Tag: same-sex marriage

–Silly season alert: The 2 “big” election issues

With the economy still struggling, what has occupied the media lately? Gay marriage and mosque location are two examples.

The gay marriage issue is puzzling. Research says the majority of Americans disapproves of same sex marriage. But research also says the majority does approve of “civil unions” between people of the same sex. Functionally, it’s hard to see why.

The purpose of civil unions is to give gays exactly the same rights as straights, thus obeying the “equal protection” clause of the U.S. Constitution. So if civil unions must confer exactly the same rights as marriages, what’s the problem? A marriage, which can be conducted in City Hall by a Justice of the Peace, literally is a civil union. So, if the only difference between marriage and civil union is the name, why all the passion? Puzzling.

Then there is the proposed mosque near ground zero. Also puzzling. Some people say it’s insensitive to build a mosque close to the site of that terrorist action.

President Obama, who has a propensity for opining on local matters (Remember Henry Louis Gates?) said, “Let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”

He’s correct, of course, though he began to hem and haw the next day. But for argument sake, let’s say he was wrong. The question then becomes: What is the approved-sensitivity mosque distance from ground zero? 1 city block? 2 blocks? 4 blocks? 8 blocks? 5 miles? 500 miles? Nowhere in the U.S.? Nowhere?

And then, there’s the Pentagon to consider.

What’s your opinion?

Ultimately, I expect the economy to be the key election issue. Meanwhile, politicians will squirm and twist to stay on the “correct side” of every issue, no matter how silly. They believe the voting public is stupid, shallow and emotional – easily swayed by the latest “big thing.”

Are they correct?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Talking past each other

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

The proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage cannot and will not ever agree. They are talking past each other. The problem is that the issue is religious/moral for some and legal/moral for others.

Those who oppose same-sex marriage focus on what they believe to be religious/moral factors. They quote the Leviticus passage, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman.” Those who support same-sex marriage focus on what they believe to be legal/moral factors. Many laws grant special privileges to married couples, not offered to unmarrieds. This is felt to be a violation of the 14th Amendment’s, “equal protection clause.”

Although the above is something of an oversimplification, it is impossible for people to agree, when they’re arguing about two different things. More examples:

Israelis and Palestinians may disagree on some facts (“Who was here first? Who fired first?), but fundamentally, the Jews really are talking about the Holocaust and Jewish survival (“Never again”) and the Palestinians really are talking about choice and Palestinian survival (“We have nowhere else to go.”) They are talking past each other.

The pro-lifers are talking about morals (“Do not murder.”) and the pro-choicers are talking about science (“An embryo is not yet a sentient human”). They are talking past each other.

Democrats feel caring for people is good for the economy. Republicans feel caring for the economy is good for people. They are talking past each other, and when people talk past each other, they don’t hear each other.

Listen to any argument, and eventually you’ll hear the words, “Yes, but.” That’s shorthand for, “I don’t want to listen to, or even think about, what you said” (That’s the “Yes” part). “I only want you to think about what I’m about to say.” (That’s the “but” part.)

There lies deep within us, the fear that if we listen too closely, our own arguments will be demolished. So we resist listening, lest we are forced to admit we are wrong, and our world will come crashing down.

Being consciously aware of this, I make a special effort to try to listen to debt hawks’ facts. Unfortunately, their favorite word seems to be “idiot, ” often followed by “stupid,” and they never get around to offering facts I can evaluate. They focus on popular wisdom and I focus on data, so we simply talk past each other, something like the creationists and the scientists.

What’s the solution? Courage. Have the courage to see your treasured beliefs proved wrong. Have the courage to evaluate the other guy’s side. Have the courage to listen, and perhaps to come to an accommodation. Any fool can close his mind and shout louder. It takes real courage and intelligence to listen, truly listen, to the other guy’s side.

Of course, that depends on the other guy presenting a side, rather than limiting himself to telling you you’re an idiot.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity