If Reagan were still alive, he would absolutely cringe at the rhetoric from the Obama campaign about "speading the wealth" and about it being "patriotic" to pay higher taxes.
Reagan correctly pointed out that this type of tax system is "Unamerican" and also understood why attempts to overtax the wealthy always fail.
My favorite part of the speech, though, is when he says that Washington is full of "gobbeldy-gook." God bless the gipper!!!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Remind You Of Anyone?
Victim: Robbers thought they were 'Robin Hood'
by Heidi Homa - Oct. 30, 2008 10:31 AM
The Arizona Republic
SCOTTSDALE - The three men who invaded and robbed the Scottsdale home of a 68-year-old man claimed the crime was "their own form of redistribution of wealth," the victim said, "sort of like Robin Hood."
The invaders beat, choked and tied up Keith Nickels and his girlfriend, 61, Tuesday.
Nickels gave this account:
He was asleep in bed at home, near 85th Street and Wethersfield Road, when he was woken at 4 a.m. by a hit in the head and in the face, while his girlfriend was being choked.
"They said, 'If you quit fighting, we'll quit hitting,'" Nickels said. "They didn't, and I didn't."
The beatings continued until he and his girlfriend eventually passed out. When they awoke, they were tied up and had pillowcases over their heads.
After the beatings, the three men were "quite cordial." They allowed his girlfriend to go to the bathroom, and they spoke to him politely on and off during the 2½ hours that the men ransacked the home.
Afterwards, Nickels and his girlfriend were placed in separate closets, with dressers leaned against the doors and against each other to form a V, to prevent them from getting out easily.
The robbers told them not to get up. They said there were cameras in the closets, but Nickels didn't believe them.
He stayed there for five minutes, pulled the pillowcase off, and used a walking stick from inside the closet to push one dresser upright and allow himself to escape.
He then yanked the dresser from in front of the other closet door, let his girlfriend out, and called 911. He also made sure to get a knife out of a nearby cabinet.
Police arrived, and Nickels and his girlfriend were transported to Scottsdale Healthcare Osborn, where their injuries were treated and they were released Tuesday evening, police said.
Nickels was bleeding all over and had 27 stitches in his forehead, eye and ear, he said.
Suspect descriptions are limited at this time, police said. However, Nickels said he thought they were young guys around 30.
"It's kind of cowardly, I think," Nickels said about the attack.
But he also feels that he was "too complacent" in his attitude. "We live in a nice part of town and thought nothing like this would ever happen here," Nickels said. "I've been here 20 years, and it's the first (invasion) in the neighborhood I've ever heard of."
Nickels is trying to make sure it doesn't happen again. He's had the locks on his home changed, as well as the garage code. He also plans to have a more sufficient security system installed that will immediately notify police if there is an invasion.
Now all he can do is try to get past the trauma.
"I think we'll be OK," he said. "It's going to take a little while."
by Heidi Homa - Oct. 30, 2008 10:31 AM
The Arizona Republic
SCOTTSDALE - The three men who invaded and robbed the Scottsdale home of a 68-year-old man claimed the crime was "their own form of redistribution of wealth," the victim said, "sort of like Robin Hood."
The invaders beat, choked and tied up Keith Nickels and his girlfriend, 61, Tuesday.
Nickels gave this account:
He was asleep in bed at home, near 85th Street and Wethersfield Road, when he was woken at 4 a.m. by a hit in the head and in the face, while his girlfriend was being choked.
"They said, 'If you quit fighting, we'll quit hitting,'" Nickels said. "They didn't, and I didn't."
The beatings continued until he and his girlfriend eventually passed out. When they awoke, they were tied up and had pillowcases over their heads.
After the beatings, the three men were "quite cordial." They allowed his girlfriend to go to the bathroom, and they spoke to him politely on and off during the 2½ hours that the men ransacked the home.
Afterwards, Nickels and his girlfriend were placed in separate closets, with dressers leaned against the doors and against each other to form a V, to prevent them from getting out easily.
The robbers told them not to get up. They said there were cameras in the closets, but Nickels didn't believe them.
He stayed there for five minutes, pulled the pillowcase off, and used a walking stick from inside the closet to push one dresser upright and allow himself to escape.
He then yanked the dresser from in front of the other closet door, let his girlfriend out, and called 911. He also made sure to get a knife out of a nearby cabinet.
Police arrived, and Nickels and his girlfriend were transported to Scottsdale Healthcare Osborn, where their injuries were treated and they were released Tuesday evening, police said.
Nickels was bleeding all over and had 27 stitches in his forehead, eye and ear, he said.
Suspect descriptions are limited at this time, police said. However, Nickels said he thought they were young guys around 30.
"It's kind of cowardly, I think," Nickels said about the attack.
But he also feels that he was "too complacent" in his attitude. "We live in a nice part of town and thought nothing like this would ever happen here," Nickels said. "I've been here 20 years, and it's the first (invasion) in the neighborhood I've ever heard of."
Nickels is trying to make sure it doesn't happen again. He's had the locks on his home changed, as well as the garage code. He also plans to have a more sufficient security system installed that will immediately notify police if there is an invasion.
Now all he can do is try to get past the trauma.
"I think we'll be OK," he said. "It's going to take a little while."
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Obama "Tax Cut" Would Be ZERO Help to U.S. Economy
By Jack Kemp and Peter Ferrara
Special to Investor's Business Daily
Barack Obama says he supports a tax cut for 95% of all Americans. He is referring here to his proposal for a $500 refundable income tax credit for all workers, except those in the top 5% of income earners.
