The Shelby County Education Foundation’s 5th annual “Race for Education” is Sunday, November 5, at Cameron Brown Park in Germantown.
Also, the Shelby County School System is holding a logo design contest. The prize is $100. Deadline to enter is December 4.
People have been pointing to the “Memphis meltdown” as a turning point in the campaign. Maybe that’s true, but I didn’t see much wrong with Ford Jr. appearing at a press conference; Jr. has a habit of showing up at Republican functions, so that didn’t amount to a “meltdown.” This clip, however, does much to counter the image Jr. has been trying to cultivate as being above the political fray and respectful of people in both parties, and hurts his ability to continue courting religious conservatives. See video below the fold. (more…)
A little article I wrote for the Main Street Journal’s November issue on Saturday’s debate is available online.
I’ve gotten so used to writing with unlimited space and no deadlines that it was a real challenge presenting a dated event (the issue comes out after the election) in a way that will still be somewhat relevant in the aftermath, and keeping it under 500 words; writing with such restrictions is much more difficult than what I do here. It’s been so long since I wrote a poem or feature story that I’ve nearly forgotten how to work with such precision; if nothing else, this was a good exercise.
It’s such a beautiful city… when it isn’t raining.
But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’
Fishkite has clashed with Wendi Thomas before on the issue of gay marriage. That earlier post, however, was dedicated to the Biblical view of marriage, rather than the legal aspect of it. Today, the columnist’s willful ignorance of the fundamental religious foundation of marriage, as included above, persists, and is now applied to the constitutional decision before us in this election, previously chewed on below.
In that recent post, I observe that critics of the amendment tend to resort to three main things: 1. Ad hominem attacks, 2. a claim that it presents a problem only for homosexuals, and 3. a claim that the amendment is redundant and unnecessary.
Thomas hits all the points in the playbook, beginning of course with a heavy dose of name-calling (Point 1.); she calls proponents of Amendment One “foolish,” “irrational,” “radical” “homophobes,” and describes them as racists who are who are stuck in “Groundhog day.”
Next, she claims that voting against the amendment would open the door only to homosexual couples (Point 2.):
[T]he radical religious right and many Republicans whine that if gay men and lesbians are allowed to marry today, then tomorrow I might demand the right to marry my dog. And my first cousin. And three or four other people, a couple of whom might be small children.
Of course, that hysteria is silly and foolish and irrational.
All that’s left is for Thomas is to claim that such an amendment is unnecessary, given the federal and state laws that are already on the books (Point 3.), a message she delivers with artistic abandon, describing the situation as “a legal version of suspenders to go along with the belt” and “an ugly, too-tight girdle to be worn on top of the pants, restricting all blood flow to the brain.”
One-two-three, there’s your column. Thanks for playing.
But what Thomas of course fails to mention is yesterday’s New Jersey court ruling, which forces legislators to change state marriage laws:
Opponents of same-sex marriage contend the New Jersey decision could have a national impact because the state imposes no residency requirements for people seeking marriage. In essence, it could open the door for gay and lesbian couples from other states to marry in New Jersey and challenge laws against same-sex marriage in their own states.
And when the formula for marriage is no longer two adult members of the opposite sex, it’s not just “hysteria” which leads a reasonable person to conclude it won’t be long before polygamists sue for similar rights, followed by incestuous couples, and so on. It’s just that, for the time being, gay rights advocates — in a smart move, politically — leave these groups out in the cold while simultaneously claiming that “love does not discriminate” and calling out the religious right on that very charge.
The long and short of it is that Thomas, and her heroes in the local Democratic party, are nowhere near as enlightened, or as Biblically sound, as she apparently believes.
Now, in my earlier post I also offered three reasons why I hesitate to support Amendment One, followed by some counter-arguments, and left it with a “likely-yes” stance. I also engaged a little bit in the comments, coming up with a rough comparison in order to give the issue some further thought. And I’ve been doing more thinking off the page as well. Then I happened to come across a post from last summer where I reacted to a church’s decision to approve gay marriage, followed by a discussion in the comments where I wrote this:
Reading about this episode has actually increased my opposition to gay marriage, at least from a Christian standpoint. The secular argument is far better, and I take a more libertarian view of the issue as a citizen. It’s a difficult issue for me only in that our government attaches unique rights and responsibilities to the legal aspect of marriage, which could be viewed, in a sense, as discriminatory. However, the solution to that is not to change marriage, but rather to change government.
It really challenges me to examine my thinking, and forces me to decide if I want government to be in the marriage business at all. As a Christian (one who, unlike Thomas, has at least a passing familiarity with the Bible), I cannot support gay marriage; as a citizen, I cannot support discrimination.
Of course, some say the amendment isn’t discriminatory (see discussion in Point 2), and they’re right in a sense. But I’m having a hard time coming up with purely legal, non-religious reasons why the government should support one contract between two people, and offer them certain rights and advantages, while denying others. And those commenting in my earlier post are asking what harm this presents to marriage — a fair question. And what affects would it have on society, as with adoption laws?
The Family Research Council addresses these questions, and other good ones, here. Among other things, they argue that the government should support marriage because children in traditional families do better in life, and because marriages are the very building blocks which propagate our species. They also argue that men and women should not be seen as interchangeable parts, that society’s view of marriage will relax and cause all marriages to suffer.
Some of it I agree with, some of it I don’t. I’m having a hard time with the issue, myself. I fear I’m going to be haunted by my decision. Part of my problem is that I’m so fed up with the Left’s hatred of religious people and its abandonment of morality that it clouds the issue, and Wendi Thomas only adds to the haze.
But, overall, it just comes back to what you think a government should and shouldn’t do. And I guess that’s something every person needs to decide individually. Everyone should be aware, though, that voting against the amendment means you’re ready for gay marriage to be legal in this state, despite the Left’s assurances to the contrary. If you aren’t comfortable with gay marriage, sitting out the vote is not an option, because the lawsuits are coming. And, with activist judges at the helm — those who can rewrite the laws on a whim — even passing the amendment is no guarantee marriage will remain as God intended.
This Giant Panda cub:
UPDATE: It appears that I’m doing my part to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and save the environment; it’s just another aspect of Fishkite’s ongoing service to the community. No thanks necessary.
Mark me down as a strong supporter of this movement, advocating the appointment of John Harvey to Shelby County’s Election Commission. My thanks to Tom Guleff for making a push to get this idea in front of people.
Here’s some background from an e-mail I sent out in late August, after having studied the situation:
On April 2, 2007, the Tennessee State Election Commission will appoint new members to the Shelby County Election Commission for a two-year term.
John Harvey’s work is what led to the revelations that dead people (i.e. corrupt poll workers) and out-of-town illegal voters were influencing our elections in Shelby County, and he has continued exposing flaws in the voter database and election process with his influential website, votinginmemphis.com.
If we encourage our elected leaders to support Harvey, they may be able to influence the State Commission’s nominations next Spring.
I know that some people are sour to Harvey because of his criticism of Sheriff Mark Luttrell during the Republican primary. I would only remind them that those criticisms were made during a campaign, and that is not a good reason to keep him from serving in this capacity — an area where his particular skills and experience are so greatly needed. Adding Harvey to the commission is not something to do as a favor to him, but as a boost to all the citizens of the county, a pledge that we care about the integrity of our election system and the importance of our right to vote.
I know that Harvey is willing to serve in this capacity, and that several people around the county are eager to see that happen. I urge any elected official within reach of this blog to give the idea serious consideration between now and April.
UPDATE: I’m now told that, in each county, each party’s legislative delegation selects the nominees to the county’s Election Commission, so perhaps I misunderstood the selection process as explained here: “The State Election Commission is responsible for appointing five county election commissioners for every county in the state.”
The Main Street Journal, with WMC-TV, is hosting a District 9 debate this Saturday at 7pm. It’s open to the public. E-mail your questions to debate-at-wmctv.com.
The Memphis Race for the Cure, benefitting The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, will be held this Saturday, October 28. Online registration is available through Friday.
I just realized the poverty numbers for 2005 are in; I was actually waiting until November to check it, not realizing that the Census Bureau releases the data at the end of August every year.
According to the press release, America’s poverty rate in 2005 was “statistically unchanged” over the previous year, though if you check the historical table you will see that the percent has dropped from 12.7 to 12.6, indicating that we may have reached a cycle peak in 2004.
One thing I find interesting about the data is how stable the rate appears — there is little change from one year to the next. For the last five years, the rate has remained within a one point range, and within only two points over the last ten years. The rate hasn’t moved a full point within one year since 1982, or more than two points within one year since 1966. Over the last 40 years, our poverty rate has held within a two to three point range.
So here’s the graph, updated from the one I posted last November:
