CE Week #7: “Cute kids, repulsive politics” Oct. 18th
by Gary Crooks
The Spokesman-Review
While heading into work on Friday, I saw a small group on the corner of Second Avenue and Lincoln Street waving signs in opposition to Referendum 71, which would give voter approval to the “everything but marriage” law that was adopted by the Legislature last spring. The law grants to registered same-sex couples the same rights and benefits accorded married couples under state statutes.
Normally, I wouldn’t mind such a political display, but among those holding “Protect Children” placards were children themselves. Do you suppose the kids independently researched the topic before deciding they’d be imperiled if discrimination against same-sex couples were brought to an end? More likely, adults shoved the signs into their hands for emotional appeal. Must be that indoctrination I’ve been hearing about.
The use of children in politics has always bugged me, whether it’s the serene family photos on glossy brochures or those oh-so-cute appearances at political rallies. Then there’s the positioning of children near the lectern to dissuade questions about why politicians were sleeping around. But the anti-Referendum 71 example strikes me as particularly odious, because the signs make it seem like the issue is about child predators and one side is all for them.
The logical leap is that a household with a man and a woman is better for child-rearing. There is no firm empirical evidence of this, but even if there were, there are many socioeconomic factors that determine outcomes for children. Divorce and single parenthood matter. So do income, educational level and the age at which people marry.
So where are the campaigns to prohibit marriage (and the rights that go with it) for those who have low incomes or are under 25 years old or don’t have college degrees? Where are the signs protesting the impending marriages of those who tried it before and failed? There aren’t any, and I wonder why. Isn’t this about the kids?
Mixed message. Speaking of protecting children, a justice of the peace in Hammond, La., is making headlines for refusing to sign a marriage license because the couple is biracial. That’s right, Keith Barnwell turned away the couple because of his concern for their yet-to-be-born children. For one thing, he says, mixed-race couples are more apt to get divorced.
Barnwell says he’s not racist, because he has officiated at many marriages involving African-American men and women. But why would he do that when those couples have an above-average divorce rate? Don’t those kids matter?
Maybe we need to pass a law that prohibits adults from using children as an excuse for their bigotry.
You don’t say. It’s interesting how many arguments against gay marriage were first used to defend state laws that barred mixed-race nuptials. Here’s one:
“We aren’t bigoted,” said the backers of anti-miscegenation laws. “We just worry, what will happen to the children? They’ll be taunted and teased.”
It’s like telling a shoe salesman that size matters. Minorities don’t need a heads-up on the possibilities of bigotry. Neither do gays and lesbians. It’s a truth that’s self-evident.
Follow the balloon. A nation is transfixed. What is it? What keeps it aloft? How high will it go? What if it crashes? What if there’s too much inflation or sudden deflation? What if rescuers can’t get there in time? What if there’s no way to bail out? Who built it? Who approved it? Who could think it would ever be safe?
But enough about the economy, how about that balloon boy?
Smart Bombs is written by Associate Editor Gary Crooks and appears Wednesdays and Sundays on the Opinion page. Crooks can be reached at garyc@spokesman.com or at (509) 459-5026.
A. learned
Because I hardly ever go through town I’ve never really seen any political signs besides the ‘vote for me _____’. So I find the sign bearers to be an interesting topic along with the information that Referendum 71 is about marriage. Because of a lack of commercials or news stories I just thought it was something dealing with teachers or some other topic, not marriage.
B. thoughts
Children are political hostages. Parents will apparently use their children to make their point or to get recognition, as seen with the ‘Balloon Child’. But that’s beside the point; the main topic here is Referendum 71. Marriage is through the church (mostly) making it religious however it’s now a political and economic issue. So basically what the church and state says should be how marriages are conducted, but is not love a transcendent topic above politics and church? So then from my point of view, marriage should be between two loved ones without care of sex and interference of politics.
C. question
How long ago did the Keith Barnwell issue of marriage occur? And if enough time has passed, what’s become of this topic?
d. connection/expansion
With the mighty aid of Wikipedia I expanded upon my question over anti-miscegenation laws. Finding that it was over different race marriages, and that such laws existed in the United States until 1967.
1. Wow. When I read this my jaw literally dropped. It dropped at the part about Keith Barnwell not wanting to wed a couple that is biracial. I did a project on biracial marriages a couple years ago and learned a lot about the statistics of it. I can’t remember any of it now though…I also didn’t know what Referendum 71 was before reading this article. I always see signs up about that and other things to vote against, but I never knew what they all meant.
2. I don’t think that adults should put their kids out on the street to hold signs. They do it because they are selfish. They want random people driving in their cars to see the kids and go, “Oh sad, I must not vote for Referendum 71 because it would help children and future families.” The parents do it to get an emotional response from people. Who says that having a household with a man and woman is better for the children? I’m pretty sure that it would help the child grow up and see people from a different point of view if they lived with a same sex marriage. Divorce is bad for children. Probably worse than not having a mother and father figure in the house.
3. When does everyone vote for Referendum 71? When will results be out? And what happened with the balloon boy? I have watched the news but only seen part of the story.
http://approvereferendum71.org/
This website talks about Referendum 71. It says that you must vote by November 3rd.
A. I already knew adults used children as emotional clinchers, as in they use children to make other people feel bad about a situation and help or give to the situation at hand. Sometimes it is a smart way to get a message out, like putting the children in Africa that are starving on television.
B. I agree with this article. Those kids most likely do not know what they are doing and might not even be able to read the signs they are holding, let alone what they mean. Referring to paragraphs four and five, there are a lot worse situations for kids than having two parents of the same sex. A gay couple could have a million dollars and love their child without end, while the child with the “correct” parents never know if they will have dinner that night, or be neglected because their parents, or single parent, is at work and home by themselves. I also thought the balloon tactic was clever. I did think of the economy the more I read it till the end and it went back to the balloon boy. I read it one more time and kept the balloon in mind this time and it made sense, but with a different meaning. It was like the balloon was there and there was a different distraction to make me focus on something that wasn’t the initial topic.
