Bush be gone
Posted on | February 25, 2004 |
Up until this week, I wasn’t sure who had my presidential vote in 2004. I still don’t, but I now know for who I’m not voting — George W. Bush.
I’ve hemmed and hawed, weighed and measured, and contrasted and compared political views among the candidates. Could I compromise my stance against national healthcare to vote for a candidate that would rid our nation of the cumbersome Patriot Act? Could I vote for a candidate that would introduce inefficiencies in the U.S. economy for the sake of a higher minimum wage and funneled monies to various economic sectors? Could I get behind a candidate that brings the U.S. into wars with seemingly weak reasoning?
Economics is very close to my heart. Honestly, economic thought generally guides my vote. I can’t stand for inefficiencies in the economy that only serve to lower productivity, destroy incentives, and contribute to lesser wealth. In general, if a candidate of any level is against free trade, I won’t vote for him or her. I will leave that part of the ballot empty if necessary. A strong economic policy is completely of paramount importance to me. But, yesterday, I came across this, and I suddenly had clarity. Economics is close to my heart, but even closer to my heart and even my soul, are the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I have grown up believing in these written works — works declaring “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” open to everyone regardless of sex, religion, race, or, I believe, sexual orientation. How can anyone propose a Constitutional amendment that would discriminate against an entire group of people? This angers, frustrates, and saddens me.
And crosses a candidate off my list.
Comments
5 Responses to “Bush be gone”
February 26th, 2004 @ 1:49 pm
What really surprises me is the great lack of compatibility between Bush’s economic platform (or the one he SAYS is his platform) and his views regarding government interference (and limitations) in very personal subjects, like sexuality.
Those things, indeed, should be the last ones to be remembered and controled, unless a great damage to society is proved, provided that government, as it should be according to the U.S. Constitution, (about which I know a bit), is not bound to any specific religion.
There are certain constitutional rules that cannot be changed, because they express the basis and limitations of constitutional power, i.e, the power to amend the constitution.
One of them, which comes from Voltaire, one of the authors whose writings were an inspiration to the american constitution, is exactly the separation of government and religion.
As he wrote, “Ecrasez L’infame”, or “Crunch the wretch”, which applied to the Catholic Church in that case, but can be said of all other religions which, whithout any logical reason, try to impose limitations to the living of millions…
March 3rd, 2004 @ 11:52 pm
(if you read nothing else read the last paragraph on the economics of this) I would like to invite the first commentor, and anyone else who comes across this, to please read the constitution and bill of rights of our country. You will find it truly enlightening to discover that there is no mention, whatsoever, about a separation of church and state. There is a single line stating that the federal government will not declare a national religion. Originally, it was to be a function of the state governments to declare a state church/religion. The hypocrisy of this should be pointed out, as the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of atheists are being forced upon our society while any hint of Christianity is being rooted out. If we do indeed have freedom of religion then why must a child be scrutinized and punished for any hint of prayer in a public (public?!?) school? But I’ll save that for another day and move on.
[constitution]States have the right to create laws that govern the morality of its people. This is why gambling, prostitution, and sodomy laws exist. This is why, in most states, you cannot buy alcohol on Sunday. The federal government does not have this inherent right. However, there is nothing in the constitution or bill of rights that would disallow the government from defining the institution of marriage.
[economics]The economics are a key point in this blog entry, so a look at this issue in those terms is critical. In a college environment, this is hard to see, but in a working environment one of the key issues is insurance. Health insurance, to be more specific. Corporations select benefits packages that are, first, economically viable and, second, meet the needs of employees. Economically viable is the key, because the norm is for the selection of a package that won’t discourage workers, but won’t interfere with the fiscal position of the firm. No matter what benefits are made available, this is a major cost to firms. These benefits carry over to spouses of employees. I’ll come back to this. First a point on health risks. Gays are at a greater risk for hiv/aids. There is a greater level of sexual promiscuity among gays than is present in the straight population, which is the greatest reason for the rampant spread of hiv through the gay community. Among gay men there is a greater risk of colon, prostate, and testicular cancers, hepatitis, anal papilloma, alcohol abuse and depression, and STD’s in general(syphilis, gonorrhea, etc.) Lesbians are afflicted with the same increased risks, except prostate and testicular cancers are replaced with vaginal cancers. The average expected life of gays is 10 years shorter than the rest of the population. These increased risks are all documented in studies by the AMA and GLMA and are available to the public. That said, lets return to the economics. When it comes to insurance, greater risk is more costly. Insurance companies will face greater costs in expanding packages to account for these increased risks. These costs will be forced upon the firms purchasing the packages. These costs will be placed upon consumers while employees are forced to settle for lower basic coverage to balance out the more extensive additions. While I may get $X now to cover the costs of an operation, I will get only a fraction of that in the future to make up for increased coverage of risks faced by homosexual employees. Insurance companies and firms will be forced to do this or risk a decline in public image and additional costs for litigation resulting from their discriminitory practices(if it is considered by state and federal governments to be a legal marriage, this will be discrimination).
