At the debate of the Republican presidential candidates, each contender stood firm in their opposition to same sex marriage. Their opposition was based on religion, tradition or both. The debate was held at St Anselm’s College, a Roman Catholic grammar school for boys (in Wirral), in Manchester, New Hampshire.
Newt Gingrich, whose sister is gay and a supporter of President Barack Obama, started the conversation by saying that there was a bias by the news media bias because they keep asking the wrong question. The media should be asking about the consequences of same sex marriage instead. Gingrich said that the recognition of a marriage goes far beyond a loving couple who want to form a long term relationship. The consequences of allowing same sex marriages are that all married couples have to be considered for adoption and other rights. Gingrich suggested that this creates an institutionalized bigotry (his word) by the federal government against organizations, like the Catholic Church, because they will not consider gay couples in the adoption process. Gingrich said, therefore, that he supports the traditional sacrament of marriage, one man and one woman, to avoid the consequences.
Mitt Romney said that recognizing same sex marriages, as has been done in New Hampshire, is a mistake. His reason is that children being raised by a male and a female are better off.
Jon Huntsman, Jr. supports civil unions of same sex couples. He does not, though, support same sex marriages. His reason is that he is a traditionalist. Marriage, Huntsman believes, should be saved for one man and one woman. He added that “reciprocal beneficiary rights” should be part of civil unions and that states should talk about the subject.
Rick Perry said that he supports the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That law, the DOMA, was struck down in part by the federal courts. Obama decided against defending the law in the courts and Perry believes that the Obama administration is at war against people of faith by deciding not to defend the law in the courts.
Rick Santorum believes that marriage is a federal issue, while adoption by same sex couples is a state issue. He believes that there needs to be one law for the entire country that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Ron Paul didn’t respond to the marriage question. He does believe that government should get out of the marriage business. Paul has said in the past that he personal believes in marriage as between one man and one woman.
As mentioned above, President Obama did decide not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In part, the act said that states don’t have to accept a marriage from other states and that marriage between same sex couples are not to enjoy the same benefits as those of one man and one woman. In the case Smelt v United States of America, the Obama administration at first defended the law, as it is the policy of the administration to defend all federal laws. But, after pressure from civil rights groups from around the country, Obama withdrew his support and reinstated his original position of asking for full repeal of DOMA.
The definition of marriage is going to be a big issue in the presidential election this fall. The concern the candidates have with marriage is adoption and partner benefits. It is their belief that a child should be raised in a home with a man and a woman, the traditional marriage arrangement. Additionally, with providing benefits to domestic partners it both cost more and provides a de facto approval of the living arrangements.
But, can anyone tell me how same sex marriage is a problem? Same sex marriage doesn’t cause harm to anyone either in the relationship or in the community, so government should not attempt to prevent it. Since being gay it is not a choice, but a biological determination, raising children in the environment is not going to brainwash more children into the gay lifestyle. The argument about costing more is a moot point. It is likely that if there weren’t same sex marriages, there would be more traditional marriages and cost just as much. Finally, to argue that as a community we should continue with one man and one women marriage just because it is tradition is nonsense. Over the last 3,000 years many things have changed and the human species is still here. In fact, we have survived and prospered because we changed when it was deemed necessary.
Civil Unions, which some candidates have suggested is to step into the equal but separate argument. In a broad acceptance of Brown v the Board of Education, separate is not equal. It is inherently unequal by the very fact that they are separate.
Marriage as a contract is something the community should recognize no matter the partners. The benefit is to allow rights and property to pass to each partner and for other legal reasons. But, to define it as only between a man and a woman makes no sense.
-----
Follow us on Facebook.
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Not a third world junta government
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has received plenty of support from the men and women in uniform. He has raised more money from those in uniform than any other Republican and as well as any Democrat. That includes President Barak Obama, the Commander in Chief.
The men and women in the military have the same rights as the rest of us on their personal time. They can donate money to political campaigns, work on elections and even go door to door in support of a political candidate. All of this according to the military code of conduct but also as granted in the Constitution and supported by any responsible community.
Cpl. Jesse Thorsen is just like any other individual that lives in the United States. That is except he is a reservist. As a reservist and in his fatigues, he was interviewed on CNN. During that interview, he endorsed Ron Paul for president. Thorsen later spoke at a rally for the presidential candidate. While he is allowed to support any candidate he wants, he just can’t do it in uniform. This rule is also part of the military code of conduct. (…and yes according to the Constitution and supported by any responsible community.)
In many countries around the world, the military commanders stand with selected candidates for office. This is their way of showing support for a political view point, a view point that is often directed by the military junta that controls the day to day activities of the government. Their appearance with candidates doesn’t support a free and open election process. Instead, it creates fear in the hearts of the voters who are being told how to vote – or else, some great harm will come their way to them and their families.
The authors of the Constitution knew in very personal terms the results of having the military stand over their shoulders when voting. Not only from what the English did to the colonist, but what was happening in Europe. That is why there are a lot of road blocks to military control. As a couple of examples, military budgets can’t be approved for more than two years and military personnel could not be quartered in private homes without permission.
Ron Paul, perhaps more than any other candidate, runs a campaign based on respect for the Constitution. In numerated and enumerated ways, the document makes it clear that the military is to stay out of elections and the civilian government. While Paul may not have been able to control the interview of Thorsen on CNN, Paul should not have allowed the corporal to speak at the rally.
Is this an oversight on Paul’s part or his campaign managers? Perhaps it is the mangers, but Paul isn’t the point. Let’s keep the military out of the elections. Unless, of course, we want to move the country in the direction of establishing Eisenhower’s military industrial complex he warned about.
-----
The men and women in the military have the same rights as the rest of us on their personal time. They can donate money to political campaigns, work on elections and even go door to door in support of a political candidate. All of this according to the military code of conduct but also as granted in the Constitution and supported by any responsible community.
Cpl. Jesse Thorsen is just like any other individual that lives in the United States. That is except he is a reservist. As a reservist and in his fatigues, he was interviewed on CNN. During that interview, he endorsed Ron Paul for president. Thorsen later spoke at a rally for the presidential candidate. While he is allowed to support any candidate he wants, he just can’t do it in uniform. This rule is also part of the military code of conduct. (…and yes according to the Constitution and supported by any responsible community.)
In many countries around the world, the military commanders stand with selected candidates for office. This is their way of showing support for a political view point, a view point that is often directed by the military junta that controls the day to day activities of the government. Their appearance with candidates doesn’t support a free and open election process. Instead, it creates fear in the hearts of the voters who are being told how to vote – or else, some great harm will come their way to them and their families.
The authors of the Constitution knew in very personal terms the results of having the military stand over their shoulders when voting. Not only from what the English did to the colonist, but what was happening in Europe. That is why there are a lot of road blocks to military control. As a couple of examples, military budgets can’t be approved for more than two years and military personnel could not be quartered in private homes without permission.
Ron Paul, perhaps more than any other candidate, runs a campaign based on respect for the Constitution. In numerated and enumerated ways, the document makes it clear that the military is to stay out of elections and the civilian government. While Paul may not have been able to control the interview of Thorsen on CNN, Paul should not have allowed the corporal to speak at the rally.
Is this an oversight on Paul’s part or his campaign managers? Perhaps it is the mangers, but Paul isn’t the point. Let’s keep the military out of the elections. Unless, of course, we want to move the country in the direction of establishing Eisenhower’s military industrial complex he warned about.
-----
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Arizona's inferior education system
Expanding the base of knowledge that all students have about history and the path we took to get to the present is part of what education is all about. If students are allowed to examine our successes and failures, they can hopefully avoid the mistakes of the past and be better prepared for the future.
This makes sense most everywhere but in Arizona. There, the state superintendent of schools, John Huppenthal, determined that the Mexican American Heritage class taught at the Tucson Unified School District violated the law under House Bill 2281. That bill makes it illegal to include courses that are designed for particular ethnic groups and promote resentment toward a race or class of people. Huppenthal as a state senator worked to get the law passed in the Arizona legislature. Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed the bill in the spring of last year just a month after signing the toughest anti-immigration law in the country. (The immigration law is now being contested by the United States attorney general and parts of it have been placed on hold by the courts.)
Besides Mexican American studies, the Tucson Unified School District offers programs on African American and Native-American studies. The programs focus on history, literature and include information about the influence the ethnic group has had on United States history and culture. As an example, the American History class includes the role of the ethnic group in major United States historical events and has courses that emphasize the group’s literature.
Every community has the responsibility of educating its young and offering continuing education to those that are in need of it. By definition, education means providing all the relevant information about the subjecting being taught. Sometimes that means teaching about the failures of the past. But, with a solid understanding of the events that lead to those failures, we can hopefully do better in the future.
Those on the right of the political spectrum often bring up the term political correctness. This term has a very board and varied definition. But, under one definition of the term, this law fits. The conservatives that currently are in charge in Arizona want to focus just on the positive aspects of the current majority culture without any discussion of its failures. By offering no challenge to the prevailing culture, we can never be sure that we are the best we can be. This is very definition of a politically correct education.
Think of it as a science course teaching about rocketry. If the course didn’t include the many times experimental rockets failed and the reasons why, each new generation would have to experience failure after failure to find the right path. But, with knowledge of the failures of the past, students can build on what works.
Arizona’s students, if the state continues on this path, will have an inferior education. When they graduate and step into the real world, they will make decisions with only part of the information needed. A set up to failure – or at least, repeating the mistakes of the past.
A Responsible Community doesn’t limit inquiry. It also doesn’t prevent the knowledge that is learned from that inquiry from being assimilated nor does it limit the challenge to the current beliefs.
Anything else has a more than likely chance of repeating the failures of the past.
Note: Thank you to Nathan Collins for bringing attention to this important story.
Also, find us on facebook with the facebook link.
-----
This makes sense most everywhere but in Arizona. There, the state superintendent of schools, John Huppenthal, determined that the Mexican American Heritage class taught at the Tucson Unified School District violated the law under House Bill 2281. That bill makes it illegal to include courses that are designed for particular ethnic groups and promote resentment toward a race or class of people. Huppenthal as a state senator worked to get the law passed in the Arizona legislature. Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed the bill in the spring of last year just a month after signing the toughest anti-immigration law in the country. (The immigration law is now being contested by the United States attorney general and parts of it have been placed on hold by the courts.)
Besides Mexican American studies, the Tucson Unified School District offers programs on African American and Native-American studies. The programs focus on history, literature and include information about the influence the ethnic group has had on United States history and culture. As an example, the American History class includes the role of the ethnic group in major United States historical events and has courses that emphasize the group’s literature.
Every community has the responsibility of educating its young and offering continuing education to those that are in need of it. By definition, education means providing all the relevant information about the subjecting being taught. Sometimes that means teaching about the failures of the past. But, with a solid understanding of the events that lead to those failures, we can hopefully do better in the future.
Those on the right of the political spectrum often bring up the term political correctness. This term has a very board and varied definition. But, under one definition of the term, this law fits. The conservatives that currently are in charge in Arizona want to focus just on the positive aspects of the current majority culture without any discussion of its failures. By offering no challenge to the prevailing culture, we can never be sure that we are the best we can be. This is very definition of a politically correct education.
Think of it as a science course teaching about rocketry. If the course didn’t include the many times experimental rockets failed and the reasons why, each new generation would have to experience failure after failure to find the right path. But, with knowledge of the failures of the past, students can build on what works.
Arizona’s students, if the state continues on this path, will have an inferior education. When they graduate and step into the real world, they will make decisions with only part of the information needed. A set up to failure – or at least, repeating the mistakes of the past.
A Responsible Community doesn’t limit inquiry. It also doesn’t prevent the knowledge that is learned from that inquiry from being assimilated nor does it limit the challenge to the current beliefs.
Anything else has a more than likely chance of repeating the failures of the past.
Note: Thank you to Nathan Collins for bringing attention to this important story.
Also, find us on facebook with the facebook link.
-----
Monday, January 2, 2012
Happy New Year
Happy New Year!
May this New Year bring you success in seeking your own personal happiness. May the privacy of your body be respected from everyone. That you can personally practice your own religion without interference. May who you love be given the same respect as anyone else in the community.
May you have the freedom to speak your mind and publish your ideas for others to consider. May you continue to have the right to join with others that share your outlook and ask that the community to address your concerns.
May you be safe in the environment. That you are safe and secure from invasion of outside forces and free of crime in your community. That government and business doesn’t intrude in your life any more than necessary. That you free to own weapons.
In this New Year, may the privacy of your home and other spaces you live and work in be as hollowed as the most sacred of places. May your personal property be free from intrusion. That if such a situation arises, that you are treated fairly by the courts and provided every opportunity to defend yourself.
As it should be, may the New Year allow you to openly inquire about all things. That you may share all that you have learned. In return, may you also have the right to openly challenge what others think so that the truth can be found.
May the community help when you have done everything possible but still find trouble. When you experience a loss of income, may the community share the responsibility in restoring your potential. That if your health is a problem, the community will be there to help.
In short, may you find that by respecting others and sharing the responsibility of the community with your neighbors, more will be accomplished than you could on your own.
-----
May this New Year bring you success in seeking your own personal happiness. May the privacy of your body be respected from everyone. That you can personally practice your own religion without interference. May who you love be given the same respect as anyone else in the community.
May you have the freedom to speak your mind and publish your ideas for others to consider. May you continue to have the right to join with others that share your outlook and ask that the community to address your concerns.
May you be safe in the environment. That you are safe and secure from invasion of outside forces and free of crime in your community. That government and business doesn’t intrude in your life any more than necessary. That you free to own weapons.
In this New Year, may the privacy of your home and other spaces you live and work in be as hollowed as the most sacred of places. May your personal property be free from intrusion. That if such a situation arises, that you are treated fairly by the courts and provided every opportunity to defend yourself.
As it should be, may the New Year allow you to openly inquire about all things. That you may share all that you have learned. In return, may you also have the right to openly challenge what others think so that the truth can be found.
May the community help when you have done everything possible but still find trouble. When you experience a loss of income, may the community share the responsibility in restoring your potential. That if your health is a problem, the community will be there to help.
In short, may you find that by respecting others and sharing the responsibility of the community with your neighbors, more will be accomplished than you could on your own.
-----
Monday, December 26, 2011
How far will we go?
The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey was sued by 12 nurses who claimed they were forced to assist on abortion procedures. They said that it was against their religion to help doctors and other hospital staff. The university did settle with the nurses before it went to court. But, the precedent is set.
When the nurses originally complained, they were re-assigned so they would not be present at the actual procedure. But, the nurses were required to help out in the pre and post procedure. Other nurses had to be hired to cover for the complaining nurses’ re-assignment.
How far will our community allow people to object to an activity because it is against their religion or personal beliefs? Most of the time, this issue comes up with abortion. There are pharmacists who refuse to provide birth control pills or the morning after drug. There are religious schools that object to having to cover abortions in their health insurance plans.
But, there are other issues as well. There are religious landlords that don’t want to rent to unmarried or same sex couples. A few days ago a post was made to this blog about a women in a department store that would not allow a transgender to use the women’s dressing room in the store because of her personal religious beliefs, this despite store policy that allowed it.
If these types of complaints and actions are given approval by our communities and court systems, there will be many more that will arise. There will be the Muslim food handler that will not serve up the blue plate special at the local dinner because it is a pulled pork sandwich. There may be Christian therapist that will refuse to counsel parents that are seeking a divorce because married couples shouldn’t get divorced.
Individuals do have the right and the responsibility to act in their own conscience. The nurses that were discussed at the opening were trained in the professional long after Roe v Wade. They knew that at some point in time they may be involved in an abortion procedure. The nurses perhaps need to find a situation where they will not be involved. When other people open up a business, like the landlord mentioned above, and seek the protection from the community, they can’t at the same time refuse services to others in the community. People get to their position in life partly out of the help of others in the community. To refuse service to those that had a hand in helping them is just wrong.
This, of course, doesn’t mean that people need to help those that are involved in an illegal act. It is the individual’s responsibility to report such activity or risk being part of the crime. But, all of the mentioned situations here are legal.
It would be easy if we lived in a completely homogeneous society and culture. Everyone would believe in the same thing and there wouldn’t be any disagreement. But, ultimately, that leads to a form of dictatorship known as Racist Nationalism. This is just what happen to Germany under the Nazis. It is also what our culture complains the most about in other countries that have a strong religious leadership and makes all the finally judgments in the community. This is just what the court system is like in Iran; the top religious leader can strike down any law passed by the parliament.
Communities were created not so that they could separate into little enclaves, but so that they may live together in mutual support. By opening the way for individuals and groups to refuse to help others because of some difference between each other, we lay the ground work to break up into sectarian and partisan communities that will become dysfunctional at best. At worst, people from one enclave will refuse to defend another creating a cycle of revenge actions that will not stop.
To live in a community means that you agree to support each other. You still have individual choice, but having choice doesn’t mean you have to refuse to help others with their choices.
-----
When the nurses originally complained, they were re-assigned so they would not be present at the actual procedure. But, the nurses were required to help out in the pre and post procedure. Other nurses had to be hired to cover for the complaining nurses’ re-assignment.
How far will our community allow people to object to an activity because it is against their religion or personal beliefs? Most of the time, this issue comes up with abortion. There are pharmacists who refuse to provide birth control pills or the morning after drug. There are religious schools that object to having to cover abortions in their health insurance plans.
But, there are other issues as well. There are religious landlords that don’t want to rent to unmarried or same sex couples. A few days ago a post was made to this blog about a women in a department store that would not allow a transgender to use the women’s dressing room in the store because of her personal religious beliefs, this despite store policy that allowed it.
If these types of complaints and actions are given approval by our communities and court systems, there will be many more that will arise. There will be the Muslim food handler that will not serve up the blue plate special at the local dinner because it is a pulled pork sandwich. There may be Christian therapist that will refuse to counsel parents that are seeking a divorce because married couples shouldn’t get divorced.
Individuals do have the right and the responsibility to act in their own conscience. The nurses that were discussed at the opening were trained in the professional long after Roe v Wade. They knew that at some point in time they may be involved in an abortion procedure. The nurses perhaps need to find a situation where they will not be involved. When other people open up a business, like the landlord mentioned above, and seek the protection from the community, they can’t at the same time refuse services to others in the community. People get to their position in life partly out of the help of others in the community. To refuse service to those that had a hand in helping them is just wrong.
This, of course, doesn’t mean that people need to help those that are involved in an illegal act. It is the individual’s responsibility to report such activity or risk being part of the crime. But, all of the mentioned situations here are legal.
It would be easy if we lived in a completely homogeneous society and culture. Everyone would believe in the same thing and there wouldn’t be any disagreement. But, ultimately, that leads to a form of dictatorship known as Racist Nationalism. This is just what happen to Germany under the Nazis. It is also what our culture complains the most about in other countries that have a strong religious leadership and makes all the finally judgments in the community. This is just what the court system is like in Iran; the top religious leader can strike down any law passed by the parliament.
Communities were created not so that they could separate into little enclaves, but so that they may live together in mutual support. By opening the way for individuals and groups to refuse to help others because of some difference between each other, we lay the ground work to break up into sectarian and partisan communities that will become dysfunctional at best. At worst, people from one enclave will refuse to defend another creating a cycle of revenge actions that will not stop.
To live in a community means that you agree to support each other. You still have individual choice, but having choice doesn’t mean you have to refuse to help others with their choices.
-----
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Gingrich's plan for the courts is dangerous
Attorneys Generals for the Bush administration calls presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s position on the courts dangerous.
Michael Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales in a recent television interview on Fox News criticized Gingrich’s idea of just making a law that prevents federal courts from ruling on things Gingrich doesn’t want them to. These are not liberals who might make automatic disparaging remarks about anything the republicans might say. These are two attorneys generals that have hard conservative credentials that were interview on a “news” network that takes hard conservative positions.
At the core of Gingrich’s position on the courts, is the idea that congress can make a law that doesn’t allow federal appellate courts or the Supreme Court to take cases on any issue that he, in agreement with congress, doesn’t want them to rule on. This would be limiting the jurisdiction of the courts that congress establishes.
One of the primary issues is abortion. Gingrich believes that this will stop the federal courts from striking down anti-abortion laws that states enact. It is Gingrich’s plan to return to the states the function of determining abortion rights without fear from the federal government. But, the rights we all enjoy, including abortion, are established in the Constitution by the Bill of Rights. The 14th amendment establishes that those rights fall under the protection of the federal government.
Congress under Article III section 2 does have the power to establish and expand a federal court system. But, Congress has limited power over the jurisdiction of the courts it establishes. Since the Constitution in the first ten amendments states that “Congress shall make no law” that takes away the rights of individuals, congress can’t take away the right of any federal court to make a judgment about federal law that may be in violation of the Bill of Rights.
If congress is given this power, there would be no check to the balance of power that congress or the president may exercise. That isn’t what the framers intended.
-----
Michael Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales in a recent television interview on Fox News criticized Gingrich’s idea of just making a law that prevents federal courts from ruling on things Gingrich doesn’t want them to. These are not liberals who might make automatic disparaging remarks about anything the republicans might say. These are two attorneys generals that have hard conservative credentials that were interview on a “news” network that takes hard conservative positions.
At the core of Gingrich’s position on the courts, is the idea that congress can make a law that doesn’t allow federal appellate courts or the Supreme Court to take cases on any issue that he, in agreement with congress, doesn’t want them to rule on. This would be limiting the jurisdiction of the courts that congress establishes.
One of the primary issues is abortion. Gingrich believes that this will stop the federal courts from striking down anti-abortion laws that states enact. It is Gingrich’s plan to return to the states the function of determining abortion rights without fear from the federal government. But, the rights we all enjoy, including abortion, are established in the Constitution by the Bill of Rights. The 14th amendment establishes that those rights fall under the protection of the federal government.
Congress under Article III section 2 does have the power to establish and expand a federal court system. But, Congress has limited power over the jurisdiction of the courts it establishes. Since the Constitution in the first ten amendments states that “Congress shall make no law” that takes away the rights of individuals, congress can’t take away the right of any federal court to make a judgment about federal law that may be in violation of the Bill of Rights.
If congress is given this power, there would be no check to the balance of power that congress or the president may exercise. That isn’t what the framers intended.
-----
Friday, December 16, 2011
Social engineering?
The Virginia Board of Social Services has voted to allow adoption and foster care agencies working on behalf of the state to discriminate against prospective parents and foster parents based on religious, political, sexual orientation and other personal beliefs and biological profiles.
What are we doing, raising the next generation of Conservative, Republican voters? Isn’t this what Germany did leading up to World War II?
81 private agencies in Virginia, like in many other states, provide social services to children and families. They are licensed and receive funds from the state to carry out their tasks. One of the tasks is to find adoptive parents and foster homes for children. 42 of the agencies are faith based.
In the past, the agencies could not discriminate based on a list of things including religion, sexual orientation, gender, family status and political beliefs. The attorneys general for Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican, advised the board that the state lacked the authority to bar private agencies from discriminating based on the issues.
The board approves each agency to operate. An agency, by definition, acts for their client, in this case the state of Virginia. The board also provides public funding for the faith based agencies to carry out their commission. If the state approves the agencies and they operate on its behalf, the agencies must follow the same rules as any other government function.
The governor of Virginia, Robert F. McDonnell, and the attorneys general are both Republican. Republican’s often argue that it is wrong to attempt any form of social engineering. That to allow discrimination in an attempt to change the cultural and social fabric of a community is wrong. Yet, this Republican administration is making an attempt to do just that. The faith based organizations will be allowed to select the family profile that fits their ideology. Assuring that the children they find homes for will be exposed to the “correct” religious, political and family make up that fits their needs.
Issues like religion, politics, sexual orientation or family status doesn’t make a good or bad parent. To allow organizations that are agents for the state to discriminate for issues that don’t make anyone a bad parent is, well, discrimination.
-----
What are we doing, raising the next generation of Conservative, Republican voters? Isn’t this what Germany did leading up to World War II?
81 private agencies in Virginia, like in many other states, provide social services to children and families. They are licensed and receive funds from the state to carry out their tasks. One of the tasks is to find adoptive parents and foster homes for children. 42 of the agencies are faith based.
In the past, the agencies could not discriminate based on a list of things including religion, sexual orientation, gender, family status and political beliefs. The attorneys general for Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican, advised the board that the state lacked the authority to bar private agencies from discriminating based on the issues.
The board approves each agency to operate. An agency, by definition, acts for their client, in this case the state of Virginia. The board also provides public funding for the faith based agencies to carry out their commission. If the state approves the agencies and they operate on its behalf, the agencies must follow the same rules as any other government function.
The governor of Virginia, Robert F. McDonnell, and the attorneys general are both Republican. Republican’s often argue that it is wrong to attempt any form of social engineering. That to allow discrimination in an attempt to change the cultural and social fabric of a community is wrong. Yet, this Republican administration is making an attempt to do just that. The faith based organizations will be allowed to select the family profile that fits their ideology. Assuring that the children they find homes for will be exposed to the “correct” religious, political and family make up that fits their needs.
Issues like religion, politics, sexual orientation or family status doesn’t make a good or bad parent. To allow organizations that are agents for the state to discriminate for issues that don’t make anyone a bad parent is, well, discrimination.
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)