Category Archives: Election 2012

How an Outhouse Explains Politicians Relationship to Voters

Posted on by
Share:
Reply

Outhouses are part of a cultural history of the United States.  These little buildings used as a toilet were around a long time before indoor plumbing.  Today, they may seem backward and dirty because indoor bathrooms are more sanitary and therefore safer than outhouses.  So, why does this picture explain politicians’ relationship to their constituents?  There is a notion out there that politics are dirty.  The other one is that voters feel like their elected officials scorn them. Why do voters feel this way?

We’ve Been Dumped On!

There is a major divide in this country between the ruling class and the electorate.  This is the same for both Democrats and Republicans because both parties are out of touch with the needs of the American people.   Compared to the average American, the Democrats are too far to the left and Republicans too far to the right. That is one of the problems that most Americans are having with elected officials.[1]

If Voting Changed Anything They Would Make It Illegal

It seems that voting is pretty much useless at this point in time.  Politics in Washington has become partisan in such a way that has not been seen for a few generations at least.  When anything comes before Congress right now, like a jobs bill or a new welfare bill, they are tabling the legislation until after the presidential election this year.  But, some legislators in Congress are hell-bent on getting President Obama out of the White House or keeping Obama in the White House and keeping their job.  They have no consideration for the average American citizen.  Then, where there are a few representatives or senators that try to get something done, their ideas are smothered.  It is like building a fire: if the fire doesn’t get enough oxygen, it dies out.  So, for some of these representatives and senators, they are either not getting enough oxygen or they are trying to smother the flame.  I applaud those elected officials that are willing to actually do something and I feel sorry that their ideas are not getting through due to some bull-headed, stubborn people that are their coworkers.

Why Do They Disrespect Us So Much?

The question really becomes how and why did this divide happen.  Campaign finance is the answer.  Follow my reasoning here for a bit. Campaigns are becoming more and more expensive to wage.  From traveling to printing costs the prices keep going higher.  Now with current campaign finance laws, major corporations are able to create PACs (Political Action Committee) which can raise money and they can spend that money however they want.  Let’s say that a certain PAC wants a certain candidate in office.  They can literally spend a fortune to get their candidate elected.  This has left the old days of dropping money into a hat at a political rally or sending a check to a candidate obsolete.  Now, elected officials serve for their PAC donors and not the American people.  Until this divide is closed between electorate and elected officials this rupture will only increase.  This discord between the ruling class and the governed needs to stop and scars need to heal.  The American government is by and for the people, not by and for the PAC with the most money.  Let’s start putting these outhouses side by side instead of having politicians dumping on top of the citizens.

[1] I would like to mention here that this is national politics only.  I have not been doing as much reading and research on local and state level politics.  This is from what I have been seeing and reading about the national level.  I am also not talking about every elected national official either, just mainly the ones that you hear about on the news making a lot of noise.

What’s the Point of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate?

Posted on by
Share:
1

This week Political Sigh has focused on the same-sex marriage debate. We have seen several points of view ranging from supporters to denouncers.  We have also talked to pastors and a gay male.  We have seen what they have to say.  So now, we are left wondering: what is the point?  Where is this debate going?  Can anything else be offered?  I would argue that the debate we are hearing and reading about in main stream media is pointless.  What we need to be talking about is how to find the middle path on this issue and not about whose extreme view we are going to adopt and make into a law.  But first, let’s take a step back and take a historical look at marriage.

In western civilization, marriage is an ancient custom. A father of a young man would arrange the most economically advantageous marriage for his son.  It was seen as a way to link two families and it was much more important for the higher social classes. Love never was factored into the equation. In some cases, after the wedding the bride and groom were led away to the bed chamber.  Marriage was for procreation and arranged for economic benefit. (For a very brief history on marriage, click here) The church was not really involved in the issue.

It is recent phenomenon that people can marry for love and that the church is taking a stronger role in pre-wedding, marriage and post-marriage activities. Here is where things get tricky, I think. Supporters of same-sex marriage believe that if straight couples can get married for love, then why can’t gay couples do the same?  It is only fair. On the other side, we have a segment of the population that believes in the traditional idea of marriage (even though it is still a fairly recent practice) as a love match that will eventually produce children.  I think the issue here is not so much about same-sex marriage, as it is that gay couples cannot procreate. The folks who support same-sex marriage are not as bogged down with the traditional viewpoints, but they do to believe in love.  You love someone, so get married.  If you have kids that is great and if not that is fine too. It is your choice.

This notion of the modern idea of family stems from the 1950s when suburban life was at its peak.  There were TV shows like “Leave it to Beaver” that featured the wholesome American family.  Men and women would get married, have children, buy a nice house and the man would go to work and the woman would stay home and raise the kids.  However, this is an idealized vision of family on today’s world.  At least 50% of first marriages end in divorce and there are approximately 9.9 million single mothers.  If people are really concerned about keeping marriage sacred and keeping the family together, let’s begin to look at the heart of the problem.

As far as gay couples and the issue of same-sex marriage are concerned, maybe we should go back to a time when the Church was not as involved in marriage. Let’s factor in the idea of being able to marry for love.  Let’s take some of what we do now and just change it a little bit. Right now, people who want to get married have to go to their state’s equivalent of the county clerk’s office and obtain a marriage license. Straight couples have some options.  They can either be married by a judge, a justice of the peace or a religious leader who is ordained. Let’s say, hypothetically, that we changed who could perform marriages and only allow judges and justices of the peace perform weddings.  This way, both straight couples and gay couples could get married.  Then, if a couple wants a religious blessing, they can have that ceremony as well. This is just a remixing of marriage.  Take a little of the old and a little of the new and “voila,” something good for everyone emerges.

I am one guy with one opinion.  But I am one guy who did extensive research into the same-sex marriage issue before forming a firm opinion on the matter. If you disagree with my views based upon evidence, then that is fine.  Please post in the comments and let’s have a rational discussion about the topic.  I am happy to hear from all sides of any debate.

A Protestant Pastor on Same-Sex Marriage

Posted on by
Share:
Reply

Over the last few days, Political Sigh has been trying to get to the point in the same-sex marriage debate.  We have talked to people from all sides of the political spectrum and today we are discussing the religious side of things.  I interviewed, via e-mail, a Protestant pastor on the topic:

PS: What do you think are the religious implications of President Obama’s support of same-sex marriage?

PP: I believe that President Obama’s statement was a political move in an election year.  I think he has held these views for some time.

PS: What does your faith say about homosexuality?

PP: Our faith says that homosexuality is inconsistent with the Christian faith but that we are all sinners before God and need grace.  However, there is a large gap in understanding what this means. Some portions of our church push for modification and other vehemently strive for a stand that is more restrictive.

PS: Why do you think that President Obama made it known in an election year that he supports same-sex marriage?

PP: To win votes.

PS: Assuming that same-sex marriage is legalized in the next few years, what do you think it will do the institution of marriage?

PP: If legalized it will have some impact but very little on church weddings because we cannot be forced to do such weddings.  The institution of marriage is already wounded with over 40% of births happening outside the traditional family.

PS: You said in your last response that the institution of marriage is already wounded because 40% of births happen outside of the traditional family.  Also, approximately 50% of marriages end in divorce. In terms of the traditional family, do you think that both the Right and the Left are getting it wrong?  Maybe instead of focusing on same-sex marriage, we should be focusing on keeping families together because our traditional family is fading away?

PP: I think that is a fair assessment.  But maybe we ought to also minister to all those singles that are out there.  Almost all our activities are focused on married people or families. [End of interview]

I also spoke to another pastor about this issue.  He raised an interesting point. “Jesus never addressed homosexuality.  Paul did, but not Jesus.  So one of two things happened, either Jesus never met a homosexual or he didn’t see homosexuality as an issue.”  This was something I had never considered before.

These interviews made me realize that not every religious leader is considering same-sex marriage as a serious issue.  Sure, same-sex marriage may change a few things for the Church but as the interviewee said, the government cannot make churches perform marriages that it disagrees with.  The Church has more problems to worry about.

Later this afternoon, I will be doing a special post that takes all the information that I have gathered over this week on same-sex marriage and try to get to the point of the argument.  Check back a little later today for it.

A Dog in the Fight of Same-Sex Marriage

Posted on by
Share:
Reply

This week I have shown you interviews with people for and against same-sex marriage.  Until now, I have not presented a person with a dog in the fight.  A few days ago, I was able to conduct a telephone interview with a person who is gay and in a committed relationship. As with my other interviews, this one is being kept anonymous. I asked his thoughts on the same-sex marriage debate:

PS: What do you think of President Obama’s announcement supporting same-sex marriage?

A: I think it is a good first step.  Having someone with his influence coming out in support of allowing marriage between gay couples can really boost the discussion.  Of course, there is still a long way to go on the issue but it was a good first step.

PS: You say there is a long way to go.  What do you mean by that phrase?

A: In 2003, Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage.  The next year, eleven states, including my own, put a constitutional ban on it.  If this issue is left up to the states, then gay people in progressive states are going to get rights and the ones of us that are in less progressive states will not.  Same-sex marriage is going to be one of those issues that has to be federally mandated.  Sure, Obama saying he supports same-sex marriage is a good thing.  But then in the next breath, he says it should be up to the states to decide.  That is just not going far enough.  If he really wanted to make a difference, Obama would have come out and said “I support legalizing same-sex marriage and I will do everything in my power to make that a reality.”

PS: Why do you think that some people are adamantly against same-sex marriage?

A: The same people that are against same-sex marriage are the same ones that have asked me my entire life “why are you gay?” or “how do you know you are gay?”  I have to tell them that I know that I am gay the same way that you know you are straight.  I do not have to sleep with women to know that I am not sexually attracted to them.  It is the same way that a straight male does not have to sleep with a man to know that he is straight.  He just knows.  I just know.

I really think that these people just don’t understand.  I think they are scared to face reality.  Gay people deserve rights.  We are being discriminated against because of our sexual orientation.  It has taken the American government a long time to get to where it is.  When our country was first founded, it was only rich white men who got the right to vote.  Then, after the Civil War, African-Americans got some rights but even those really didn’t take effect until the mid-1960s.  Women didn’t get the right to vote until the 1920s and it took a constitutional amendment.  Same-sex marriage and all the rights that come with that will not happen until it is federally mandated.

PS: What are some of those rights gay couples are wanting?

A: Heterosexuals are afforded 1,033 rights that are excluded gay couples because they cannot marry. The gay community pays the same taxes, but is not given the same rights. It is very similar to taxation without representation.  What we want are the same rights.

PS: There has been debate over the past few years about allowing civil unions for gay couples.  What do you think about that? Could that possibly be a good compromise?

A: It would make a good cop-out.  I used to be in full support of civil unions.  I figured, you can call it whatever you want just give me the same rights that a straight married couple gets.  Then I started doing some research on the difference between a civil union and a marriage.  In most cases, insurance companies will not allow the partners in a civil union to be on the same insurance plan.  That is just one example.

PS: There are some churches out there that say they will refuse to marry gay couples.  What do you think about this?

A:  I think that marriage should be kept a state thing and it should not be a church thing.  It is not the church that legally marries a straight couple.  It is the state that they live in.  Sure, the preacher or priest or what have you can perform the ceremony but that is because they are legally able to do so.  If those churches do not want to marry me and my partner, then that is perfectly fine and that is their prerogative.  I have other options, such as a justice of the peace or a church that is more progressively-minded.  [End of interview]

It seems like we have a really good response from a person who has something to gain in this debate.  Tomorrow, Political Sigh will be interviewing a pastor of a church will be giving his opinion on the debate.

Same-Sex Marriage: Is It Immoral?

Posted on by
Share:
Reply

Yesterday, I posted interviews of people who support same-sex marriage. Today’s interview, the one yesterday and all future interviews on this issue are being kept anonymous. Because of the highly politicized debate surrounding same-sex marriage, Political Sigh believes that it is in the best interest of the interviewee.

Today, we are looking at the opposite side of the debate.    I sat down with a person for a face-to-face interview about their opposition to same-sex marriage.  This person, who claims not to be political, finds this issue bothersome.

PS: Are you in favor of same-sex marriage?

A: No.

PS: Why are you not in favor?

A: I believe that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman.  It is not between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.  The church is what created marriage, not the government, so it should be kept that way.

PS: So your view on same-sex marriage is affected by your religious views?

A: Yes.  The Lord said that no man shall lay with another man as with women. The Bible states that a marriage is done to unite a man and a woman as one.  You can’t tell me that a man and a woman do not fit perfectly together.  Therefore a man and a man or a woman and a woman can’t be united as one because they are the same.  Let’s use a puzzle as an example.  Each puzzle piece fits perfectly together because they are different.  The same goes for man and woman.  I think that if the Lord wanted homosexuals to marry he would have told his messengers to write it in the Bible.  As it stands now, the idea of same-sex marriage is an abomination of the Bible. [End of interview]

The main argument against same-sex marriage, it seems, revolves around religious beliefs. Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, which provided abortion rights, the Christian religious movement has focused more of its energy on politics and legislation. The government of the United States is not considered religiously founded nor is there an official state religion.  But, when 87% of the population is considered religious, that is a demographic that cannot be ignored.

Since we have interviewed two types of people, where are we on the path to finding the point? This issue seems murkier than ever and we are no closer to figuring it out. Over the next two days, Political Sigh will be interviewing a psychologist and a religious leader or two to help.  Stay tuned.

Same-Sex Marriage: Why Not?

Posted on by
Share:
Reply

Yesterday, I let all my readers know that Political Sigh was going to tackle the issue of same-sex marriage this week.  Today, we are going to see some viewpoints from people who are in support of the issue.

I recently asked some people I knew what they thought about same-sex marriage.  Here are two responses that I received from those who support the idea.

The first one was done via a Facebook post:

“We are living during a magnificent turning point in American history! Same-Sex marriage could ultimately be a defining issue for this election cycle. Those opposed are undoubtedly on the wrong side of history. They continue to dig themselves deeper into a bitter trench of control, self-deceit, and the illusion of believing they are somehow deserving of special privileges.

It is my hope that hearts and minds might be opened as we march forward towards equality for all. I am excited to see this civil rights issue come to the forefront of our National discussion. LOVE and HAPPINESS should NEVER be legislated!

I look forward to breathing in the sweet air, from the winds of change, on the day when same- sex marriage becomes FEDERAL LAW!

President Obama’s stance on the issue shows why he is the person to lead this country for four more years. I’m proud of our President, proud of America, and looking forward to celebrating a second consecutive landslide victory in November – and to continued progress for ALL Americans.”  [End of post]

This post shows the viewpoint for the legalization of same-sex marriage from the Left.  Is there anyone that leans to the Right that supports the cause?  I was able to find person who was willing to give an opinion via Facebook’s chat feature:

PS: What are your thoughts on same-sex marriage?

A:  I am a Libertarian and I say that gays should be allowed to marry. Government should be able to intervene in this. Let the law allow two consenting adults to marry and leave it alone. I don’t care if they are gay, cousins, siblings, what have you. It’s not the government’s role to define marriage or to define “love”. Conservatives blast the perceived horrors of a child growing up in same-sex home and progressives flail it around our faces like our nation has nothing better to be concerned about. It’s simply not up to the government to decide.

PS: Why do you think this is such a heated debate?

A: Because people are raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Neo-conservatives and bible thumpers refer to “Adam and Eve” and they cite various scriptures to confirm their convictions (Leviticus 18 & 20 for starters). The interpretation of these and other scriptures boils down to one’s school of theology and one’s method of hermeneutics (the study of interpreting the Bible). Some believe David and Jonathan was a couple. But, much of one’s thoughts, conjectures, etc. are based on sociology. I got my master’s from a Baptist college and they outright, unapologetically disavowed gay rights and gay marriage. In fact, some alumni have referred to it as a moral disease (I even heard this during a graduation reception).

Progressives preach “equal rights” because it feels warm and fuzzy. My thought is that your freedom to be you ALSO includes my freedom to be free from you. I don’t like hearing homosexuality referred to as a disease any more than I like having a progressive force feed me gay marriage ideology and why it’s “right”. The choice is up to each individual and if what feels right to them doesn’t infringe on my rights, and a man marrying a man does NOT infringe on my rights, then I’m fine with that.

PS: Do you think that gay marriage should even be an issue? Should it just be accepted and we move on to something else?

A: The Constitution implies that the federal government has no business in the matter is the first distinction to make. All of this hoopla regarding Obama’s beliefs is non-sense. He explicitly stated “for me personally” meaning Barack Obama the man which, NOT my surprise, got taken out of context to imply a federal endorsement of gay marriage. The 10th Amendment in the Constitution reads “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Constitution does not discuss gay marriage, thus, leaving it and other issues a state matter; however, it would seem that the 14th Amendment, which provides for equal protection under the law, would deny a state the authority to regulate gay marriage because denying marriage a couple a marriage SOLELY on the basis of whom they are marrying is discriminatory and therefore not “equal”. I realize this is just my interpretation, but the language seems pretty clear.

Love can’t be boxed in nor defined. I’ve asked gay people that I know how they knew they were gay and the answer has always been the same: they were just born that way. That’s not for me to argue with. Religious zealots would disagree, but they don’t even agree with each other so in that respect I’d lean on the “More Jesus, Less Religion” model written about by Stephen Arterburn and Jack Felton.

A gay couple being married does not infringe upon my rights in any way.  In summation, it needs to be accepted so we can move on to far more important matters because allowing the government to define love potentially opens a door for some serious infringing of my rights. [End of interview]

Today we heard some voices from people on different sides of the political spectrum.  Tomorrow, we will hear from someone who is against same-sex marriage and see what thoughts they have to add.

War on Marriage?!

Posted on by
Share:
Reply

May 9, 2012 will be one of those days in American history where a specific moment will be remembered.  Other movements, like the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s did not have actual “start” and “end” days, but they did have key moments along the way that strengthened the supporters’ resolve to keep fighting.  Take for example, August 28, 1963, which was the day Martin Luther King Jr. gave his “I Have a Dream” speech. May 9 was one of those days for the LGBT community in the movement toward acceptance and equality.  On that day President Barack Obama announced his support for legalizing same-sex marriage.  He became the highest ranking American official to do so in our country’s history.

President Obama, the first African-American president, was dubbed by Newsweek the first gay president. The day that he announced his support, Fox Nation had the headline “Obama Flip Flops, Declares War on Marriage.” Fox News, to some, is considered the most partisan of all of the news networks.  The thing is, though, most people are biased to some degree. Some are extremely partisan.  With Obama supporting same-sex marriage, the 2012 Presidential Election promises to be a partisan extravaganza.  We will have people coming out of the wood work to support Obama on his same-sex marriage stance or to staunchly advocate against same-sex marriage by voting for Mitt Romney.

Here at Political Sigh we try to get to the point of all the political chatter.  This week we are bringing the debate home.  There will be interviews with people both for and against same sex marriage.  We will also be interviewing religious leaders who will discuss the religious implications of this idea.  We will also delve into the psychology of this debate.  Will Political Sigh get caught in the crossfire?  Let’s hope not.  But one thing is for sure, Political Sigh will get to the point by presenting the facts of both arguments.

 

The Chair Shot Part Three: For the World Heavyweight Championship

Posted on by
Share:
Reply

The last couple of days, Political Sigh has posted articles on how the WWE and American politics are related.  You can see those here and here.

The thing is, if you take things too seriously you burn out.  If you take politics too seriously, then you become a nervous wreck.  If you take the WWE too seriously, let me just say that you need a hobby. Life is about having fun.

My pal, Gabe Fig, who is a twenty-five year fan of the WWE, was nice enough to sit down with me and do an interview on the WWE and politics.  So, just for fun I asked him who he thought would win in an “Anything Goes” match for the World Heavyweight Championship.  In the iconic voice of Michael Buffer, “Let’s Get Ready to Rumble!”

PS: Who do you think would win in an “Anything Goes” match for the World Heavyweight Championship: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?

GF:  Obama. He smokes, but he’s got Romney by 15 years in age. It’s pretty well documented that he was often engaged in athletics. I once read an article that said Romney was “not particularly athletic”. But, since it’s anything goes, Obama has the D.O.D. on speed dial soooo…

You heard it first here at Political Sigh.  Obama would defeat Romney in an “Anything Goes” match.  I wonder if deciding a political election would be a little more fun in the ring than in the voting booth.

Back to the Future: 2008 Buzzwords in a 2012 Election

Posted on by
Share:
Reply

I was reading Michael Scherer’s recent article on Obama’s nostalgic look back to 2008 in order to propel his 2012 campaign (here is the article). Most of us will remember the buzzwords “hope”, “change” and “fired up, ready to go.”  The question that comes up in Scherer’s article is will these buzzwords that are typically used by an outsider really be very effective this time around for President Obama?

I was working at a public university in 2008 when the presidential primaries took place.  At the time I thought how easy it was for John McCain to lock up his party’s nomination, while Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton kept going back and forth.  It was kind of like a really long tennis match.  No one could get the major victory of the nomination but each could win a few rallies here and there.  I also remember how excited everyone was about the possibility of having the first female or African-American man as president.  I was struck by how great an orator Barack Obama was (and still is, I assume, but you do not get those fiery speeches except during campaign season).  People were captivated by this quality. They would say things like “this guy can really do it; he is the change we need.”

One day, I was on campus and went to the local Starbucks.  I saw a group of college students gathered around a table wearing Obama gear and handing out flyers.  As a student, I had done the same thing for a presidential hopeful.  One of the young men came up to me and handed me a flyer.  I politely refused and told him he might need it.  He looked at me confused.  I explained, “It’s not that I don’t want your flyer. I once worked for a presidential campaign and was really enthusiastic about it. But all of that hope and change really crashed and burned and we didn’t get it.  I’m afraid of the same this time around.” The student looked stunned but he moved on.  I know he was probably thinking, “This guy doesn’t know, this time it is different.”  Now four years later, I wonder if this person really thinks it turned out different.

In 2012, just as in 2008, partisanship still rules Washington.  Many of the same people in Capitol Hill that were in power in 2008 are still in power today.  Our economy is still reeling.  We are still at war with one country and every day we see signs that could potentially point to another one.  So how can one man promise to change the culture in Washington in 2008 and then pledge again in 2012 to change it?  The truth is, no one person can change Washington, nor will a large body of politicians in the Capitol change Washington.  That is just a myth.  Some people would say that you need to vote everyone out of Washington (which is a really neat idea in theory). The only way to really change Washington is to create a politically educated populace and to take a more proactive approach to government.  So instead of latching on to buzzwords like “change”, “hope” and “fired up, ready to go,” just sift through the clutter and find the point.