Those folks, for some reason, are to be singled out for "special treatment"- i.e., tax increases- unless, as he recently yold ABC anchor George Stephanopoulous, "the economy remains weak."
So apparently even Obama realizes that his tax increases would be economically harmful.
Because Obama's tax credit does not reduce marginal tax rates, it will not benefit the economy. It provides NO added incentives for work, savings, investment, or business expansion.
Because it's refundable (meaning workers get it even if they have little or no income tax liability), for amny it will involve just another check from the government, rather than a reducation in tax liability. In those cases, it would not be a tax cut at all, but a transfer payment and a direct drain on tax revenues.
McCain proposes to DOUBLE the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $7,000, for all families regardless of income. For middle class workers in the 25% tax bracket, this $3,500 increase would reduce their tax liability by $875 for each child. While this tax cut also does not involve a reduction in marginal tax rates, it will promote working families with children.
But McCain also proposes marginal tax rates that DO promote economic growth and encourage investment. Because America suffers today from the second-highest corporate teax rates in the industrialized world, McCain would help restore American competitiveness by reducing the federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. This would benefit the middle class and workers by creating new jobs, at better wages, while strangthening the dollar.
It my even raise, rather than reduce, revenues. According to a 2007 study by the Treasury Department, Ireland- with a 12.5% corporate tax rate- raises alsmost 50% more revenue on a comparative basis than the United States does with a 35% rate.
McCain would also hold the top capital gains tax rate and dividend ta at 15%. Both would provide a much-needed boost for the value of stocks, which are now held by more than two-thirds of all Americans.
McCain further propooses to phase out the alternative minimum tax, which would otherwise burden 25 million middle-class families. This will save middle-class families $2,700 each year on average, an overall middle-class tax cut of $60 billion per year.
McCain's tax plan includes other provisions that would boost our economy as well, including the expensing of new investment in eqquipment, macchinery, and technology.
Obama, by contrast, has proposed to RAISE marginal tax rates for almost every federal tax- the individual income tax, the capital gains tax, the dividends tax, the death tax, etc. He would further increase corporate taxes through such measures as the windfall profits tax on oil companies.
These marginal tax rate increases would dramatically discourage savings, investment, business expansion, and job creation. Such tax increases would consequently slow the economy even further and reduce jobs and wages for working people and the middle class, while simultaneously weakening the dollar.
Republicans should promote additional middle-class tax cuts through fundamental reform of our confusing, contrdictory, and confiscatory tax code. Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin proposes to allow workers to choose a flatter tax system with a standard deduction of $25,000 for couples ($12,500 for singles), plus a personal deduction of $3,500 per family member (exempting the first $39,000 for a family of four).
A 10% tax rate would then apply to the next $100,000 for couples ($50,000 for singles), with a 25% rate above that. Currently, a 15% tax rate starts at $15,650 for couples ($7,825 for singles), with a 25% rate starting at $63,700 for couples ($31,850 for singles).
Ryan's plan, which McCain has praised, would promote a powerful economic and investment boom, while creating jobs and good wwages for millions.
Finally, the biggest middle-class tax cut of all would be allowing workers the freedom to CHOOSE personal accounts for Social Security, which McCain has also praised. These accounts would grow eventually to replace the entire payroll tax for those who choose them, with the accounts financing all the benefits now paid through the tax.
To the extent that workers make this choice, this would eliminate payroll taxes on working people and the middle class, now the highest tax they pay. Instead, working people would be paying into their own personal store of family wealth, opening up broad new vistas of opportunity.
Special to Investor's Business Daily
Barack Obama says he supports a tax cut for 95% of all Americans. He is referring here to his proposal for a $500 refundable income tax credit for all workers, except those in the top 5% of income earners.
Those folks, for some reason, are to be singled out for "special treatment"- i.e., tax increases- unless, as he recently yold ABC anchor George Stephanopoulous, "the economy remains weak."
So apparently even Obama realizes that his tax increases would be economically harmful.
Because Obama's tax credit does not reduce marginal tax rates, it will not benefit the economy. It provides NO added incentives for work, savings, investment, or business expansion.
Because it's refundable (meaning workers get it even if they have little or no income tax liability), for amny it will involve just another check from the government, rather than a reducation in tax liability. In those cases, it would not be a tax cut at all, but a transfer payment and a direct drain on tax revenues.
McCain proposes to DOUBLE the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $7,000, for all families regardless of income. For middle class workers in the 25% tax bracket, this $3,500 increase would reduce their tax liability by $875 for each child. While this tax cut also does not involve a reduction in marginal tax rates, it will promote working families with children.
But McCain also proposes marginal tax rates that DO promote economic growth and encourage investment. Because America suffers today from the second-highest corporate teax rates in the industrialized world, McCain would help restore American competitiveness by reducing the federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. This would benefit the middle class and workers by creating new jobs, at better wages, while strangthening the dollar.
It my even raise, rather than reduce, revenues. According to a 2007 study by the Treasury Department, Ireland- with a 12.5% corporate tax rate- raises alsmost 50% more revenue on a comparative basis than the United States does with a 35% rate.
McCain would also hold the top capital gains tax rate and dividend ta at 15%. Both would provide a much-needed boost for the value of stocks, which are now held by more than two-thirds of all Americans.
McCain further propooses to phase out the alternative minimum tax, which would otherwise burden 25 million middle-class families. This will save middle-class families $2,700 each year on average, an overall middle-class tax cut of $60 billion per year.
