State Senator Frank Morse held a Town Hall in Albany tonight (May 31, 2005) on the issue of Civil Unions. He's sponsoring HB1000 (a combined civil union/non-discrimination bill that was too much and is basically dead) and HB1073 (just the civil union part stripped out, as it actually has a chance of passing). This is a revised version of what I had posted here on May 26 and planned to say (all I actually had the time to do was ask if we really believed in Freedom and Equality or not?). It's what I wish I'd had prepared and been able to say there (some of it is actually a response to what was said, but most of that is in the next blog entry):
I feel like I've awoken and the country has turned into a theocracy. Actually, I've been feeling the trend that direction for sometime, but the strength of the religious discussion tonight absolutely frightens me. I beg people to look at the Middle East, or even Ireland, and ask, "is this *really* the direction I want this country to go?"
More fundamentally, does this country, and particularly, our state, believe in freedom and equality or not? Unfortunately, it's becoming all too clear that the answer is NOT.
For me, marriage is an expression of love and commitment, and while I honestly believe that most of the opponents of gay marriage don't believe this, the effect of what they're saying to us is that marriage is an elitist expression of bigotry: "I got mine and you can't have it! Nyah nyah nyah!". One women even got up and although I can't remember the exact words, said something to the effect of "if we give you equal rights, everyone will want them". I couldn't believe my ears.
There were people that even had the audacity to claim that civil unions were special rights. I have a hard time believing that people are really so clueless as to believe that making a group of people second class citizens is "special rights". Expletive Deleted.
The fact is, for most of the opponents, marriage is a religious institution, which brings up two points:
1. It has no business in government at all. The "special rights" people are right about one thing: the civil union bill *should* be inclusive, and should *replace* the legal aspects of marriage for *all* relationships who want to commit to mutual love and support of one another.
2. If their goal is to block gay marriage, they've already lost that battle: there are a number of churches that will happily marry same-sex couples. The battle now is over the civil union part, not the marriage part.
What government's legitimate role in this area is, for practical purposes, is as arbiter: relationships are a common thing for people to get into, with a number of legal ramifications. And, unfortunately, for people to undo, often acrimoniously. For those reasons, it's reasonable to define a standard set of rights and responsibilities for people who want to commit to supporting one another, whoever they may be, subject to modification with the mutual agreement of all concerned.
This is, in essence, what a civil union is. It's not very romantic definition, but it's not government's place to put the romance in a relationship --- that's up to the people involved in the relationship. Government's place is to make sure that all people are treated fairly and equally. And if Oregon's not going to do it, we just as well scrap Article I, Section 20 of our Constitution:
No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.
This is not promoting anything. It's simply dealing with the basic and common legal issues surrounding families.
I want to return for a moment to the beginning, and the concept of freedom: the freedom to be or do only what others approve of is no freedom at all. If I'm only allowed to do what you or anyone else approve of, there is no freedom, no matter how long the leash may be: it's still a leash. Freedom only has meaning if you are willing to allow people to do things you disapprove of. Then we truly have freedom.
Hillary Clinton is starting her run with one of those fund raising gimmicks that pretends to care about what people think. Well, while she likely won't read it, maybe someone else will, so here's my thoughts on her "2005 Critical National Issues Survey":
Of course, in the spirit of the survey, if anyone wants to donate to my cause, they're welcome to ;-)
Part 1: Ranking the Issues
1. Please rank the following issues in their order of importance to you by placing a number in each box:
4 Economy/Jobs
5 Environment
7 Social Security/Medicare
6 Education
9 Homeland Security
8 Health Care
3 Tax Cuts
2 Reproductive Rights
1 Separation of Church and State
(Note: she didn't specify whether 1 was high or low, so I assigned it high)
2. How concerned are you that President Bush is not doing enough to get Americans back to work, create more jobs, and get the economy moving again?
_ Very concerned _ Somewhat concerned X Unconcerned
Too much interference will just muck things up --- politicians, short of causing problems, really have little influence on the economy. The latest downturn, for example, was caused almost exclusively by the high-tech hyper-boom's bubble bursting, and it simply takes a while to reabsorb the after effects. We are recovering nicely however.
3. How concerned are you that the massive budget deficits caused by Republican economic and tax policies will inevitably result in drastic cuts in Social Security, Medicare and social services?
_ Very concerned X Somewhat concerned _ Unconcerned
While some safety net needs to be provided, government is spending way too much already. If you took everything being spent on these programs and divvied it up amongst the people they're supposed to be helping, it would probably do far more good with a much more direct impact.
4. How concerned are you that Administration proposals for Homeland Security underfund critically important first responders, such as firefighters, police officers, and local health agencies?
