Gay Marriage

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Authorized King James Version) Chapter 1

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (Authorized King James Version) Chapter 6

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

On election day in California, many Christians will vote in favor of a state constitutional amendment that forbids homosexual and lesbian marriage. These Christians justify their abhorrence of such marriages by quoting verses from the New Testament of the The Holy Bible: Romans 1:26-27, and First Corinthians 6:9-10 (see above). "God said it," their argument goes, "so it is our Christian duty to impose our religion and its values on our fellow citizens."

Other Christians assert that God didn’t say anything of the kind. It was Paul, the inventor of the Christian religion, who said that the Kingdom of God would be denied not only to all homosexuals and lesbians, but also to thieves, fornicators, drunkards, extortioners, and the covetous. Presumably, this would include, today, many corporate executives, politicians, and clergymen.

Some Christians say that Paul was speaking for God, that God inspired Paul to create a set of beliefs and an organization to spread those beliefs to all humanity. Others say that God speaks to us all, if we would but listen, and that groups organized to spread the faith are merely political parties.

Some Christian denominations ordain women priests and ministers; others believe only men are worthy of the sacrament of ordination. Some forbid divorce, while other do not. Some believe that the Sabbath falls on Saturday; others, on Sunday. Some Christian denominations forbid birth control; one allows no sex at all. Some assert that everything in the Holy Bible is literal truth; others believe that divine revelation is possible through the study of Holy Scripture, but that divine truths are hidden in symbols, metaphors, and poetry. Some Christian denominations forbid their members to serve in any military organization, while others believe that such duty is blessed.

Several Christian denominations said that racial integration of schools was an abomination in the sight of God, and that another abomination, miscegenation, would inevitably result. Those members of those denominations ignored the mixing of white genes with black genes which had been going on since the time the first slaves were brought to North America.

Some Christian denominations condemn homosexuality and lesbianism as sins that will lead to damnation. Others ordain gays and lesbians as ministers and priests, even appointing them bishops.

In sum, Christians have been arguing among themselves—even killing each other—since Jesus sent his Apostles to the far corners of the earth to preach. When they began to debate a new Constitution for our republic, a group of Christians believed that religion had no place in the forming of states or the passing of laws. These men did not want our government to be caught in the middle of doctrinal disputes that, in England, had led to imprisonment, executions, and wars.

Nevertheless, many believers today claim that the United States is a Christian nation, and they condemn all who are not convinced by their scripture or their arguments, even other Christians. When Roman Catholics Al Smith and John F. Kennedy ran for the Presidency, they were reviled as popish anti-Christs. Recently Barak Obama was reviled as "arab" and "Muslim." When he rebutted the revilers with the fact that he is Christian, they claimed that his kind of Christianity called for the violent death of all white men.

With all the conflicting interests inherent in organized religion, why should American citizens put their state constitution in the middle of a doctrinal dispute that would hinder the very process of government itself. Why should American citizens seek to forbid their fellow citizens from enjoying the rights and privileges of one the happier conditions that the state can bestow on them—namely marriage.

And the state indeed bestows that condition; it issues official permission to marry—a marriage license—before a religious wedding can be performed. Some people are happy with a civil wedding, without a religious ceremony of any kind. I hope Christians do not seek to forbid marriage not performed by an ordained minister.

The only arguments in favor of forbidding gay and lesbian marriage are religious, and Christians maintain that gays and lesbians are promiscuous and are unfit to build strong marriages. However, my wife and I know five gay couples who have been together for periods ranging from twenty to forty years. Unlike many in my family who were married as many as three times.

Gays and lesbians pay taxes, serve in government, work for hospitals and law firms, in public relations and banking. They teach our children, nurse our sick, and feed the poor. To forbid them to marry each other makes no sense in a society that says that there will be no law establishing a religion.

Full disclosure: My wife and I are proud parents of two fine men. One is married and the father of our grandson. The other is gay with a domestic partner, as the legal relationship is called in New York City. We love them, heterosexual and gay.

We hope that Californians will vote down Proposition 8 and that soon the various states will allow gays and lesbians to marry.