McCain's tax plan includes other provisions that would boost our economy as well, including the expensing of new investment in eqquipment, macchinery, and technology.
Obama, by contrast, has proposed to RAISE marginal tax rates for almost every federal tax- the individual income tax, the capital gains tax, the dividends tax, the death tax, etc. He would further increase corporate taxes through such measures as the windfall profits tax on oil companies.
These marginal tax rate increases would dramatically discourage savings, investment, business expansion, and job creation. Such tax increases would consequently slow the economy even further and reduce jobs and wages for working people and the middle class, while simultaneously weakening the dollar.
Republicans should promote additional middle-class tax cuts through fundamental reform of our confusing, contrdictory, and confiscatory tax code. Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin proposes to allow workers to choose a flatter tax system with a standard deduction of $25,000 for couples ($12,500 for singles), plus a personal deduction of $3,500 per family member (exempting the first $39,000 for a family of four).
A 10% tax rate would then apply to the next $100,000 for couples ($50,000 for singles), with a 25% rate above that. Currently, a 15% tax rate starts at $15,650 for couples ($7,825 for singles), with a 25% rate starting at $63,700 for couples ($31,850 for singles).
Ryan's plan, which McCain has praised, would promote a powerful economic and investment boom, while creating jobs and good wwages for millions.
Finally, the biggest middle-class tax cut of all would be allowing workers the freedom to CHOOSE personal accounts for Social Security, which McCain has also praised. These accounts would grow eventually to replace the entire payroll tax for those who choose them, with the accounts financing all the benefits now paid through the tax.
To the extent that workers make this choice, this would eliminate payroll taxes on working people and the middle class, now the highest tax they pay. Instead, working people would be paying into their own personal store of family wealth, opening up broad new vistas of opportunity.
OUR TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED: Bar Style!!!
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.
'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all.
The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.
They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.
'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all.
The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.
They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Monday, October 27, 2008
GAY vs. GAY Homophobia
This article was posted on the Log Cabin Republican website last week. I can definitely relate, especially since not only am I gay and Republican, but also gay and against same sex "marriage" rights. The hostile, nasty, and insipid reactions from so many other gays just strengthen and affirm my positions and beliefs, making it all the more necessary that the intelligent and mature voices in the gay community be heard, even when those voices are few. As I have witnessed first-hand numerous times over the past nine years, there is significantly more "homophobia" within the gay community than in mainstream society.
Here is the article:
As we enter the election's homestretch, gay and lesbian Republicans have come under intense fire from the gay community for daring to speak our minds about this campaign. Instead of arguing the merits of their candidate, too many on the left resort to name calling. Emotion replaces fact. Name calling replaces logic. In this case, those we often hear speaking about tolerance sound awfully intolerant.
Despite having the most pro-gay GOP presidential nominee in American history, we are attacked from the gay left.
Despite an history Q&A Sen. McCain did with the Washington Blade, a gay publication, we are attacked from the gay left.
Despite a campaign and a candidate who has reached out and asked for LGBT votes like no other Republican nominee before, we are attacked from the gay left.
Just check out a tiny sampling of the senseless inaccuracies filling the pages of popular, mainstream LGBT blogs and websites:
Gay conservatives "support those who would throw us all in prison.
"
- Alex Blaze, Oct.
21st, writing for the popular LGBT website the Bilerico Project
[Log Cabin Republicans'] "suicidal tendency to help a party that despises them is the pink elephant in the room.
"
- Popular gay writer Wayne Besen, in a Sept.
19th column for the Huffington Post titled "Log Cabin Republicans Should Disband"
"Gay Republicans? What about Jews for Hitler? or Blacks for the KKK?"
- Typical comment posted to the Advocate. com
It doesn't stop there. The e-mails we receive usually include the same tired stereotypes about gay and lesbian Republicans. Rarely do we receive a thoughtful analysis or critique of our work.
"It must be so painful to bear that much self-hatred, to be so ashamed of your sexuality that you would willingly sacrifice your rights in order to fit in with that...Republican party.
"
"Do you folks ever vote based on anything but your wallets?"
"F___ you a__holes. You make me sick and embarrassed that you are gay. You should be ashamed of yourself.
"
Noted gay conservative writer Dale Carpenter said it best: "It's the worst vitriol against gay conservatives I've seen in fifteen years in this movement.
"
*For your further entertainment and reading pleasure, I'll add a few silly comments that have been directed my way in recent weeks, comments which are of such deep thought and high intellect that they certainly help to advance the case for gay rights, as I'm sure you'll agree:
"You have a lot of hate and bitterness that you need to deal with man ... just like your man McInsane there ... Typical oximoran gay repugnant! YOURE AN A__HOLE!!! You are a disgrace to ANYone gay or lesbian.
Go find a woman and be done with it a__whipe!!!"
"I keep reading what you have written and I still can't believe it. You must have something wrong with you if you really think this way ... Just because you haven't had a good relationship yet in your life, doesn't mean that others haven't either OR that you won't someday.
"
Here is the article:
As we enter the election's homestretch, gay and lesbian Republicans have come under intense fire from the gay community for daring to speak our minds about this campaign. Instead of arguing the merits of their candidate, too many on the left resort to name calling. Emotion replaces fact. Name calling replaces logic. In this case, those we often hear speaking about tolerance sound awfully intolerant.
Despite having the most pro-gay GOP presidential nominee in American history, we are attacked from the gay left.
Despite an history Q&A Sen. McCain did with the Washington Blade, a gay publication, we are attacked from the gay left.
