Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details
If you ever wondered why the Palestinians don't want a state of their own, read the following piece and we believe you will understand.
Conservative Tom
Why Won't the Palestinians Accept a State?
Jonathan S. Tobin - Commentary Magazine, June 27th, 2013
Let’s assume for a moment that Secretary of State John Kerry actually succeeds in getting Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas to sit down and talk with Israel for the first time since George W. Bush was president. As I wrote earlier this week, if that happens that will be the result of American promises to back the Palestinians on various issues and probably also a pledge to put a time limit on the negotiations in order to heighten the pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Even if all that happens, most of the international media and virtually everyone in the foreign policy establishment seems to take it as a given that the primary obstacle to a deal will be Israel’s recalcitrance in making concessions. But that Netanyahu isn’t willing to deal is a myth, which is why so many in his coalition have been speaking up to talk about their opposition to a two-state solution.
As Haaretz reports today, various high level sources including a senior Cabinet minister are saying that Netanyahu is ready to give up more than 90 percent of the West Bank and evacuate “more than a few settlements” if Abbas is serious about peace deal that will truly end the conflict and give assurances about security. So the operative question for the region, as Kerry tries to pressure the parties to sit down prior to September, is whether Abbas is ready to take yes for an answer in the way that he wasn’t in 2008 when he turned down an offer of a state from Netanyahu’s predecessor Ehud Olmert.
Since few think Abbas will ever be able to sign off on any accord that recognizes the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn, it’s doubtful that Netanyahu will ever have to make good on these promises. But that hasn’t stopped right-wingers in his coalition from getting upset about the prospect of a pullback on the West Bank. But leaving aside the panic on the right, Netanyahu’s willingness to give up so much territory should focus the world on what it is exactly that the Palestinians want or are prepared to live with.
As with Netanyahu’s ground breaking 2009 speech at Bar-Ilan University where he formally embraced a two-state solution, we can expect his critics to dismiss these latest signals that his government is willing to make sacrifices for peace. We will be told that there is no point offering the Palestinians a state on terms they can’t accept.
Palestinians say they have been waiting for several decades to get a state. They could have had one in 1947 when Palestinian Arabs and the rest of the Arab and Muslim world disdained a United Nations partition plan that called for a Jewish state and an Arab one to be created in the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. Three times since 2000 they have continued to say no to offers that would have again divided the land and given them a chance for independence.
But if Abbas is again going to treat an offer of statehood that would give him more than 90 percent of the West Bank as nothing or insists on accepting nothing less than a militarized Palestinian state (something that Israel is already experiencing on its southern border in Hamas-run Gaza, which is an independent state in all but name), then we are entitled to ask why.
In speaking of taking these kinds of risks for peace, Netanyahu is going far beyond what most of his supporters think is reasonable. Yet if after all this time, the Palestinians are not willing to talk or stay at the table for more than a few days or weeks simply because they cannot get all of the West Bank or Jerusalem or even to accept demilitarization, then the world should draw conclusions about their intentions. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the obstacle to peace in the Middle East isn’t Netanyahu or Israeli settlements. It’s the hate and intransigence that drives the Palestinian political culture that makes it impossible for Abbas to ever sign a deal. Though I don’t expect most in the foreign policy establishment to acknowledge this fact, what will happen in the next couple of months is likely to reaffirm this basic fact.
Once you start selling out, your soul is lost and Marco Rubio is finished. He doesn't know it but his big mistake was to join the Gang of Eight and to make an immigration bill that stinks to high heaven with pay offs. It does not secure the border, it grants amnesty, and it does not protect the US.
It is a sad day that a bright and upcoming Senator can be so quickly bought and sold by the Washington elites.
What a sad transformation it’s been to see Senator Marco Rubio go from being a Tea Party hero to an apologist for the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill.
Back in 2010, Rubio was a handsome and articulate State Senator in Florida when he decided to run for the U.S. Senate. Doing so meant defying the Republican establishment’s hand-picked selection, then-Governor Charlie Crist.
There were two make-or-break issues in the Republican primary that year. The first was Barack Obama’s massively expensive stimulus program. Crist was so enamored of it that he actually agreed to have a photograph taken of him publicly embracing the President. We’ll never know how many votes that hug cost him, but it was a bunch.
Rubio said that counting on Federal handouts to create jobs was a huge mistake. He called instead for letting the free enterprise system work, by lowering taxes and reducing regulation. The voters made it clear which message they preferred.
The other issue that marked a sharp disagreement between the two candidates was immigration reform and, in particular, amnesty for the millions of people who were in this country illegally. Crist endorsed amnesty; Rubio, the son of immigrants from Cuba, said he was unalterably opposed to it. In speech after speech, Rubio repeated this warning in some form: If you grant amnesty in any form, you will destroy any chance we ever have of having a legal immigration system that works here in America.
It was those two stands, more than any others, that made Rubio a Tea Party favorite and led to his victory over his much more liberal opponent. Crist subsequently resigned from the Republican Party and joined the Democrats.
But since then, Rubio agreed to become one of four Republican members of the Senate’s Gang of Eight. Since two of his Republican colleagues were John McCain of Arizona and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and the Democrat members included Chuck Schumer of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, you won’t be surprised to learn that the final agreement includes amnesty.
It was also apparent that a whole lot of horse-trading was going on behind the scenes to ensure passage of the bill. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), one of the Tea Party heroes who has not abandoned his opposition to the current immigration bill, castigated the “laundry list of buyoffs” that has been made to insure a favorable vote. These include:
Diverting a chunk of the money for border security to Maine — a State that, so far as I know, has never had a problem with illegal immigrants hiking in from Canada — to win the support of Susan Collins, that State’s Senator.
Some special bequests for the seafood industry in Alaska, so that State’s two Senators, Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich, will get behind the bill.
And in one of the smelliest deals of all, a $1.5 billion jobs program, the price demanded by Vermont’s socialist Senator Bernie Sanders for his support.
All of that helps explain why Cruz said, “Rarely do we see so transparently how votes in the Senate are bought and sold.” Oh yes we have, Senator. It’s just that in the past they were called “earmarks.”
After weeks of behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing, the current immigration bill was finally made available for Senators to see last Friday afternoon. The Senate was expected to vote on some of its most important provisions just 72 hours later. Does the process remind you of the way Obamacare was rushed through Congress?
No matter. The bill was approved yesterday by a vote of 68-32, followed by a ton of self-congratulation among the victorious Senators. The measure now goes to the House of Representatives, where it will face a much tougher battle.
If there’s any lesson we’ve learned over the recent past, it’s that we can’t trust a politician’s promise. Yet that’s exactly what this current measure does when it comes to protecting our borders. It calls for beginning the legalization process now and says that border protection will follow. “Trust us on this” is the refrain.
Are they crazy?
The proposal says that the border is “secure” when it catches or keeps out 90 percent of those who try to enter the country illegally. That’s far from perfect, but it’s sure a heck of a lot better than we’ve been doing.
The question is: Who decides when that goal is achieved? The current legislation calls for the President and his minions to make that determination. We’re supposed to trust the same folks who have screwed up on so many fronts for so long. That’s ridiculous.
Instead, Congress should be the branch that determines when our border is secure. Members of the House of Representatives are a lot more accountable to the voters than any President — especially a lame duck who won’t run for office again.
What This Bill Doesn’t Do
There’s been a lot of talk about what this bill does, including all of the promises about tightening up our borders. But far more important is something it doesn’t do. In fact, it’s an issue that is almost never even mentioned in the immigration debate.
I’m referring to the absurdity of granting citizenship to each and every child who is born within our borders — no matter if the parents are here legally or not.
That’s right. It is the official policy of the U.S. government that any child, born in this country to illegal immigrants, automatically and immediately becomes a citizen of the United States.
Such infants are sometimes referred to as “anchor babies,” because their immediate and automatic citizenship is the “anchor” on which a host of other claims, from welfare to others’ citizenship, can be made.
On the face of it, this sounds patently absurd. How can a newborn baby be eligible for citizenship when his parents are not? Not merely eligible, mind you, but granted it automatically? The new citizen is immediately entitled to all the benefits that accompany citizenship: schooling, medical care, food stamps and other welfare, and a whole host of “public assistance.”
This is not how it should be. Yes, it’s true we are a Nation of immigrants. But what a difference there is between this process and what our predecessors experienced. Many of us have grandparents or great-grandparents who overcame incredible obstacles to become citizens of this country. Before they were accepted, they had to pass a rigorous and demanding test. The questions they were asked and their answers had to be in English.
As an essential part of the process, every immigrant was required to renounce allegiance to the country he had left and to swear allegiance to his newly adopted home, the United States. And every new citizen was thrilled to do so.
There was a solemn ceremony, often conducted by a judge sitting high on a bench above them, issuing the oath of allegiance. Friends and family welcomed the new citizens with flag waving, hugs and tears, and enthusiastic applause.
That is what citizenship for an immigrant used to mean — and still does, for many adults who follow the rules. But today, we are required to grant the same privileges to anyone whose mother can sneak across our border a few hours before her baby is born. That is insane. And it must be changed, if we ever hope to regain control of our immigration policies.
Rubio recognizes that many of his supporters disagree with him on immigration. A Rasmussen poll says his support among conservatives has dropped 15 percent since February.
Rubio admits it’s been difficult for him to hear “the growing anger in the voices of so many people who helped me get elected to the Senate and who I agree with on virtually every other issue.”
Rubio, there’s an easy solution here: Please come back to your base. Remember why so many of us hailed your triumph three years ago. And return to the principles that lead to your amazing victory.
As the son of (legal) immigrants and a proud Hispanic yourself, you are in a unique position to insist that first we must secure our borders. That’s our right — and our obligation. And that we must end the absurdity of granting instant citizenship to anchor babies.
If you’ll use your eloquence and enthusiasm to make sure we don’t compromise here, you’ll be doing a huge service to the country you love.
Oh, yes, there are problems in River City and the problem beings with an "O" and it ends with ObamaCrapCare. This mess of dishonest, misleading legislation is going to bankrupt the nation and if it does not do that it will decimate the health care system. It was NOT intended to work. It's only use is a transition from individually controlled health care to nationalized health care.
Don't be confused, this was the original intent. Otherwise, it would not have been underfunded (ten years of taxes for 7 years of benefits, allowance for many companies to opt out of the system, overburdening doctors offices with, if you believe the hype, millions of new patients and no new doctors, hogtying insurance companies with unrealistic claims verses benefit payment percentages and so on and so on.
Now we are starting to see the cracks develop and as the article says, this is going to be a planned "train wreck." We only hope that you and yours do not fall into the cracks that surely will develop. Remember, this all was planned.
Conservative Tom
Even with perfect implementation, ObamaCare’s a train wreck
By Hadley Heath - 06/28/13 03:00 PM ET
Every week – nearly everyday – we hear about a new “glitch” in the implementation of the president’s health law. Last week, we found out that states are behind schedule establishing “exchanges,” the regulatory bodies that will oversee the sale of insurance to people not covered by employer-sponsored plans.
But Americans should keep in mind that ObamaCare is not a good law that is being executed poorly. The real problem with implementation is that ObamaCare is a fundamentally flawed law. Moreover, the law’s creators were aware of its design flaws, but passed it anyway, hoping to fix things as they went along.
Indeed the law already has had some massive make-overs of its most egregious flaws: A paperwork-tsunami provision that would have forced businesses to file 1099 forms for other businesses (not just individuals) has been repealed. ObamaCare’s long-term care insurance program was also scrapped when bureaucrats had to admit it was financially unsound. And it took a Supreme Court case to remind Washington that states could not be forced to expand their Medicaid programs.
But many problems remain. One important design flaw was the creation of a new federal subsidy that was authorized only in states that establish their own exchanges. This puts in jeopardy the law’s functionality – from the subsidies to the taxes and mandates they trigger – in 34 states that have refused to create their own exchanges.
The restriction of subsidies to exchange-establishing states was intentional, not a “glitch.” This was one way the federal government expected to coax all states into creating exchanges. It just didn’t work, as many state lawmakers recognized that running an exchange was a raw deal: a costly endeavor without meaningful control.
While the IRS has attempted to correct this through a regulatory “interpretation,” it’s not clear that the agency has the authority to deliver these subsidies in 34 states.
When money for the law’s Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan ran out earlier this year, this was played off as another unanticipated implementation hiccup. Enrollment was cut off, denying some40,000 applicants still waiting for coverage. Yet lawmakers knew funding for this program was insufficient when passing the law. Even the CBO warned that $5 billion in funding was far too low.
Similarly, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius – who this summer has been approaching outside organizations asking for money to implement the law – admitted during a Capitol Hill hearing that she and others knew from the outset that the law was not passed with enough funding.
Could it be that lawmakers avoided properly funding the law in order to get a more favorable CBO score, so they could misrepresent the law as “deficit-neutral?” This was no glitch; this was a part of the smoke and mirrors.
Finally, anyone with an understanding of economics could see that the law’s employer and individual mandates would not work as advertised.
Employers seeking to avoid the penalties associated with the employer mandate are slashing employees’ hours to keep them from full-time status (which requires coverage or triggers the penalty). This was predictable.
ObamaCare advocates originally promised widespread decreases in premiums – $2500 on average – but now they are walking back on this promise and explaining that higher premiums are simply the price we all must pay to get more coverage (as mandated by the law). This isn’t a “glitch” either.
For some Americans, the law may actually incentivize them to become uninsured. Yes, there is a penalty for that, but the penalty is so low – especially when compared to the price of insurance – that many people could be better off waiting until sickness or catastrophe strikes to buy insurance. After all, the law’s “guaranteed issue” provision means we can buy insurance from a hospital bed, because insurers will no longer be able to take health status into account.
As healthy individuals exit insurance pools, premiums will go higher for those who remain. That’s something creators of the “Affordable” Care Act should have known.
There are many more examples of programs and provisions in the law that will no doubt be called “glitches” when they turn out badly. But each time we hear a headline about how “far fewer than expected” benefit from ObamaCare, or how the costs are “much higher than anticipated,” let’s remember that it’s not the law’s implementation that is the problem. It was a messy, dishonest legislative process that produced a terrible, fundamentally flawed law.
Heath is senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum (www.iwf.org).
The government at its very worst. The inspector general of the Office of Personnel Management has decided that the firm that did Snowden's background investigation has been misleading the government for years. In other words, how many other Snowden's are out there that have not found their way into the news?
This government malfeasance must be rooted out and destroyed. If the watchdogs are not watching the hen house, why pay for them?
Conservative Tom
Inspector General: Snowden Background Check Firm Misled Government
USIS, the federal contractor which screened National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden for top-secret clearance, has misled the government for years about how it performs background checks, federal investigators claim.
Now the inspector general of the Office of Personnel Management is working with the Justice Department to determine if USIS failed to meet agreements to conduct thorough reviews of all investigations, reports The Washington Post.
The Virginia-based company was required to conduct an initial background check for candidates for employment, and then to do a second review to make sure no details were missed. However, the inspector general found that from 2008-2011, USIS may have skipped the second review in up to half the cases, even though it claimed to federal officials the reviews were made.
The allegations are serious enough that a federal watchdog plans to recommend OPM cut all ties with USIS unless it can prove it performs responsibly.
Because USIS is the largest private provider, this could present problems for government security clearances and result in a logjam, the Post reported.
Investigators said the USIS shortcut made the company appear to be even more efficient, and may have brought the company some incentive awards.
USIS last week said it got a subpoena from the inspector general in January 2012, and "has cooperated fully with the government's investigative effort." However, it has not commented on the Snowden case.
USIS says it has 100 contracts to provide services for at least 95 federal agencies, including the departments of Justice, State, Homeland Security, and Defense, along with about a dozen intelligence agencies, including NSA and the National Reconnaissance Office.
The company checked Snowden's background in 2011, and cleared him to work at NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, the company that employed him when he obtained the agency's documents. Office of Personnel Management Inspector General Patrick McFarland said in a Congressional hearing on June 20 that he has concerns about Snowden's background check, and revealed an investigation was underway.
The concerns about background checks aren't only hitting USIS. McFarland's office reports it has 47 open investigations into several backgrounds checks providers.
Since 2006, the watchdog office has won convictions in 18 cases after employees said they verified information that turned out to be false or not checked at all, reports The Post.
"There is an alarmingly insufficient level of oversight of the federal investigative-services program," McFarland told the congressional hearing. "A lack of independent verification of the organization that conducts these important background investigations is a clear threat to national security."
Democratic Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill has claimed USIS is under a criminal probe. Her spokesman said Thursday she is standing by that statement.
Meanwhile Democratic Sen. John Tester of Montana, the chair of a Homeland Security subcommittee plans to introduce legislation to increase oversight of the security clearance process.
"I cannot believe that this is handled in such a shoddy and cavalier manner," Tester said Thursday. "We have spent hundreds of billions in this country trying to keep classified information classified and to keep people from outside coming in. And what we see here is that we have a problem from the inside."
The offer made by Edward Snowden's dad to Attorney General Holder seems a reasonable one. However, since we are not attorneys, there might be some reason the government would not accept the deal. What do you think? We would like to hear from you.
Conservative Tom
Snowden's father offers deal in letter to Holder
By Justin Sink - 06/28/13 01:03 PM ET
The father of Edward Snowden has proposed a deal to Attorney General Eric Holder that he says could convince his son to return to the United States.
Lonnie Snowden said his son, Edward, would likely come back to America if he were promised that he could remain free prior to trial, not be subjected to a gag order and be tried in a place of his choosing.
He also proposed that if those terms were violated, the government should agree to dismiss charges against Edward, a former defense contractor who admitted to leaking information about top-secret National Security Agency programs.
"With these written representations and guarantee, Mr. Snowden is reasonably confident that his son could be persuaded to surrender voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the United States to face trial," wrote Bruce Fein, the Washington attorney for Snowden's father, in the letter to Holder that wasobtained by CNN.
Edward Snowden is thought to currently be at the international terminal of the Moscow Airport, where he arrived last weekend after fleeing Hong Kong. He has reportedly requested asylum in Ecuador.
The Justice Department did not immediately return a request for comment.
Asked about Snowden on Thursday, President Obama said he would not engage in “wheeling and dealing and trading and a whole host of other issues, simply to get a guy extradited so he can face the justice system here in the United States."
Lonnie Snowden said he has not spoken to his son since April.
"I love him, I would like to have the opportunity to communicate with him. I don't want to put him in peril, but I am concerned about those who surround him," he said in an interview Friday with NBC News.
Should we get to hear from Lois Lerner, the IRS official who made a brief statement and then claimed the Fifth, we think so. Should she be given immunity for spilling the beans? We thinks so. What happens if she doesn't give up anyone, she should go to jail. What if she testifies and continues her belief that she did nothing wrong, she should go to jail.
We have so little patience for government officials who will not respond to inquiries by the oversight departments whether it be the IRS, NSA or Justice Department or the ATF. These bureaucrats have forgotten for whom they work and that their jobs depend upon us taxpayers paying their salaries. Obstructing or avoiding answers only makes us convinced they are hiding something for which we need to see.
Lois Lerner and her department abused American citizens trying to get a legitimate tax deduction. These organizations were stalled, were asked absolutely inappropriate and illegal questions in an attempt to do the right thing. She then has the gall to say that she had done nothing wrong. What BS!
Forget what we said earlier, she should be locked up and not on administrative leave. She is a criminal and should be treated as such.
Conservative Tom
By
STEPHANIE HAVEN /
CBS NEWS/June 28, 2013, 12:15 PM
House Oversight Republicans: IRS official Lois Lerner waived Fifth Amendment right
Internal Revenue Service Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner makes a statement during a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee before refusing to testify to the committee May 22, 2013 in Washington, DC. /CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY IMAGES
Embattled Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner will likely appear again at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, following a Republican-backed resolution concluding she waived her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Subpoenaed to testify on May 22, Lerner asserted her Fifth Amendment right to not answer questions after she said she didn't do "anything wrong" in overseeing the IRS' Cincinnati office in charge of 501(c)4 tax-exempt status applications, the site of the IRS targeting controversy. Lerner's admission of innocence qualified as testimony, Republican representatives said at an Oversight Committee meeting Friday.
Committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said that after talking to congressional lawyers, he concluded that she waived her right after her initial comments at the May 22 hearing.
Witnesses called to testify at congressional hearings should not be allowed to "give one side of the story and not allow themselves to be cross-examined," Issa said.
Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., interpreted her silence as a sign of disrespect.
"Lois Lerner is in fact the poster child for a federal bureaucrat thumbing her nose at Congress," Mica said. "Today's a showdown for who's in control of the government."
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., agreed that getting Lerner to testify is the only way to "get to the root" of the IRS targeting. But several members from both parties said they don't expect Lerner will answer questions if she's called to another committee hearing. If that's the case, Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., said he expects the Republicans will hold Lerner in contempt of court, which would send her before a federal judge.
Because Lerner's opening statement at the earlier Oversight Committee hearing included several assertions about her innocence, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said allowing Lerner to share her "story" - however brief - without questioning its details would be a failure to uphold the committee's constitutional duty, Gowdy said.
"She opened the door to the subject matter," Rep. Patrick Meehan, R-Pa., said.
But Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., joined other Democrats in slamming Republicans' mechanism for getting Lerner to talk.
"I believe that if we pass this resolution we are trampling on the rights of an American citizen and that trumps the rights of everything," Connolly said during the committee meeting. "If we're not about protecting the rights of American citizens what are we about here?"
Lerner has been on administrative leave from the IRS May 23, a day after she sat at the Oversight Committee Hearing. She revealed that the agency reviewed tea party tax-exempt applications with additional scrutiny on May 10. A supplemental analysis of the targeting found IRS officials also flagged some progressive organizations for additional review, though not to the sweeping extent the tea party groups were targeted.
Debate over the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decisions on Wednesday continues, with activists optimistic, yet pledging to forge on toward full equality — and with those opposed voicing their disagreement with the sentiment behind the justices’ views on the matter.
Naturally, among many of those who are frustrated over the results, there’s the traditional, religious view coloring their persuasion. In America, this is predominately a Christian theological construct that sees marriage as an institution that is thousands of years old and that has always, exclusively, belonged to heterosexuals.
Largely, this is based on the Bible and critics generally point to the text and claim that it is patently outdated (supporters, obviously, reject such a notion).
Credit: AP
In the wake of the court battles, there are some serious fears surrounding what could happen if full legalization takes hold. While some will embrace these ideals, others will certainly dub them absurd. Regardless, a debate about each element continues to unfold. Here are just five of the arguments against same-sex unions.
–
SLIPPERY SLOPE FEARS
One of the more common contentions relies upon the traditional paradigm of a relationship existing between one man and one woman. Considering that this has been the formulation for eons, gay marriage opponents hold that maintaining the status quo is essential. And here’s why: Changing the formula, in their view, opens the floodgates to any and all compositions of marriage.
While some advocates who support same-sex unions rebuff these fears, conservatives have questioned whether gay marriage legalization would also yield calls for polygamous weddings to also be legitimized. Indeed, some plural families are hoping that decriminalization of marriages that involve more that two adults will be advanced in the wake of the Supreme Court rulings.
So, to a degree, there is some legitimacy surrounding these fears — although there’s no indication that gay marriage would definitively yield other relationship forms. But some view this argument as patently ridiculous. Rolling Stone, for instance, dismissed this critique as sounding “eerily similar to the nonsensical arguments once made by racists about the dangers of interracial marriage.”
Regardless, Ryan T. Anderson, author of “What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense,” has shared concerns about this issue. A fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, Anderson has written and researched extensively on the subject of same-sex marriage. Earlier this year, he penned an article delving into the slippery slope argument, among other issues.
Watch Anderson debate the Supreme Court decisions, below:
“If the law recognized same-sex couples as spouses, would some argue that it fails to respect the equality of citizens in multiple-partner relationships? Are those inclined to such relationships being treated unjustly when their consensual romantic bonds go unrecognized, their children thereby ‘stigmatized’ and their tax filings unprivileged?,” he asked.
Noting, based on a 2009 Newsweek article, that there are over 500,000 polyamorous households in the U.S., the ramifications, he argues, are paramount to consider. Using one of the common arguments that those supporting gay marriage tout, Anderson attempted to address critics of conservatives:
Supporters of redefinition use the following analogy: Laws defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman are unjust—fail to treat people equally—exactly like laws that prevented interracial marriage. Yet such appeals beg the question of what is essential to marriage. They assume exactly what is in dispute: that gender is as irrelevant as race in state recognition of marriage. However, race has nothing to with marriage, and racist laws kept the races apart. Marriage has everything to do with men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers and children, and that is why principle-based policy has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
One of the more intriguing elements associated with the public’s shift in opinion on gay marriage is the extent to which perceptions have shifted. While traditional views were once par for the course, it seems they are now in the minority — at least statistically — when it comes to the same-sex marriage issue. Naturally, some are wondering how free speech and, in particular, religious liberty, will be impacted if gay marriage becomes the law of the land.
Churches — the majority of which oppose gay marriage and would not be willing to join same-sex couples in wedding ceremonies — are non-profit organizations, which means that they are registered as 501(c)(3) organizations with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Credit: AP
Generally, churches are free to make their own decisions when it comes to employment and they are granted the right to hire and fire based on religious grounds (an exception when compared to other groups registered with the government).
But what happens if they refuse to perform marriages? For now, nothing. But some fear that the future trajectory could change the religious liberty dynamic.
Redefining marriage marginalizes those with traditional views and leads to the erosion of religious liberty. The law and culture will seek to eradicate such views through economic, social, and legal pressure. If marriage is redefined, believing what virtually every human society once believed about marriage—a union of a man and woman ordered to procreation and family life—would be seen increasingly as a malicious prejudice to be driven to the margins of culture. The consequences for religious believers are becoming apparent.
The administrative state may require those who contract with the government, receive governmental monies, or work directly for the state to embrace and promote same-sex marriage even if it violates their religious beliefs. Nondiscrimination law may make even private actors with no legal or financial ties to the government—including businesses and religious organizations—liable to civil suits for refusing to treat same-sex relationships as marriages. Finally, private actors in a culture that is now hostile to traditional views of marriage may discipline, fire, or deny professional certification to those who express support for traditional marriage.
Business owners, too, have encountered religious liberty issues. Take, for instance, the Oregon-based Sweet Cakes by Melissa, a Christian-operated bakery that refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding. Today, they are facing a battle with activists — one that could lead to the business’ closure.
Of course, there’s a difference between businesses and churches (at least legally) making these decisions, but the issue of religious liberty is, of course, at stake. Fear of the unknown certainly continues to keep religious liberty proponents on their toes, especially after the contraceptive mandate ended up creating such a furor among religiously-owned organizations.
THE IMPORTANCE OF MOTHERS AND FATHERS
Gay marriage critics generally uphold the role of a mother and father in shaping a child’s life. In today’s world, though, with so many single-family households and with the divorce rate high, many families lack this structure. Nonetheless, Anderson, among his other arguments, believes that a marriage redefinition that included same-sex couples would further disassociate childbearing from marriage.
In the end, he believes this dynamic would hurt children.
“It would deny as a matter of policy the ideal that children need a mother and a father,” he wrote earlier this year. “Traditional marriage laws reinforce the idea that a married mother and father is the most appropriate environment for rearing children, as the best available social science suggests.”