Education: The Crisis That Caused Our Financial Crisis

I come to you, not as an advocate of education for education’ sake, but as one, who, like you I suppose, is troubled by the spirit of faction, by the catch-words with the explosive energy of faith behind them, by the unwillingness to live and let live with which we are plagued.
—Judge Learned Hand
"Sources of Intolerance"

Education in America has not been mentioned by either Presidential candidate in recent weeks. And that’s a shame.

On the other hand, anti-intellectualism has reached pandemic proportions in our body politic. We have lowered the status of "Citizen" to "Joe Six-Pack," the unshaven guy in a turned-around baseball cap and a T-shirt barely covering his belly bloated from too many cheeseburgers and beers. Joe Six-Pack doesn’t like strangers, particularly those who tell him facts that he doesn’t want to hear. Even when the facts included the transfer of his job to a factory in another country, he believed that unfettered capitalism was better than governmental regulation. When his pension benefits disappeared into a maze of unethical financial transactions, he blamed greedy Wall Streeters, but didn’t hold his Congressman, much less his employers, responsible. He believed his banker or finance company agent who told him not to worry about the adjustable interest rates in his mortgage contract; he could re-finance his home when the rates increased.

Why didn’t Joe Six-Pack know better? Among other reasons, his high school’s economics program didn’t teach double-entry bookkeeping; the English Department stopped teaching elitist grammar; biology teachers could not mention evolution, the History Department didn’t require him to read the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States; and the local property tax cut eliminated any expenditures for desk-top computers in the classroom. He didn’t know better because he was given a poor education.

Poor education is, in fact, the crisis that caused our financial crisis.

And what do politicians, educators, and voters say about this educational crisis? They tell us that our schools would improve if we had standardized testing, charter schools, school-tax vouchers for private schools, and even organized prayers. But when put into action, these ideas did not improve our schools. Because they had the explosive energy of faith behind them, they led us away from what American schools are supposed to produce. Namely, educated citizens.

To establish schools that produce educated citizens, we must first determine the behavior we want from graduates of our schools. Then we can develop curricula, choose textbooks, design facilities, and hire faculties—all drawing out of our students the productive actions our republic needs.

I believe the following activities identify educated citizens. If you disagree, correct my errors and omissions, discuss your ideas with your friends and elected officials, and begin the badly needed renovation of our dilapidated educational system.

What do educated citizens do?

Educated citizens decide and accept the consequences of their decisions. They earn their virtues as well as their living.

Educated citizens practice their private spiritual beliefs along with the scientific method. They read and write, analyze and synthesize data, and adjust to changes that are beyond their control. They modify accident with precedent, enrich practicality with aesthetics, and temper information with intuition.

Educated citizens protect their physical and mental health. They attend to other people’s needs, but they distinguish need from selfish desire—in others and themselves.

Educated citizens listen to others, share their thoughts and discoveries with them, and respect their aspirations and individual accomplishments. They comprehend and use complex ideas from a variety of cultures.

Educated citizens advocate equal justice for all, practice due process of law, and participate in the governmental processes of their city, state, and nation. They remember history and laugh at the weaknesses of humanity in general and at their own foibles in particular. They respect themselves, but they understand that their own ideas might be wrong.

Educated citizens know how to learn. After they finish their formal schooling, they continue to cultivate themselves in a variety of fields with a joyful, spontaneous self-education.

Such educated citizens will form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity.

However, before our schools can produce such citizens, we must exorcise the spirit of faction haunting state houses, school boards, and teachers’ organizations. We must cease our unwillingness to live and let live. If we don’t, our body politic will die and breed worms.

The Presidential Debates

The Presidential debates have been uninformative, unpersuasive, and boring. In fact, they haven’t been debates at all, just stump speeches the candidates derive from phrases on 3"x5" note cards carried onto the platform by the candidates or pre-set on the candidates' rostrum by one of their assistants. Result: no spontaneity, no substance, just abstractions and generalities.

Many politicians have tried to belittle their opponents by calling their arguments "tactics from a high-school debating society." I use the word "tried" advisedly, because as an ex-high-school debater, I remember the discipline that was required in argumentation: facts and logic, not abstractions, were acceptable to judges. I remember that post-debate "spin-doctors" were non-existent: my debate coach, Mr. Callahan, would not accept our excuses when my colleague and I lost a debate.

