With less than two weeks before my ballot has to be back in the government's hands, I'm filling it out bit by bit. So far I've voted yes on both I-1185 and I-1240.
R-74, Same Sex Marriage
The Issue: R-74 is a referendum on Senate Bill 6239, which extended the legal term "marriage" to include relationships previously included only under the term "domestic partnership" and restricted the term "domestic partnership" so that it would not overlap the term "marriage." SB-6239 also granted special immunities to clergy and religious organizations to preserve their right to not perform or recognize any particular marriage.
SB-6239 was signed into law by Governor Gregoire in February of this year. Opponents gathered enough petition signatures to require a referendum; that referendum is R-74. Approval means the law will be enacted; rejection means it will not be enacted. The pro-approval website is here; the pro-rejection website is here.
My Position: Whether or not to marry and who we marry if we do is one of the most deeply personal choices we can make, and the government has no place in it. Unfortunately, that option isn't on the table.
Current law in Washington has already established same-sex "domestic partnerships" which are legally equivalent to marriage in all but name. R-74 is not about relationships or love or God's will or anything else its supporters and detractors claim. Everything that could happen under R-74 would also happen without it. R-74 is a very narrow question that is entirely linguistic: Should the legal term "marriage" also refer to what are now same-sex domestic partnerships?
Twice now, I've deliberately referred to "marriage" as a legal term, because in this instance, that is all that it is. State law cannot change the popular meaning of a word, only its use in legal terminology. I don't care one way or the other about legal terminology. A rose by any other name...
However, R-74 also grants special protections to religious organizations to preserve their right to not perform or recognize same-sex marriages. This provision gets closer to my ideal marriage policy than any other proposal I've ever seen-- You should be free to marry whoever you want, and I should be free to acknowledge or ignore it however I want. I would prefer if these protections were granted to everyone, not just religious organizations. Even so, R-74 enshrines the right to disagree, and this, I think, is a very important first step towards my ideal.
I will be voting APPROVE on R-74.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
Yes on I-1240, Charter Schools
With less than two weeks before my ballot has to be back in the government's hands, I'm filling it out bit by bit. Voting Yes on I-1185 was easy; I-1240 is more difficult.
I-1240, Charter Schools
The Issue: I-1240 would create a "new" type of public school, one managed by a non-religious, non-profit organization, yet funded by the state government. Forty-one other states have adopted charter schools; I-1240 would allow a total of 40 charter schools in Washington. The pro-1240 website is here; the anti-1240 website is here.
My Position: In general, I support increasing school choice. In this particular case, I'm a bit leery for a few reasons. However, any reform that provides more choice is a step in the right direction, so I support I-1240.
My Reservations: I have three main concerns about I-1240:
1) Washington's charter schools will be explicity non-religious. Now under current Supreme Court doctrine, we may not have any other choice, but it still concerns me. If I-1240 passes, Washington will be establishing a program to give tax money to private organizations, and explicitly excluding certain organizations from consideration for that money based soley on religion. (On the other hand, it's not like regular public schools are any better in that regard, and at least I-1240 will expand parental choice.)
2) Washington's charter schools can only be run by non-profits. By removing the profit motive, I-1240 removes one of the best advantages charter schools have over regular public schools. (On the other hand, Washington voters have already rejected charter schools three times. Non-profit charters may be the only kind of charter school we can hope to see here in the near future.)
3) I would prefer a full voucher system that allowed parents the full range of choices for their children's education. (On the other hand, realistically, that's not going to happen any time soon, at least not in Washington state.)
Counterarguments: The No-on-1240 side makes four main counterarguments against I-1240, quoted below from the official Argument Against published in the voters' pamphlet:
1) "Charter schools will drain millions of dollars from existing public schools." (Rebuttal: In Washington, public school funding is based on enrollment. If a student enrolls in a different public school, the money follows the student. Charter schools will take money from existing schools only to the extent that parents choose charter schools over existing schools.)
2) "Charter schools will serve only a tiny fraction of our student population." (Rebuttal: Since school funding follows the student, this means that only a tiny fraction of public school money will be taken from existing schools. So what's the problem? I have a hard time taking this counterargument seriously. If the problem is that only a few would benefit, what kind of solution is it to forbid those few from benefiting?)
3) "Charter schools are an unproven, risky gamble." (Rebuttal: Forty-one states plus DC have already adopted charter schools, some more than twenty years ago. You might say compact discs are unproven, risky gambles too. But seriously, regular public schools are a gamble too-- some fail spectacularly. The difference is that you currently can't leave a public school without shelling out thousands to a private school or homeschooling. The parents' option to exit will not only keep charter schools on their toes, but improve performance in non-charter schools as well.)
