Saturday, March 15, 2008 at 12:00 AM
I haven’t forgotten about writing up stances and justifications for political issues. Even if it means only posting on one issue at a time, I promise I will continue to post my political stances for additional important political issues (such as education, foreign policy, economic policy, and the environment) in upcoming posts.
Gay/Lesbian Marriage – From a moral standpoint, I’m not sure how I feel about homosexuality. I have several good friends who are gay. Their sexual orientation doesn’t really faze me. I am happy in my heterosexual marriage. As far as I’m concerned other people’s sexuality is their own business.
There are legitimate reasons to oppose from moral standpoint. Several bible versus are fairly direct at condemning homosexuality. On the other hand, there are versus in the bible that command stoning disobedient children, prohibit eating pork, and prohibit wearing clothes with more than one type of fiber. I find it strange that fundamentalists focus so intensely on homosexuality. If homosexuality were the biggest threat to faith, I find it strange that Christ had nothing to say about homosexuality one way or another (although when he referred to marriage he did refer to it in terms of man and woman). However, Christ had plenty to say about loving one’s neighbor and not picking specs out of someone else’s eye while ignoring large planks in one’s own eyes. I’m not as familiar with the specific texts and tenants of other faiths as I probably should be, but I do know that Christianity is not the only religion which has prohibitions on homosexuality. I completely respect peoples right to take and express a moral stance against homosexuality. However, hateful harassment and violence against others based on sexual orientation should not be tolerated.
Apart from religious beliefs, I can’t see good social reason to prohibit gay marriage (whether it is called marriage or called civil unions). The religious right conservatives seem to act like if there is no homosexual marriage, there will be no homosexuality – which is ridiculous. Gay and lesbian people will continue to have relationships whether they are legally allowed to marry or not. (Whether morally wrong or not) it seems to me that promoting stable monogamous relationships vs. promiscuity in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships is in the best interests of society in terms of preventing the spread of AIDS and other STDs, as well as creating more stable home environments.
One difficulty is “marriage” is somewhat of a loaded word and concept. There are two quite separate aspects to the word marriage. When Jeremy and I were married on August 28, 1999 we were given a legal certificate from the State of Nebraska binding us together in a legal contract with certain rights and responsibilities. The State of Nebraska is not concerned with religious aspects of marriage, and many people decide to legally marry with a justice or the peace without religion playing a role in the marriage process. Many people (myself included) also view marriage as an important sacrament, with significant religious or spiritual implications. The paper from the state has very little to do with the sacrament or religious nature of our marriage.
Some religious denominations have no moral qualms with homosexual marriage. If they give spiritual blessing to homosexual questions that is their decision. Many denominations do have strong moral qualms with homosexuality. I strongly feel that no religious official should ever be legally forced to perform marriage ceremonies or give religious acceptance or blessing to homosexual marriage in violation to their religious convictions or the doctrines of their particular religious denomination. But as I mentioned earlier I see no reason why the government should deny homosexual couples the same legal protections as heterosexual couples.
I’ve never really understood the entire “defense of marriage” argument. If gay couples were allowed to marry or have civil unions, traditional heterosexual marriages would still be allowed and would still be the norm. I can’t see how having a gay couple next door would affect my marriage to Jeremy one way or another. If having a gay couple living next door somehow threatens someone’s marriage, I think they need to focus on your their own marriage and should seriously seek some marital counseling! What about children? Due to purely biological reasons homosexual relationships don’t produce children without adoption, or medical intervention. I do think it is ideal for children to be raised in a “traditional” family with a stable relationship with both female and male parent role models (call me old-fashioned, or closed-minded). However loving and stable partnership with two parents of the same sex may be a better environment for kids than abusive or dysfunctional heterosexual marriages or being raised by single parents (not that there aren’t many excellent and caring single moms and dads out there).
Homosexuals in the Military – I don’t think there should be specific prohibitions against homosexuals serving in the military, especially since the military seems to want to increase enrollment and recruiting. The current don’t ask/don’t tell policy is somewhat ridiculous. There have been many men and women both heterosexual and homosexual who have served their country with honor and distinction. Sexuality should not affect the job. Sexual harassment or sexual assault should not be tolerated for either heterosexuals or homosexuals in the military.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 12:00 AM
I have been promising a breakdown of my stances on political issues, and have been dragging my feet because often my stances are lengthy or complex. I haven’t written up positions and justifications for several important issues yet (such as education, foreign policy, economic policy, and the environment), but I have written stances for a few issues, and will continue to post my political stances for additional issues in upcoming posts.
