  a "homosexual agenda".

I know. there are plenty in the LGBT community that are far from loving when it comes to most organized religions, but it's important to note that they don't get to use the whole eternal damnation weapon either.  ActUp, for example, doesn't claim to speak for God, but organizations that do...be they Christian, Jewish or Muslim...should be held to a higher standard of conduct.  Yes, when you claim to be "one of the good guys" then you shouldn't be shocked when, well, people actually expect you to be a "good guy".  Example?  How about honoring your word to love the sinner more than you simply hating the sin, for starters.  Man, that "turn the other cheek" stuff really is hard to pull off, especially when the other party is so very different than you.

By the way, what precisely is the "homosexual agenda"?  Is it to somehow convert others to homosexuality?  I don't know about you, but nothing is ever changing my (hetero)sexuality, so pardon me while I view that concept with just a bit of skepticism.  Fear mongering should be beneath the dignity of a traditional religious conviction anyway, and yet elements of the Church are all too willing to engage in it as part of an extremely misguided "culture war".

So what is the real "culture war"?  That's the one that centers around item #7 of the Huffington Post article, namely false advertising.  In 1950 maybe that was acceptable; it's not in 2014.  Organized religion, meet the connected world, where your failing to live up to your own proclamations will be noticed and will be documented by snarky bloggers (and such).

I'll end this posting with a more personal note.  In my own religious formation there have been times when I've been to church and it has been very welcoming.  My religious experience in college was a good example (disclaimer:  I was the president of the Catholic Student's group my senior year).  Yet, so many others were very far from welcoming.  These were the churches run as cliques where homogeneous groups of folks would just as soon ignore someone new as say hello to them.  Not all are like this, but many are, sadly I will add.  More than anything else though, organized religion...especially the Catholic Church...harms itself far more than any outside force ever could simply by virtue of its inability to live up to its own high moral standards.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Walt Kelly


© Stephen G. Albert, 2014

Road Apples, #150

It's been a heck of a week...and then some.  My cup runnith over with changes, both at home and at work, but that's okay; to quote Heraclitus, "The only thing that is constant is change.".  I really and truly do believe that it is possible to learn to handle change well.  Yes, I think we all may get that initial sinking feeling in our guts when we get a bit of unexpected news, but in the end we decide whether that sinking feeling is a blip in time or whether it becomes an all-consuming black hole.  It's almost a higher brain vs instinctive brain kind of thing.

The 100...is one of the better science fiction shows to come along in a while.  You can catch it on Hulu.  The actor that plans Councillor Kane, Henry Ian Cusick, is simply outstanding (it helps that the Mr Cusick's character is exceptionally well written).

Solid State Portable Drives...I was thinking about buying one, although I really don't need one.  That might be some kind of "Geek Test" - You might be a Geek if you randomly covet tech that you really don't need anyway.

News from the Flat Earth Society...The Texas GOP will most likely add a provision in their official party platform that endorses so-called "Reparative Therapy".  Reference HERE.  As for me, I no more think that Johnny can be more made "un-gay" than he could be made "gay" in the first place.  I know this to be true on an instinctive level because I am not gay, and quite frankly there is nothing that could, in fact, make me gay.  That's okay though, because I personally don't give darn what anyone's sexuality is, or is not.  It's none of my business and by extension I am also comfortable saying that it is none of the Texas GOP's business either.  Anyway, don't take my word for it that reparative therapy is full of crap, but rather take the words of the professional societies that actually know stuff about psychological well-being.  To that end, I note the following:

"According to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, (NARTH) the only mental health professional organization that promotes reparative therapy, a number of organizations formed a coalition to oppose reparative therapy. The group includes:

	American Academy of Pediatrics
	American Counseling Association
	American Federation of Teachers
	American Medical Association
	American Psychiatric Association
	American Psychological Association
	The Interfaith Alliance
	National Association of School Psychologists
	National Association of Social Workers
	National Association of Secondary School Principals
	National Education Association
	New Ways Ministries
	People for the American Way. 17"

Citation HERE.  And HERE.  And HERE.  In the end, if it's not broken, it doesn't need to be fixed (or repaired in this case).

In Other News...After dealing with a weighty topic such as trying to un-gay people, I think it's time to end this on a higher note.  Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Sting.

