Coexistence in the Realm of Policy-Making

Last week, the proposition of co-existence was discussed.  If you have not read last week’s post, please check it out now before you move on with this week’s post.

This week I want to continue the discussion.  I want to take the theory of co-existence and apply it to policy-making.  This is a tough proposition because this country is so diverse, but I do believe we can accomplish this if we use that dirty “c” word:  compromise.  I want to look at two areas of policy.  These two areas of policy will be same-sex adoptions and school prayer.  I wanted to look at two policy areas where solutions can be found (and have been found) so that greatest amount of good can be found between conservatives and liberals alike.

Same-Sex Adoptions

This is an area where I am shocked that there is so much disagreement.  I should not be shocked because I do realize that not everyone will believe in the same principles, but I am shocked that we are not looking at the truth of the matter.  The truth of the matter is that state child welfare systems are chaotic.  They hurt the children that they are supposedly protecting.  As discussed in the scholarly article, “Cumulative Risks of Foster Care Placement by Age 18 for U.S. Children, 2000-2011:”

"Though clearly helpful to some children, foster care placement frequently introduces additional instability to their already-chaotic lives, potentially further harming them. This combination of maltreatment and instability means that children who have experienced foster care suffer not only from elevated rates of mortality in childhood, but also from a host of other problems ranging from asthma to behavioral problems to suicidal ideation. Children in foster care are five times more likely to be diagnosed with depression, four times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, and ten times more likely to be diagnosed with bipolar disorder than other children, for instance" (Wildeman & Emanuel, 2014).

Foster children are at higher risks of developing anti-social behavior, physical health problems, and even death.  However, some people believe that a gay person or couple should not have the right to adopt children because having two daddies or two mommies will be harmful to the child.   It should be noted that the majority of Americans support same-sex adoptions.  According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken from February 27 to March 2, 2014, 61% of Americans support same-sex adoptions while only 34% oppose.   However, knowing that a third of Americans oppose same-sex couple from adopting is quite troubling.  It is troubling because these Americans are hurting the children that they claim that they are protecting.  They fear that children of same-sex parents will be damaged because children need a mom and a dad.  Opponents say these things even though the American Sociological Association states, in their amicus brief to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in regards to same-sex marriage:

“The clear and consistent consensus in the social science research is that across a wide range of indicators, children fare just as well when raised by same-sex parents as children raised by different-sex parents.”

I believe these detractors are missing the point.  A child does not need a mom and a dad.  They need two loving parents.  They need stability.  Stability is more important than the sex of the parents raising them.  Opponents are obsessed with the fact that “no matter how loving, two fathers can never replace a mother.”  They are so obsessed with the fact that a child needs a mother and a father that they are hurting the children they want to protect.

I would ask opponents of same-sex adoption to think about the thousands upon thousands of children in foster care and orphanages that just want loving parents.  They do not care about the sex of their parents.  They just want someone to love them.  I will respect (but disagree) with the fact that same-sex adoption opponents believe that a child needs a mother and a father, but I would just want to know if they would prefer children to be locked away into the foster care system?  They would rather have a child waste-away in foster care (and I am not saying that all foster parents are not loving and caring people) than be adopted by two people (of the same-sex) who will love them and take care of them.

Who cares what you believe.  In the end, we want children to be in loving homes.  Does it matter if is a traditional family where there is a mother and a father?  Is it not better for a child to have two fathers or two mothers then being stuck in the child welfare system?  Can’t we agree that getting children out of the foster care system is better than leaving them in a system where children can be harmed?  I believe we can agree on this because we need to put our personal, petty feelings aside so we can help the most vulnerable people in our society:  our children.

Prayer in School

"When a kid in school is cussing away like any character in any Tarantino movie, nobody bats an eye.  Ooh, but a kid saying a prayer in school, those hypocrites lose their minds." – Sarah Palin

There are many traditionalists like former Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin, who believe that prayer is missing from school.  They believe that our country has taken a dangerous turn because children are not allowed to pray in school.  There are people that believe that allowing prayer in school would help our children learn, grow, and behave like the outstanding citizens we want them to be.  No one can argue with that thought process.  It is a fruitless endeavor in trying to argue with someone of faith and tell them that their beliefs are not true.  I know many people are sincere in their faith and they believe that prayer in school would help out their children.

However, this notion that a child cannot pray in school is false.  Charles Haynes, director of the Religious Freedom Education Project told the Washington Post that:

“Students of all faiths are actually free to pray alone or in groups during the school day, as long as they don’t disrupt the school or interfere with the rights of others. Of course, the right to engage in voluntary prayer or religious discussion does not necessarily include the right to preach to a captive audience, like an assembly, or to compel other students to participate.”

Haynes goes on tells the Washington Post that some public school officials are ignorant of this fact and when they don’t allow kids to pray, they lose in court.

Prayer in school is allowed in school, as long as they don’t disrupt class, meaning that they can’t vocally pray during an English lesson.  If they want to have a silent prayer at their desk, that is acceptable.  If they want to pray in a group at recess, that is acceptable.  They cannot have a group prayer when class is in session.  In my estimation, this is where people who want prayer in school have a problem.  I believe they want to have a morning or afternoon prayer that involves the whole class.  I would ask these proponents of school prayer, “why is that fair?”

Most school classrooms are going to have an eclectic mix of students.  Some students may be Christian, others may be Jewish, others may be Muslim, and others may be agnostic or atheist.  Is it fair that all students in a public school must listen to a prayer that they may be uncomfortable or disagree with?  Would it be fair for a Christian in a predominately Islamic populated public school to be forced to participate in a Muslim prayer?  No one should be forced into anything as sacred as a prayer.

Some people may argue that any student who did not want to participate in the prayer could leave the room, as argued in the Supreme Court case, Town of Greece v. Galloway, where the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5 to 4 decision, that prayer in public meetings does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause.  The Supreme Court found that no one is coerced into participating in the prayer.  People do not have to bow their heads.  A meeting participant can just leave the room while the prayer is being administered.  The problem with doing this with school children is that children are impressionable beings.  They may feel pressure (coercion) into saying the prayer because they are afraid to speak up and say that they do not want to participate.  They may not want to be singled out for leaving the classroom during the prayer.  Besides, that leaves school administrators with another dilemma.  Children in school need constant supervision.  Even if you want the child to stand outside the classroom while a prayer is being said, that creates a safety concern because children have been known to wonder off.  Children need to be accounted for at all times when they are at school, so you would need adults supervising the children who are not part of the prayer (and who are in the classroom having the prayer).

The next problem would be how many prayers are going to be said?  If you have a classroom with Jewish, Muslim, and Catholic students, does this mean you have three separate prayers?  In all fairness, you must allow all students to participate in the prayer that they want said.  During the Catholic prayer, do you allow Muslim and Jewish students to leave the room?  There are many reasons why group school prayer during class would not work.  The logistics of trying to accommodate every religion becomes too complicated and it takes away from the valuable instruction time that our students desperately need.

As a compromise, maybe a block of religious time could be set aside before the official start of school.  If students wanted to pray in the classroom setting with their peers, maybe they could gather into different classrooms, each separated into different religions, 15 minutes before the start of class.  They can say their prayer and then get to class before school starts for the day.   This way the students are not infringing on school time and/or the religious rights of others.  But, this compromise brings up logistical issues as well; the children would still need to be supervised while they are in prayer.  Do you ask for parent or teacher volunteers to watch over the students?  Again more issues are raised, but in good faith, I am sure many people would want to try and find a solution that would benefit everyone.

The solution I just proposed sounds a lot like what is already available to students.  If a group of students want to meet before class and have a prayer together, they can already do that.  I believe many Americans would like to try and accommodate students who want to pray at school.  We can compromise, but to insist that every child should sit and participate in prayer every day at school is an un-American principle.  We are an individualistic people who want to follow our own path.  One of those paths might include following the path of Christ, through religion, while others may want to follow a secular path.  There is no wrong or right path, but forcing someone on to that path is fascism at its finest.  Many people believe that prayer is a powerful tool in their life and I am happy for them for feeling that way, but many people believe the opposite.

