Gay rights and marriage equity

The Responsible Community blog is working through the blog’s position on issues important to an equable community and comparing them to the presidential candidate positions and their respective parties.  Abortion and gun control have been reviewed in the last couple of days. 

Today’s issues are gay rights and marriage equity.  As I have asked in most every post about gay rights and marriage equality, where is the harm?

Government is tasked to protect its citizens.  That means making murder, stealing, assault and other actions like them illegal.  All those listed as well as many more not listed and the variants of each, hurt people in some way.  It can’t be shown in any way how being gay hurts anyone. 

To make it illegal for a same sex couple to get married is placing their action in the same category as those that commit one of the other crimes listed above.  There is absolutely no rationalization for it. 

Governor Romney has stated very clearly that he will not support gay marriage.  Members of the party he belongs to have tried for many years to pass a constitutional amendment that would prevent states from enacting laws that would permit marriage equity.  The party also, in the house and the senate teamed with a republican president, passed the Defense of Marriage Act (odd name for legislation that restricted marriage instead of expanding the rights of marriage to more citizens).  The courts have struck down the act, but those in supported of the act are fighting it to keep on the books.  It is believed that Romney working with his party would set back the quest for gay rights and marriage equity many years.

Obama on the other hand has come out in support of gay rights and supports marriage equity, although he said he would leave it to the states.  When the Defense of Marriage Act was declared unconstitutional by the courts, he refused to defend it, an action that let the court’s decision stand.  The house, controlled by Republicans, is now taken up arms in defense of the act. 

For gay rights and marriage equity, Obama receives the Responsible Community’s support.

Abortion should remain legal and safe

Of all the hot issues, none is more deeply passionate to people than abortion.  But, just because of the heat, it can’t be ignored. 

Abortion should remain legal and safe in America. 

In the perfect world, as I wrote in, “Body autonomy, at the core of abortion rights,” in January of this year, everyone’s rights would be given the same weight.  The reality is that it can’t be done. 

The primary focus on all rights is the concept of body autonomy.  What happens to your body is in your control.  Government and society can’t force someone to work for someone else without their permission.  To force a woman to carry to term would mean that we are assigning second class rights to a large portion of society. 

Lately, many senatorial candidates from the right have said some very strange things about abortion, pregnancy, rape and incest.  The Republican Party believes that abortion should not be allowed in almost all cases, if not all.  For the life of me, I can’t understand saying abortion is wrong, but making allowances for rape and incest.  How far is the step in logic to support abortion for rape and incest but not for failure of medication or a simple mistake?

Romney has been all over the board on the issue.  While Governor he supported a woman’s right to make the choice.  Then, he didn’t think it should be allowed in any circumstances.  Now, he is coming back to the middle.  His party, the Republicans, as stated above, is against a woman’s right to choose.  If Romney was elected president, he would be hard pressed to move against the Republican Party and his own campaign statements.

Obama on the other hand is pro-choice.  He has not waived.

Obama receives the nod for his support of body autonomy.

Gun control and the presidential candidates

Gun control is at times a hot subject in politics, but it is taking a back seat in this Presidential race.  Obama has not taken a direct and strong stand on the issue and Romney has stated that he is a strong supporter of gun rights.  But, the issue has not risen to the top even when we had a couple of big events that have come up in the last few months.

There is no doubt that the Constitution has guaranteed the right for individuals to own and carry guns.  That is true if you believe the document insured that right in a limited way through regulate state militias, or, in the most extreme unlimited way of packing heat anytime, anywhere.  A reading of the Federalist Papers and the documents collected on the debates of the Constitution do not provide any more clarity.  But, one thing is for sure, guns were a part of the frontier life of individuals at the time of the signing of the Constitution.

But, there is another thing for sure.  The Second Amendment, or any of the other amendments for that matter, where not intended to be absolute.  There are reasonable and narrow limits on all the other rights, why should the most volatile of the rights be absolute? 

The Constitution was established for many reasons, but one of the most pressing at the time was that the Articles of Confederation were not working and was not protecting people.  The leadership at the time gathered together in an effort to fix the Articles of Confederation.  But, they found it was best to create a new government.  In the new document that outlined the process of making laws, the Constitution, there were no rights guaranteed.  It was felt that if the government went too far in restricting rights to provide for the safety of the community, the elected officials would be voted out of office and the restrictions would be drawn back.  (This is the reason many at the time believed that voting was more important than all the other rights that could be listed on a piece of paper.) This process created a balance between the freedoms that individuals can practice and the responsibility of the government to protect people.

But, there is a Bill of Rights and all the amendments that have followed over the last two and half centuries.  Also, many rights that are not numerated in the amendments have been carved out to protect an individual’s rights.  These rights, numerated and un-numerated, were added to the Constitution as a base line to guide the legislature, executive and judicial branches not as a proverbial line in the sand. 

There is no argument that can be made, based on the above, that means the ownership, use and possession of guns cannot be limited as long as there is a clear and present danger if action is not taken. 

As stated in the opening, Obama has not taken a direct and strong stand on gun control and Romney made statements in support of gun rights.  Obama having not made a clear statement about his position on gun rights, at the very least, suggests he is in support of reasonable gun control.  Romney, having made his clear statement about the issue, suggests that he is not for reasonable control of guns. 

The Responsible Community supports reasonable gun controls.  The current president, Barack Obama, receives the Responsible Community’s endorsement on this hot issue.

Review of the candidates

Let’s take the next two weeks to review the candidates for President and their parties. 

As a basis, this blog is about individuals and communities.  So, the list of issues that we would compare and contrast the candidates about would be those issues that most impact individuals and the communities they live in.  A review of the blog subjects and the positions taken will provide the basis for the conclusions.

Perhaps the first issue is the candidate’s party affiliation.  It was decided to judge the candidates and their party because it is very clear in America today that the parties have taken more control of the debate on issues.  There was a time in American when those holding office in local, state and national positions were independent in their views and did not always support the party they were affiliated with.  As proof of this and with recognition of the passing of someone that crossed the aisle many times, it is important to mention the recent passing of Arlen Spector, the longtime senator from Pennsylvania.  While Republican in party he was an independent in thinking. Using his own conscience to help him decide on issues and not what the party supporters dictated.

Whoever is president, if the president’s party shares power with him, it is the party that will dictate the position on the issues and how they are addressed.  (I say him here because, unfortunately, it is only men who are running for office.) 

As I have discussed before, it is not likely that Romney will be able to stand up to the powers that support the Republican Party.  That doesn’t mean the leadership; it means those that drive the support and the money behind the party.  If the positions he has taken in the past are any indication, he is a moderate leaning to the right.  He was at one time pro-abortion; he did author the health care law in Massachusetts and did support reasonable control over guns in that state.  But, since he began running for president, he has said himself he is an arch conservative.  If Romney was a stronger man, he would have pulled his party into the middle where most of the voters in America are.  But, instead, he took the money and support of those that hold extreme views on the right.  Now, he is stuck and must continue to support his party’s extremist.

As for Obama, if he wins the election, he will be a lame duck president.  Obama will not need to watch the polls for his own good because he is unable to run again.  Knowing this, the powers of the Democratic Party will do everything they can to have him work on their behalf.  As is with Romney, Obama is a moderate but leaning to the left.  He did preside over the enactment of the health care law, is pro-abortion but has done nothing to restrict guns and other civil rights.  The leadership and supporters of the Democratic Party are left leaning.  Obama will be pulled in that direction. 

After considering the above arguments on both sides, it is believed that both Romney and Obama will be under control of their individual parties more than they should be.  Both candidates receive a pass.

Selling, teaching and building cars

Selling has been my profession for many years.  There are a lot of reasons I like sales, but one of the biggest is the possibility of commissions. The harder I work, the more people I see, the greater the possibility that the big sale will come my way. 

You might ask then, why I am against merit pay and promotions for teachers based on test scores of the children they teach?  Simple answer, the control of my client base is in my control.  Teachers don’t have that some control.  Teachers must deal with whoever is placed in front of them. 

If the prospects on my current list will never make a purchase, I find new prospects to replacement them.  If the people that are buying from me can only spend a small amount of money, I find others that can spend more money.  With some exceptions, if the geographic area that is my territory is economically depressed, I can move away from the territory.  In short, I find a client list that will purchase, that can spend lots of money and in a territory that allows a return.  I then build a long term relationship with them.

Teachers are not able to do that.  If the students in the class are not interested in learning, if they family doesn’t support the children and the community ignores them at best, the teacher can do a lot of things, but she is working against the culture.  The teacher has no control over the family life and the community the kids live in.  Finally, they only have most of the students for nine months of the year.  A new batch clears the old out each school year.  Starting over from scratch is a tough thing to do.

It is like working in a factory building cars.  The people that work in the factory are always blamed if the cars are lemons.  But, in many cases, the material that the parts are made from are bad, the parts will be defective.  The worker assembles the car the best he can, but when the parts are bad, the car will not run like it should – if at all.  Would it be appropriate to reward the workers that assemble cars made from good parts but not the workers who worked just as hard but were provided defective parts?
Don’t take any of this the wrong way.  It is not my intention to let bad teachers off the hook.  I worked with schools professionally for six years as a public relations director.  There is nothing more frustrating for administrators then teachers that don’t care and do nothing to improve their methods.  Administrations work with them for as long as they can, then find ways to get them out of the classroom. 

Every teacher should work as hard as they can to get the interest of the kids they are given and get them to learn.  Over 90% of them do just that.  But, without the control of the product, you can’t make judgments about the teacher.

Romney will not be able to control the agenda

In the last post, I suggest that Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, is not strong enough to hold back the extreme conservative agenda.  As if custom made, the Todd Akin issue offers proof of my case.  While the issue is much deeper than just Todd Atkin’s comments on Fox News, Romney was not able to get Atkin to back down for the best of the party (and the country for that matter.)

Atkin is just one of the extreme conservative representatives and senators that will be running the government if Romney wins.

Oh, and more on Atkin and the abortion issue in the next post.

More concerned with the right than with Romney

Romney’s problem with the Responsible Community isn’t so much his stance on the issues, we all know them. (well, we know them today, perhaps they will change tomorrow.)  He is against abortion, medical marijuana, wants less restrictions on guns, less restrictions on the financial industry, he will change Medicare in ways that will harm the coverage for some in the short term and many in the long and says he will do away with the health care act.

The problem is the unknowns.  If Romney wins in the fall, he will bring with him a Republican majority in the senate and the house will maintain its majority.  This will empower Romney to enact many of his proposals for the economy and the culture.

But, it will not stop there.

If Romney wins the Presidency and sweeps in Republicans, they will be controlled by the Tea Party or the extreme right.  Evidence of this is the amount of Republicans that are winning in the primaries right now that are supported by the Tea Party and other conservative groups.  Many of these individuals do not understand running on the right as a position and governing from the center.

Every extreme idea will be built into almost every piece of legislation that passes.  Even if the riders have nothing to do with the original bill.  Romney, someone who has switched positions on almost every issue, will be powerless to stop them.  Not because they will such a strong force, of which they will of course, but because he will be weak to stand up to them.  He will want to run for a second term and will need their support.

That would not be bad for those that agree with the positions that Romney holds in the first paragraph.  But, you have to ask yourself, how far right are you willing to go?