Death Penalty – I am fairly strongly opposed to the death penalty for both moral and financial reasons. The cost of appeals and litigation is usually costs taxpayers more than the cost of housing inmates in prison. There have been several studies that document the death penalty has been inconsistently applied to the poor and minorities. I am uncomfortable with the significant number of cases recently where an inmates who have been held in prison for years, sometimes on death row, have been exonerated by new evidence. How many innocent people have we as a nation and state executed? Execution of guilty criminals (no matter how heinous the crimes crime committed) takes human life. This is not something to be taken lightly. I’m not sure that execution is any more morally justifiable, unless an absolutely necessary last resort for public protection, than the crimes committed by the condemned criminals. I’m not saying that criminals should go unpunished and be released where they can pose further public threat. Instead of the death penalty I think that we should have sentences of life in prison with no possibility for parole.
I was glad that Nebraska finally ruled against the use of the electric chair as a means of execution in the state. It is embarrassing that our state was the last state to abandon that barbaric and outdated method. I was hoping that the legislature might repeal the death penalty in the state altogether, but unfortunately that hasn’t happened yet. At least lethal injection seems to be more humane than the electric chair.
Gun Control – I don’t like guns, but there are legitimate reason for guns including protection, hunting, military, and police. Often more guns leads to more violence. I do not support a complete ban on guns, but I don’t think there should be no regulation either. The second amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. It is my interpretation that this guarantees some rights in regards to gun ownership, but also allows for some sensible regulation.
Abortion – I believe that human life is a precious commodity, and that life begins at conception. I encourage women to choose life instead of abortion. However I believe the abortion issue not as black and white of an issue as often presented by either the strongly pro-life or pro-choice groups. I can understand the pro-choice argument that a woman should have rights and control over her own body, but the issue becomes very complicated when there is a tiny living person who deserves rights over their life and body growing inside of a woman who also deserves rights over her own life and body. Although unfortunate, there are sometimes legitimate reasons for abortion, such as when a woman’s life is threatened by a pregnancy.
Although I am strongly morally against most abortion in most circumstances (including most first trimester abortion), I do not think it is legally feasible to pass legislative restrictions on abortion in the first trimester. Allowing abortion in the first trimester would allow women to have some legal rights to medical privacy, and legal control over their own bodies and reproductive choices. I would hope and pray that women choose alternatives to abortion, but if a woman is going to choose to terminate a pregnancy, she should have time to make the decision and undergo the procedure in the first trimester.
I would like to see legal regulation of abortion in the second and third trimesters. After the second trimester I believe abortion should only be legally allowed in cases when a woman’s life is threatened by a pregnancy, when the pregnancy presents an extreme threat to the woman’s physical health, and possibly in cases of extreme severe birth defects. After the first trimester the fetus is much more developed. Many babies could potentially survive if born in the late second or third trimester.
Rape is a terrible thing and extreme violation of a person. If I were to become pregnant as a result of a rape I would not choose abortion as I believe a child conceived in rape is still a child, and the rape is not the fault of the child. However I could understand how a woman who has been raped would choose abortion and it is a moral and legal decision I do not feel comfortable making for anyone other than myself. Legally, I do not believe it is right or fair to mandate a woman who faces an unplanned pregnancy from rape to carry the pregnancy against her wishes. However I would not support a rape exemption for the second or third trimester. If a woman who has been raped decides to have an abortion, it is still a decision that should be made in the first trimester.
A ban of abortion alone is not enough. (I’m not naive. Abortion occurred before Roe vs. Wade and would almost certainly continue underground if a ban were passed. Some pro-choice advocates argue that this justifies legal abortion. I disagree.) In order to make a real difference and save lives of both babies and women it is necessary to get to the root of the problem. Why are women having abortions? What could be done to prevent abortion? It is easy to stereotype women who choose abortion, but the the truth is that the backgrounds and reasons for women choosing abortion are often varied and complicated. A woman seeking abortion could be:
Women who have abortions most commonly cite economic reasons for their decision. Fighting poverty and improving the means of life for women, would go a long ways to reduce abortion. Providing funding for crisis pregnancy centers to help women out by assistance with baby supplies, and providing tax assistance for childcare could ease the financial strain facing women. Cutting social assistance programs such as medicaid, WIC and head start will only increase the number of abortions. We need to create a society that supports women facing unplanned pregnancies, instead of leaving them feeling like abortion is their only feasible option.
Stem Cell Research – I have an aunt with Multiple Sclerosis, and have had relatives with Alzheimer’s disease. I have seen the debilitating effects of these diseases, and I can understand the desire for potential cures and treatments from stem cells. However, I do not believe that as a nation we should fund the creation of human life with the intent to destroy it at an early stage. I absolutely do not support federal funding for human cloning or for research that creates embryos in the lab to be harvested for stem cell research. I would like to see restrictions on these procedures in the private sector also.