It’s not political correctness in finding alternative arrangements for the faithful or the secularists; it’s just the fair thing to do.

Who am I to Judge?

“Who am I to judge?”  Pope Francis uttered those simple, yet powerful words back in 2013.  Pope Francis has re-energized the Catholic Church with his simple, logical, and compassionate heart.  He has inspired the religious and non-religious alike.  Pope Francis spoke those words in regards to homosexuality; however, I think we can apply those words to many different lifestyles, philosophies and ideologies.  For this discussion, “Who am I to judge,” will be the question and answer that could help us solve the issues of polarization and help lessen the bad blood that flows between the religious and non-religious populations of our society.

This topic is important because we are seeing a great divide between people of faith and people who believe in secular principles.   People of faith, like former-Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR), believe that God is being slowly removed from society.  Prayer and faith in the public square are being diminished by politically correct progressives who want to squash religion for good.  This removal of God in society is starting to make America (and the rest of the world) weak.  On the other side, people who believe in secular principles, like the late author and activist Christopher Hitchens, believe that God (or religion) is what poisons the world.  People who believe in secular principles believe that human progress has been delayed because religions cause more harm than good.  That is quite the divide!  The examples I just gave are the extreme.  I do believe that divisions between faith and secularism can vary.  Not everyone is 100% anti-faith or 100% anti-secularism.  The world is not black and white.  The world is a murky gray where perceptions differ between people.  This divide between faith and secularism is causing grief between citizens of this country and throughout the world.  So, how do we close up that divide and co-exist peacefully with one another?  That is the question that hopefully can be answered.

Before our discussion can move forward, I would ask that you watch these two videos.  The first video will showcase a faithful Mormon family while the second video will showcase an ex-Mormon:

Which point of view is correct?  The first video shows a happy family who believes that they have found the right path in the form of Mormonism.  The second video shows a woman who had doubts and questions that led her to the conclusion that religion is cruel.  Does someone have to be wrong?  Even though everyone involved in these videos seem sincere and happy with their choices, there has to be a wrong path, right?  False.  Neither of the videos shows a wrong viewpoint.  These viewpoints are correct for the people that are following them.  You may disagree with one of them but it does not make them any less right or wrong.  That is because you cannot debate faith or the lack of faith.  That’s not to say that people do not question their faith or lack of faith.  The point is that you can debate someone until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day, (especially when it comes to religion) people will not change their point of view.  Faith goes beyond scientific fact or reason.  Faith cannot be proven or disproven.  That is why it is called “faith.”  You have to have “faith” that God exists or that religion brings about happiness or vice-versa.  It does not do any good to tell the staunch Catholic that God doesn't exist and that their church is evil.  It also does not do any good to tell the atheist that they are lacking happiness because they do not have God in their life.  All that does is upset people.  It drives people away.  It causes harsh feelings.  This is an extremely difficult topic.  I know people want their loved ones to follow the same path that they do because they feel like they are on the right path.  They feel that if their loved one does not follow their path then they will not be able to be with them in the after-life.  That is a very difficult proposition to overcome.  However, there’s no choice in the matter.  Live and let live.  Either you accept that person for who they are or you push them away.  Life is short.  I, personally, opt for the first choice.

Allowing people to live their own lives is not any easy prospect.  This is because, and we all must admit this, we are human beings.  We will be condescending and hypocritical.  Each and every one of us has talked down to someone we do not agree with personally.  We also are hypocritical and will do things in contrast to what we preach.  As an example, I am an agnostic.  I believe in a higher power.  I do not necessarily believe in one almighty power that created this entire universe.  I do believe that there are many things to this universe that humans do not understand or comprehend.  However, personally I cannot believe in an organized religion because religions package their beliefs and doctrines too neatly.  Explanations are too easy in religions.  I believe there is some organization to the universe, but I believe it is organized chaos.  There are too many unknowns to say that humanity has all the answers or the religion has all the answers.  With that being said, there are days where I pity people that are religious.  I feel like logic is staring them right in their face but they do not see it.  I pity them because I see them shackled to an ideology created by men that just want to have power over everyone else.  That is pretty harsh.  I hate having these feelings, but I am a human, and I will always have feelings and thoughts like that.  How should someone try to move past these hypocritical and condescending thoughts and attitudes?  You get over hypocrisy and condescension by realizing that people will think the same things about you.  A religious person will look at me as being a gay agnostic who has turned their back on God and has succumbed to sin by falling in love with another man.  A religious person will pity me because if I do not change I will be going to Hell.   Imagine that.  People are going to see what they want.  That does not mean they are right or wrong.  That is just their point of view.  I do not have to agree with their point of view, but I will respect their beliefs.

That is the answer to co-existence (which is easier said than done).  Why can’t we accept people for who they are?  Allow people to make their own choices and live their own lives.  Allow people to be different.  Differences and diversity make this world an exciting, interesting place.  I know I do not want to live in a homogeneous society where everyone believes in the same things.  I want the beautiful differences in society to stand out.  I want to know all about the differences in each of us and discover the beauty in all things.  I believe we need each other.  We need religious and non-religious people.  We need each other so we can tackle problems together.

In conclusion, take note that I did not use the words “tolerate” or “tolerance,” I used the words “respect” and “accept.”  I actually hate the word “tolerance” because I feel that tolerance is just the nice way of holding your nose at someone who you disagree with.   I want people to accept me.  I want people to accept one another.  I want people to accept Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Episcopalians, Atheists, Agnostics, etc.  You do not have to agree with their beliefs, but accept them as human beings.  Accept their path to happiness.  Love them for being different.  Do not just tolerate them because that is the politically correct thing to do.  Learn about their philosophy to life.  Bask in the beauty and richness of our diversity in this world.  Just realize that as long as they are not putting your rights and physical safety at risk then, “who am I to judge?”

Next week:  Using this theory of co-existence in the real world through policy-making.

If Men Were Angels: The Case for Ethical Codes and Whistleblowing

The lies and misdirection that the government told the American public about the Vietnam War, the NSA’s PRISM surveillance and data-gathering program, the C.I.A’s use of waterboarding, and warrantless surveillance are several programs that were brought to light by people within the government (or contracted to work with the federal government).  Whistleblowing is the act of disclosing information, sometimes secret information, in order to stop some sort of perceived government abuse.  Whistleblowers have been harassed by government officials, including presidents.  Whistleblowers have been fired from their positions, indicted, and incarcerated for their disclosures.  In some extreme cases, whistleblowers have had to flee their home country.  Whistleblowing is a risky endeavor that can lead to some serious life altering predicaments for those who are involved.  With whistleblowing being such a devastating and life-altering proposition, the questions that should be asked is why does a government employee or government contractor blow the whistle?  The answer lies within the tenets of constitutional republican theory that promotes an open and honest government.  Constitutional republican theory has helped pave the way for whistleblowing.  The reason whistleblowing is not only accepted, but encouraged, is because the federal government has adopted a code of ethics that emboldens federal employees to uphold and protect the Constitution.  Those codes of ethics have been founded on the notion that federal employees should uphold and protect the Constitution.  These codes of ethics also promote the notion of a government where abuses are controlled and all of its employees operate in an honest and open manner.

Methodology

The methodology of this article will consist of arguments of a normative nature.  More precisely, it will consist of a normative theory that our founding fathers used to create this country, constitutional republican theory.  An example that describes this approach comes from James Madison, who said:

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuse of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?  If men were angels, no government would be necessary, if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary, in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.  (Madison, 1788)

James Madison believed that any good government would have procedures in place so governmental abuses could be stopped or controlled.  This argument was the basis for how academic sources would be used and judged within this paper.  Academic resources did not have to agree with this premise.  The arguments that disagreed with this premise will be addressed and argued against based upon the normative arguments that support a constitutional republic.  Academic resources have been blended with other sources.  Other sources that will be used include: polling data, internet resources that include government websites and biographies in order to create a research paper that uses factual information in order to argue for the use of ethical codes and whistleblowing.

Code of Ethics

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.  (“Oath”)

The preceding was the oath of office that all federal employees must take as they enter into their public office.  The history of the oath can be traced back to the Constitution.  Article IV of the Constitution requires all government officials, from all three branches of government, to take and adhere to the oath of office.  The wording for the oath dates back to 1884, when Congress adopted this oath because they wanted to establish “clear, publicly sworn accountability” (“Oath”).  The reason why the oath is so important is because this is the establishment of an ethical form of conduct that all government employees, including the President of the United States, must adhere to.  The oath singlehandedly made every government employee accountable to the Constitution and to the people of the United States.  This oath was the foundation that led to legislation like the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and the signing, by President George H.W. Bush, of Executive Order 12674 that laid out fourteen general principles of ethical conduct.  The oath did not only lay the foundation for the expectancy of ethical conduct by all federal employee, but as we will learn later, lays the foundation for whistleblowing by federal employees.

Other than the Constitution imposing ethical codes of conduct on federal employees, another reason why codes of ethics should be established is because there is a pressure on the public sector to delegate “responsibilities, including financial responsibilities within the public sector organizations; media exercising influence over white collar workers; growing public willingness to complain when the quality of public services is low” (Musaraj & Gerxhi, 2010, p. 12).  Codes of ethics are needed to create an environment that promotes accountability because of pressures by the media and the public that demands the government to operate in an open and honest manner.  The Constitution, along with a general moral code, provides a blueprint for any government employee that wants to be considered honest, loyal, and ethical in the eyes of the media and the public at large.

There is conflicting research that suggests that code of ethics do not necessarily prevent government malfeasances.  Meine & Dunn point out that, “simply having a code of conduct does not guarantee that employees will comply with it or even that they will understand the issues driving the code” (2013, p. 152).  That statement is correct.  Codes of ethical conduct will not stop employees in the federal government from engaging in unethical behavior.  Someone could look to the 111th Congress to see that is the case.  The 111th Congress “ended with two long-serving members under the cloud of ethics investigations, and these were only two of the 111 ethics inquiries conducted during that session of Congress” (Meine & Dunn, 2013, p. 156).  Obviously, ethical codes do not stop suspicious behavior, especially in Congress, however, the principles of having ethical codes is important because it allows the public and the media to determine if any member of the government has conducted themselves in an unethical fashion.  Codes of the ethics create the blueprint necessary to find and prosecute unethical behavior.  Without codes of ethics it would be more difficult to snuff out government wrongdoing.  Even though unethical behavior continues in government today does not mean that codes of ethics are meaningless.  Ethical codes help determine the culprits that are working in a questionable, unethical way.

Ethical Laws, Rules, and Regulations.  The first major ethical codes of conduct established for federal employees, other than the oath, were established in 1958.  In 1958, the U.S. House of Representatives, along with the Senate, adopted the Code of Ethics for Government Service.  This was the first major operational document because it gave government organizations the tools to “enforce proper behavior ranging from reprimands to dismissal and even criminal prosecution” (Meine & Dunn, 2013, p. 156).

Obviously these tools that were created by the Code of Ethics for Government Service did not stop government corruption and ethical crises.  The country was consumed by the Watergate scandal that lasted from 1972 until President Richard Nixon’s resignation on August 9, 1974.  The effects of Watergate led to an all-time high of government distrust and skepticism.  To help quell this growing distaste for government, Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.  The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 established the Office of Government Ethics that would reside within the Office of Personnel Management.  This office was tasked with implementing government-wide ethical direction through policies and programs.  It also created the position of Special Prosecutor or Independent Counsel that would investigate high ranking government officials when accusations of criminal behavior come about (Carroll & Roberts, 1988).  This would be the same office that investigated President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal in the 1990’s.  The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 created offices and positions that are still around today.  These tools have helped uncover unethical and criminal behavior that takes place within the government.  These tools are not perfect; some might say that they are used as political maneuvers against political rivals; at least, those were the accusations that were lobbed against Republicans by President Bill Clinton and his fellow Democrats during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  Even though there could be improper use of these tools by people with political agendas, these tools are still invaluable because it gave the government more control in discovering criminal and unethical behavior even though the chances of drastically reducing unethical behaviors was slim to none, as what will be witnessed in the 1980’s.

Ethical scandals and corruption in government did not stop (or even subside) after the implementation of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.  During the late 1980’s scandals like Iran-Contra, the Walker spy ring, and the defense contracting scandals dominated the headlines (Carroll & Roberts, 1988).  These headlines caused another round of angst and deteriorating trust with government.   On April 12, 1989, President George H.W. Bush signed Executive Order 12674, which would be later amended by Executive Order 12731.  Executive Order (E.O.) 12674 put into place fourteen general ethical principles that would help “to ensure that every citizen can have complete confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government” (Executive Order No. 12674, 1989).  A few of the principles that were adopted for all federal employees in E.O. 12674 were that “employees shall disclose waste, fraud and corruption to appropriate authorities; employees should not hold financial interests that conflict with the conscientious performance of duty” (1989).  This executive order tasked the Office of Government Ethics in implementing these general ethical principles across every government agency within the federal government.  Again, the purpose of these fourteen general principles was to instill trust within the government and with the public.

The Case for a Code of Ethics.  One could make the assumption that these ethical codes, laws, rules, and regulations have not stopped government corruption.  Since the corruption and questionable behavior has not subsided over the years, the trust that the American people have with government has fallen dramatically.  Pew Research reports that trust in government has fallen from 73 percent in 1958 to 19 percent in 2013 (2013).  A valid argument could be made that code of ethics are a waste of time or that ethical codes are “simply a form of window dressing intended to serve as a visible symbol of legitimacy for a profession and its professional organizations” (Meine & Dunn, 2013, p. 152).  These are arguments have merit, however, researchers and people in general, are missing the point of ethical codes.  Ethical codes are needed because there should be processes in place that allow government transparency.  An open government that tries to control unethical behavior of its political leaders and workers should be lauded.  The notion that since all unethical behavior or corruption has not been eradicated in the federal government means that ethical codes should be abandoned because they are not working or they are “window dressing” is ludicrous.  There needs to be standards, there needs to be some sort of control over its inhabitants, as James Madison said.  This idea that ethical codes, laws, regulations, and rules should be thrown out because they are not working would just cause society to delve into chaos.  That argument makes as much sense as someone saying that speed limits should be abolished because many people do not abide by speed limits.  The truth is that some people do not abide by the speed limits, however, when they are caught, they are punished.  The same scenario happens for a government worker or agency that gets caught doing something unethical and/or illegal.  President Nixon is a prime example of that.  The argument that ethical codes do not work is an argument that is lacking a lot of thoughtfulness or analysis.  Ethical codes help create an environment of responsibility and accountability.  Sure, some people may not abide by this code, but having a process in place where violators will be exposed and be punished helps create a better environment even though it does not stop the unethical behavior.

If ethical codes are needed within the federal government in order to create an environment that promotes accountability and openness, then the next step would be how can one person, standing by the fourteen general ethics that were established by President George H.W. Bush, accomplish this feat?  One of the answers, a controversial answer to say the least, would be through the act of whistleblowing.