4) "Charter schools undermine local control." (Rebuttal: I should hope so! If I were a parent, I wouldn't want the local board to have such total control over where I educated my children. I-1240 only undermines "local control" insofar as it restores choice to parents.)
I will be voting YES on I-1240.
I-1240, Charter Schools
The Issue: I-1240 would create a "new" type of public school, one managed by a non-religious, non-profit organization, yet funded by the state government. Forty-one other states have adopted charter schools; I-1240 would allow a total of 40 charter schools in Washington. The pro-1240 website is here; the anti-1240 website is here.
My Position: In general, I support increasing school choice. In this particular case, I'm a bit leery for a few reasons. However, any reform that provides more choice is a step in the right direction, so I support I-1240.
My Reservations: I have three main concerns about I-1240:
1) Washington's charter schools will be explicity non-religious. Now under current Supreme Court doctrine, we may not have any other choice, but it still concerns me. If I-1240 passes, Washington will be establishing a program to give tax money to private organizations, and explicitly excluding certain organizations from consideration for that money based soley on religion. (On the other hand, it's not like regular public schools are any better in that regard, and at least I-1240 will expand parental choice.)
2) Washington's charter schools can only be run by non-profits. By removing the profit motive, I-1240 removes one of the best advantages charter schools have over regular public schools. (On the other hand, Washington voters have already rejected charter schools three times. Non-profit charters may be the only kind of charter school we can hope to see here in the near future.)
3) I would prefer a full voucher system that allowed parents the full range of choices for their children's education. (On the other hand, realistically, that's not going to happen any time soon, at least not in Washington state.)
Counterarguments: The No-on-1240 side makes four main counterarguments against I-1240, quoted below from the official Argument Against published in the voters' pamphlet:
1) "Charter schools will drain millions of dollars from existing public schools." (Rebuttal: In Washington, public school funding is based on enrollment. If a student enrolls in a different public school, the money follows the student. Charter schools will take money from existing schools only to the extent that parents choose charter schools over existing schools.)
2) "Charter schools will serve only a tiny fraction of our student population." (Rebuttal: Since school funding follows the student, this means that only a tiny fraction of public school money will be taken from existing schools. So what's the problem? I have a hard time taking this counterargument seriously. If the problem is that only a few would benefit, what kind of solution is it to forbid those few from benefiting?)
3) "Charter schools are an unproven, risky gamble." (Rebuttal: Forty-one states plus DC have already adopted charter schools, some more than twenty years ago. You might say compact discs are unproven, risky gambles too. But seriously, regular public schools are a gamble too-- some fail spectacularly. The difference is that you currently can't leave a public school without shelling out thousands to a private school or homeschooling. The parents' option to exit will not only keep charter schools on their toes, but improve performance in non-charter schools as well.)
4) "Charter schools undermine local control." (Rebuttal: I should hope so! If I were a parent, I wouldn't want the local board to have such total control over where I educated my children. I-1240 only undermines "local control" insofar as it restores choice to parents.)
I will be voting YES on I-1240.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Mitt Romney on Social Issues
This is the third in a series of entries revisiting Mitt
Romney's policies as stated in the debates. The first covered foreign
policy, including immigration, trade and defense, as
well as policies toward some specific countries and regions. The second
covered Romney's seven-point plan for economic growth and connected
policy areas, including taxes, regulations, energy, the rule of law,
education and fiscal responsibility. This entry covers the social issues of religion, gay marriage, contraception, abortion, and guns.
Religion
As is well known, Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Along with the other Mormon in the race at the time, Jon Huntsman, Romney declined to participate in the Thanksgiving Family Forum, which was by far the most religiously-oriented of the debates and the only one to take place in a church.
In the 2nd debate, Romney took a strong position on religious tolerance, saying "People of all faiths are welcome in this country. We treat people with respect regardless of their religious persuasion." In later debates, he said we should not elect people on the basis of their religion or where they go to church. While he would seek God's guidance on critical decisions, for the most part his religious beliefs would not affect his Presidential decisions. In the 20th debate, he said, "I don't think we've seen in the history of this country the kind of attack on religious conscience, religious freedom, religious tolerance that we've seen under Barack Obama."
Gay Marriage
Romney believes that gay people forming "loving, committed, long-term relationships" is "a wonderful thing to do," and they have the right to do so as long as they don't use the word marriage to describe it. (Quote from the 14th debate.) He supports amending the US Constitution to ban gay marriage, and thinks DADT should have been kept in place. He was the first governor of Massachusetts to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, but said he only did so because the state Supreme Court told him to. After saying in the 15th debate that he supported laws banning sexual orientation discrimination, he was asked when was the last time he advocated expanding gay rights, and he responded, "Right now."