If more politicians used the discipline, logic and argumentation techniques taught to high-school debaters, there would be less distortion of facts, certainly less lying, and more positive political assertions that voters could evaluate before deciding whom to vote for. I think that the form and structure of a real debate, which I offer in the following paragraphs, would enliven the discourse and keep our minds cool, no matter how hot the issue is.

The following debate format is borrowed from the National Forensic League (http://www.nflonline.org/), and adapted to the limitations of a televised event.
1. The candidates would debate a question. For example, Resolved: the Federal government should support higher education through grants to colleges and universities. One candidate would debate the affirmative; the other would debate the negative.
2. The affirmative must define the terms of the resolution, and must present a plan to accomplish the goal stated in the resolution. The negative must show that resolution is faulty in concept, the plan will not work, or concede the resolution and offer a different plan.
3. The debate would last one hour with the following order of speaking:
Affirmative constructive speech lasts fifteen minutes. Cross examination by the negative for five minutes
Negative constructive speech lasts fifteen minutes. Cross examination by the affirmative for five minutes.
The negative speaks in rebuttal for ten minutes.
The affirmative speaks in rebuttal for ten minutes.

Four resolutions would be selected so that both candidates would be given two opportunities to be for a resolution, and two times against. For example, for this campaign season, the following resolutions would have been appropriate:
Resolved, the United States government should remove its military forces from Iraq.
Resolved, the United States government should eliminate all regulations that control banks and financial services.
Resolved, the United States government should provide to all American citizens the same health care and health care insurance that it provides members of the US Senate and the US House of Representatives.
Resolved, The United States should mandate the teaching of creationism in public schools.

The first topic would not be announced until two weeks before the first debate. At the end of the first debate, the topic would be announced for the second debate, which would follow in two weeks. Likewise for the third and fourth debates.

No personal attacks would be allowed, nor any questioning of the opponent’s patriotism. Candidates might refer to their opponent’s record if it were appropriate and germane to the question. If candidates digressed, whether in constructive, cross-examination, or rebuttal, they would be interrupted by the moderator and told bluntly to get back to the topic being debated. If candidates exceeded their time limit, the moderator would turn off their microphone. The candidates would have no say about the rules or the resolutions.

They have applied for the job of President of the United States and are interviewing for the position. I have never known an employer who asked a job applicant what questions should be asked at an interview, how much time the applicant should be given to answer questions, or the subjects of the questions to be asked.

This format and these rules ( there would have to be others, I am sure) would go a long way to inform and persuade voters, who are the employers. The candidates are the hired help. Wanna-be hired help.

Why I am voting Democratic this year

The Democratic Party is no more liberal than the Republican; it is now simply benefiting from not having been the party in power when we were attacked by Saudi Arabian terrorists. Terrorists who had been identified and whose plans had been intercepted. Terrorists who had been allowed to train in the US and to carry out their plans without any action by the US government.

It was not the party in power when our government’s leaders lied to us, asserting that the Saudi terrorists had been allied with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who was developing nuclear weapons. Democrats were not in power when Donald Rumsfeld declared that he knew where the weapons of mass destruction were, that American troops would be welcomed as liberators, that sales of Iraqi oil would finance the invasion, and that the conflict would be settled in six months.

Vice President Cheney warned his fellow Americans that their patriotism would be suspect if they did not support the invasion of Iraq. So, with a few notable exceptions, Democrats voted with most Republicans to authorize the President’s use of military force in Iraq. However, our forces found no weapons of mass destructions and were hated by Iraqis because we had invaded their country. Proceeds from the sales of Iraqi oil were nil.

Despite this, most Democrats voted many times to continue the funding of the conflict, at a rate of $10 billon a month.

Democrats were not the party in power when our troops started torturing prisoners of war, which was a violation of the Geneva Convention and our national honor. Most Democrats decried the lies, the torture, and immorality of the Bush administration. However, when the Democratic Party regained the majority in the House of Representatives, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi declared that impeachment proceedings against the President and Vice President were "off the table." The government of United States of America, shown to be among the worst of agressors, now hated by its former allies, and financially strapped by the waste of military personnel and material, was not going to hold anyone responsible for this debacle.

I agree with much that Ralph Nader says, but he has never been elected to a city council much less a state or national office. He has no experience satisfying his constituents and his political allies while contending with his opposition at the same time. I will not vote for him.

