Freedom vs. Equality in America

A popular topic in the news has been regarding Senate Bill 1062, also called the “Arizona Anti-Gay Bill.”  With a controversial name like that it’s no real wonder why it is creating such a stir in the media and in the public.  I mean, how long have the LGBT community been fighting for equality?  A simple internet search led me to “The American Gay Rights Movement: A Short History” located at About.com Civil Liberties.  In the opening paragraph I was horrified to read that “Thomas Jefferson proposed a law that would mandate castration for gay men and mutilation of nose cartilage for gay women.”  According to the article’s introduction, it wasn’t until 2003 before “the U.S. Supreme Court finally put an end to laws criminalizing same-sex intercourse in Lawrence v. Texas.”  And yet, it’s not over for the LGBT community.  They are still fighting for equality, the right to marry, and to raise children.

I located SB 1062 on the Arizona State Legislature website so that I could read for myself just what this bill is proposing.  There are 3 key points that are proposed in this bill.  One says that people cannot be prevented the right to exercise their religion.  Two says that people who exercise their religion are protected from “state action” unless their opponents are working to further a “compelling governmental interest.”  And three says that people can claim their right to exercise their religion as their defense against opposition and may even be awarded relief.  Bob Christie of the Associated Press wrote a very good article on February 26, 2014 called “Arizona Bill Raises Complicated Legal Questions” that articulates these issues and presents a fair amount of information of supporters and opponents of the bill.  Fortunately Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the bill on Wednesday, February 26, 2014.  Christie quoted her as saying, “[the bill] could divide Arizona in ways we could not even imagine and no one would ever want.”  She also said that “the bill was broadly worded and could result in unintended negative consequences” and I couldn’t agree more.

SB 1062 is just one example of a state law regarding freedom vs. equality.  Other states have created similar laws that ban gay marriage or bans adoption by gay couples.  There are also some states that grant equality to the LGBT community, like New York has by making gay marriage legal and employment, housing and educational discrimination illegal, as well as hate crimes based on sexual orientation.  A news website called The Guardian has a revealing interactive chart which shows all of the fifty states categorized by region and illustrates gay rights and bans in each.  This chart plainly shows that we are a nation divided on this issue.

How does a bill whose sole purpose is to discriminate and divide our nations’ people even get through to the veto stage?  Have we as a society learned nothing from our own history?  Discrimination pits groups within our society against each other and leads to civil unrest.  Discrimination of any kind should not be legal in this country.  Why do we elect officials that want to make laws encouraging discrimination?  We must take the time to vote responsibly and learn what each of state reps stand for.  Don’t vote for a person because he had a good commercial or another person simply because you recognize the same name.  Our country needs officials who understand that freedom and equality are best balanced when they do not infringe upon each other.  Both are important and both will make our country strong.  American freedoms should not be a detriment or cause harm, physically or otherwise, to others.  And equality is not detrimental to anyone because we are all equal.  Those who believe otherwise really do not belong in an elected office where they have the opportunity to create damaging laws such as SB 1062.

What we need is an amendment to our constitution granting equal rights to all American citizens, period.  We have the Thirteenth Amendment (1865) which makes slavery illegal.  Then we have the Fifteenth Amendment (1869) which grants voting rights to African American males.  Then we have the Nineteenth Amendment (1919) which grants voting rights to women.  Each of these amendments proved to be great strides in our government and in our society, but there is still so much left undone.  Unfortunately, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 was enacted by President Bill Clinton and only requires states to legally recognize marriage as a union between one man and one woman.  This allows too much variation among the states as each state can decide for itself the legal status of gay marriage within its boundaries.  But even this does not cover all of the various civil rights issues that the LGBT community is fighting for.  As with all other minority groups throughout our history, the fight for gay rights is long fought and painful, but I do hope that one day our county can unite its citizens with freedom and equality for all.

Conservatively Speaking...

Human Events, established in 1944, calls itself “the nation’s first conservative weekly” and discusses topics from the conservative perspective.   According to his very limited bio, John Hayward has been writing for Human Events since October of 2010.  Aside from mentioning that he has been a guest on several radio shows and that he has authored a collection of short stories, there is no other information about his background or experience.

Hayward wrote a healthcare article dated 2/5/2014 that caught my attention called “Freedom’s Just Another Word For Nothing Left To Do.”  The article viciously criticizes the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare), President Obama, his administration and his supporters.  The focus of his attack centers on the Obama Administration and ObamaCare supporters defending the projected unemployment increases as a result of the new health care law according to the latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Report.  While he does not quote the report directly, he does quote a Wall Street Journal article which also claims that the unemployment increase is a good thing because “ ‘individuals will be empowered to make choices about their own lives and livelihoods’ and ‘have the opportunity to pursue their dreams’. ”  Hayward plainly says that because of ObamaCare, some Americans will now choose to be unemployed because they will net better income and benefits through subsidies and welfare than they will if they were working.

A lot of the ideas that Hayward presents sound scary and seem to have enough merit behind them to be plausible.  I say it that way because his article is full of his interpretation of statements made by the collective "they" of liberals, democrats, and other Obama supporters and cohorts, but I feel he does not present enough specific quotes of specific sources that I can research and verify.  In that sense, I suppose it is a rather good editorial well suited for the opinion pages.  

After reading his article I have to say that I agree with many of his concepts.  I think America has proven that our capitalist nation ensures more equal opportunity for citizens to succeed and thrive over that of a socialist nation where the vast majority are in poverty and only a select few are rich with no middle class in between.  While certain social programs are vital, they should be there to help Americans seeking to improve their quality of life and not to provide for them indefinitely.  

The fiercely aggressive tone of his argument seems to be directed at his opponents.  I think he wrote this article with such intensity because he wants “liberals” and Obama supporters to know exactly how wrong he believes them to be.  I think the aggressiveness and insults that he spews makes his argument sound terrifying and convincing, but also intimidating…as if he is trying to bully some of us that may be unsure into his way of thinking.  I personally don’t need to be bullied that way, simply expressing some rational thoughts is enough for me to make up my mind, so I really don’t like his hostile tactics.  Disagreeing with the President and directly insulting him are two different things; the freedom to disagree is a right guaranteed us by the Constitution and insults in my opinion weaken the author’s character.

An Editorial Review...

“Fixing Immigration, In Principle” is an editorial from The New York Times dated January 30, 2014 and credited to The Editorial Board.  The Editorial Board is a diverse group of 19 highly educated professionals whose backgrounds, specialties, and experience are quite varied, and whose opinions ultimately reflect those of the editor, Andrew Rosenthal, and the publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr.  I found this article interesting for a couple of reasons.  One reason is because some of my responsibilities in Human Resources are to ensure proper identification is provided to verify employment eligibility. 

Another reason is because of some conversations I have heard regarding illegal immigration, particularly when Arizona enacted their tough immigration law.  Although crowds of minorities marched in Austin and students organized school walk-outs, I was in favor of the Arizona Immigration Law.  Living and working in Texas I began to hear stories of people who paid upwards of $4000 to human smugglers referred to as “coyotes” to come into the U.S. to live and work illegally.  They would live here and work and send money to their families who remained outside of the U.S.  Then after a few years, they would leave for a brief visit with their families and before long they once again pay their coyote to come back and do it all again.  It frustrates me because I don’t understand why they can save that amount of money to be smuggled in illegally but they can’t follow the legal process for residency and citizenship.  It also frustrated me to see these minority marches and school walk-outs because it seems like they are fighting for their right to ignore and break the law and refuting the government’s right to enforce the law. 

The views in this editorial are very liberal and support allowing illegal immigrants and their children to remain and become legal citizens with little to no consequences of their originally illegal status, because to do otherwise is “not the American way.”  I do not agree or accept that rationale because our government must be willing and able to enforce all of our laws for our society to continue.  If people want laws to change, then it is our responsibility to elect government officials who make changing those laws a priority.  However, the editorial also comments on some of the proposed enforcement measures that “have no place in any bill” because they are “an invitation to racial profiling and other abuses.”  I do agree with this statement.  We are a diverse society, often called a melting-pot, and racial profiling should never be part of law enforcement.  I do not support accosting someone to verify their legal status based on race.  But requiring employers to maintain E-verify records and making legal status checks standard for all who are detained or arrested for probable cause seem like reasonable enforcement measures.   I believe it should not be so difficult to find a reasonable middle ground to this issue.  Should current illegal immigrants whose only crime is their legal status be allowed to earn American citizenship?  I think yes.  Should they face some type of consequence, whether financial or limited jail time?  I think yes.  Should they be deported?  Not if they are willing to follow the legal process.  However, if they have committed other crimes, or if they are here to escape prosecution from another country, they should be deported and any residency or citizenship blocked.  Even to me my views seem like an oversimplification of the issue, so there are probably a lot more factors to consider that I have not mentioned.  Congress needs to work together to come to a middle ground and stop trying to win an all or nothing game for the good of everyone and not just one group of people.