I have mixed feelings about federal funding for research with embryonic stem cells from other sources. Although I disapprove strongly of abortion in most situations, abortion is currently a legal procedure. Likewise embryos created for in-vitro fertilization are routinely legally discarded. Perhaps there should be more regulation of these areas, but they are currently legal and occurring. (I’m not suggesting that IVF be banned, just regulation of disposing of human embryos created in the process.) It seems worse in many ways for the tissue to be simply disposed of and wasted, than to allow the tissue to be used for stem cell research and have some good come out of something bad. (Although I do worry about stem cell sources used as an argument to keep these practices legal.)
Denying federal funding won’t stop the creation and destruction of embryos for stem cells, because there is currently no prohibition on private stem cell research. This only means that private corporations will gain exclusive patents and monopolies on stem cell treatments, which is not in the best public interest. I do support federal funding for adult stem cell research and cord and placenta stem cell research. In addition the creation of transformed stem cells from adult cells looks quite promising.
Immigration – America is a nation of immigrants. Except for Native Americans, all of our ancestors came to this country as immigrants. In the immigration debate there is often a great deal of racism and fear of other cultures. Legal immigrants (and often illegal immigrants too) are more often than not hardworking individuals who provide a great benefit to society. I support legal immigration.
Illegal immigration, however, is a problem. As a nation we need to know accurate numbers for policy planning. Illegal immigration also creates a security issue. As a nation we need to be able to determine who is in our country. I do not support either blanket amnesty or automatic deportation for all illegal immigrants. If illegal immigrants can establish that they are providing benefit to society, they should be documented, given temporary visas and should start process for legal citizenship. On the other hand illegal immigrants who can’t demonstrate that they can be an asset to American society (for example if they have extensive criminal records or history of unemployment) should not be granted citizenship, and should be deported. I do not approve of building a wall along the US-Mexico border. I believe the wall would be ineffective at preventing illegal immigration, and a huge waste of taxpayer money.
Monday, February 11, 2008 at 12:00 AM
I went to drop Jeremy (who is a fairly strong democrat) off at the caucus location for our precinct Saturday. I was curious about the caucus experience, since I have never participated in one before. The democrat party allowed individuals to register to vote or to switch party affiliation on site and participate in the caucus. At the last minute, on somewhat of a whim, I decided to switch from republican to democrat and participate in the caucus to support Obama over Clinton. I plan to switch party affiliation back to republican before the May primary. (Although in some ways it doesn’t seem fair, I was told that would be allowed).
The caucus was very crowded, and was not very well organized, but it was an interesting experience. I am glad I participated. (Two delegates from our precinct were assigned for Obama and one for Clinton). I think I prefer the standard primary voting ballot method, but I can understand with the primary not scheduled to be held until May why the party decided to hold the caucus. I will need to print and mail the form to switch affiliation back. I think I will also request an absentee ballot for the primary election – with the election a week before the baby’s due date, it might be a good idea. I have never voted by absentee ballot before so that will be a new experience too. Now I just need to decide whether I am going to vote for Ron Paul (even though he has NO chance of winning) or John McCain in the May republican primary.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 12:00 AM
I think it is important for citizens of a democratic nation to exercise their rights and responsibilities of keeping informed of issues, candidates and positions and participating in the process through informed voting.
I’m not a huge fan of either the Democrat or Republican parties. I would claim to be a moderate, but instead there are issues of both the Republican and Democrat platforms that I strongly support, and other issues that I strongly oppose. I’ve been accused of being politically bipolar, but why should Americans be limited to a choice between package A and package B? It seems like the deeply entrenched system means that politics are shaped primarily by the pre-packaged party platforms of the two major parties, as well as contributing lobbyists and special interest groups. The deep pockets of both major parties make it unlikely for a third party candidate to be elected to major offices. True statesmen (and women), who vote based on an issue-by-issue basis and serve with integrity to meet the needs and values of their constituents and nation unfortunately seem extremely rare. I have even become disenchanted with politicians I once supported. Bipartrisan efforts are more often than not either “do it my way or else” or “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” rather than putting aside differences and platforms to try to come to common sense middle ground compromises. When searching for epigraphs for Jeremy’s book I came across a great quote from the British politician Lord Thorneycroft, that “the choice in politics isn’t usually between black and white. It’s between two horrible shades of grey.” I tend to agree.
I would be (and perhaps should be) registered as an independent voter. The only problem is that Nebraska is a closed ballot state, which means that in primary elections an individual can only cast ballots for the political party for which they are registered. There are usually very few (if any) independent candidates running. It seems like there is often more at stake in the primary elections the two main parties. I am currently registered as a Republican, because I feel I can make a greater impact through my vote in the primary elections. Although officially registered as a Republican, I have frequently in the past voted for Democrats in general elections if I thought they more closely represented my ethical and political values.
The next Presidential election is still over a year away. I am looking forward to a change of administration in the White House, but I haven’t done enough research to know which candidates I support yet. Over the next year I will post more on my own political stances and how well candidates meet them.
Art
Classes
Entertainment
Family
Games
Home
Outdoors
Politics
Rant
Religion
Textiles
Travel