Glad to be wrong (& other gay thoughts)

I am thoroughly, completely and utterly thrilled to be wrong regarding Governor Tom Corbett's potential appeal of marriage equality in Pennsylvania.  The Governor did surprise me in not pursing an appeal of the decision, but politics (and make no mistake about it...this was a political decision on the part of Tom Corbett) can be a complex business at times.  Regardless, I'm giving the Governor a symbolic ^5 for doing the right thing this time around.

While we are on the subject of marriage, I'm increasingly finding that the arguments against equality  boil down to three things:

1) The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong
2) Marriage has traditionally been between one man and one woman
3) The purpose of marriage is procreation, and two individuals of the same gender can't procreate

Let's parse these out.

The Bible & Marriage
I am not a biblical scholar, and I do know enough about the Bible to be dangerous.  So that noted, let me quote the Book of Leviticus, chapter 11, verse 10 (King James version of the Bible):

"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:"

What this means is that you can't eat shellfish.  No shrimp.  No crabs.  No lobsters.  If it lacks fins and scales, you can't eat it.  The Bible is very clear on this point.  Luckily the conjunction used is "and", not "or", so all those that want to eat catfish and still stay within Biblical guidelines are safe*.

Now some say "well, you have to view that chapter within the context of the times in that it probably wasn't actually safe to eat those things, therefore the Biblical prohibition made sense then...", which I completely understand and agree with.  My point though is the following:  If the Bible is wrong about lobster, shrimp and crabs, it can no longer be viewed as being completely infallible for other things as well.

Where does this leave us?  Well it means that if you are a Christian and you want to shrimp, lobsters or crabs, then you have to rely on a human interpretation of Leviticus in order for that act to not be considered an abomination.  Who gets to decide?  Who gets to reinterpret Leviticus?  I don't know.  Heck, I don't even like shellfish.  I do know this though:  if someone can over-ride the Bible and say that eating lobster is no longer an abomination, then I'm thinking similar abominations are subject to nullification (or at least qualification) as well.

Oh, and lest anyone think that I'm picking on the poor lobsters, the following other things are also prohibited in the Bible:

Mixing fiber types in clothing (Leviticus 19:19)
Bowl haircuts (Leviticus 19:27)
Tattoos (Leviticus 19:28)
Getting your fortune told & astrology (Leviticus 19:31)

Lastly, and this is my favorite, did you know that castrated males (regardless of whether the castration was voluntary or an accident) are not allowed into church?  Well let's consult Deuteronomy, Chapter 23, verse 1:

"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD."

Now I personally find that the King James version of the Bible has some funky language, so let's go with another translation for this verse, this time the New Living Translation:

"If a man's testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD"

Point (painfully) made.  Next.


Marriage Tradition
"Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman and it should stay that way" is how the line goes.  Now I could go down a long list of past traditions that have not survived the test of time, even religious traditions, but that would be like shooting fish in a barrel.  No, let's instead look at what the very word "tradition" means.  Here's a definition (from Merriam-Webster on-line):

Full Definition of TRADITION

1

a :  an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)

b :  a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable

2

:  the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction

3

:  cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions

4

:  characteristic manner, method, or style tradition

>
It's almost surreal to think that any of the above should trump the basic happiness of others.  "Just because it has always been that way" just doesn't hold a lot of weight.

Marriage and Procreation
This is an easy one:  if you believe that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation, then you end up invalidating the marriages of...

...two widows who marry and are past child-bearing years
...a couple where one or both individuals suffers from infertility
...any couple who makes the choice not to have children

I'll take this one step further:  the only people who I think should be able to claim that the purpose of marriage is procreation are the Duggars (and folks like then), as they are walking the talk.  No one else gets to make this claim.  That may sound flippant, but so be it in that it also has a ring of truth.  In a way I do admire the Duggar family, as hypocrisy doesn't seem to be something they practice, along with a few other things.  Note that I'm not sure if they eat shellfish though.

Lastly, and this is a true story, I was listening to the local militantly conservative Catholic radio station the other day and a commentator was claiming that these marriage equality decions, if not overturned, would result in the "end of our civilization".  Why?  Because in the words of the speaker, "procreation would stop".  Mind you this was an older adult male speaking, claimng that marriage equality would apparently turn us all gay, stopping the replenishment of our species.  I will leave that comment and line of reasoning to stand on its own.

(*) Catfish don't have scales.

Rest in Peace Fred Phelps

As a follow-up to this posting...

Let Fred Phelps Die In Peace

...yesterday it was reported that Mr Phelps passed away.

A younger person asked me if I thought Fred Phelps was burning in Hell.  My answer?  Well first, the answer to that question is far, far above my pay grade.  Second, I really, truly believe that all of us, up until the very moment of our very last breath, have a shot at redemption.  Every day and every moment we are on this Earth we have a chance to "get it right".  So here's to hoping that before he passed, Fred Phelps found release from the anger and outrage that apparently consumed so much of his life in latter years.

Rest in Peace Fred Phelps.

Let Fred Phelps die in peace

It's been widely reported that the (apparently former) head of the Westboro Baptist Church, Fred Phelps Sr., is near death.  You can read an article about it HERE.

As you probably already know, Phelps and his cabal are (in)famous for protesting at various funerals.  While the targets of their rantings were supposedly homosexuals, in reality they protested at the funerals of many straight folks as well, creating connections to homosexuality like little children create imaginary friends.  Mostly though, they seems to be less interested in "fighting" homosexuality as they were in promoting themselves and their twisted view of Christianity.

Now the temptation here would be for any number of groups (homosexuals, the military, bikers, college students, etc.) to want to protest at Phelps funeral, but I think that is a bad idea.  Instead, let the man die in whatever peace that may exist for his soul and make his funeral the non-event of the new century.  No signs, no protests, no cameras, no "I-team reporter coverage at 6" or anything of the sort.  Nothing, just the quiet of a deceased man and what family he has left.

Yes, what I am suggesting is, in the case of Fred Phelps, the ultimate example of Christianity at its finest:  turn the other cheek.  Let this bitter man face whatever judgement that awaits him in the obscurity that he and his family apparently so disliked.  Oh, and if you are so inclined, pray for his soul as well, as well as for the souls of all the departed.  We owe this not to the Fred Phelps' of this world but to ourselves.

Governor Brewer vetoes the "right to discriminate" legislation in Arizona.

As a follow-up to a recent blog posting (noted HERE), I was thrilled to learn this evening that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has vetoed SB1062, also known as the "right to discriminate" bill.  This was a bad law from conception through passage, and it would open the door to discrimination against any number of groups (not just members of the LGBT community).

Rather  than pontificate further, I'll simply let Governor Brewer's own words make the point...which they do, rather well I may add.  My favorite lines are noted in red bold.  Kudos to Governor Brewer for setting a positive example...not just with her veto, but with her explanation as well.

[Citation HERE]

Good evening, and thank you for joining me here today.

I am here to announce my decision on Senate Bill 1062.
As with every proposal that reaches my desk, I gave Senate Bill 1062 careful evaluation and deliberate consideration. I call them like I see them, despite the cheers or boos from the crowd.
I took the time necessary to make the RIGHT decision. I met or spoke with my attorneys, lawmakers and citizens supporting and opposing this legislation.
I listened . . . and asked questions.
As Governor, I have protected religious freedoms when there is a specific and present concern that exists in OUR state.
And I have the record to prove it.
My agenda is to sign into law legislation that advances Arizona.
When I addressed the Legislature earlier this year, I made my priorities for this session abundantly clear...
Among them are passing a responsible budget that continues Arizona's economic Comeback. 2

From CEOs -- to entrepreneurs -- to business surveys -- Arizona ranks as one the best states to grow or start a business. 
Additionally, our IMMEDIATE challenge is fixing a broken Child Protection system. 
Instead, this is the first policy bill to cross my desk. 
Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific and present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona. I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner's religious liberty has been violated. 
The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences. 
After weighing all of the arguments, I vetoed Senate Bill 1062 moments ago. 
To the supporters of the legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before. 
Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes. However, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. 
It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want. 
Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value, so is non-discrimination. 
Going forward, let's turn the ugliness of the debate over Senate Bill 1062 into a renewed search for greater respect and understanding among ALL Arizonans and Americans. 
Thank you.

"God's Law" cited as a reason to stop a Pennsylvania Representative from speaking

State Representative Brian Sims (D-Philadelphia) was blocked from speaking on the floor of the Pennsylvania House about the Supreme Court's recent DOMA ruling.  The reason for silencing Representative Sims?  According to Representative Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler) it was as follows:

"I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God's law," 

You can read an article about this HERE.