Despite a campaign and a candidate who has reached out and asked for LGBT votes like no other Republican nominee before, we are attacked from the gay left.
Just check out a tiny sampling of the senseless inaccuracies filling the pages of popular, mainstream LGBT blogs and websites:
Gay conservatives "support those who would throw us all in prison.
"
- Alex Blaze, Oct.
21st, writing for the popular LGBT website the Bilerico Project
[Log Cabin Republicans'] "suicidal tendency to help a party that despises them is the pink elephant in the room.
"
- Popular gay writer Wayne Besen, in a Sept.
19th column for the Huffington Post titled "Log Cabin Republicans Should Disband"
"Gay Republicans? What about Jews for Hitler? or Blacks for the KKK?"
- Typical comment posted to the Advocate. com
It doesn't stop there. The e-mails we receive usually include the same tired stereotypes about gay and lesbian Republicans. Rarely do we receive a thoughtful analysis or critique of our work.
"It must be so painful to bear that much self-hatred, to be so ashamed of your sexuality that you would willingly sacrifice your rights in order to fit in with that...Republican party.
"
"Do you folks ever vote based on anything but your wallets?"
"F___ you a__holes. You make me sick and embarrassed that you are gay. You should be ashamed of yourself.
"
Noted gay conservative writer Dale Carpenter said it best: "It's the worst vitriol against gay conservatives I've seen in fifteen years in this movement.
"
*For your further entertainment and reading pleasure, I'll add a few silly comments that have been directed my way in recent weeks, comments which are of such deep thought and high intellect that they certainly help to advance the case for gay rights, as I'm sure you'll agree:
"You have a lot of hate and bitterness that you need to deal with man ... just like your man McInsane there ... Typical oximoran gay repugnant! YOURE AN A__HOLE!!! You are a disgrace to ANYone gay or lesbian.
Go find a woman and be done with it a__whipe!!!"
"I keep reading what you have written and I still can't believe it. You must have something wrong with you if you really think this way ... Just because you haven't had a good relationship yet in your life, doesn't mean that others haven't either OR that you won't someday.
"
Friday, October 24, 2008
WHY THIS GAY MAN SUPPORTS PROP. 8 !!!
I'll say it very clearly:
I AM A GAY MAN, AND I OPPOSE GAY "MARRIAGE."
In fact, the very thought of it makes me cringe!
Now, promise me that before you brand me a traitor or accuse me of being a gay "Uncle Tom," at least listen to what I have to say, fair enough?
First of all, if you’re really in love with someone, why do you need a piece of paper to prove that? All it means is that when the relationship sours, your partner gets to take half of what you’ve worked so hard to earn (especially if you’re in a community property state like CA). Most of my str8 friends tell me that society is actually doing gays a favor by not allowing us to get legally married!
Regardless of how much of a hypocrite I might seem, I think that our state Supreme Court decision earlier this year was completely WRONG. I have actually read the decision in its entirety (from a legal persepctive and not a "gay" perspective) and it is filled with errors and misapplications of precedent, a clear example of overzealous judges overstepping their bounds and succumbing to cultural whims rather than using proper restraint and following the law. Californians have an opportunity on election day, as voters in a democracy (imagine that), to overturn the decision, and I sure hope that we do. Either way, there is no way the decision will stand if, heaven forbid, it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In California, same sex couples can register with the state as domestic partners and receive almost all of the benefits a legally married couple get without it actually being called marriage. Even in other states, all it takes is a visit to an attorney to draft some forms (i.e. power of attorney, living will, etc.), and it’s almost just as if you were husband and wife. When I lived in Arizona, I knew a lesbian attorney whose entire legal practice consisted of providing these services to same-sex couples.
I do not believe this relegates us to second class citizens, as long as civil unions and domestic partnerships are available. By demanding marriage rights, gays and lesbians are claiming entitlement to something that was simply never intended for them, not due to bigotry or prejudice, but rather the nature of marriage itself as an institution.
As I like to (and need to) frequently remind so many of fellow gay men, "It’s not about you!"
To compare, I am sure that a lot of str8 men would love to be allowed to go into the ladies’ restroom, but they aren’t because any ladies restroom, since its opening, was intended for ladies only. As long as the men have their own restroom, even if they would rather go into the ladies room, this certainly doesn’t make men second class citizens or constitute "separate but equal." No one would dare proffer such a silly argument. It’s just simple common sense that a ladies restroom is for ladies only, just as it is simple common sense (not "homophobia") that marriage as an institution was always intended, and should always be intended, for ONE man and ONE woman. As a gay man, this does not make me feel inferior whatsoever, in the same way that it does not make me feel inferior that I am not allowed to purchase a home in a 55+ retirement community, or be hired to model female bikinis (sorry to disappoint all of you), or have to stand in the long line everytime I go through customs at a European airport. Oh, and how DARE the manager at McDonald’s tell me I’m not allowed anymore to play in the children’s play area and jump in the ball pit. I am going to hire the ACLU and sue!
Let me clarify something: as a gay man myself, I am not "anti-gay rights." I simply do not feel the same sense of entitlement that a lot of gay men have. I am one of those folks who believes in the real American way, that gay or straight, black or white, male or female, blue eyed or brown eyed, you need to quit whining about "injustice" and pay your way in society for the rights we enjoy and that that our country has firmly stood for and fought for since its founding.