_ Very concerned _ Somewhat concerned X Unconcerned
Just where do these people think the money comes from in the first place? Local agencies like that should be funded locally. It makes no sense for people in New York to pay for Portland police and vica versa, with DC taking a cut off the top.
5. How concerned are you about ongoing Republican proposals to privatize Social Security by investing some of it in the stock market and putting the retirement of millions of Americans at risk?
_ Very concerned X Somewhat concerned _ Unconcerned
Talk about a biased question (of course they all are)... People should be able to control their own money, though there does need to be some restrictions to make sure that there actually is something there down the road. But in any case, we need to get the Social Security slush fund out of the federal budget so spendthrift administrations can hide their atrocities in it.
6. How concerned are you that the Bush Administration continues to weaken environmental laws designed to protect our air, water, and wilderness areas?
X Very concerned _ Somewhat concerned _ Unconcerned
But not to the point of turning *everything* into a wilderness area!
7. How concerned are you that social conservatives who now control the Republican Party will ultimately deny women their reproductive rights by stacking the Supreme Court and overturning Roe v. Wade?
X Very concerned _ Somewhat concerned _ Unconcerned
8. How concerned are you that our children will continue to lose teachers and classrooms because of the Bush Administration's failure to adequately fund public education?
_ Very concerned _ Somewhat concerned _ Unconcerned
These people act like the federal government is this big pot of gold that money magically comes from. Like other local services, they should be funded locally. It's just plain stupid to send money somewhere just so they can take a cut and send what's left back. The problem is that education is expensive, and people aren't willing to accept the fact that having a child incurs a responsibility to properly raise them, *including* giving them an education. As someone with no children, I'm happy to help out, but I pay enough in education taxes to pay for the entire education of 1 child. That's a hell of a lot more than just "helping out". The parents need to start anteing up the difference.
9. How concerned are you that the Administration's unilateral policies have reduced our number of allies and endangered our national security?
X Very concerned _ Somewhat concerned _ Unconcerned
This is Bush's single biggest strike against him: he's completely discredited *everything* the US used to stand for. "Truth, Justice and the American Way of Life" are completely meaningless now. For that alone, I'd not only impeach him, I'd charge him with treason.
10. How concerned are you that George W. Bush could shape the fate of the Supreme Court for decades to come?
X Very concerned _ Somewhat concerned _ Unconcerned
The radical right claims they want to put in non-activist judges that will take the Constitution literally, but at every turn, they thumb their nose at the very foundations of the Constitution. They seem to have no concept of what Freedom and Equality actually mean.
Part II: Rating the Political Parties
1. Which of the two political parties do you trust the most to protect the Social Security and Medicare benefits?
_ Democrat _ Republican
Part of the problem is this notion that there *are* only two parties. I trust neither: Democrats won't be happy until we have a 90% tax rate, and Republicans won't be happy until there is no Social Security or Medicare at all.
2. Which of the two political parties do you trust the most to protect the environment from those who would harm it for profit?
_ Democrat _ Republican
Neither: Democrats want everything to be wilderness, and Republicans want to pave it.
3. Which of the two political parties do you trust the most to get our economy moving again and to put Americans back to work?
_ Democrat _ Republican
Neither: see my earlier comment on the economy and politicians.
4. Which of the two political parties do you trust the most to protect the reproductive rights of American women?
X Democrat _ Republican
One lone spot where one actually has a supportable position.
5. Which of the two political parties do you trust the most when it comes to the education of our children?
_ Democrat _ Republican
Neither: Democrats want to turn them all into socialists and Republicans don't want them educated at all.
Part III: Expressing Opinions
1. How do you feel about President Bush's decision to deny federal funding to international family planning organizations that provide reproductive health counseling to poor women in underdeveloped countries?
_ Agree X Disagree _ Undecided
The last thing those people need is more kids. If the religious radicals think every life is so precious, let *them* go feed and raise them. Though that would probably result in another army of hypocrits who think killing is wrong, unless you're killing someone who disagrees with you.
2. Which is more important to you, more tax cuts or a balanced budget?
_ Tax cuts X A balanced budget
We *should* have both, but if they're going to spend it, pay for it, don't pass the problem on to our kids.
3. How important is it to you for Congress to find more money to extend health care to low-income Americans who can't afford health insurance?
_ Very important _ Somewhat important X Not important
People should get some basic level of care, but we can't give everyone all the most expensive treatments. There has to be a feedback mechanism so that people have the incentive to make reasonable cost/benefit decisions. We shouldn't have to be spending as much as we are on this now.