C. Do you agree with this article and should someone do something about using kids in protests?
Connections~
If anyone has seen Batman, Superman, or Spiderman, even in the movies they can’t save the world in one day. They do a little at a time, step by step.
What I learned:
A small group was waving signs that are against referendum 71. Referendum 71 would give the voter consent to the “everything but marriage” law. The law would grant the register of the same-sex couples the same rights and benefits accorded married couples under state status. Gary Crooks thinks that children should not have participated in the waving of signs, because they don’t know anything about the same-sex couples issue.
What I think:
I think that kids should not have been used in the waving of signs or in any political thing. It is wrong to use kids just so you have the cute and innocent side of it but kids don’t know anything. Kids don’t really care about the same-sex couples nor do they go out and research it.
Extension:
I found out that a referendum is the principle or practice of referring measures proposed or passed by a legislative body to the vote of the electorate for approval or rejection. Then a poll taken in Washington in 2008 found that 66% are in favor of the referendum on http://www.religioustolerance.org
Questions:
I don’t get how Keith Barnwell says he is not racist but then won’t sign a marriage license for a biracial couple. I also don’t get the quote on when he says, “it’s like telling a shoe salesman that size matters.”
Jeremy’s Blog
A. What do I know?
I know that it seems as though much of the general public in America is against Referendum 71 mentioned in this article. I know that it is disgusting to use kids who have no idea what they are standing for to represent an opposition. It’s inhumanly human. I also know that people often use reasoning that is far less than soundproof. I’m so tired of individuals acting as our morality police when their own actions are in dire need of monitoring. I know that humans can be bad, hypocritical, and ill-intentioned, but I’d like to see a whole lot less of that in our politics and in our means of achieving a goal. Especially when it comes to children.
B. What did I learn?
I gained a new realization. I had never before considered the faulty reasoning behind gay-marriage opposition in depth. I’m personally pro-mo and have often giving up on persuading others but the author brought an intriguing insight to the table: if people oppose gay marriage because of the effect it will have on children then, by that reasoning, I can think of at least ten parents who should never have had children. My parents for one were not financially secure when their first child was born, but it did not stop them. It was harder, sure, but they managed. A child raised with gay parents would face comparable opposition but it doesn’t mean that homosexual adults should not be able to have children or the American dream: a marriage, family, and house. I learned that we need to open our minds before we open our mouths.
C. What do I want to know?
I want to know what I’ve asked before and never been answered. PLEASE respond because I am interested. If you oppose gay-marriage or Referendum 71 and its “everything but marriage” law, why? Tell me why. I’m open to hear your mind.
D. Extension.
I wanted to know where the percentage of Americans filled in their circle when it came to same-sex marriage or civil unions. What I found is that the country is about 50/50 on the issue. Acceptance and approval has definitely increased over the years. Now, 55% of people say that gay and lesbian couples should have civil unions. Most approval percentages are around 50-60% now and the numbers increase annually. All of this is from a Forbes.com report.
A) Wow, I had no idea that children were being used to spread a message across. I also did not know that people are turning away couples who want to get married that are biracial.
B) I think that Referendum 71 should be passed and I am totally for same-sex marriage because it is their life and they can live their lives how they want to. It is simply not anyone else’s business. I do not think that children should be used to send a message across. Children do not have enough political knowledge to even know what is going on. It’s not like the children went home studied everything about this. Their parents are just trying to brainwash them to make them think how they think. By using children for a gay rights protest doesn’t really make any sense. It makes it seem like the children are protesting for anti-child abuse or that the issue is about abortion, when it is not.
When somebody turns away couples who are biracial and want to get married I think that is wrong! Who cares if biracial couples are more apt to getting a divorce; not every biracial couple will get a divorce. It is just not fair! If every single biracial couple were to be denied for getting married then there would be a lot of people in the world who are not married or every single married couple would be of the same race.
C) Why has our world come to this? Can’t people just live their own lives without it being other people’s business? When does the vote for Referendum 71 take place?
http://approvereferendum71.org/wp-content/uploads/Section3WEB_10-02-09.pdf
I found out that you have to have your vote in by November 3rd.
A. In this article, I learned that parents are using children to try to win their battles. Actually, a more accurate statement would be that parents are using children to try deny citizens their civil rights. This is a new concept to me, but honestly it doesn’t surprise me. Also, I learned that a justice of the peace refused to sign a marriage license because the couple is biracial. The article also brought to my attention the extent that people try to make issues about children when they are really not at all about the children and just an excuse to be unjust.
B. This article seems to be about two issues, using children to persuade opinion on topics totally irrelevant and Referendum 71. Children seem to be the poster child for a lot of issues, such as marriage. This is a little confusing to me because marriage and children are two completely different things. You can have children without being married and you can get married without wanting children. Plus, for those same-sex couples that want to adopt children have to go through hell to be allowed to adopt. The amount of work that it takes to adopt a child is reason enough to show that these same-sex couples will love the child just as much, if not more, than a heterosexual couple. As for Referendum 71, I don’t see the problem that anti-same-sex marriage people have because Referendum 71 is not about same-sex marriage. The people that oppose it seem to be no better than the whites that didn’t want blacks to have there civil rights in 60’s. Even though Referendum 71 is not about marriage, I don’t see why we have to call it something else for same-sex couples. Marriage “was” a religious institution, now it is a political one. This is true because there is something called separation of church and state in this country.
C. I’m aware that a petition was signed that caused Referendum 71 to be voted on by the public, but I would like to know the exact process by which this happened.
D. Something that I was unsure about was exactly what a justice of the peace is. I did some research and found that it is a judicial officer appointed to act upon minor offenses, commit cases to a higher court for trial, perform marriages, and administer oaths.
A. What I learned:
I learned about Referendum 71 which I previously had no knowledge. I was informed that the referendum is for same sex couples who don’t get married but want all the same rights as a married couple. I also learned that kids are used in many campaigns to gain the vote. And that a Justice of the Peace in Hammond, LA refused to sign a marriage certificate for a couple, due to their biracial status and felt that he was concerned for their future children.
B. What I know:
As a kid I know that I had no clue about politics, I was even more of a political idiot than I am now and that’s hard. I know that kids should not be used in campaigns or in political races just to earn a vote. The refusal of signing a marriage certificate because of a biracial couple is wrong children in the past have not been discriminated just because the parents are two different races, what would change that now.
C. What I want to Know: What are the details for Referendum 71? And how does the use of children in a campaign change the outcome?
D. Extension: In the United States only 13 of the 50 states allow same-sex marriage.
A. I learned about the issue of Kevin Barnwell not signing a marriage license for a biracial couple. He justified this by saying the unborn children of the pair are at risk because mixed-race couples are more likely to get divorced. The denial just amazed me- I did not know that such refusals could openly be given.
B. I agree with Crooks. I am not opposed to all young children being politically involved if they truly understand the issues and choose to participate, but how often does that actually happen? Adults exploit the innocence of children and use them for “emotional appeal” in an attempt to sway others to their “side” by displaying them to create a sense of sympathy. Even further, as Crooks stated, adults justify their opposition to same-sex marriage by saying if affects the couple’s children. Undoubtedly such a union would affect the children, but they push the issue too far in order to engender pity and concern for such children instead of following the fundamental issue, which the marriage of a same-sex couple. Children will most likely form their political opinions based on their parents’, but the parents should wait to exploit their innocence until the child is old enough to be aware of such current events. Although this should not be condoned, it is an unavoidable part of politics.
C. I would like to know more specifics about the Keith Barnwell issue please. What is some background information? How are the couple and the community responding? What actions are being taken?
D. Extension- I wanted to know what Referendum 71 specifically stated, so I found the basic overview: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.
Sources: Wikipedia
A. I Know: Children are our best weapons when it comes to politics, and not just as cute stand-ins or subject monitors; our culture is obsessed with kids! Every law passed and every referendum that is debated is “for the children.” Technically it makes sense to me that the reformation and growth of our government be done with future generations in mind but it does get taken too far sometimes. “They shouldn’t be married… because of the children!” “They can’t do that… think of the children!” With relation to Referendum 71 I know that if approved it probably won’t affect kids all that much anyway. Next time you see a kid ask them what is more important, seeing Toy Story 3 when it comes out (and really, that should be on everyone’s list) or Referendum 71. I know what my answer would be.
B. I Learned: I had no idea that there were so many factors that apparently affect the children with relation to marriage, at least I didn’t know there were so many that were openly debated. I learned, or more accurately realized, that socioeconomic stances, racial backgrounds, and parental age all affect kids more than whether Timmy has two mommies. It makes a bigger difference if Timmy is in a foster home.
C. I Want to Know: The history anti-miscegenation laws. That really stood out to me and seeing that it was brought up in an article discussing such a current subject I am curious to know how far back these laws go and how long ago were they actually in the running for being actual laws.
Connection: A few years ago I was trying to be politically savvy with my older, politically active, sister. I mentioned how it was ridiculous that gay marriage was even under attack at all, knowing that my sister was a die-hard liberal and would readily agree with me. Instead she said, “Not really, it makes perfect sense.” She explained to me that marriage was a religious institution and that people who are religious should have the option to uphold that. Seeing my look of disbelief she quickly added that people who aren’t particularly religious should have the option of being legally bound without the religious constrictions as well. Referendum 71 reminds me of her opinion that we should all have the option to have legal partners, without the choices we make regarding that said partner mattering.
What I learned: I knew that Referendum 71 protestors were using children on their posters in order to push forward the argument that the children will be harmed, but I had no idea that they would go this far, but I guess that is to be expected given the nature of their convictions (even fanaticism sometimes).
Opinion: I believe that children should have a mother and father. Mothers and fathers are great things to have growing up. Where do you think gay people come from? Straight parents! However, this is not the situation life has presented. There are so many children who grow up in harmful environments not only health-wise but psychologically. Their parents don’t want them or have the capacity to do so. Many of these children turn up in foster care, which is a tough thing for a child to go through. They are taken care of until they are 18 and then the government pushes the child out of its nest. This is obviously not the best approach. Gay couples want children – and no I do not mean this in any sexual way. That is the difference. They will be great parents because they are willing to go through every obstacle to have a child of their own. This commitment not only lasts through the adoption process but as the child grows. It will be a healthy environment. Do I believe gay couples should be allowed to adopt? You bet. Do I think it should be easy? Never. As I mentioned before, it is a sort of test for couples, regardless to their sexual orientation. A further note: Full adoption for same-sex couple is already legal in Washington under many jurisdictions and it is completely legal for single gay people (given they are legally competent adults). So if Referendum 71 is passed, what are we protecting the children from? Wouldn’t we have already witnessed the so-called devastating effects of this “atrocity”? Just saying.
Question: Which states currently allow homosexual couples to adopt?
Connection: This reminds me of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which left the decision of homosexual marriages up to the states, not the federal government. This was
In response to Jessica Levy:
“What are the details for Referendum 71? And how does the use of children in a campaign change the outcome?”
Referendum 71 is often called “everything but marriage” because it is exactly that. It would allow same-sex couples to have all the rights and benefits that go along with marriage without calling it marriage. To answer your second question, when people see something that claims to benefit children they want to support it without knowing exactly what they are supporting. To me, it seems that the opposition of Referendum 71 wants to pull the children and family card on something that is totally unrelated to try to gain more votes for their side. This could significantly change the outcome Referendum 71 because people that normally would be in approval of gay rights would vote against it, thinking that they are helping children.
What I Learned:
I was completely aware of parents using their children as political pawns prior to reading this article. I was an interesting movie called Jesus Camp which explored this. I was also aware of the fact that Referendum 71 is proposing an “Everything but marriage” policy for same-sex couples. I had never really thought about what is essentially child indoctrination in terms of Referendum 71 specifically.
What I think:
There is no evidence to suggest that a same-sex couple raising a child is in any way detrimental to the child. There is no way around the fact that parents shoved the signs in their children’s hands and had them demonstrate. It is as if they are trying to make it seem as though the children are victims and we have to protect them by denying same-sex couples basic rights. Just because predominant religion preaches against homosexuality, doesn’t mean the ideals of that religion can be opposed on the country as a whole. To me, voting no on Referendum 71 is saying I support discrimination.
Question:
My question is what is the reasoning behind objection to Referendum 71? It doesn’t propose that the union be recognized as marriage by a religious institution, all it does is grant the same rights that straight couples have.
Link/Connection:
Reading this article reminded me of two awesome videos that I saw posted on Facebook by some friends.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSfFa44p96o&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEbJBFWIPk&feature=player_embedded
Learned:
Wow, I learned a lot from this blog. I didn’t know you could have your kids hold signs for protests of any sort. I didn’t know gay marriage was still an issue. I didn’t know marriage was a court or national issue.
Thoughts:
I don’t think it’s right for a PARENT to have their children hold signs, even if the child wants to. A child shouldn’t care about that stuff, none-the-less know about it (meaning, ‘does the child know what he’s holding, or why he’s holding it?’). I also believed marriage is a religious issue, not a state or national issue. In truth, I support gay marriage. I like this writers input. I believe what he said was good and his honest feelings on the matter.
Question:
When did the Keith Barnwell issue of marriage occur, and why? And did they ever solve this argument, and if so what was the outcome.
Connection/Expansion
With the help of my mother, I came up with an answer to my question. It was race. A long time ago blacks and whites weren’t aloud to “mix”. Therefore, I did some online research. I found that it wasn’t that long ago, only 1967 did such laws come into play based on the anti-miscegenation laws. This was one of the many laws on different race marriages.
A. found that, while driving down the street, little kids were being used to hold up signs denouncing Ref. 71. finds that this is wrong because children are being used as a tool to persuade people and giving them obscure information. He also thinks it’s wrong because the children don’t know what they’re saying which is unfair.
B. What makes people think using innocent kids in dirty politics is a sensible thing to do? These children don’t know what they’re saying or advocating yet their parents are throwing them into a controversial topic like it’s no big deal. Later in life these kids may be against what their parents had them advocate which would make me very angry if I ever found something like that out. Also, there are people out there who would start harassing a kid for what their parents had them do and the kid didn’t even know what it meant! This emotional appeal also gives the wrong idea to people uneducated about the topic. They are led to believe same sex marriages are bad for children when there are no facts to support this and there are plenty of other things that are bad for children’s development yet we aren’t trying to prevent those situations from occuring.
C. Isn’t refusing mix-race marriages nuptials against the constitution? Also, what was the balloon analogy supposed to mean? It made no sense to me at all.
Extension: I understand what Referendum 71 is but I thought I’d research what it exactly entails. “Ref. 71 is a vote to keep the domestic partnership law that provides legal protections for lesbian and gay couples and seniors who are in committed relationships. To be able to take unpaid leave to care for a critically ill loved one, without being fired. To be able to cover a partner in family health insurance. To make sure hard-earned pension and death benefits protect children when a parent dies. Approving Ref. 71 ensures that important protections are not taken away from committed couples, so that they are able to take care of each other, especially in times of crisis” (approvereferendum71.org).
What i know:
I know that there is still and always has been debating, fighting and protesting for or against same sex marriage. Even with all that has gone on with same sex marriage this article still finds a way to surprise me.
I never realized what some parents did to some of their kids, forcing such values upon them at such a young age.
Now i know how far gone the same sex marriage has gone and the affects it has all over the country.
What i learned:
I’ve seen signs for Referendum 71 but never cared enough to look up what it was, and after reading this article i feel that i have a better understanding of what that is exactly.
I’ve also learned about Keith Barnwell and this biracial marriage decision to not have two people of a different race wed. I always knew that there were people out there for having different reasons to justify their actions against same sex marriage and biracial marriages but i never knew what they were, because i looked down upon them for being so narrow minded. But now i know why.
What i want to know:
What i want to know is what is going to happen with referendum 71 with the results and such.
Connection:
Reading about this article it makes me think few years back to the San Francisco debates about same sex marriage, and I’m still in disbelief that these debates are still going on.
I learned about this protest and the definition for Referendum 71. I have heard a little bit about it before but not enough to explain it. After reading this article I feel more educated on this topic. I also learned the power a child could have on a protest and because of this how often they are used.
I feel that the protestors crossed the line when having kids, most likely involuntarily, hold signs that had no true connection with them. However, I feel like the protest is to make a point and obviously they got an article written about it because of the kids. More people today have heard about their protest due to this article. If they had just protested the chance of getting an article being written about them was slimmer. A protest is supposed to be bold and I believe they did just that. These kids should not be holding these signs because number one as a kid that’s the last thing you want to do and number two they know nothing about Referendum 71. Their parents are essentially labeling them in public without them knowing.
I would like to know the polls of public on Referendum 71? How people generally stand and if it stands a chance on voting day.
My connection would be that this past couple weeks we have been talking about protests and how extreme some could get. This just brings protests closer to home.
“Cute Kids, Repulsive Politics”
A. What did you learn by reading this post?
I learned about Keith Barnwell and his refusal to wed a mixed race couple. Most everything else about Referendum 71 I already knew.
B. What do you think about this particular topic or issue?
Although I find it despicable that any parent would use their children to push a political agenda the child doesn’t even understand, I am not surprised that it has happened. One of the arguments I frequently hear against gay marriage is that gay couples only want kids to “recruit future members”. Ignoring the ridiculousness of that statement, just what do the opponents of Referendum think their ignorant, close-minded indoctrination of their children is?