Just over two years ago, I made the bold decision that I would stop being a whiny gay man who felt entitled just because he was "different" and thought he HAD to, for reasons that I still honestly cannot articulate to this day, always be Democrat and liberal. I subscribed to these ideas for several years, and they got me absolutely nowhere, and I was nothing but unhappy and depressed almost 24/7. I decided that, even though I'm gay, there must be a better way to live my life, that I did not have to forever sit in the same miserable abyss of emptiness that so many other gays seem content with sitting in and are absolutely determined to stay in.
Once I started realizing that I was a capable and highly intelligent person with actual potential (regardless of sexual preference) and started putting the gifts God gave me to good use, I reached a point of success, personally and socially, that I could have never otherwise imagined. I realized that society is not nearly as "homophobic" as many gay people imagine. In fact, the overwhelming majority of resentment, jealousy and hate I have experienced as a gay man has come from other GAY men, not all of these "homophobic" straight folks. In fact, EVERY str8 person who was a friend of mine before I came out is still a friend of mine to this day. Even those who do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle have gone out of the way to let me know that they still like me as a person and I will always be their friend, because I am Casey first, and a gay man second. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about many gay men I have encountered in the past nine years. There are some pleasant exceptions here and there, but let me say very clearly that those exceptions are clearly the most very precious jewels in the deepest rough.
When I wake up in the morning, I am eager to start my day with a smile on my face. When I walk down Santa Monica Blvd. in West Hollywood, or Hillcrest in San Diego, or the Castro in SF, I might be the only person in the vicinity with a real smile on his face and who is proud of what he has achieved and what he stands for and who is genuinely happy and content with who he is as a person, but that's just fine with me. I can only control my own attitude and nobody else's. If all of these other gay men want to be bitter and miserable their entire lives, and deprive themselves of the happniess and fulfillment they could and would otherwise achieve, then they in the end are in reality more "homophobic" than any straight person. However, that is really beyond my control, as I can only decide my attitude and my beliefs and no one else's. Believe me, I had to resign myself to that fact a long time ago, but it sure lifted a burden from my shoulders that in hindsight, I never even needed to assume in the first place!
The bottom line is that I support Prop. 8, mainly because contrary to what many believe, it's not a gay issue at all. It's not about gays, it's about marriage as an institution and what it was always intended to stand for, and what it should always stand for. Again, Prop. 8 takes nothing away from gay people here in CA that we do not get already through domestic partnership.
I was fortunate to grow up in a household where I was raised by both a mother and a father (who believe it or not, are still together now 33 years and counting). The majority of gay men I have met since coming out in 1999 were unfortunately not afforded the experience of growing up in a good, decent, and healthy loving home (many admit they were either abused, were children of divorce, or were raised by day care centers or neighborhood babysitters rather than loving parents), so I can understand why they are so quick to "jump the gun" and dismiss the legitimacy of marriage and allow their sexual orientation do their thinking for them on this issue.
Furthermore, it has been shown time after time that pushing a gay marriage agenda has almost always eroded, not enhanced, society's support of gay people. Many who otherwise support gay rights, and believe we deserve to be treated with dignity and be free from discrimination or hate crime, all of the sudden change their tone when gays start crossing the threshold by insisting on "marriage" rights. It's a classic case of being given an inch of good intention from decent people, and exploiting and abusing it by going miles and miles beyond what was intended. The marriage issue is where people often finally draw the line and say, wait a minute, that's enough!
Personally, if a same sex couple is truly in love, why do they need a traditional and legal sacrament to prove that? Perhaps a lot of gays who think they are "in love" and have found their "life partner" have deep insecurities about whether or not the person they are with really cares about them at all, and they therefore feel that they need legal "marriage rights" from the government to continue to subsscribe to their own divorce from reality. Most gay "relationships" I have seen are based on anything but love, and are instead basically nothing more than "friends with benefits." This makes a mockery out of what a real and loving relationship entails, and society should not be forced to pretend that this resembles anything close to a genuinely committed relationship between two people that is worthy of any type of legal recognition whatsoever.
Ironically, many gay people don't realize that it is best for their own good, intended or not, that society generally looks down on the idea of "marriage" for same-sex couples. Deep down, most gays and lesbians know that, although I'll concede that few are as bold as I am to actually come out and say it. It's the big "pink elephant" in the gay community that ultimately, we can't simply dismiss and ignore, try as we might.
Regardless of your sexual orientation, I hope you'll agree with me that giving "marriage" rights to same-sex couples is a horrible idea. It's best for everyone, gay or straight, that traditional marriage is kept intact.
I AM A GAY MAN, AND I OPPOSE GAY "MARRIAGE."
In fact, the very thought of it makes me cringe!
Now, promise me that before you brand me a traitor or accuse me of being a gay "Uncle Tom," at least listen to what I have to say, fair enough?
First of all, if you’re really in love with someone, why do you need a piece of paper to prove that? All it means is that when the relationship sours, your partner gets to take half of what you’ve worked so hard to earn (especially if you’re in a community property state like CA). Most of my str8 friends tell me that society is actually doing gays a favor by not allowing us to get legally married!
Regardless of how much of a hypocrite I might seem, I think that our state Supreme Court decision earlier this year was completely WRONG. I have actually read the decision in its entirety (from a legal persepctive and not a "gay" perspective) and it is filled with errors and misapplications of precedent, a clear example of overzealous judges overstepping their bounds and succumbing to cultural whims rather than using proper restraint and following the law. Californians have an opportunity on election day, as voters in a democracy (imagine that), to overturn the decision, and I sure hope that we do. Either way, there is no way the decision will stand if, heaven forbid, it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In California, same sex couples can register with the state as domestic partners and receive almost all of the benefits a legally married couple get without it actually being called marriage. Even in other states, all it takes is a visit to an attorney to draft some forms (i.e. power of attorney, living will, etc.), and it’s almost just as if you were husband and wife. When I lived in Arizona, I knew a lesbian attorney whose entire legal practice consisted of providing these services to same-sex couples.