Open rebellion against God's law?  I wasn't aware that the Pennsylvania Legislature was governed by "God's Law".  Which "God's Law" would that be, by the way? The Law of God as dictated by the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church?  Maybe the Southern Baptist Convention?  Perhaps the Episcopal Church of the United States?  Maybe the 7th Day Adventists?  Or maybe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?  United Methodist Church perhaps?

Anyway, I wasn't aware that, in addition to his ability to interpret God's Law, Representative Metcalfe had the ability to look into the immediate future and "see" what Representative Sims was going to actually say before it was actually said (that which would be so offensive to "God's Law").  Heck, maybe he can use this power to help me pick lottery numbers next week.

People of good conscience, regardless of political affiliation, (and including my own State Representative) should be disgusted by Representative Metcalfe's actions.  Period.

Maybe, just maybe, the Pennsylvania Legislature is governed by the Laws of Pennsylvania.

Maybe, just maybe, ideas need to be debated, not silenced.



* * * * * *
Update, 06.28.2013

The following is a statement from my representative, Kevin Haggerty, related to this issue:

"Meet Brian Sims. My fellow Democratic Representative whose life I support and always have whether Brian knew it or not. Now it's a national story and it should be. People like Brian Sims are why we have our own country in the first place. There is no second place."

You can find it on Representative Haggerty's Facebook page; link HERE.

Good job Kevin!

The purpose of marriage, 03.26.2013

Selected quotations from Attorney Charles J. Cooper, arguing in defense of California's Proposition 8 in front of the United States Supreme Court today.

Citation HERE.  Red hi-lites by me.

* * * * * * * * 

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, we certainly are not. We — we are saying the interest in marriage and the — and the State 's interest and society's interest in what we have framed as responsible pro -­ procreation is — is vital, but at bottom, with respect to those interests, our submission is that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are simply not similarly situated.

MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples. Suppose, in turn -­

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, society's -­ society's interest in responsible procreation isn't just with respect to the procreative capacities of the couple itself. The marital norm, which imposes the obligations of fidelity and monogamy, Your Honor, advances the interests in responsible procreation by making it more likely that neither party, including the fertile party to that -­

* * * * * * * * 

Permit me, if you will, to translate what Attorney Cooper is saying:  The purpose of marriage is procreation.  Not love between two individuals.  Not a lifelong commitment.  No, it's first and foremost for making babies.  This, not so co-incidentally, is also a religious definition for marriage.  For example, according to teachings of the Roman Catholic Church:

Traditionally speaking, the primary purpose of marriage is the generation and nurturing of offspring; the second purpose is the mutual help of spouses, and the third is the remedy for concupiscence.

Reference HERE.

So, the next question is  this:  if you are married and...

...you and your partner are not infertile
or
...you marry at a later age
or
...for a variety of reasons you don't want children

...does this mean that your marriage isn't "traditional"?  

Someone want to explain that one to two individuals, say, Fred and Sally, who are both 64 and previously had spouses who passed away? I guess that if Fred and Sally got married it would be neither be "traditional" nor would it be within "marital norm".  In fact, according to Attorney Cooper's logic, their marriage is actually abnormal in that it focuses on the emotional needs and desires of two adults.  For shame!  Add me to the abnormal list, by the way, in that one day when I re-marry I will have no interest in further procreation.  

Also, precisely why would the "State" care who or why the Hell someone married?  Make the argument about "society", and while I'll disagree, I can at least see some logic to the point.  However, I hope that my Libertarian friends are bristling at the notion that the "State" somehow even gets a say in this discussion.  Personally I think it's none of the "State's" damn business who or why I marry, thank you very much!

Sometimes the best counter argument is to simply point out what the other person is saying.  Slowly.  In writing.  Parsed out for the logic...or ill-logic...to percolate through.

Rev. Dr. Phil Snider

Well worth watching:  Rev. Dr. Phil Snider speaks about pending legislation in Springfield Mo. that would ban "special" rights for citizens who are gay.

 

Maybe you can't "Pray the Gay Away" after all.

Article reference HERE.