Also, why put so much focus on “the children” when THE LAW IS NOT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? (I’m not shouting. I just don’t know how to put the text in bold.) The law focuses mostly on financial and tax obligations of domestic partners. Only a small portion of the law even mentions adoption.
The saddest part of this debate is that there is no ethical gray area. What the opponents of Referendum 71 are doing is purely, deeply immoral. And I don’t think they know it. I am not so naïve as to think that all opponents of gay marriage are cousin-marrying rednecks. They just don’t realize how much their vocal ignorance is hurting others. There is a chance that one of the adorable little kids whose parents forced him to wave the sign that says “Protect the Children” will grow up to be gay. This child will think, “If my parents hate these perfect strangers, what would they think of me?”
There is not much worse a parent can do than put that thought in a child’s head. All to protect the children.
C. What do you want to know more about this topic?
Who is eligible and plans to vote on this issue in November? You don’t have to say which way you are voting, and I won’t ask. Oops! I just made an accidental joke. Don’t ask, don’t tell.
D. Extension:
I hadn’t heard the phrase “anti-miscegenation laws” before, so I looked it up. Apparently, they were laws set up in the original Thirteen Colonies during the late seventeenth century that prohibited marriage, and sometimes sex, between two people of different races. These laws were overturned in 1967 in the court case Loving v. Virginia.
Connections~
The commercials to help kids in 3rd world countries with a food and basic living package for about $30 a month or so. They use images of the children with bloated tummies that live in a dump trying to find whatever they can to survive. Its not a guilt trip, but its purpose is to create emotion among the viewers that watch the commercial to want to help out a child there.
A. What you learned?
Well even though I highly disagree with the tactic the article shows that many political people will use kids to get votes of sympathy to whatever they are opposing or supporting. Because this has been happening for many years I doubt it’ll ever change. It also talked about how people who opposed 71 thought that it was in protection for the children the couple may gain during the rest of there lives and then compared it to how children of other types of couples are treated.
B. What you think?
Like I said I disagree with using kids for publicity, that’s it, I think it’s wrong to do. It is different however if the kids know what their supporting and it’s their decision but I don’t think that’s the case. As far as the actual law passed, I support it simply because I don’t see a problem with giving same sex couples all the same rights as every other couple that is married in the United States. I personally don’t believe same sex couples should be together but that’s not the issue at end, if they can legally be together then we shouldn’t prevent them from having all the rights as other couples.
C. What you would like to know?
I want to know more about Barnwell’s case. Like why he had the right to refuse a legal wedding or if the couple got married someplace else or even about other couples he has “officiated” or rejected? Pretty much anything about him would be great.
D. Connection or Extension?
I saw people some people standing on Division the other day who were opposing Referendum 71 and I didn’t really think about it at the time because I have seen those kinds of signs that oppose certain laws before. My sister made the comment however about not knowing what Referendum 71 was even about and I just think simple things like that really show how uninformed or just not observant a majority of Americans are. The people on the street are not trying to tell people what Referendum 71 will do just that we should oppose it, this I think is the real problem with the situation.
A. I know that we have been in a recession for some time and are still in one. And all of the stimulus plans seem to just be pushing us further and further away from a healthy recovery. As of right now our economic future is looking pretty dismal. It really scares me to see the deficit numbers in the billions and the projected deficit statistic when the recession is over at somewhere around 3 trillion. Yikes. I worry about whether or not students that come from average American households will be able to afford college education, myself included. I have also heard many stories about how rich execs have given themselves huge bonuses which is not helping the cause.
B. I learned that even though worker productivity is steadily increasing middle-class wages haven’t received a boost. Also all of the percentages and statistics that he mentioned I hadn’t heard of prior to reading this article. It makes it a little bit more real to me when I see the concrete numbers. I was surprised to hear that “according to The Wall Street Journal, since 1970, the average CEO income has increased a whopping 730 percent, while worker income has decreased 13 percent.” That is an enormous margin. I learned that the free enterprise system that the United States utilizes benefits the rich percentile the most. I liked what Jordan said about the rich owing the most back to society, what better way for them to pay their massive debt than through taxes. I also learned that tax increases on the rich as well as cutting back unnecessary spending. My opinion is that those who have the most money should be taxed more heavily. It seems logical to me that that is a good part to a solution for the recession. However I think that it is going to take more than tax increases and expenditure cuts to get us back on track.
C. What constitutes “rich” in society today; specifically, how much income do you have to make annually to be considered wealthy? Also what kinds of programs will be labeled as “unnecessary spending” and will therefore be cut?
D. Connection: I was talking to someone recently who works in the construction business and has been on unemployment for the past almost 6 months. He is on a waiting list but is still like 420th on the list and is now traveling to other surrounding cities in the Pacific Northwest to try to get up higher on another list. This is the case for many such workers and it makes me wonder where the government is going wrong and why things are remaining like that. What needs to be done in order to promote stimulation of the economy and get the country back on track monetarily?
A. I was really surprised to learn that Keith Barnwell turned away a mixed race couple that wanted to get married. I was previously unaware that Justices of the Peace were allowed such refusals. I also learned that children were used in anti-referendum 71 rallies in downtown Spokane. I hardly ever go downtown and so I don’t ever see these protests. The balloon incident sounded pretty intense.
B. I have mixed feelings about this article. I agree with the author that using children for promoting certain ideas isn’t really right. I do think that young kids should be involved but only if they’re informed about the issues. And really, how often does that happen? I like the author’s point about should there be stipulations for who can get married or have children. I think that the author used an extreme example with the biracial couple in order to convince people that any couple whether biracial or same sex or heterosexual should all have the same rights. But that’s not comparing apples to apple that’s more like comparing apples to oranges. A lot of times authors use examples and/or twist stuff around to promote their own personal opinion. I don’t agree with the premise behind Referendum 71 and so if I were able to vote I would vote to reject it. However I don’t support the use of cute kids to cause people to associate Referendum 71 with the harm of children because that’s not necessarily true.