I do not believe this relegates us to second class citizens, as long as civil unions and domestic partnerships are available. By demanding marriage rights, gays and lesbians are claiming entitlement to something that was simply never intended for them, not due to bigotry or prejudice, but rather the nature of marriage itself as an institution.
As I like to (and need to) frequently remind so many of fellow gay men, "It’s not about you!"
To compare, I am sure that a lot of str8 men would love to be allowed to go into the ladies’ restroom, but they aren’t because any ladies restroom, since its opening, was intended for ladies only. As long as the men have their own restroom, even if they would rather go into the ladies room, this certainly doesn’t make men second class citizens or constitute "separate but equal." No one would dare proffer such a silly argument. It’s just simple common sense that a ladies restroom is for ladies only, just as it is simple common sense (not "homophobia") that marriage as an institution was always intended, and should always be intended, for ONE man and ONE woman. As a gay man, this does not make me feel inferior whatsoever, in the same way that it does not make me feel inferior that I am not allowed to purchase a home in a 55+ retirement community, or be hired to model female bikinis (sorry to disappoint all of you), or have to stand in the long line everytime I go through customs at a European airport. Oh, and how DARE the manager at McDonald’s tell me I’m not allowed anymore to play in the children’s play area and jump in the ball pit. I am going to hire the ACLU and sue!
Let me clarify something: as a gay man myself, I am not "anti-gay rights." I simply do not feel the same sense of entitlement that a lot of gay men have. I am one of those folks who believes in the real American way, that gay or straight, black or white, male or female, blue eyed or brown eyed, you need to quit whining about "injustice" and pay your way in society for the rights we enjoy and that that our country has firmly stood for and fought for since its founding.
Just over two years ago, I made the bold decision that I would stop being a whiny gay man who felt entitled just because he was "different" and thought he HAD to, for reasons that I still honestly cannot articulate to this day, always be Democrat and liberal. I subscribed to these ideas for several years, and they got me absolutely nowhere, and I was nothing but unhappy and depressed almost 24/7. I decided that, even though I'm gay, there must be a better way to live my life, that I did not have to forever sit in the same miserable abyss of emptiness that so many other gays seem content with sitting in and are absolutely determined to stay in.
Once I started realizing that I was a capable and highly intelligent person with actual potential (regardless of sexual preference) and started putting the gifts God gave me to good use, I reached a point of success, personally and socially, that I could have never otherwise imagined. I realized that society is not nearly as "homophobic" as many gay people imagine. In fact, the overwhelming majority of resentment, jealousy and hate I have experienced as a gay man has come from other GAY men, not all of these "homophobic" straight folks. In fact, EVERY str8 person who was a friend of mine before I came out is still a friend of mine to this day. Even those who do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle have gone out of the way to let me know that they still like me as a person and I will always be their friend, because I am Casey first, and a gay man second. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about many gay men I have encountered in the past nine years. There are some pleasant exceptions here and there, but let me say very clearly that those exceptions are clearly the most very precious jewels in the deepest rough.
When I wake up in the morning, I am eager to start my day with a smile on my face. When I walk down Santa Monica Blvd. in West Hollywood, or Hillcrest in San Diego, or the Castro in SF, I might be the only person in the vicinity with a real smile on his face and who is proud of what he has achieved and what he stands for and who is genuinely happy and content with who he is as a person, but that's just fine with me. I can only control my own attitude and nobody else's. If all of these other gay men want to be bitter and miserable their entire lives, and deprive themselves of the happniess and fulfillment they could and would otherwise achieve, then they in the end are in reality more "homophobic" than any straight person. However, that is really beyond my control, as I can only decide my attitude and my beliefs and no one else's. Believe me, I had to resign myself to that fact a long time ago, but it sure lifted a burden from my shoulders that in hindsight, I never even needed to assume in the first place!
The bottom line is that I support Prop. 8, mainly because contrary to what many believe, it's not a gay issue at all. It's not about gays, it's about marriage as an institution and what it was always intended to stand for, and what it should always stand for. Again, Prop. 8 takes nothing away from gay people here in CA that we do not get already through domestic partnership.
I was fortunate to grow up in a household where I was raised by both a mother and a father (who believe it or not, are still together now 33 years and counting). The majority of gay men I have met since coming out in 1999 were unfortunately not afforded the experience of growing up in a good, decent, and healthy loving home (many admit they were either abused, were children of divorce, or were raised by day care centers or neighborhood babysitters rather than loving parents), so I can understand why they are so quick to "jump the gun" and dismiss the legitimacy of marriage and allow their sexual orientation do their thinking for them on this issue.
Furthermore, it has been shown time after time that pushing a gay marriage agenda has almost always eroded, not enhanced, society's support of gay people. Many who otherwise support gay rights, and believe we deserve to be treated with dignity and be free from discrimination or hate crime, all of the sudden change their tone when gays start crossing the threshold by insisting on "marriage" rights. It's a classic case of being given an inch of good intention from decent people, and exploiting and abusing it by going miles and miles beyond what was intended. The marriage issue is where people often finally draw the line and say, wait a minute, that's enough!