I will not vote for John McCain either, who supported the Bush administration for almost eight years. McCain wants to reverse Roe v Wade, wants to tax employees medical benefits as income, and advocates a tax cut for the very American corporations that have ruined our economy. He also advocated the shredding of federal business regulations, but now that our economy has virtually been destroyed by the lack of regulation, he promises to get rid of greedy Wall Street insiders and Washington lobbyists. I don’t believe him

McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, wants to replace evolution with creationism in our classrooms. She too is an opponent of abortion rights. She believes that soccer moms are the backbone of America. She never mentions working moms. I not only can't vote for her, I am disappointed that such a person would ever be selected as running mate in a national election.

So, I will vote for Democrats in the next election. They are partly responsible for the mess we are in, but the Republicans led us, gloating and sneering all the way, to our moral, political, and military bankruptcy. The people who created our problems should not be re-elected to solve them.

I hope that the Democrats replace Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Addiction to Political Categories

In politics, we are addicted to categories.

Categories are useful, but in political debate they are not sufficiently nuanced. They release us from the discipline of specifics about the subject being discussed, and they give us a rush as we romp about in generalities.

Categories can be mocked: show biz celebrities, politicians, welfare queens. Categories can be praised: reformers, teachers, patriots. In the first Presidential debate the candidates spoke in categories: Wall Street, Main Street, big governments, pundits, celebrities, hockey moms, liberals, conservatives, veterans, mortgage brokers, populists, elitists, the media, among many others. Both balked when pressed by the moderator to reveal one specific program they would eliminate in the face of the current financial crisis.

Both got away with it, because we American voters mistake political speeches for late-night entertainment. We laugh as they use categories to mock their political opposition. At the Republican Convention we heard Rudolph Giuliani, former mayor of New York City, mock big, cosmopolitan cities and praise small town values. We heard Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin mock ivy league educations and praise moose hunters. We also heard Presidential candidate John McCain praise President Ronald Reagan and mock Hollywood celebrities.

In 2002, most of us accepted President Bush’s categorizing the war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein as a war against "weapons of mass destruction" and "terrorism." We came to learn that the war—two wars, actually—was Osama bin Laden, whom our CIA trained to fight the Soviet war machine, and who has eluded our best efforts to destroy him. Most Americans accepted the category of terrorism, and we allowed our government to torture prisoners of war and deny accused citizens due process of law.

Politicians know that to get the support of the American voter, they must avoid specifics and employ "good" categories and "evil" categories. Most of us accepted the categories of free market (good) and regulation (evil); and now businesses face a disastrous credit squeeze, and workers face unemployment.

Health insurance is evil if paid for by the government, unless you are US Senators or Representatives; who do not pay one penny for their 100-percent-coverage-health insurance. Taxes are evil, so our highways, bridges and air traffic control systems are underfunded, undermanned, and technologically obsolete.

Sarah Palin and her debate coaches are skilled users of categories. During the Vice Presidential debate she told us how much she knew about our economic woes. She told us that she had talked to soccer moms and hockey moms who were suffering economic pain. Apparently, she didn’t speak to working moms who don’t have money to spend for sports equipment, team membership dues and gasoline to drive their SUVs to games. Working moms hold two or three minimum-wage jobs and have to spend their money for food, clothing and shelter.

I wish I knew a way to wean us from all the generalizations and categories in American politics. Even the terms Democrat and Republican mean very little. Some think that the name of the category "liberal" is self-defeating, and they have started calling themselves "progressive." Some former conservatives now call themselves "libertarians" or "populists."

This not new. In 1946, George Orwell wrote: "… one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language.… Political language—and with variations this is true of all political parties from Conservatives to Anarchists—is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
("Politics and the English Language," Shooting an Elephant, Harcourt Brace, 1950.)

And in the words of the late Walt Kelly, "We have met the enemy and he is us." We are grateful that politicians use these categories. Self governance is hard work and requires that we know the details of our government. But, instead of learning government statistics and the decisions and actions that led to them, we rush to learn which movie made the most money over the weekend, and how many strike-outs our favorite millionaire pitcher threw.

We are all junkies, high on money, movies and sports.