C. How often do Justices refuse to sign marriage certificates? And what would be some other reasons?
D. Connection: I have seen several signs in my neighborhood that state “protect our children, reject referendum 71, marriage= one man one woman” as well as television commercials with an older same sex couple that prompt viewers to approve this particular referendum. I also had the chance to read about the details of Referendum in the voter pamphlet that came to our house and in concordance with writing the ballot for the mock election. I have also had the chance to discuss the referendum with my parents, what it entails and the issues it might create.
What I learned: First off, props to Gary Crooks for coming up with such a humorous ending to a rather serious piece. I loved it! Any whom, I’m appalled that a justice of the peace would deny a biracial marriage, it is absurd and I’m surprised that particular couple hasn’t taken drastic measures by taking this to the Supreme Court. I also learned what Referendum 71 entailed. I’m glad I know what this issue is about for the upcoming election.
What I thought: I agree with Crooks that children should not be holding picket signs up on random street corners. Why? Because one, it’s irresponsible parenting in my book. Have you heard of the recent case about the seven-year-old girl in Florida that disappeared and her body was found in a landfill this morning? I know this has nothing to do with the article but I’m just saying that parents need to keep their children protected because they don’t know what will happen and sticking them on a street corner is not helping the protest any. Two, the adults are exploiting their children by sticking them on a corner with a picket sign about “Protect Children”. The pathos card shouldn’t work in this situation but unfortunately it does. The other day I was driving and saw the same situation with adults and children standing on the corner by Yoke’s. It’s ridiculous.
What I would like to know: What is the divorce rate for biracial marriages? Also what is an anti-miscegenation law?
Connection/Extension: Since Mr. Kautzman always suggest to use Wikipedia for learning about something I thought I’d give it a try and this is what I found on anti-miscegenation laws: “Anti-miscegenation laws, also known as miscegenation laws, were laws that banned interracial marriage and sometimes sex between members of two different races. In the United States, interracial marriage, cohabitation and sex have since 1863 been termed “miscegenation.” Contemporary usage of the term “miscegenation” is less frequent. In North America, laws against interracial marriage and interracial sex existed and were enforced in the Thirteen Colonies from the late seventeenth century onwards, and subsequently in several US states and US territories until 1967. Similar laws were also enforced in Nazi Germany, from 1935 until 1945, and in South Africa during the Apartheid era, from 1948 until 1984.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_law
In response to Kelli Davin’s question:
“Do you agree with this article and should someone do something about using kids in protests?”
I do agree with this article that children are over publicized for wrong reasons. Like how many people just use kids as mascots for what they support. However as far as doing something to prevent this I don’t think there is something we can really do that would work. If we make some kind of law to stop it then it’ll just come back as being against the free speech amendment because making a law to prevent kids from showing support for something would do that. You could make the argument that because they are kids they don’t know what they are supporting and that it’s not their free speech but their parents speech but I don’t think it would be liable since some kids in the country do know what they support and you can’t put down their free speech. Also there is always the obvious fact that it’s the usage of kids for support is so wide stretched throughout the country that no matter what we did it would be hard to end. Don’t get me wrong though I do think its wrong to use your kids for support but I just don’t see how it’ll happen because when you think about it people do it every day for numerous reasons.
A: What I learned
Unlike Crooks, I have never seen political signs being waved around by children. Obviously, like he says, it was for emotional effect. I have never heard the argument that children would suffer from a same-sex marriage or even from a bi-racial couple. I learned that a justice from Hammond, Louisiana did not sign a marriage license because the couple was bi-racial! I thought we were getting over racism, not bringing it back.
B: What I think
I think this prediction that a same-sex marriage will inhibit a child’s life is absolutely ridiculous. People are looking for another reason to complain because they think that just because they are “normal” they have to right to condemn people who are different than they are. Like Crook said, why aren’t people opposing low-income marriages, or couples who are under the age of 25 getting married? Their kids might face problems because of their parent’s actions too. I just don’t understand why people even bit*h about it in the first place. If it doesn’t affect you…why should you care?! It’s how they live their life. Bringing children into the picture only creates more problems by introducing a new generation of hate.
C: What I want to know
Did the justice in Louisiana get punished for what he did? What gives him the right to predict the life of an unborn child of a bi-racial couple?
D: Connection
We talked about the issue of same-sex marriage benefits in class, where they would get all the same rights as a heterosexual marriage. But we never brought up the issue of the children, which would have made a more interesting discussion, in my oppinion.
In respone to Jesse Peterson:
If you have a cute kid, then why not put them on the street to hold up a sign. You will probably get more attention and help get your message across.
Shout out to Derrick:
To satiate your curiosity Derrick, as of now 11 of our 50 states allow adoption by homosexual partners. These states allow both single gay adults and gay partners to petition for adoption: California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Vermont. This information was found at gaymarriage.life tips.com and I validated it using Wikipedia. There are also other states that only allow single gay or lesbian adults to adopt, but not if they co-inhabit their household with a partner. You may also adopt your partner’s children. Hope that answers your question, Derrick.
In response to Kevin Yen-
To answer your question: What is going to happen with referendum 71 with the results and such?
Right now it is hard to tell what is going to happen with the result. It sounds like it is going to be a very close election. It seems as the years go on more people are in favor of domestic partnerships. In 2008, 66% of people in Washington were in favor of domestic partnerships and 21% were not in favor of it. In 2009 so far 51% approve and 44% are opposed. So as you can see it is going to be very close!
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hommarrwa8.htm
Devon Preedy!!
I really don’t think that biracial marriages have a higher divorce rate than same race marriages. I’ve seen couples together where one is black and the other is white and I’ve heard stories of how some have stayed together for many years. They seem like they’re doing fine. Today, most people get divorced no matter what their skin color is. Just because one person is black and the other is white doesn’t mean that their marriage is not going to last. I couldn’t find out what the divorce rate was but I found out that interracial couples make up 5.4 % of all married couples in the United States. It just depends on who you’re meant to be with!