[conclusion]So what are we facing? From an economic standpoint, we will see an increased cost of living and possibly a decrease personal income to make up for more costly benefit packages. You mentioned that you disagreed with national healthcare. Your personal income and your ability to improve your financial position will be hindered by tax increases to cover healthcare for the increased risks associated with a homosexual lifestyle. The proposed amendment is not discrimination; it provides a definition for the term “marriage”, a definition not needed prior to the last half-century. Besides, the benefits of marriage are intended to provide the best familial structure in which to raise a family. A marriage that consists of a man and a woman is the best structure in which to raise a child. While there are certainly exceptions, this generally holds true. And since these couples are the only ones that can naturally produce offspring, it is in the best interest of our nation and our society to make it a desirable situation. Gay couples cannot produce children unless they adopt or use an outside sperm donor, in the case of women. While one cannot assess the parental qualifications of a gay couple, think of the child. It will not have constant access to a parent of each gender, which will leave the child with a rather one-sided view of the world and an even more confused understanding of sexuality than a child with a male and female parent. To close, I would ask that you reassess. I’ve seen and heard that opinion several times and I thought I should step up to the plate at least once, and point out the larger problem.
March 6th, 2004 @ 4:42 am
“think of the child.”
What about the thousands of orphan children overseas who sit in cribs all day and are barely paid attention to? In many cases are lucky to be fed and changed. No emotional stimulation, no one to love them.
Are they better off like this or being a confused, as you say, about sexuality?
On the topic of insurance you state, “These increased risks are all documented in studies by the AMA and GLMA and are available to the public. ”
So did the AMA and GLMA do these studies on “Married” gay couples or monogamous gay couples? No. You cannot argue that point until there is data referring to gay couples.
Who is more likely to get an STD a college student or a married man or woman? Maybe we shouldn’t give a college kid insurance either.
March 14th, 2004 @ 7:35 pm
“What about the thousands of orphan children overseas who sit in cribs all day and are barely paid attention to? In many cases are lucky to be fed and changed. No emotional stimulation, no one to love them.”
This is out of scope. Yes, it is a horrible tragedy, but I can’t cover everything at once. Don’t try to argue that one bad idea is perfectly fine to let slide since it is not as bad as some other bad idea. Rationalization is a poor way to create and defend an argument.
“So did the AMA and GLMA do these studies on “Married” gay couples or monogamous gay couples? No. You cannot argue that point until there is data referring to gay couples.”
Are you suggesting that married people don’t have any sort of sexual relationship?(keep reading)
“Who is more likely to get an STD a college student or a married man or woman? Maybe we shouldn’t give a college kid insurance either.”
STD’s, with the exception of a few(primarily HIV), are not life threatening. They are simply irritating and have about as much of an effect on insurance costs as your susceptibility to allergens. I listed the following other health risks in my first post: colon, prostate(men), testicular(men), and vaginal(women) cancers, hepatitis, anal papilloma, alcohol abuse and depression. None of these are STD’s and the risk of developing them is greatly increased. All but depression and alcoholism are increased by the sexual practices of homosexuals. I’ll try to be blunt without being graphic. The reproductive systems of men and women were designed to function in a specific way. A certain amount of creativity is required when 2 members of the same gender attempt to have a sexual relationship. The systems they end up abusing have no natural means of handling this. This misuse results in physical damage of critical bodily systems and the buildup of bacteria that these systems weren’t designed to deal with. Whether it’s one person or a thousand people with whom they are having sex, they are still engaging in a very risky and physically damaging lifestyle. Translation: A democrat in office will try to enact national healthcare. Further acknowledgement of this lifestyle as a healthy and natural decision is only going to cost us and the economy more money.
March 18th, 2004 @ 9:51 am
Your reference to the studies were about gays not married couples.
I still point to the fact that these studies were not done on married gay couples.
National Healthcare will not be enacted any time soon so you can stop worrying. It is like Social Security Reform. Always something to talk about but nothing will ever be done about it.