"But the ex-gay movement has been convulsed as the leader of Exodus, in a series of public statements and a speech to the group’s annual meeting last week, renounced some of the movement’s core beliefs. Alan Chambers, 40, the president, declared that there was no cure for homosexuality and that “reparative therapy” offered false hopes to gays and could even be harmful. His statements have led to charges of heresy and a growing schism within the network."


For the record I don't especially care what anyone thinks of homosexuality.  I really don't.  What people choose to do in their personal relationships is precisely that...their choice...and not mine.  I do, however, draw strong lines in the sand when some try to paint others as somehow being "defective" or undeserving of basic rights (such as the right to survivor's benefits, visitation rights for the ill, medical benefits, etc.) simply because they are different.  There's a word for that:  discrimination.


Given the above, I find the very notion of "pray the gay away" to almost be funny...the "almost" part comes into play because in reality it's not funny when someone paints another as being so defective that they somehow need divine intervention to be "repaired".  Note to file:  if God didn't want gay people He/She wouldn't be creating any of them.


Enough.


PS - For the record (and in the "pray the gay away" department) Michele Bachmann's husband is the gayest sounding supposedly straight man I've ever heard.

Top 10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal

From Christwire.org.  I normally don't copy and paste content in its entirety, but I'm making an exception for this piece.  If the folks at Christwire.org object I will gladly take the post down.  Anyway, this is simply excellent.

You can link to it HERE.

Enjoy...

*******

This article was submitted by a subscriber of the ChristWire Community, therefore it may contain an ordained message or veil lies. Please use reader’s discretion. You may also submit your own article on today’s important news or headlines at ChristWire’s U-report feature.

---

You might have seen this before, but I figured I’d put it here just in case~

(not by me)

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

This speaks for itself.

From Wipe Out Homophobia on Facebook.

 (click on the image to magnify)

The similarities between homophobia and opposition to interracial marriage are frightening.

Oh and to those who say that "well you choose to be gay but you don't choose to be black", I ask you the following:  Is there anything that could make you choose to be gay?  If not...if you could never, ever see yourself being gay...then perhaps it's not quite the choice you claim it might be after all.  Who would choose to be ridiculed, ostracized, and marginalized in society?

Me?  Hell, I'm as straight as a guy can be and there is no way I could ever choose to be gay.  That noted, for the life of me I don't understand why anyone would possibly give a crap if two consenting adults want to get married. Just note though that with gay marriage will come gay divorce...but that's a different post for a different time...

Bullying In Hanover Area

I received an email about a potential bullying incident yesterday from John Dawe and read the updated article on the incident in today's edition of the Times Leader.  You can link to the article HERE.  A few thoughts from my end:

• Like death and taxes for adults, some degree of bully and humiliation simply comes with being a teenager.  I get that part.  That part I don't get is allowing it to be institutionalized through actions or inactions on the part of adults.
• No teacher, administrator or para-professional in any school should ever...ever..participate in or knowingly condone any form of bullying or harassment.  Period.  It's easy to get the perception, based on the article and reader comments, that there may be a pattern of tolerance for this kind of behavior in Hanover Area.  Shame on them.
• Communication is a funny thing, as I tell associates at work all the time - there is the message you intend to send and then there is the message that is actually received.  Adults are, for better or worse, always responsible for both ends of the transaction when dealing with children and young adults.
• Regardless of what message the teacher intended to send...be it innocent or potentially malicious...the fact is that is was received as being bullying and harassment.  At a minimum, even assuming non-malicious intent, this teacher exercised poor judgement and should be formally reprimanded (and she should apologize to the student in question).  At maximum, assuming malicious intent that can be proven, the teacher should be fired.  Period. Let's see the teacher's union try to defend that one. 
• Some will claim that the individual making the accusation has a "thin skin"...which may be true.  But I'll argue that skin does get thin after repeated beatings.  "Skin" being of the physical or the psychological type.
• I'd argue strongly that Hanover Area may not in fact be even capable of investigating itself.  
• If this was Science class, then outside of discussing the Physics of dancing, why in the hell were videos being shown in class in the first place?

I am not advocating that children be protected from any and all hardship and that bullying is some kind of crime punishable by death.  I am advocating for the fact that children will act like children, but that's why in schools we have adults to be in charge.  When the adults refuse to act like adults, well, then that's where I really have a problem.