Two quick notes on our government:
1) Education Secretary Roderick R. Paige called the largest teachers union in the United States, the NEA, a "terrorist organization." Paige made the comment about the 2.7 million member union while addressing a meeting of US governors. He later apologized in a written statement, but took a few more digs at the NEA:
"It was an inappropriate choice of words to describe the obstructionist scare tactics the NEA's Washington lobbyists have employed against No Child Left Behind's historic education reforms"
The apology also states that the NEA has "made no secret that they will fight against bringing real, rock-solid improvements in the way we educate all our children." Perhaps Paige got the NEA confused with the Bush administration, whose 05 budget included the smallest increase for education spending in nine years, falling $9 billion short of promised levels of funding for No Child Left Behind. The average yearly increase in education spending since 1997 is about $4 billion, the Bush White House has proposed an increase of $26 million--do the math. "The budget eliminates funds for 38 programs, including dropout prevention and gifted and talented education, and once again fails to increase Pell Grants for our nation’s poorest college students," said a recent NEA press release.
2) President Bush, this morning, endorsed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Many others have and will make impassioned, rhetorically sound, and better informed arguments against this act of the President, but I'd like to weigh in briefly.
What is the argument against gay marriage? How exactly does it pose a threat to traditional marriages? I hear two distinct arguments against it. First, the religious one, which I understand if you subscribe to particular religions. What I do not understand is using a religious argument to deny something to a group of people via a constitutional amendment. The Constitution is a secular document. You know how many times the words God and Lord are used? Once, as in "year of our Lord." Hows about religion? Once, as in "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." But why is the anti-gay marriage side of this debate being waged using terms like sanctify, "the sanctity of marriage," "the sacrament of marriage," and "sacred institution?" This is religious talk and has no place in a serious debate about constitutional amendments.
The second argument against gay marriage I frequently hear isn't really an argument against it at all, but a sort of rhetorical side step: civil unions. The argument here is that civil unions offer separate but equal status for gay couples. But as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has pointed out, "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."
OK, I've droned on, but these two stories today really touched a nerve... Thank goodness for the Internet as an outlet for my pent-up opinions and frustrations.
Posted by cs at February 24, 2004 12:40 PM