Personally, if a same sex couple is truly in love, why do they need a traditional and legal sacrament to prove that? Perhaps a lot of gays who think they are "in love" and have found their "life partner" have deep insecurities about whether or not the person they are with really cares about them at all, and they therefore feel that they need legal "marriage rights" from the government to continue to subsscribe to their own divorce from reality. Most gay "relationships" I have seen are based on anything but love, and are instead basically nothing more than "friends with benefits." This makes a mockery out of what a real and loving relationship entails, and society should not be forced to pretend that this resembles anything close to a genuinely committed relationship between two people that is worthy of any type of legal recognition whatsoever.
Ironically, many gay people don't realize that it is best for their own good, intended or not, that society generally looks down on the idea of "marriage" for same-sex couples. Deep down, most gays and lesbians know that, although I'll concede that few are as bold as I am to actually come out and say it. It's the big "pink elephant" in the gay community that ultimately, we can't simply dismiss and ignore, try as we might.
Regardless of your sexual orientation, I hope you'll agree with me that giving "marriage" rights to same-sex couples is a horrible idea. It's best for everyone, gay or straight, that traditional marriage is kept intact.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Gay Marriage and Public Education
Although I support Proposition 8 (for reasons I explained in a previous blog), several recent TV ads here in California by Prop. 8 supporters have been EXTREMELY misleading, attempting to scare parents into thinking that if Prop. 8 fails, gay marriage will be taught to public school children from a very young age.
The ad features a law professor from Pepperdine University (which is just about the lowest ranked ABA law school in the state) speaking of a court case in Massachusetts in an attempt to make parents think that the public schools will be allowed to teach their children about gay marriage without notifying parents beforehand.
This approach confuses voters by suggesting that the law in California is the same as it is in Massachusetts. This is most certainly not the case. If anything, gay marriage would not be taught to CA public school students until middle school sexual education classes (and shouldn't be until this time, if at all), and California law clearly states that parents DO have the right to opt their children out of sex ed classes.
Again, I will be voting YES on Prop. 8, and you can call me a "hypocrite" or "traitor" all you want. It starting falling on deaf ears long ago, and will just affirm all the more why the ballot measure needs to be passed in the first place. At the same time however, I think the T.V. ads are very irresponsible. Proposition 8 has NOTHING to do with public education, and as I mentioned in my prior blog, it doesn't even really have anything to do with gays either.
The Prop. 8 opponents are also guilty of misleading the public by saying the measure is about "discrimination" or treating some people like "second class citizens." This is also completely false. Keep in mind that Prop. 8 would not even be on our ballot if the California Supreme Court had not overstepped its bounds in the horrible ruling it made earlier this year that was not even a court's decision to make.
The Bottom Line: Proposition 8 (as well as a similar measure on the Arizona ballot this election) is about the institution of marriage, and what it was always intended to be since its inception.
Here's an article in today's local paper that further speaks to the issue:
Nicole C. Brambila • The Desert Sun • October 23, 2008
A young girl exclaims to her mom, “Guess what I learned in school today? I learned how a prince married a prince and I can marry a princess.”
Her mother's eyes widen as a law professor at Pepperdine University says, “Think it can't happen? It's already happened.”
This is one of several Yes on Proposition 8 ads on TV and radio claiming that if the man-woman marriage measure fails on Nov. 4, students as young as kindergarten will learn about same-sex marriage.
The professor points out that a Massachusetts district judge in 2007 dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by the parents of a second-grader who read “King and King” in class without the school district providing parental notification. Massachusetts' curricula “encourage instruction for pre-kindergarten through fifth-grade students concerning different types of people and families.”
California educators, however, say the state education curricula does not address marriage. It's up to local school districts, they say.
Although the proposed amendment says nothing about public school education, it has emerged as a central issue in this hotly contested measure that has had both sides volleying charges of unfair political advertising.
“We teach the California standards, and marriage, of any kind, is not part of the California standards or required to be taught by state Education Code as the television ad states,” Palm Springs Unified Superintendent Lorri McCune said via e-mail on Wednesday.
“Passage of Proposition 8 will not change anything that is taught or not taught in our classrooms.”
Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 ballot would amend the state Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
A yes vote would reverse the state Supreme Court's 4-3 decision in May that found a ban on same-sex marriage that voters approved in 2000 unconstitutional.
Same-sex marriage is an issue that resonates with many locally as the Palm Springs area boasts one of the largest gay populations per capita in the U.S. and is renowned for its gay-friendly businesses and events.
Gays and lesbians have been legally marrying in the state and the Coachella Valley since June 17.
Tolerance lessons
Opponents of the measure say the ads are deceptive because schools already are required to teach tolerance of gays and lesbians.
To combat anti-gay discrimination, California schools have addressed topics such as gay households, homophobia and sexual orientation for years, well before the state Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal this year.
The California Teachers Association, the California School Boards Association and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell have all maintained Proposition 8 has nothing to do with public school education.
“The Yes on 8 ads are alarming and irresponsible,” O'Connell has said in statements.
“Our public schools are not required to teach about marriage. And, in fact, curriculum involving health issues is chose by local school governing board.”
Proposition 8 supporters received fodder for their claims earlier this month when a public charter school took 18 first-graders on a field trip to San Francisco City Hall, with parental permission, where their teacher and her female partner had married.
“The other side's argument is (Proposition 8) has nothing to do with education. Our argument is this has everything to do with education,” said Chip White, a Proposition 8 spokesman. “It's already happening.”
About 52,000 children are being raised by two mothers or two fathers in California, which is one of 12 states with comprehensive anti-bullying laws that apply to gay students and children with unconventional families.