In response to Val Pal:
I found some information on your question as to whether or not the Referendum 71 stands a chance on voting day or not and how its polls are going. A man named Josh Friedes from the Approve Referendum 71 campaign shared the results of the first poll specifically about referendum 71. The results were however in contrast to more general polls released by the University of Washington. But, when voters are read the exact ballot language, 51 percent approve referendum 71 and 44 percent reject referendum 71. This may be inaccurate because this new poll looks only at voters likely to cast ballots in the 2009 off year election and as many as half of all voters don’t vote in off year elections, and those who do tend to be more conservative. This was about all I found and it was just for Washington bbut I would say from this it might have a chance to pass.
In Response to Megan Sikes
The Justice in Louisiana, Keith Bardwell, has been asked to resign. He refuses to revoke his license because in his perception he is not a racist. His attempt at justification; he believes “the children of the (interracial) couple might suffer.” Cleary this man should not be holding public title, as he does not even know the definition of racism—even when he fits that definition. Racism is defined as the belief that race is a primary deterrent of human traits and capacities. To have the audacity to think you can predict someone’s happiness is hard to believe.
In response to Nikki Follett:
Your question “When does the vote for Referendum 71 take place?” on the website http://www.theolympian.com/opinion/story/997810.html it said that you need to cast your vote for referendum 71 by November 3.
In Response to Taylor Jordon:
The reason for opposition to Referendum 71 is clear on http://www.protectmarriagewa.com/
It outlines their arguments on their talking points. For example:
If Senate Bill 5688 is allowed to stand, Washington will immediately become subject to litigation by same-sex partners demanding the courts overturn our state’s Defense of Marriage Act and impose “same-sex marriage” (as happened in California prior to Proposition 8). Referendum 71 brings this society changing measure before the people of Washington State to let them make this monumental decision in November.
If same-sex marriage becomes the law in Washington, public schools K-12 will likely be forced to teach that same-sex “marriage” and homosexuality are perfectly normal.
It seems to be a lot of speculation, but there you go!
In response to Megan Sikes:
From what i read in a article while researching more about Keith Barnwell was that the couple he refused to wed is not looking for legal action against Barnwell and the state, in hope of removing Barnwell from his elected office.
Source:
http://voxaleadnews.labs.exalead.com/play.php?flv=CNN_News%2FCNN-News-10-20-09-10AM.mp4&q=%22Keith%20Barnwell%22&language=all&time=130
Kristina Nielsen!
Thank you for that little tidbit of information it is much appreciated!
You asked what is going on about the balloon boy hoax. I did some research on msnbc.com (www.msnbc.msn.com is where I got the following information) and found out some interesting information. For the basic background the two parents, Richard and Mayumi Heene, claimed that their son Falcon Heene had climbed into a flying saucer balloon and was now flying up in the air somewhere. As a result, Colorado closed down their airport and sent out two planes from the National Guard to help track down the boy. When the balloon was discovered, after crashing to the ground, there was no boy inside so the police thought he had fallen out expecting the worst. Little did they know that Falcon was at home the whole time “hiding” from his parents. A few days later this situation was deemed a hoax and later discovered that the parents had been planning this event for two weeks. The dad liked the media attention after his debut on the reality TV show “Wife Swap”. The police say the Heene’s could face federal as well as felony charges.
I hope this answers some of your questions and I’ll be watching for more updates on the news!
Bree Ferris:
I thought the balloon was supposed to illustrate to us the orchestra theory. Basically Crooks saying the news will always criticize and focus in on stuff that really doesn’t matter. Instead of talking about the economy or serious issues they focus in on the local balloon boy and how tragic that is. In reality tho, those stories will come and go but we will still be left with the economy or gay marriage issues. I could be wrong but thats how i interpreted his ballon story. A little bit of humor.
I am sorry but I did not take the time to read the 35 or 36 comments left before me. I understand that many will hate me or disagree with me highly. However, I am fairly certain it makes logical sense and must be said.
No surprise that the conservative is against domestic partnerships for homosexuals right? Well, there is good reason and I do not think they have been mentioned.
I am against it for the following reasons.
1) Homosexuals have no more and no less rights than heterosexuals. The idea of any inequality existing in terms of rights is balderdash. Moreover, civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages. Homosexuals are NOT segregated, nor are they given less rights.
Don’t believe me do you? think about it. they have the exact same right that I have to marry. I am not permitted to have multiple wives, just like a wannabe polygamous is not permitted to have multiple wives. I cannot marry a man, nor can someone who wants to marry a man. I cannot have sex with an animal legally. Just like a zoophile (beastality) cannot. I cannot have sex with children, and neither can a pedophile. Thus equality. I am in no way comparing homosexuals to zoophilia or pedophilia to be clear.
2) Homosexuality is not innate.
There is absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is innate. Correlation is not evidence if it were, we would be blaming the decrease of pirates for recent climate trends. So a good note before you embark on more science research, correlation is not causation. We are not talking about hypotheses, I can make one of those. These “study” or “studies” say nothing in regards to lesbianism.
But again, let us imagine for a moment that they or you are correct, that homosexuality IS innate. If the very fact that one was born with particular proclivities made those proclivities a basic right, we would be in chaos. That logic leads us to accept pedophilia and zoophilia as legitimate rights and legitimate acts to act out upon as they are innate after all.
3) Opens doors to Polygamy
It would be a blatant cheating of the law to allow 3 or 4 consenting individuals, who deeply love one another, to marry. But it is apparently not cheating of the law to completely circumvent our legal system to establish nationally recognized gay marriage. Can we not change tax laws in regards to individuals with multiple spouses that does not seem too hard. Not allowing polygamy and polyandry spits in the face of my any activists definition of equality.
4) This one is just for laughs really and not a strong argument at all. Not allowing them to wed protects their right to the pursuit of happiness. How you may ask. Well, 50% of all heterosexuals marriages fail in America. Failure has NEVER meant happiness.
It has also been shown that that nearly “eighty percent of all working comedians speak about the unhappiness of marriage as part of their routine.” Many complain about the horrors of marriage.
It is clear by now that marriage equals pain and suffering. What we are doing when we vote no is protecting their rights to pursue happiness and have freedom to have sex with whomever they wish whenever they wish without fear of being divorced and losing half of their assets to some filthy fat slut whore of a wife (or husband). Just look at the damage marriage has done to the heterosexual community. Do we really want to spread that to the homosexual community as well?
*side note*
I do realize that ref 71 is everything but MARRIAGE. They want the same benefits but not the name. Almost sounds like greed or a money issue to me. In no way shape or form did I bring in religion into my arguments, so to attack the points of many I am assuming, there are several other arguments against homosexual marriages/domestic partnerships not involving God at all.
In response to Justin Fritz:
“I understand that many will hate me or disagree with me highly.”
You are right. I would love to say you are right on both accounts, but that would mean I hate you. And as much as I want to hate you right now, I know by doing so I would be lowering myself to your disgusting, backward thinking, and bigoted level. So instead, I’m going to pointlessly try and reason with the unreasonable (i.e. you).
First, you said, “I am in no way comparing homosexuals to bestiality or pedophilia to be clear.” You may have somehow convinced yourself that you didn’t, but I have to point out that, in fact, you did. Twice.
Exhibit A: “I am not permitted to have multiple wives, just like a wannabe polygamous is not permitted to have multiple wives. I cannot marry a man, nor can someone who wants to marry a man. I cannot have sex with an animal legally. Just like a zoophile (bestiality) cannot. I cannot have sex with children, and neither can a pedophile.”
Exhibit B: “If the very fact that one was born with particular proclivities made those proclivities a basic right, we would be in chaos. That logic leads us to accept pedophilia and zoophilia as legitimate rights and legitimate acts to act out upon as they are innate after all.”
Are you really trying to argue that you did not compare homosexuality with pedophilia or bestiality?
Second, you said, “Homosexuals have no more and no less rights than heterosexuals.” That statement is true (in theory), but the issue is not about the gay population as a whole, rather the rights of the committed homosexual couple. A homosexual couple, even one in a civil union (before the everything but marriage law is enacted), is denied over ONE THOUSAND of the rights granted to married heterosexual couples. These include hospital visitation, parenting rights, the right to purchase continued health coverage for a partner after the loss of a job, and the list goes on. As you can see, it is not a “greed or money issue”.
P.S. I’m sure you have heard already, but Referendum 71 passed. That’s one giant step back for bigots (i.e. you) and one giant leap forward for civil rights.
Kyle, wow is all I can really say. Since when did name calling become necessary to attack my arguments? One often resorts to name calling when there is no other course of action and when logic fails. Point one you state that I am thinking backwards, yet fail to demonstrate how. I would like you to please warrant your claim. I would also like you to show how I am a bigot. Clearly, you do not know what a bigot is, otherwise you would know that I am not one.
Thanks for pointing out that I did indeed compare homosexuals to pedophiles and zoophiles. Even though you did not respond to the actual argument being made. However, I would like to reiterate that I did indeed not do such a thing.
Your “exhibit A” is hardly a comparison to pedophilia or zoophilia to homosexuality but rather a contractual agreement argument that shows where the law stands on all of those issues
Your “exhibit B” is also a false comparison. It was merely demonstrating how that if you are born with your sexual desires or born homosexual than you must be born a pedophile or a zoophile based on that logic. It was comparing the idea of being born homosexual not homosexuality itself.
I challenge your definition of a committed couple to be honest. If the bringing up of this is to argue infidelity in marriages, than I simply offer the following.For the same instance, we could acquire the same results of limiting infidelity by mandating that chastity belts be worn. In fact we go as far to straight-jacketing the suicidal. But of these are neither right nor warranted.
A giant leap to civil rights you say? Marriage is not a civil right we can look to California’s very own Proposition 8 for that.
I want to quote you now as you so graciously quoted me. “it is not a greed or money issue” Parenting rights, well actually being a parent gives you certain benefits and tax write offs. Thus money. Health Insurance, well lower hospital bills, equal less money spent, which equals more money saved, which equals money. If I really felt like it I could still argue that it was a money or greed issue, but I won’t.
Seeing as your only problem with my statements was the fact that I was being a “bigot” and arguing something I said I wasn’t, I see no actual attempt to dismantle or debunk any o the arguments I had brought up, I must assume that you resulted to name calling for the sake that you have lost the logical debate.
I leave you with this
“If you can’t answer a man’s arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” Elbert Hubbard
In Response to Justin Fritz:
I am curious on how you are connecting homosexuality with pedophilia and zoophilia. I think that you mean by this that if a man wants to be with another man or a woman wants to be with another woman this is the same as a person wanting to be with a child or be with an animal. If it is, this is by not really the case.
The last time I checked, homosexuality contains the consent of both parties in the relationship. I am pretty sure that the children being molested and abused by pedophilias do not give their consent; neither do the animals. Again, I think that you are purely talking about sexual desires. Seeing that the fight for homosexual’s civil rights is based upon relationships not sexual desires, your argument about pedophilia and zoophilia doesn’t really apply to anything homosexuals are trying to gain.
I also happened to notice that you said that marriage is not a civil right. If this is true then why don’t we just get rid of all the benefits that come along with marriage? Then we can give marriage back to religion, and leave it with them. Although, this seems like a lot of back tracking to me; wouldn’t it be easier to just get over the moral arguments (which are also illogical because you can’t argue morality) and give everyone the right to marry and receive those benefits in their relationship. You don’t think marriage is a civil right, but surely relationships are. Our constitution was based upon Locke’s natural rights; life, liberty, and property. It was changed to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and I’m quite sure that relationships fall into these categories.