The Choice to Be Human

Hello friends,

In my other forums, I've been mounting support for a hero of mine who is in danger of being ousted from his position.  He is a man who has earned my respect and that of many in my community.  I won't go into the details here, as that is not the topic tonight.  Instead, I wish to address the core of my argument: we must choose the type of society in which we will live.

Many people have made logical arguments for removing this man from his post early, but most of the community holds him in high esteem.  I can see both sides, but I choose the emotional, human response.  I choose to say to the world that people are important, that past deeds earn future respect, that I appreciate what someone has done for me and my community.

At some point, we as citizens have to stand together.  We have to back our heros' plays.  The world is as cold as the people in it.  Let's warm to each other, touch each other's lives.  Let's choose to be emotional humans living in an emotional world.

Fondly yours,
MK

GOOOH Check It Out

Hello Friends,

I just learned of this organization, Get Out Of Our House, whose purported mission is to throw the professional politicians out of the House of Representatives.  The acronym is pronounced like "Go", as in "Go away, you money-grubbers that are out of touch with Americans".  Sorry- I couldn't resist.

I haven't spent much time yet digging through their website, though I did read a bit of the basic info.  Barring the discovery of some big scandal, I think this group has the right idea.  They are a non-partisan organization looking to make the House of Representatives truly representative of Americans.

I'll dig a little deeper into the organization.  I wasn't aware they were in Raleigh until it was too late to attend the meeting, but I hope to have an opportunity to speak with the group's leadership in the near future.  I'll post more as I find it, but I thought it important that each of you have a chance to check it out for yourselves.

I hope you've had a good weekend and are enjoying the Olympic games!

Until next time,
MK

Honest Politicians and Other Myths

Hello friends,

Tonight's post is a simple statement of the obvious.  We cannot rid ourselves of corrupt politicians until we rid ourselves of politicians.

We live in a country that should not even have politicians.  Politics was supposed to be a short-term civic duty that one performed as a temporary honor in addition to a separate career.  Now, we have people who decide to "go into politics" as a career.  This should not be.

My solution: term limits for all elected positions, progressional limits (meaning that you cannot simply move up the political ladder from one position to the next until you're President), campaign reform, elimination of lobbyists, and serious reductions in pay and benefits for elected positions.

No, we won't accomplish anywhere near this level of reform without a revolution; the people who have to vote for these changes are the ones who would lose power.  This might happen voluntarily once or twice in a country's history, and then it's usually only an individual that is willing, not a full congress of politicians.  Still, it's nice to dream.

Until tomorrow,
MK

I Bet We Can Find 1,000,000 People Who Support Gay Marriage

Hello Friends,

First things first, I have a little housekeeping item to discuss.  I'm giving up on the weekly schedule until I reach a point that I have regular readers.  I'll try to keep up 3 postings a week, but it's fairly difficult to do when I'm sick, as I have been lately.  I hope to one day have a cache of written but not published articles that I can schedule to post to make this easier.  In the meantime, though, I recommend clicking the "follow" button so the system will notify you when I post something new and nifty to read.

Now on with the show!  I recently joined a group on Facebook called "I bet we can find 1,000,000 people who support gay marriage."  It turns out, they were right; they did it in ten days!  I should say "we did it" since it's through the network of supporters that we accomplished this feat.  I'm personally very proud of the many people in my circle who joined, and I'm proud to be a member of a group so dedicated to equality. (Note: the attached link is to the group page, and there is a link to a survey on the left side)

In addition to the myriad of emotional appeals for equality out there, I wish to add my voice to the din.  I will not argue today on the morals, ethics or natural aspects of this issue.  I will not give some heartfelt plea for justice based on a desire for everyone to be able to marry for love.  These things touch me and I have made the arguments time and again.  Today, though, I will argue from a legal, Constitutional stance.

In America, a legal marriage is simply a contract into which two people enter that gives each member specific rights and responsibilities as a spouse.  As an example, you get the rights of succession and next of kin, but you are also responsible for debt incurred by the other party and acting as medical power of attorney.  There are very few rules regarding legal marriage, and most of them relate to whether or not you are fit to enter into any legal contract (e.g. age of consent).  Our government does not test the merit of your relationship before allowing you to enter this contract, nor does it set rules for non-governmental organizations and churches as to whom they can and cannot marry ceremonially.

Based on this background, I've heard no valid, legal arguments against allowing homosexual marriage in America.  Sure, I've heard arguments that we need to legally define marriage as between a man and a woman, but that law does not exist today nor has it gained much suppport when presented in the past.

I've heard arguments that we need the laws to "protect the sanctity of marriage", but in that instance, I would want to see laws that apply to heterosexual couples.  For example, in our country, we have the highest divorce rate in the world; our divorce rate would make some countries hide in shame, and it causes some religions to view us as a nation of careless liars who see every commitment as temporary.  Divorce is the single greatest destroyer of wealth in our country.  If we want to bring down the divorce rate, then instead of punishing a group of individuals who currently are not part of that horrific number, perhaps we should impose penalties on divorce plaintiffs (except in cases of abuse, etc).

I'm not seriously suggesting that we start punishing people for divorce.  I personally don't care what the rest of the world believes, and if you can afford a divorce and want one, I don't believe you should be forced to remain married to someone against your will.  I'm simply trying to show that banning gay marriage is not going to bring down the heterosexual divorce rate whereas other laws might prove more useful to achieve this objective.

Finally, our Constitution guarantees all Americans the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.  I know of very few people who wouldn't consider the pursuit of love, marriage and family a part of this inalienable right, and I have never seen any part of the Constitution that says "unless you're gay".  Therefore, I personally believe and pray that our courts uphold gay marriage as a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

If you have a valid legal argument against gay marriage, I would love to hear it.  I am not saying I will turn my back on what I believe to be a human rights issue, but I have issued this challenge in other forums and have yet to receive a good response.  As a former debate team captain, I love a good academic argument and welcome the challenge.  At the very least, it would help to know what we're up against.

I sincerely hope this issue can soon be put to rest, with my fellow Americans able to wed as they please.  If you are against gay marriage and have made it this far through my arguments, I give you full-credit for listening to the other side, and I'll leave you with one final thought: with the responsibilities laden on spouses and the expensive nature of divorce, are you willing to marry casually just because you're allowed?

Take care of each other,
MK

Are We All Unaffiliated?

Hello friends,

January's poll asked readers (all 6 of you!) to mark the party with which they are officially aligned.  The results were as follows:

1 Republican
1 Libertarian
6 Unaffiliated

Granted, I had no expectation of seeing many (or any) readers affiliated with the Democratic party; that's not the typical bent of my audience, though I believe the parties are more closely aligned than they seem.  I was surprised to see so many "unaffiliated" voters, though.

This prompted me to do a quick search of the voter registration websites.  23% of North Carolina's registered voters are unaffiliated.  The total breakdown is as follows:

23%  Unaffiliated
45%  Democratic
32%  Republican
.1%   Libertarian (6K voters out of 6M)

I found it fascinating that nearly a quarter of my fellow Carolinians were not connected officially to any party.  I then searched at the national level, wondering if this was high or low for our country as a whole.  Much to my surprise, the Federal Election Commission does not have, to the best of my web-searching abilities, reports on the breakdown of voters; I found that information on the Census Bureau's site.  Unfortunately, I have yet to find a national tally of registered voters by party.  Even worse, it appears some states may not maintain that information on their sites, either.

I am now on a mission.  I want to know if there are enough of us out there who don't identify with either of the major parties well enough to commit to one.  If there are enough of us out there, we stand a good chance of calling for an over-haul of the electoral process.

To whet your appetites, I'll now give you a random smattering of states:

California:    20%
Maryland:    14%
New Jersey: 46%

Given the scattered and sparse information available, it may take a little time to compile the numbers.  I'll be sure to post the results as soon as I have them.  I suspect there are many more of us out there than we realize since we're not an organized group.

Check out the new poll for February.

Until tomorrow,
MK

Amendment 15

Hello friends,

As you probably know, February is Black History Month.  What you may or may not realize, though, is that the 15th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on February 3rd, 1870, almost one year after it was proposed.  140 years ago today, our leaders chose to include all races in the participation of government by adding the following to our governing document:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

This was the first major step toward a truly equal society.  We live in one of the only countries in the world that has allowed former slaves to vote.  I don't mean former slave races; I want you to truly understand how special it was, particularly at that time, for someone who had once been a slave to have any say in government.

Because modern Americans aren't familiar with slavery in our everyday lives, we always think about slaves as "second class citizens"; they're much lower on the totem pole.  Freed slaves can often be second or third class citizens, depending on the society in which they are freed and if their former servitude is widely known.  Slaves themselves, though, often were and are considered as less than livestock.  In some places, such as Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, women hold this position and slaves can be higher or lower than them in the household heirarchy, depending on how the male of the house values them.

The point, though, is that we've forgotten how precious it is that we don't have official classes in our citizenry.  We started over a century ago with little steps, continually moving toward a racially unbiased society.  The 15th Amendment, with all its novelty that former slaves can vote, laid the groundwork for the civil rights activists of the 20th century.

140 years ago, our forefathers took emancipation one step further and stated, unequivocally, that every citizen who was otherwise qualified to vote would be allowed without regard to race.  Of course, it would be another 50 years before we recognized women as "qualified", but that's a tale for another day.

Until tomorrow,
MK