And Speaking of the Steve Hunt...

...Spock on one of NLS's comment threads finally explained this "ex-gay" thing about Steve Hunt to me. Kudos to Spock for finally answering my questions on this. He stated...

Phil- As a school board member, Hunt tried to bring "ex-gays" into the public school classrooms to tell kids how not to be gay if they are.

He also tried to do this without the consent of the rest of the school board.

This busted open a pandora's box of questions about Hunt, his own sexual orientation, and his lack of respect for policy procedure and his agenda.

I'll reiterate what I said in my reply to this. I don't endorse anything of this nature (despite the fact that it puts me at odds with some Republicans). I don't think that the schools should encourage or discourage anyone from deciding on their sexual orientation. It is not the place of public schools to do so. The fact that he did so by going around the rest of his board members is just an extra foul on this matter.

I know that there are Social Conservatives that don't like that I hold this viewpoint (especially since that I am, for all intents and purposes, on the right side of the aisle...just a bit "north" of the right) but that's just how I feel. A person's sexual orientation is a part of their genetic composition, it's more than just a simple choice, IMO.

Feel free to disagree with me, I'll probably understand why you would, but I simply do not endorse what Hunt apparently did.

Gay Marriage Passes in D.C.

This is all good and fine as far as I'm concerned, except for one thing.

Apparently, the Catholic Church is being forced by this law to extend it's adoption services and other benefits to same-sex couples. If this is true, I cannot agree with this, because I do not think that a religious organization should not be subject to regulations that direct violate that church's doctrine. It's a violation of the separation of church and state, IMO, and if it is part of this legislation...I would be interested to see if it would actually hold up in the Supreme Court.

Other than that, I've got no problems with this legislation. The SoCons will be up in arms about this, but given that D.C. is a very liberal city, this wasn't exactly an unexpected outcome.

(h/t Anti-BVBL)

Someone Explain this "Ex-Gay" Thing About Steve Hunt

For instance, Ben mentions this multiple times over at NLS.

Someone care to explain this whole "ex-gay" deal? He's an ex-gay? He knows ex-gays? He believes gays can become ex-gays?

I don't know much about the guy, so a little info would be appreciated.

Gov. Kaine's Good Intentions

Apparently, Gov. Kaine is going to attempt to have state employee insurance cover same-sex partners as well, just like married heterosexual couples. This is great in theory, and I whole-heartedly endorse the idea. However, you will run into a problem with this, and Gov. Kaine may create an unintentional legal loophole with this should it pass.

See, if unmarried same-sex couples can get insurance benefits, then unmarried heterosexual couples can get those same benefits. I know that this is not the intention of the Governor's plan, he is simply trying to extend benefits to gay couples who may very well be married if they had the right to do so. Now, if gay couples were able to get civil unions/marriage rights, you would eliminate these tricky legal situations.

Realistically, this is why I'm convinced that the term "marriage" should be defined as a union under God (which each church should have the free will and right to decide if it should be so for gay couples). Define unions under law as just that, a civil union, and allow this for heterosexual and homosexual couples with equal legal rights. This would also create a lot less of a problem in terms of contract law and less problems with propositions such as Gov. Kaine's.

(h/t NLS)

UPDATE

Some have stated that this proposal would simply cover those who are all within the same household as a state employee. Not so sure about how this would not cost the state taxpayers more money, but Kaine claims it won't.

NY Senate Strikes Down Gay Marriage Bill...

Really, does government need to legislate such things? What consenting human adults do in their private sexual lives is really none of the government's business. Also, I really don't see the harm in gay marriage under law. As far as under God, let the individual religions handle that on their own.

Nonetheless, I love the "objective" reporting in this article. For example...

"The State Assembly passed it, but the dysfunctional Senate could only muster 24 of the 32 votes it needed."

Hmm, I wonder what this reporter was looking for in an outcome...c'mon, let's just report the news instead of injecting commentary. It would be greatly appreciated.

Podium Positions: Social Issues

My position on "social" issues.

Abortion
Two things need to happen. One...overturn Roe v. Wade, so we can go forward with the next step. That is step number two...place the legislative responsibility of this issue back in the hands of the states.

What this allows for is better representation of the people on such a bitterly divisive issue. For instance, a state like Massachusetts may allow abortion and provide funding for it and will have the support of the majority of the population. However, a state like Utah has a majority of anti-abortionists, so the will of the people in that state would be different and would probably lead to no practice of abortion within that state's borders. However, I would also not be opposed to allowing people to travel from a non-abortion state to a pro-abortion state to get an abortion if they so desire.

While I'm personally opposed to abortion, the only real federal actions I would approve of in this situation would be upholding the ban on partial-birth abortions, as that is infanticide, in my opinion.

Gay Marriage
Again, this is a state-to-state issue. What may play in socially liberal states will not play in socially conservative states. Represent the population, but as with the abortion laws, state governments must also pay attention to opinion changes and demographic shifts to keep laws up-to-date with the mood of the populous.

Socially moderate/conservative states may want to at least allow civil unions with marriage-style rights. Let the actual term "marriage" be determined by the churches, not the state.

I personally do not oppose gay marriage or civil unions, and I think that some relaxation and/or compromise in this area would be good for Republicans, who probably don't realize how much of the vote they are losing in this demographic due to their current positions, anyway. However, given the anti-homosexual opinions of many social conservatives within the party, I don't know if that will happen anytime soon.

I also believe that we have not come to a scientific consensus on whether or not homosexuality is a result of "nature" or "nurture" (I believe that both of those are roots of homosexuality, as I've seen scientific research that supports both theories), but either way we should not discriminate based on this. I don't believe it to be very Christian to do so, to be honest.

Civil Rights/Discrimination
Basically, we need to move towards putting everyone on an equal plane of treatment. It should not matter whether you are White ,Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, African, Male, Female, Transgendered, Straight, Gay, or Bisexual. "Hate Crimes" should cover crimes against any race/gender/orientation, with no extra or special punishment for crimes against certain groups.

In the workplace, we need to get to the point of hiring the best people for the job. We are in the 21st century, we do not need to place quotas based on race, gender, or orientation (though, I don't know of any place that says "you must hire X number of gays", but you get my point).

Understandably, this is not a goal that can be achieved overnight, but society needs to start moving in that direction, as it is not fair for someone to get special (or detrimental) treatment because of their race, gender, or orientation.

Overview
On a federal level, most of the social issues need to be deferred back to the states. Issues such as abortion and gay marriage, due to their controversial and divisive manner, should have their legality and funding determined by the states. States whose populous support these issues can deem it legal in their state, and states whose populous do not support these issues do not have to make it legal.

We should also move anti-discrimination legislation to treat all people equally.

Handing social issues back to the states is a healthy, federalist approach to these issues that tend to be create bitterness and tension between people of different ideological standpoints. Also, it allows for smaller-scale experimentation with various types of legislation, which is a way for people to find out if certain legislative actions are feasible and functional before it gets introduced on a national level.