The rest really isn't that exciting - there's a bit about the judicial system, a comment about people running for office having birth certificates, and that "American Symbols" should be honored - including the Ten Commandments, which I honestly fail to see as a truly American symbol. Now, we get into the good stuff - the section entitled "Strengthening Families, Protecting Life and Promoting Health".
The section starts off opposing homosexual marriages - not that's a big surprise. In addition, they call for Congress to prohibit courts from hearing cases on the matter (which, to me, smells suspiciously like fear), and to amend the constitution to only recognize marriages between a natural man and a natural woman. Nothing unusual here.
The next bullet point reads: "We affirm that this section is a response to the attacks on traditional family values. These include wellfunded, vigorous political and judicial attempts by powerful organizations and branches of the government to force acceptance, affirmation and normalization of homosexual behavior upon school children, parents, educational institutions, businesses, employees, government bodies and religious institutions and charities. These aggressive, intolerant efforts marginalize as bigots anyone who dissents."
Okay. Let me see if I'm reading this correctly. They claim that this section of their platform is in direct response to "attacks on traditional values," including attempts "to force acceptance, affirmation and normalization of homosexual behavior," and that these are "aggressive, intolerant efforts" that "marginalize [dissenters] as bigots." So, by teaching acceptance, we're being intolerant? By naming people who commit hate crimes bigots, we're marginalizing people who are just dissenting from the popular belief? I would also like to note that the first group who has the "normalization of homosexual behavior" force upon them is school children - once against, the argument is "Think of the children!", and once again, I fail to see how teaching children that there is more than one way of life is a bad thing.
This is followed by a desire to make issuing a marriage license to a gay couple a felony, and then with an attack on homosexuality itself. For this, I'm going to need to go point by point.
"We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases."
Nothing new or even worth commenting on, except that (if I recall correctly) the practice of heterosexuality also spreads the same diseases.
"Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans."
First and foremost, I'd like to mention the idea of separation of Church and State - ie that religion and politics, at least in my view, should be separate. In this case, claiming that part of your party platform is to uphold "truths that have been ordained by God" seems to edge towards violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment. After all, what if my religion holds that a set of other truths are, well, truths? Does this statement, then, not violate the Establishment Clause - enacting laws that are supported by only some religions? Secondly, a quick Google search on "Founding Fathers" and "Homosexuality" returned nothing but heavily biased results (on both sides), so I'll leave that alone; just like I won't argue that the majority of Texans believe one thing or another.
"Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” "
I'd like to comment on the use of quotation marks here to indicate disagreement with how the terms inside the quotation marks are used. That is all.
"We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin),custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits."
My confusing over the grammar aside (at first glance, this reads like they're opposed to refusing to recognize special privileges), this crosses a line with the second listed item: the refusal of allowing homosexuals to have custody of children. If they are opposed to single parents, then it's a little less outrageous, but it raises a few interesting questions of what would happen to a parent with custody if they came out of the closet. Or if a gay person with children had the misfortune of moving to the state.
"We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."
At first glance, this seems to say that people who are against homosexuality should not be penalized for their beliefs. A little closer, and I can see implications of making it not-illegal to openly oppose homosexuality through means of discrimination... or force. In addition, they make no mention of people who oppose homosexuality for other reasons (whatever those may be) - should they have criminal or civil penalties? Probably just an over-sight, but a big one.
And that ends that bullet. Let's continue with:
"We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy."
Okay. Might I introduce this "We" to a Supreme Court case known as Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which struck down anti-sodomy laws as unconstitutional. So, if this appeal to Congress is granted, wouldn't that mean that Lawrence v. Texas will stand, since the Supreme Court has the final say on what's allowed? Just a thought.
Afterwards, they make a motion to prohibit pornography, and then we move on to the next section - which is all about abortion.
The section begins with the simple comment that they oppose abortion, in all of its forms; that several steps should be added to the abortion process (officially to inform women of all of the facts, but I'd argue that some steps are simply to try to scare women out of having the abortion). Next, they state opposition to the "Morning after pill," among other things. At this point, I'd like to simply state my opinion on abortion - that I don't really have a strong opinion on abortion itself; but I feel that each person should be allowed to make up their own mind.
After aboration, there's a few things on anti-stem cells and anti-cloning, and it ends with a comment against altering the genes of living humans. Which is, once again, not unexpected but it leaves me wondering if they know how such a process works - since it's nearly impossible to alter the DNA in the cells of a human - at least after he or she is born; if they are against genetic alterations in the womb, that's actually something I can support.
Following, there's the section on the ever-present children. This including raising the age of consent to 18 (again, something I can support) to allowing parents freedom to choose their own child care (again, supportable for the most part) to prohibiting homosexuals from adopting.
Look - I can understand that you are against same sex marriage. But why can single heterosexuals adopt when single (because they can't be married) homosexuals cannot? This is fundamentally giving one group of person a privilege that is denied to a second - I believe the term for this is discrimination.
And, I think that's all for this batch - next post is planned to be a break from this (which should continue onto a 3rd and 4th part), but then we'll get back into it! Until next time - I still need a catch phrase!
No comments:
Post a Comment