Contraception
The issue of contraception arose first in the 14th debate, before the national contraception mandate controversy broke out. At the time, Romney called it an "unusual topic," and expressed disbelief that anyone would be talking about banning contraception. He said states should not be allowed to ban contraception, but also said none were trying to.
Regarding the contraception mandate, Romney said he included in Romneycare a provision that Massachusites did not have to buy insurance coverage for treatments or medical devices which violated their religious beliefs. His opposition to the contraception mandate was based not on a belief that the mandate was wrong in general, but rather that it applied to those who had religious objections to contraception. He seemed to agree with Santorum in the 20th debate that contraception leads to children being born out of wedlock and undermines the institution of the family, saying "Rick is absolutely right."
Abortion
In the 13th debate, Romney said he was only ever pro-choice to the extent that he did not want to actively change the laws in Massachusetts. He says he became pro-life while governor, and now wants to "protect the sanctity of life." In the 16th debate, he said he had always been pro-life, and said, "I thought I could go in that narrow path between my personal belief and letting government stay out of the issue," but ultimately decided while governor that he couldn't. As governor, he vetoed a bill defining life as starting at implantation rather than conception.
He says he would appoint judges who would follow the constitution, and he does not use abortion as a "litmus test" for judicial appointments. In a later debate, he said he did not believe the constitution contained a right to privacy.
Guns
Romney thinks rather than enacting new gun laws, we should just enforce the laws we already have. In Massachusetts, he signed a bill that was supported by both the pro-gun and anti-gun lobbies that banned assault weapons and raised gun fees 400%, but also opened up the right to cross a road with a gun while hunting, among other gun rights. When asked in the 13th debate about his changing positions of gay marriage, abortion and guns, he ignored the guns part of the question.
Religion
As is well known, Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Along with the other Mormon in the race at the time, Jon Huntsman, Romney declined to participate in the Thanksgiving Family Forum, which was by far the most religiously-oriented of the debates and the only one to take place in a church.
In the 2nd debate, Romney took a strong position on religious tolerance, saying "People of all faiths are welcome in this country. We treat people with respect regardless of their religious persuasion." In later debates, he said we should not elect people on the basis of their religion or where they go to church. While he would seek God's guidance on critical decisions, for the most part his religious beliefs would not affect his Presidential decisions. In the 20th debate, he said, "I don't think we've seen in the history of this country the kind of attack on religious conscience, religious freedom, religious tolerance that we've seen under Barack Obama."
Gay Marriage
Romney believes that gay people forming "loving, committed, long-term relationships" is "a wonderful thing to do," and they have the right to do so as long as they don't use the word marriage to describe it. (Quote from the 14th debate.) He supports amending the US Constitution to ban gay marriage, and thinks DADT should have been kept in place. He was the first governor of Massachusetts to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, but said he only did so because the state Supreme Court told him to. After saying in the 15th debate that he supported laws banning sexual orientation discrimination, he was asked when was the last time he advocated expanding gay rights, and he responded, "Right now."
Contraception
The issue of contraception arose first in the 14th debate, before the national contraception mandate controversy broke out. At the time, Romney called it an "unusual topic," and expressed disbelief that anyone would be talking about banning contraception. He said states should not be allowed to ban contraception, but also said none were trying to.
Regarding the contraception mandate, Romney said he included in Romneycare a provision that Massachusites did not have to buy insurance coverage for treatments or medical devices which violated their religious beliefs. His opposition to the contraception mandate was based not on a belief that the mandate was wrong in general, but rather that it applied to those who had religious objections to contraception. He seemed to agree with Santorum in the 20th debate that contraception leads to children being born out of wedlock and undermines the institution of the family, saying "Rick is absolutely right."
Abortion
In the 13th debate, Romney said he was only ever pro-choice to the extent that he did not want to actively change the laws in Massachusetts. He says he became pro-life while governor, and now wants to "protect the sanctity of life." In the 16th debate, he said he had always been pro-life, and said, "I thought I could go in that narrow path between my personal belief and letting government stay out of the issue," but ultimately decided while governor that he couldn't. As governor, he vetoed a bill defining life as starting at implantation rather than conception.
He says he would appoint judges who would follow the constitution, and he does not use abortion as a "litmus test" for judicial appointments. In a later debate, he said he did not believe the constitution contained a right to privacy.
Guns
Romney thinks rather than enacting new gun laws, we should just enforce the laws we already have. In Massachusetts, he signed a bill that was supported by both the pro-gun and anti-gun lobbies that banned assault weapons and raised gun fees 400%, but also opened up the right to cross a road with a gun while hunting, among other gun rights. When asked in the 13th debate about his changing positions of gay marriage, abortion and guns, he ignored the guns part of the question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