The need for such awareness training was brought home to California in February, when a 15-year-old who sometimes wore feminine clothing and talked about being gay was shot to death at his Oxnard junior high school. A classmate has pleaded not guilty to murder and hate-crime charges.
The education code specifies that marriage should be discussed in sex education classes. But districts are not required to hold the classes and parents can have their children excused if the course conflicts with their moral values. Most California districts do not teach sex ed.
California gives local districts authority — and in the case of sex education, the imperative — to adopt curricula that reflect community mores while meeting certain standards.
“We teach tolerance and acceptance,” said Shari Stewart, president of the Palm Springs Unified school board.
“We don't specifically have a curriculum (regarding) sexual orientation. We only teach what's on the state test.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The ad features a law professor from Pepperdine University (which is just about the lowest ranked ABA law school in the state) speaking of a court case in Massachusetts in an attempt to make parents think that the public schools will be allowed to teach their children about gay marriage without notifying parents beforehand.
This approach confuses voters by suggesting that the law in California is the same as it is in Massachusetts. This is most certainly not the case. If anything, gay marriage would not be taught to CA public school students until middle school sexual education classes (and shouldn't be until this time, if at all), and California law clearly states that parents DO have the right to opt their children out of sex ed classes.
Again, I will be voting YES on Prop. 8, and you can call me a "hypocrite" or "traitor" all you want. It starting falling on deaf ears long ago, and will just affirm all the more why the ballot measure needs to be passed in the first place. At the same time however, I think the T.V. ads are very irresponsible. Proposition 8 has NOTHING to do with public education, and as I mentioned in my prior blog, it doesn't even really have anything to do with gays either.
The Prop. 8 opponents are also guilty of misleading the public by saying the measure is about "discrimination" or treating some people like "second class citizens." This is also completely false. Keep in mind that Prop. 8 would not even be on our ballot if the California Supreme Court had not overstepped its bounds in the horrible ruling it made earlier this year that was not even a court's decision to make.
The Bottom Line: Proposition 8 (as well as a similar measure on the Arizona ballot this election) is about the institution of marriage, and what it was always intended to be since its inception.
Here's an article in today's local paper that further speaks to the issue:
Nicole C. Brambila • The Desert Sun • October 23, 2008
A young girl exclaims to her mom, “Guess what I learned in school today? I learned how a prince married a prince and I can marry a princess.”
Her mother's eyes widen as a law professor at Pepperdine University says, “Think it can't happen? It's already happened.”
This is one of several Yes on Proposition 8 ads on TV and radio claiming that if the man-woman marriage measure fails on Nov. 4, students as young as kindergarten will learn about same-sex marriage.
The professor points out that a Massachusetts district judge in 2007 dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by the parents of a second-grader who read “King and King” in class without the school district providing parental notification. Massachusetts' curricula “encourage instruction for pre-kindergarten through fifth-grade students concerning different types of people and families.”
California educators, however, say the state education curricula does not address marriage. It's up to local school districts, they say.
Although the proposed amendment says nothing about public school education, it has emerged as a central issue in this hotly contested measure that has had both sides volleying charges of unfair political advertising.
“We teach the California standards, and marriage, of any kind, is not part of the California standards or required to be taught by state Education Code as the television ad states,” Palm Springs Unified Superintendent Lorri McCune said via e-mail on Wednesday.
“Passage of Proposition 8 will not change anything that is taught or not taught in our classrooms.”
Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 ballot would amend the state Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
A yes vote would reverse the state Supreme Court's 4-3 decision in May that found a ban on same-sex marriage that voters approved in 2000 unconstitutional.
Same-sex marriage is an issue that resonates with many locally as the Palm Springs area boasts one of the largest gay populations per capita in the U.S. and is renowned for its gay-friendly businesses and events.
Gays and lesbians have been legally marrying in the state and the Coachella Valley since June 17.
Tolerance lessons
Opponents of the measure say the ads are deceptive because schools already are required to teach tolerance of gays and lesbians.
To combat anti-gay discrimination, California schools have addressed topics such as gay households, homophobia and sexual orientation for years, well before the state Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal this year.
The California Teachers Association, the California School Boards Association and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell have all maintained Proposition 8 has nothing to do with public school education.
“The Yes on 8 ads are alarming and irresponsible,” O'Connell has said in statements.
“Our public schools are not required to teach about marriage. And, in fact, curriculum involving health issues is chose by local school governing board.”
Proposition 8 supporters received fodder for their claims earlier this month when a public charter school took 18 first-graders on a field trip to San Francisco City Hall, with parental permission, where their teacher and her female partner had married.
“The other side's argument is (Proposition 8) has nothing to do with education. Our argument is this has everything to do with education,” said Chip White, a Proposition 8 spokesman. “It's already happening.”
About 52,000 children are being raised by two mothers or two fathers in California, which is one of 12 states with comprehensive anti-bullying laws that apply to gay students and children with unconventional families.
The need for such awareness training was brought home to California in February, when a 15-year-old who sometimes wore feminine clothing and talked about being gay was shot to death at his Oxnard junior high school. A classmate has pleaded not guilty to murder and hate-crime charges.
The education code specifies that marriage should be discussed in sex education classes. But districts are not required to hold the classes and parents can have their children excused if the course conflicts with their moral values. Most California districts do not teach sex ed.
California gives local districts authority — and in the case of sex education, the imperative — to adopt curricula that reflect community mores while meeting certain standards.
“We teach tolerance and acceptance,” said Shari Stewart, president of the Palm Springs Unified school board.
“We don't specifically have a curriculum (regarding) sexual orientation. We only teach what's on the state test.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)