Certainly, some would agree with Anderson, but then there are also people who argue that a loving home is all a child needs, regardless of the sex of the parents. His point, though, is that interchanging the importance of mothers and fathers and acting as though both are the same has some sociological pitfalls.
A man dressed as Jesus attends a rally celebrating the Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage, June 26, 2013 in West Hollywood California. The US Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a controversial federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and also ruled that Proposition 8, California’s ban on gay marriage, could not be defended before the Supreme Court, paving the way for the resumption of gay marriages in California. Credit: AFP/Getty Images
There has been research in the past that corroborates this theory. Last year, as TheBlaze previously reported, a study published in the journal ”Social Science Research” tackled this very ideal, finding that there are, indeed, major differences worth noting. These purported discrepancies exist in the areas of social, emotional and relationship measures, Deseret News reported at the time.
The study, which is bound to be controversial, found lower reported income levels, poorer mental and physical health and more problematic romantic relationships, among adults who came from same-sex homes. Among 40 measures, there were 25 differences observed among this cohort when compared to kids who were raised in heterosexual households. Deseret continues:
The research does not address why the differences exist. It doesn’t predict if changing attitudes that are more accepting of same-sex relationships will mean that children growing up today with same-sex parents will one day fare better in similar analysis. It doesn’t address stigma or whether the difference is not the sexual preference of the parents but rather how stable the home life was, lead investigator Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at University of Texas Austin’s Population Research Center, told the Deseret News.
“Nor does the study tell us that same-sex parents are necessarily bad parents,” he said in a written statement. “Rather, family forms that are associated with instability or non-biological parents tend to pose risks for children as they age into adulthood.”
His study does challenge long-held assertions that there are no outcome differences between children raised in intact biological families and those with same-sex parents.
The sample sizes in the aforementioned study, though, were small and could, thus, impact the results. And other studies have found the opposite — and that, on some indicators, same-sex couples’ children have experienced benefits from their households that exceed those of straight couples’ kids.
Plus, the American Psychological Association (APA) has rejected claims that children are impacted in negative ways by same-sex parents. The group argues that there is no difference between outcomes and success among children raised in gay households versus those brought up in straight homes.
“On the basis of a remarkably consistent body of research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, the American Psychological Association (APA) and other health professional and scientific organizations have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation,” a statement reads on the group’s website. “That is, lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.”
Clearly, the debate continues on this front.
The Weakening of Marital Components
Anderson also argues that changing the marital formula to remove the essential male-female paradigm would also dislodge other important characteristics of healthy matrimony. He argues that, “Redefining marriage would weaken monogamy, exclusivity, and permanency—the norms through which marriage benefits society.”
Because same-sex marriage makes the opposite-sex formula optional, Anderson believes that the other aforementioned characteristics would also be treated in the same regard. He adds, “Weakening marital norms and severing the connection of marriage with responsible procreation are the admitted goals of many prominent advocates of redefining marriage.”
The notion, essentially, is that by dismantling the centerpiece of marriage (heterosexuality), all other elements would, in turn, be loosened and weakened.
God Will Punish Society
For many Americans who embrace Biblical values, acceptance of same-sex marriage as national law would be disastrous. Consider Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and his views on the two historic same-sex marriage rulings. This week, he said that the Supreme Court’s decisions show the nation’s lack of spirituality.
“The moral and spiritual blindness of our many of our nation’s top political leaders and judges is clearly stunning,” he said. “But we should not be surprised by this darkened understanding (Eph 4:18), it is the by-product of a people who have forgotten God.”
A man celebrates in West Hollywood California after the Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage, June 26, 2013. The US Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a controversial federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and also ruled that Proposition 8, California’s ban on gay marriage, could not be defended before the Supreme Court, paving the way for the resumption of gay marriages in California. Credit: AFP/Getty Images
Perkins said that Christians should take issue with the nation’s “rejection of God’s revealed truth.” And he’s not alone. Many religious leaders believe that, as America continues to separate itself from the Lord by enacting laws that purportedly separate the republic from His teachings, the nation’s blessing will dwindle.