Whistleblowing

Before an argument can be made in favor of the argument that whistleblowing is not only accepted, but encouraged, a definition of whistleblowing must be established.   “A whistleblower is generally defined as an employee who discloses potentially damaging information about their employer to an authority figure, such as their boss, the media, or a government official” (as cited in Evans, 2008, p. 268).  A whistleblower is someone that possesses some damaging information about an individual and/or an organization.  This person will then disclose this information outside of their usual chain-of-command.  The whistleblower may disclose this information to the media or to someone within their organization who is not their immediate boss.

Significant Whistleblowers.  The determination has been made that a whistleblower is someone who discloses potentially damaging information about their employer to an authority figure or the media.  To help explain what a whistleblower does, it is important that a few examples of whistleblowing are explained.

One of the most high-profile whistleblowing cases occurred in 1971.  Daniel Ellsberg, a former United States military analyst, employed by the RAND Corporation, secretly photocopied and leaked the Pentagon Papers to members of Congress and then leaked the information to the New York Times (Kitrosser, 2011).  The Pentagon Papers was a classified study commissioned by the Department of Defense that outlined the history of the Vietnam War. The Pentagon Papers were a scathing rebuke of America’s involvement in Vietnam.  Some of the revelations that were made public was that former President Lyndon Johnson, “misled the public about the nature of American actions in Vietnam in 1964; planned the escalation of the war long before it occurred; ordered the bombing of North Vietnam while publicly condemning his rival for the Presidency, Senator Barry Goldwater, for proposing to do just that” (Millar, 1971).  The government’s response to Ellsberg and the New York Times was fierce.  Ellsberg was indicted, tried for his leaking of information, even though the case against Ellsberg was eventually dropped.  The case was dropped because of government misconduct.  The government had “suppressed evidence, burglarized the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, illegally wiretapped Ellsberg’s conversations, and held secret discussions with the judge trying Ellsberg’s case about the judge’s possible appointment as FBI Director” (Kitrosser, 2011).  Ellsberg and the New York Times were harassed because they leaked a report that was devastating and embarrassing to the government.  The leaking of this information is significant because of the response by the government and the impacts that this leaking had on President Nixon.  President Nixon, tired of the leaks within the government, created his group of “plumbers,” a secretive investigative unit that would try to stop any future leaks from taking place.  These “plumbers” along with Nixon’s actions of revenge, would eventually lead to his downfall during the Watergate scandal.

Another significant whistleblower (or traitor, as some have called him), Edward Snowden is a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor who disclosed information about the NSA’s clandestine PRISM data-collection program through reporter Glenn Greenwald who works for the newspaper, The Guardian.  “Snowden revealed that the National Security Administration has been collecting and storing the telephone and e-mail records of millions of Americans (not to mention countless innocent citizens of other countries)” (Lears, 2013).  The effects of Snowden’s whistleblowing are still up in the air because the United States government has not cancelled PRISM and Mr. Snowden is still on the run from U.S. authorities.  The Guardian reported Snowden’s disclosures on June 5, 2013; Edward Snowden went public on June 9, 2013;   June 18, 2013 had FBI Deputy Director Sean Joyce testifying before the House Intelligence Committee that the PRISM program helped stop terror attacks; and Snowden, who left the United States before the disclosures on May 20, 2013, has been charged with espionage and theft of government property.  Snowden is currently in Russia where his request for temporary asylum has been approved. (“Edward Snowden,” 2013).

The Case for Whistleblowing.  Why would people like Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden, along with countless others, risk their professional and personal lives to blow the whistle on questionable governmental behavior?  The answer lies in the fact that the federal government has adopted a code of ethics that emboldens federal employees to uphold and protect the Constitution.

In an interview with The Guardian, Edward Snowden stated, “I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building” (Greenwald, MacAskill, & Poitras, 2013).

Mr. Snowden was concerned with “basic liberties” being infringed upon by the United States government.  One could make the assumption that Edward Snowden was concerned that the government was violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Lears, 2013).  The Fourth Amendment protects American citizens against unreasonable searches.  Lears makes the argument that Snowden was trying to protect our Fourth Amendment rights.  With evaluating Snowden’s remarks, a connection can be made with Snowden’s disclosures and his concern about Fourth Amendment protections.  Snowden, as a government contractor, did not have to take the oath that all other federal employees must take and he did not have to abide by the ethical codes that had been established by President George H.W. Bush.  However, the National Association of Government Contractors (NAGC) has a code of ethics.  Their codes insist that a federal contractor complies “with all laws and contracts; conducts themselves in a manner that brings credit upon the community” (“Code of ethics”).  What is interesting is that there is a code that states that a contractor must uphold “security of protected information” (“Code of ethics”).  The NAGC code is quite convoluted, however, Snowden was most likely operating on the assumption that he must comply with all laws.  No laws are more supreme than the United States Constitution.  Even secrecy oaths that, “prohibit oath-takers from giving any information identified as safeguarded, secret, or classified to any person not specifically authorized to receive it” (deHaven-Smith, 2011, p. 215).  Snowden felt that there were obvious violations within the Fourth Amendment.   The argument could also be made that Snowden was operating on the basic theory of what James Madison laid out in terms of wanting an open and honest government.  Madison wanted abuses to be controlled and if the Fourth Amendment was being violated then Snowden had a duty to inform the American public about these abuses.  Snowden was also a former C.I.A. employee so he had to abide by ethical principles when he was with the C.I.A.  Snowden had the understanding and the passion to protect the Constitution because he was in an environment where people are charged with the duty of being ethical and protecting the Constitution.

Edward Snowden is one real-life example of being a whistleblower.  The federal government does encourage whistleblowing.  The proposition that code of ethics emboldens a person to blow the whistle is also bolstered by the fact that Congress has passed laws that try to protect whistleblowers from harassment and wrongful prosecutions.  Congress passed the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosure Act and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.  These laws are designed to protect disclosures by a federal employee of “any violation of law, waste, abuse, or gross mismanagement” (“Senate passes,” 2008).  These laws also “expanded the scale of whistleblower protections to national-security related agencies,” (“Senate passes,” 2013) and includes federal contractors, along with federal employees.

Between the many regulations, rules, and laws that enforce government employees to conduct themselves in an ethical way and the laws that Congress has passed in regards to protecting whistleblowers from harassment and wrongful prosecution, one could make the argument that the federal government encourages whistleblowing.  James Madison and the other founders believed that in order for a government to survive, the government must be controlled from abusing the people.  They wanted an honest and open government.  1884 saw the Congressional adoption of an oath that all federal employees had to take.  The oath makes the federal employee state that they will “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  The government also enacted several bills and executive orders that embraced the notion that all federal employees must be ethical.  These ethical codes of conducts continued to enforce the idea that employees needed to place loyalty to the Constitution.  The federal government constantly tells its employees to protect and defend the Constitution.  All of these ideas have permeated through the minds of its employees.  Once you couple that with whistleblowing protection laws, then it is only reasonable to see people like Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden blow the whistle on things they perceive to constitute government abuses of power.  The whole blueprint of this country, in terms of a constitutional republic, not only encourages people stepping up to fight government abuse, but it demands that citizens do this because a government cannot survive if it loses trust with its people.  No one should be surprised when a government employee or contractor blows the whistle because standing up for an open and honest government that protects the Constitution is a basic tenant of the founding of this country.  Not only should people be less shocked when whistleblowers become public, but they should be applauded for risking their security and their lives to help bring about perceived abuses that the government may have carried out.  Besides, as Daniel Ellsberg points out:

Since wrongdoing virtually always requires both secrecy and lies, and further secrets and lies to protect the secrets and lies, the wrongful operation—especially in a regime that approaches democracy—is commonly highly vulnerable to a breach of secrecy by any one of the many who share the secret. (2010, p. 775).

Arguments against Whistleblowing. There are several claims stating that federal employees should not become whistleblowers.  The arguments against whistleblowing stem from the proposition that whistleblowing is an “unauthorized disclosure of wrongdoing” (Evans, 2008, p. 268) and “that information must be kept secret to protect national security, and claims that the public would understand and bless the government’s actions if only the public could see the information that they are not permitted to see” (Kitrosser, 2011, p. 91).  One could argue that whistleblowing should not take place because whistleblowing is an unauthorized act of disclosure, however, that argument becomes null because, as has been already discussed in this paper, Our founders like James Madison wanted an open and honest government and the way to go about creating that atmosphere was by having federal employees pledge their allegiance to protecting the Constitution.  Ethical codes reinforced that idea of upholding the Constitution and laws have been enacted that protected whistleblowers.  There are positions within the security apparatus of the federal government that does hold its employees to secrecy; however, the Constitution trumps secrecy in those departments.  If citizens of the United States are having their Constitutional rights violated, like the Fourth Amendment when it comes to unreasonable search and seizures, then an employee has the obligation to expose that.  The Constitution cannot be undermined solely on the proposition of keeping state secrets classified.

The next argument that suggests information needs to be kept secret to protect the national security of the United States is also a weak one.  This argument suggests that more Americans could die if sensitive information is leaked out to the American public (Kitrosser, 2011; Wise, 2011).  That argument could turn out to be true.  Now that the world knows about the NSA’s PRISM program, it could turn out that potential terrorists will use other methods of communications other than using the internet and phone calls; however, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.   The Constitution does not forbid whistleblowing because someone may be killed.  That may sound callous, but Constitutional protections should never be undermined in the name of safety and security.  Basic constitutional republican theory, ethical codes, and laws that embolden whistleblowing constantly remind federal employees and contractors, along with the media and the citizens that government must operate in accordance with the Constitution.  Even President Barack Obama, whose administration is trying to prosecute Edward Snowden, has previously stated that “that whistleblowing by government employees was an act ‘of courage and patriotism’ that ‘should be encouraged rather than stifled’’ (Wise, 2010).  Though there is an environment of governmental hypocrisy when it comes to whistleblowing, we must all remember that our founders and government encourages whistleblowing.  Whistleblowing is encouraged because government must operate in an honest and open manner.

The final argument which suggests the “public would understand and bless the government’s actions if only the public could see the information that they are not permitted to see,” is another weak argument against whistleblowing.  That argument is hypocritical to say the least.  Again, our federal employees are encouraged to work openly, honestly, and ethically.  The government should never rationalize keeping secrets that harm our country because the people will support something that they do not even know about.  That argument goes against every principle of ethical conduct and goes against the Constitutional principles that have been discussed.  These arguments are excuses that come from people that enjoy the power they have in government.  The leaking of information threatens their status and to come out and make pompous arguments like this one, only makes the case stronger to why American needs strong ethical codes in government, along with encouraging more whistleblowing.

Conclusion

As this article has discussed, the reason why whistleblowing is not only accepted, but is encouraged, is because the federal government has adopted a code of ethics that emboldens federal employees to uphold and protect the Constitution.  Those codes of ethics have been founded on the notion that federal employees should uphold and protect the Constitution.  These codes of ethics also promote the notion of a government where abuses are controlled and all of its employees operate in an honest and open manner.
The American people already has trust issues with the United States Government and some could point to whistleblowers as being a catalyst that exposes abuse and corruption so government trust plummets.  However, if not for these whistleblowers we may have never have known that President Johnson misled the American people when it came to the Vietnam War, we may have never have known about the specifics of what the NSA does to collect information, and one president, President Nixon, may have never been exposed for his crimes against the American people.  Many lives have been ruined because many people have decided to stand up against the government and expose the abuse, lies, and questionable practices that go in the government.  These whistleblowers provide a valuable service.  They are the real patriots in this country that would have our founders like James Madison applauding their dedication, service, openness, and honesty.  Whistleblowers risk their lives and reputations to defend the Constitution; there is nothing more admirable than that gesture of selflessness.

Carroll, J. D., & Roberts, R. N. (1988). If men were angels: Assessing the ethics in government act of 1978. Policy Studies Journal, 17(2), 435-447.

Code of Ethics. (n.d.). Code of Ethics. Retrieved November 26, 2013, from http://web.governmentcontractors.org/content/about/Code_of_Ethics.aspx

deHaven-Smith, L. (2011). Myth and reality of whistleblower protections. Public Integrity, 13(3), 207-220.

Edward Snowden fast facts. (2013, November 18). CNN. Retrieved November 24, 2013, from
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/11/us/edward-snowden-fast-facts/

Ellsburg, D. (2010). Secrecy and national security whistleblowing. Social Research, 77(3), 773-804.

Evans, A. (2008). Dealing with dissent: Whistleblowing, egalitarianism, and the republic of the firm. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 21(3), 267-279.

Exec. Order No. 12674, 3 C.F.R. (1989).

Greenwald, G., MacAskill, E., & Poitras, L. (2013, June 9). Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations. The Guardian. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

Kitrosser, H. (2011). What if Daniel Ellsberg hadn't bothered?. Indiana Law Review, 45(1), 60-66.

Meine, M., & Dunn, T. (2013). The search for ethical competency. Public Integrity, 15(2), 149-166.

Madison, J. (1788, February 6). The Federalist #51. Retrieved November 24, 2013, from http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

Millar, T. (1971, June 23). Mr. Johnson's slippery tunnel. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved November 26, 2013, from http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QvljAAAAIBAJ&sjid=I-UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2414,7857807&dq=the+pentagon+papers&hl=en

Musaraj, A., & Gerxhi, J. (2010). Communication and ethical behavior in the public service: from moral choice toward a legal code. Academicus, (1), 11-21.

Oath. (n.d.). U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from http://archive.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp

Trust in government nears record low, but most federal agencies are viewed favorably. (2013, October 18). Pew Research. Retrieved November 25, 2013, from http://www.people-press.org/2013/10/18/trust-in-government-nears-record-low-but-most-federal-agencies-are-viewed-favorably/

Senate passes whistleblower law. (2008). Professional Safety, 53(3).

Wise, D. (2011). Leaks and the law. Smithsonian Magazine, 42(4), 90-101.

We Have Nothing to Fear (Except Ourselves)

The climate in this county is so divisive!  There are days I just want to stop thinking, analyzing, and writing about politics.  It is too bad I feel that way.  I am a nerd, which I am very proud to admit, who worked all of those years on achieving that Bachelor’s degree in Political Science (currently working on my Master's), and now, I question my sanity in wanting to pursue a degree in politics in the first place.   It is so bad that I just want to walk away and allow the extreme right and the extreme left to fight and destroy each other.  The hyper-partisans are destroying our imperfect political system. No longer can one person talk, negotiate, and compromise with one another. We now must demand that everything goes our way or no way at all.  Arguments are being dumb-downed because people have to spin the facts so that everything they believe can be validated and praised.  An example of the dumbing-down of ideas and arguments can be showcased in this brilliant, factual meme that I found on Facebook:

Really?  We can’t talk about Social Security reform because no one on welfare has ever worked for their money?  I don’t know what troubles me more:  that someone actually believes this was such a witty argument that they decided they had to make this into a meme?  Or that this has achieved over 420,000 shares and 42,000 likes on Facebook?  Some may wonder why I would even bother with such pathetic displays like this.  I can agree with that to a point. The reason why I am confronting pathetic political arguments is so I can hopefully inspire people to research and critically analyze everything that comes their way in politics.  Knowing that this meme received 420,000 shares depresses me.  This many people found this worthy and witty enough to share with the world (as I do the same).  I don’t find it worthy and witty.  I find it sad.  It’s sad because people really believe that welfare recipients have never worked in their lives.  They really believe that welfare recipients have never contributed any tax dollars into the system, even though 47.8 percent of people currently receiving food stamps are working? 

I fear that the increased polarization and partisanship will lead to our destruction.  It will lead to our destruction because the gridlock within our government will continue to get worse because no one will be able to agree on anything.  If nothing gets passed then our problems will get worse and worse until there is nothing left of this country.  Here is some straight-talk in regards to the possible destruction of our country:  gay marriage will not be the trigger that destroys this country; taking God out of our schools will not destroy this country; our bloated debt will not destroy this country; our militarily over-extension in this world will not destroy this country. “We the people” will destroy this country because we want to have temper-tantrums over the fact that Congress will not pass all right-winged laws or left-winged laws.

To that I say:  shame on us! I am a moderate; I have evolved over my many years of political study and research.  I love that I have evolved, but there are many people out there that see me as the enemy or as an extremist because I use that awful “c-word,” compromise.  When I hear things like that, I just want throw up my hands in surrender.  I just want to leave the gutter-politics behind.  Why was I so crazy to study politics? I enjoyed it and I enjoyed the debate, but now, it seems like fewer and fewer people want to talk or debate.  It must be one way.  It must be their way or no way at all.  You either have to love President Obama and cheer at his every move or you must hate the President and declare him the worst president ever.  On the flip side, you must have loved President Bush or hated him.  You may not hold any in-between feelings about these politicians.  If you place yourself in the middle it is because you are an apologist, Kool-Aid drinker, or just an idiot.

When I first got interested into politics, I was more of a conservative thinker and voter. I voted for President Bush twice and I voted for Senator John McCain in 2008.  Within four years, my voting preferences had changed.  I voted for the re-election of President Obama.  I know, I am just an idiot, uninformed voter as some people on the conservative side of the aisle would call me for my vote.  I’ll tell you why I voted for President Obama.  I voted for the president because I feel like conservatives have abandoned me. Tea Partiers and staunch Republicans do not want moderates in their party. Conservative one-time darlings like Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, and Paul Ryan have fallen from grace in the eyes of the right-wing. This has happened because Republicans, like Jindal, have taken more moderate (or more liberal) positions on issues like immigration, big business, and trying to be more inclusive. Conservatives mock the moderates in the Republican Party and I could not handle that anymore.

Another reason why I voted for President Obama was that I believe that conservatives are hypocritical when it comes to true conservative values. Conservatives want to protect their right to bear arms (which I agree with) but they want my private, personal life to be outlawed because gay marriage is icky and the Bible says it is a sin. I thought conservatives believed in limited government, but I found out, they do not believe that. They just want to be free to pursue the things they like while at the same time stopping things that they do not like. I must say, I was not thrilled voting for President Obama because he is not much better. His decisions have not dazzled me.  My vote was a protest vote against the Republican Party for allowing the few hyper-partisans within their party to hijack the entire group.

I also was upset with the Republicans because I cannot handle the hypocrisy of their treatment of President Obama. During the Bush years, conservatives were appalled at the calls for impeachment against Bush or the insane accusations that Bush was a liar. I defended Bush then and I will still defend him today. That is why I defend Obama against these asinine calls for impeachment and name-calling. It is the same pettiness that has been used again and again.  You disagree with them, then you better call them names.  I feel like our politicians, media personalities, and the entire country has reverted back to using high school tactics when it comes to our political discourse.  When I watch shows on MSNBC and Fox News, I half-expect Brenda Walsh from West Beverly Hills High School to show up as a political pundit.  That’s how juvenile the environment has become in the country.

I will always support the president who is in office even if I disagree with his or her policies. If the president is successful then that means I become more successful, and in turn, the whole country becomes more successful. When I say these things, people call me an idiot or an Obama-lover, when I am just trying to be fair.  Unfortunately, when a Republican becomes president again the tables will be turned.  Liberals will be on the attack and the Republicans will be on the defensive again and this disgusting cycle of name calling and finger pointing will continue.

I just want a fair and honest debate. It just amazes me that I am considered a turncoat to people who believed I was a conservative, while people who are liberal, think I am phony because I am now defending the liberal positions on some policy issues.  All I want is to be someone who analyzes things in a fair and non-hypocritical way.  It seems like fewer and fewer people want honest analysis.  The hyper-partisans want a biased opinion that will bolster their ideology.  Everyone be damned if you disagree with these people.  What a sad state of affairs.

This will lead to our destruction, but people will find other reasons to blame on why our country was destroyed.  People will always blame the opposing side.  What we will never do is to look in that mirror and determine that it was “we the people” that allowed for our destruction.

E pluribus unum, indeed!

I'll Have a Side of Bias with my News

"There is nothing wrong with holding an opinion and holding it passionately.  But at those times when you’re absolutely sure that you’re right, talk with someone who disagrees.  And if you constantly find yourself in the company of those who say ‘Amen’ to everything that you say, find other company." – former United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

No matter what feelings you hold about former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, I hope we can agree that her words in this instance are quite true.  Partisan bickering and polarization are becoming major obstacles in the American political landscape.  Politicians and their stubborn political supporters are halting progress.  The American political system is deadlocked.  We as a nation cannot find conciliatory solutions to immigration, tax reform, budgetary issues, etc.  The list goes on and on.  One of the causes for this deadlock is due to a biased news media where political purists get to speak the loudest.

In a peer-reviewed study titled “Partisan Differences in Opinionated News Perceptions:  A Test of the Hostile Media Effect” by Lauren Feldman, an assistant professor of journalism and media studies at Rutgers University, it was discussed that: “52% of cable news stories on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox offered only a single point of view about controversial issues, compared to 20% of stories on the network evening news.  Further, the expression of journalist opinion appeared in 28% of cable news stories, twice what was found in network evening news broadcasts and nine times that on PBS’s evening newscast, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”

Some of you might be wondering why this is a big deal.  Some of you might be saying that Fox News is the only news organization that tells the truth, while others might think that MSNBC is superior when it comes to reporting the truth.  But the real truth is that not one news organization holds that magic key to the truth.  I am not saying that everything on Fox News or MSNBC is complete garbage; every news organization has their positive traits.  What I am trying to say is to not put all of your trust into one news outlet and claim that they are the only true voice in the media.  These news outlets are creating ideological bubbles that are endangering the political process within this country and within the entire world.  These media outlets brainwash their viewers into thinking that the conservative side of the argument is the superior way of thinking and the liberal way will destroy this country, and vice-versa.  This is dangerous because you end up with political ideologues that will not compromise and, in turn, end up hurting the country (last year’s federal government shut down).  Is this how we want our country to run?

Besides, does any one person or any one organization hold the entire truth to politics, science, religion, life, or life-after-death?  I ask this question with hesitation because I know some people would say yes.  That troubles me.  I would never allow one person or one organization to say to me that they have all of the answers.  No one has all of the answers.  If they say that they do, in my opinion, they become highly suspect.  I must then question their motivations for saying such things.  Someone who is truly honest and sincere would never suggest that they have all of the answers and that any opposing thoughts are wrong.

Believe me, I question everything in life, and sometimes that gives me anxiety.  In today’s information age, it almost seems like you must know everything and have an opinion on everything to be listened to.  People feel stupid if they respond to a question with “I do not know.”  In my case, I might be somewhat intelligent (some would probably disagree).  I am book-smart, but I am quite awkward, and I am somewhat unintelligent when it comes to street-smarts.  I might be somewhat competent when it comes to politics, but compare me to someone like Albert Einstein and I end up looking like a fetus, intellectually.  But that’s everyone in existence.  We have our strengths and we have our weaknesses.  Even brilliant minds like Albert Einstein would never suggest that they have the answers to everything.

Be suspect of information, even if you tend to agree with it.  As Condoleezza Rice suggests, if you are in the company of someone or in a crowd where you say “Amen” to everything that is said or written then it is time to seek a differing opinion out.

Every day I visit numerous media outlets.  I visit CNN, Fox News, The Huffington Post, The Drudge Report, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal for national and world news.  Locally, I visit KSL (the local NBC affiliate) and The Salt Lake Tribune.  If there are stories that I want to research or read more about, I search for these stories in other publications.  At the end of the day, depending on the type of news day it has been, my head hurts.  Some of the opinions and comments that I read just depress me.  It is somewhat upsetting to read about all of the horrors that are taking place in this country and in the world.  I want to be informed.  I want to be informed on multiple levels, where multiple sides of an argument are presented.  This information helps me make more informed decisions.  Sometimes my decisions on public policy are liberal (social issues) and sometimes they fall more conservative (budgetary issues).  But knowing both sides allows me to see both perspectives.  If I can see both perspectives then I am more willing to compromise because I know most issues are more complex.  They are not black and white.  They are problems that lie in that murky gray middle of life.  Compromise may not bring about the total solutions to our problems, but at least we are addressing our problems and not kicking them down the road until they develop into full-blown crises.  If we can get things done and compromise, if we discover that our solution is not fixing the problem, then we can go in and find what is not working and fix that.  It is not an easy process but it is a better place to be at then where we are now:  in a deadlocked, frustrating political landscape.

Even though it may be tough to tolerate the opposing view side,  I would rather stomach the other side (while opening up my mind) then sounding or looking like this:

The top comment came from a news story on welfare benefits that was linked from the Drudge Report.  The bottom comment came from a news story on Governor Susana Martinez (R-NM) from Mother Jones.

A Debate of Constitutional Intent

I have a question for all of my readers.  Do you believe if a right is not mentioned in the United States Constitution, then does that mean that perceived right is not protected by the Constitution?  So in other words, because the Constitution does not specify marriage in any capacity, does that mean that marriage (or same-sex marriage) is not a right and that the states can regulate it as it pleases?  On the flip side, does that mean states like California and Massachusetts that do allow same-sex marriage could require churches to perform same-sex marriages, even though some churches would oppose such a thing?  I mean, neither of these examples are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, so that must mean that there are no Constitutional protections when it comes to marriage or religious dissent.  Do my arguments seem silly?  They should.  But I have heard people argue these positions.  Some people actually believe if something is not explicitly mentioned within the Constitution, then that means there are no protections.  I have heard people mention that marriage is not a constitutional right (even though the United States Supreme Court has stated on fourteen separate occasions that marriage is a civil right protected by the Constitution) so that means states can regulate it and deny same-sex couples the right to marry.  Some people take the Constitution quite literally.  These people are dead wrong.

I will show you that they are wrong through the use of analysis and interpretation of the intent of our Constitutional Founders as they were writing the Constitution.  This is the job that judges face all the time in the Judicial Branch of government.  They must try to come up with decisions based upon intent of the Constitution, which sometimes is not explicit.  It is a tough job, but somebody has to do it.

I am able to decipher intent by reading the House of Representative notes on whether or not they should amend the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights.  (Yes, some people were opposed to a Bill of Rights).

The House began these debates on June 8, 1789 when James Madison rose in front of the House and declared that “this was the day that he had heretofore named for bringing forward amendments to the Constitution.”  

Mr. Madison’s most vocal opponent was James Jackson from Georgia.  He suggested that the debate on constitutional amendments should not move forward.  Mr. Jackson was against the very essence of the proposal.  He asked, “What experience have we had of the good or bad qualities of this Constitution?”  Mr. Jackson continued, “Our Constitution, sir, is like a vessel just launched, and lying at the wharf; she is untried, you can hardly discover any one of her properties.”  Mr. Jackson did not want to even hear Mr. Madison’s proposals because he believed that the ink was not even dry on the Constitution.  The people of the United States had no experience with the document and he wanted to wait until we had the proper experience to know what is and is not working.  Mr. Jackson noted that, “When the propriety of making amendments shall be obvious from experience, I trust there will be virtue enough in my country to make them.”  Mr. Jackson was more than happy to look at amending the Constitution when the United States had more experience in dealing with the Constitution.   I can see where Mr. Jackson is coming from; I believe he is making a good point because at that time our leaders had no idea how or if the Constitution was going to work in principle, so I agree that you need experience with the document to see what is working and what is not.  I also believe Mr. Jackson makes a good argument for how our modern society should view the Constitution.  The Constitution has been in existence for more than 200 years.  Times, technology, attitudes, and modes of travel have changed.  This is why I believe that there is no harm in having a Constitutional Convention (the process that must take place to make changes to the Constitution).  I know many people who believe the Constitution is hanging by a thread and we need to protect it.  However, if it is not working and we could revise it and make it better, why would someone be against that?  I really believe that we should have a Constitutional Convention every so often (every 10 to 20 years) so we can see if we got some things wrong.  We may find that it needs no revisions but I believe that it does not hurt to have a debate on whether there are items in the Constitution that need to be revised or thrown out altogether.

Mr. Madison re-affirmed his position for amending the Constitution.  He made the argument that he had a duty to his constituents to make sure that the House did not “disregard their wishes.”  Madison believed that his constituents were apprehensive about signing on to the Constitution because there were “countrymen who wish to deprive them of liberty.”  Mr. Madison was looking to calm the fears of his constituents because he believed that all power is subject to abuse within the government and that “the powers of the General Government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done.”  Mr. Madison continued on and began to lay out his proposed amendments.   A few of his proposals are as follows:  “First, that there be prefixed to the Constitution a declaration, that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people.”  He also proposes, “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”  Mr. Madison lays out his proposals at length on keeping and bearing arms, the criminal justice system, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and so forth.  He declares that, “The first of these amendments relates to what may be called a bill of rights.”

Madison continued and explained why a bill of rights is necessary.  He stated that some states already have declaration of rights incorporated into their constitutions and that the establishment of the United States government had not repealed those rights.  However, some states did not have bills of rights and others that did were defective and some are “absolutely improper.”  He also made the argument that having a bill of rights would help protect against abuse of power.  Madison believed if a bill of rights is incorporated into the Constitution that, “they (the Executive and Legislative branches) will be naturally led to resist the encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights.”

Mr. Jackson then argued:  "There is a maxim in law, and it will apply to bills of rights, that when you enumerate exceptions, the exceptions operate to exclusion of all circumstances that are omitted; consequently unless you except every right from the grant of power, omitted are inferred to be resigned to the discretion of the Government."

Mr. Jackson was worried that if you incorporate a bill of rights into the Constitution, that will lead the government to assume that if there are rights not written in the Bill of Rights, that it will have the power to assume that it can restrict the rights that are not listed.  He has a good point because there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees our right to privacy in the United States.  You will hear arguments that government has no business placing cameras out in public or that the government should not be tapping phone calls in the name of security, that it is against our right to privacy.  However, there is no guarantee to the right of privacy in the Constitution.  So the government assumes that it can encroach upon our privacy.  However, with that said, I agree with Madison on this subject.  I would rather there be some expressed rights in the Constitution because that has protected us from more government intrusion, in my opinion.  Take the example of privacy rights and how the government can record and spy on us if they feel like we are a threat and imagine that there was no freedom of speech in the Constitution.  I believe it is probable that the government would curtail our speech in times of crisis.  The government may not want newspapers or individual citizens from posting or publishing political cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.  We have seen that this causes rioting, violence, anti-Western, and anti-American sentiment in the Middle East.  I believe the government may try to restrict people and news organizations from publishing pictures out of threat of violence towards Americans and American interests.  This is a hypothetical argument but we have seen how the government acts towards us when it comes to privacy and protecting us in this age of terrorism.

From this debate, I think we can deduce that there were some rights our founders wanted written down and agreed upon.  They did not want the government to infringe on some of our basic rights.  That is why debate on the Bill of Rights continued but was agreed upon.  From that point it was sent through the process of ratification by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states.  Virginia being the last state needed for ratification, which took place on December 15, 1791.

However, we can also see that they knew they could not identify every inalienable right and write it down in the Constitution.  Just because they could not identify every right it doesn't mean that those other rights do not exist.  Never let anyone try to persuade you about certain rights just because they are not literally written within the Constitution.  Besides, in most cases, other rights can be inferred from amendments that are in the Constitution.  This means that freedom of religion allows a church to practice their beliefs.  That means if they think same-sex marriage is sinful, the Constitution protects them from being forced to perform same-sex weddings.  Also, the Equal Protection and Due Process clause will most likely apply to same-sex marriage.  Equal protection protects citizens by making sure all federal and state laws apply equally to all of its citizens.  In other words, states may be able to regulate marriage, but marriage laws must be executed without any bias or discrimination.

If anyone ever argues that a right (same-sex marriage, religions being forced to perform same-sex marriages) is not guaranteed because those rights are not mentioned within the Constitution, remind them that our ideals and founding documents are a little more complex and nuanced.  It is not black and white.  That is why we have such fierce debates over rights and perceived rights.  The Constitution is not clear on a lot of things and that is why our government has checks and balances built within it.  Issues need to be sorted out as carefully as possible so we do not violate the Constitution.  More importantly, so we do not violate a person’s rights.

My So-Called Gay Life: Part 2

In last week's long-winded account of my struggle and coming out, you may ask, what does this have anything to do with me being able to understand and accept people for holding different views? My internal struggle has had a lot to do with how I have been able to accept people from all walks of life.  My struggle allowed me to see and feel both sides on the subject of homosexuality.  At first, I was in denial and upset about homosexuality.  I remember making fun of others who were openly gay.  That was a very pathetic and despicable move on my part.  I feel so ashamed that I did that.  But, my anger and denial went to acceptance and happiness.  I would not change who I am for anyone.  And being gay, I know how hard it is to hold unpopular views of the world.  I have lived as being a part of a minority community.  However, I don't look at myself as being a minority. I'm Feller and just because I am gay, it doesn't make me any less of a person.

First and foremost, I am human.  I'm just Feller.  Nothing is different about me except who I fall in love with (and as I mentioned previously, I was able to find that special man). I really don't see how I am a minority for being gay, though I technically am.  But I do not think about it. I just live my life as who I am.

Secondly, I know how it feels to be judged harshly. There is an extreme minority in this country that wants to tear me down.  They condemn me to hell.  However, I do not get mad at that because in different ways, we are all judged harshly. Some people may judge me because I am gay but many people do not.  Some religious people are judged as stupid or ignorant because they believe in their faith. Some people are judged because they are fat. Some people are judged because of their ideological beliefs. This list can go on and on. Everyone has been judged and labeled at some point in their lives. My story isn't any different than anyone else in this country. I am judged and labeled because I am gay.  So what? Society creates labels and judges everyone. I consider myself the same in this struggle. My label is gay, that does not upset me. In fact, I am more than happy wearing that label. Since we are all labeled and judged I cannot be mad at people with sincere beliefs.

There has been a struggle between most religions in this country and the gay community. So much hatred and harsh feelings have been born out of this struggle. Why? Why do we allow each of us to become divided over someone’s own sexual behavior? How un-enlightened is that? I believe to live and let live. I do not mind that people with sincere faith believe that I am committing a sin.  As long as they allow me to pursue my own happiness, I do not care what others believe.  Once someone supports laws or policies that stop me from pursuing my happiness that is where it crosses the line.  It is one thing to oppose homosexuality.  But to allow the state to sanction laws that stop me from marrying the person I love?  That is where I draw the line.  I hear people say that they get tired of being labeled a bigot or a homophobe because they oppose gay marriage.  I can sympathize with them.  I don’t want people to be called names.  But I would ask them to clarify their position.  I would ask them, "Do you oppose gay marriage and support laws that restrict that right?" or "Do you oppose gay marriage but believe that people should be free to do as they please?"  If they answer yes to the latter then they should not be called bigots.  But if someone opposes homosexuality to the point that they want laws to restrict their rights, then that is highly un-American.  I still wouldn't call them bigots.  I would ask them to look at themselves in the mirror.  Because hating someone to a point of denying them rights is so wrong.  The United States was not born to hate others for being different.

Believe me, I want more people in this country to have strong convictions. I have been taught to pursue my happiness in this country. I do not worry about what people are doing in their lives because they have that right too. I may disagree with their methods but they have that right to do what they like. This means that if someone wants to be a devout member of a faith that believes homosexuality is wrong, that is perfectly fine with me. I do not hate them. I do not believe I will be damned to hell and some of you may disagree with me. But let your God judge me on Judgment Day.  Don't be the judge, jury, and executioner. Jesus Christ, who I do find inspiring, did have a wonderful message. Love others. He preached love and tolerance, even though you may find that person living in sin. I do not consider myself committing sin but if people truly believe that, then good for them. What I do find hypocritical is when people of religion are hateful and go out of their way to get in my face to tell me I am going to hell. That is not Christ-like at all. However, those people are in the minority, as I mentioned last week.  I truly believe that most Christians (this includes Mormons) and people of faith do not hate me because I am gay. They may believe homosexuality is wrong, but they wish me all the luck in the world. They are just standing up for their beliefs like I am standing up for my beliefs. I wish people on both sides would calm down because the reality is that most people do not care what I do with my life. They are the silent majority. We only listen to the people with the loudest voice (like the Westboro Baptist Church) and those are the people that are on the extremes. The media picks it up for ratings and readership and politicians and community organizers pick up on the extremes for their own political gain and agenda. Do not get me wrong, we do need to have debate in this country, even if it gets heated. I want people to stand up and voice their views. If more people did this, the majority moderates in this country would win the debate.  I would love nothing more than the far-right and the far-left to be taken down a peg or two.  Let's stand up for what we believe in, but remember, most Americans are not out for your destruction. They may disagree with you but they don't hate you, they just want their voice heard. We need to stop highlighting the bigots and extreme ideologues out there and focus on the debate without calling each other names. We live in a country with many diverse people, backgrounds, and ideas.  I want to hear those ideas. I want to learn about all of their experiences.  I want to understand each other.  This is not an impossible goal. We just need to stop and listen.  We can learn so much and be inspired, while allowing the hate to melt.

I challenge all of you to listen to an opposing opinion. Seek out the other side, let your mind be open. When you are open you can understand where most people are coming from.  Any hate you may have will melt away. I went through a long struggle with my sexuality.  It opened my mind which lead to accepting others, because I have listened and paid attention to the haters and bigots in this world. This discovery of myself helped me realize that I was paying attention to the wrong people. I should have been paying attention to my friends and family and the moderate majority in America where people may disagree with you, but they do not wish you ill will.  Most logical Americans do not personally hate President Obama or former President George W. Bush.  They may disagree with them, but they would never cheer for their failure.  They would cheer them on to succeed. Because if a president succeeds that means that we, as a country, succeed.  That is the realization I have made. Do not fall into the trap laid by the extremes; they just fill your heart and mind with hate and harsh feelings. They influence you to shut people out.  That is dangerous and that will lead to our downfall. When you hear an extreme view point that you may want to cheer on, do some fact-checking and make sure it is correct.  Nothing harms our country more than having hateful, incorrect information spreading across the country.  I guarantee that you will feel better about this country and other human beings if you take a moment to think and fact-check. The reality is, we may disagree at times, but we really are not out for the destruction of other human beings. If I can come to this level of awareness, you can too.

How I apply my thought to real world examples is the struggle the Mormon Church has had in the eyes of the country and the world. To be completely honest, I have no use for the church. I think they damaged themselves in the Prop 8 (gay marriage) debate in California.  The Los Angeles Times reported that the Mormon Church donated at least $180,000 to stop the rights of gay Californians from marrying (it is also estimated that Utah individuals and families donated about $20 million to support Prop 8, with 70% of that money going to fight gay rights).  I have no problem with them voicing their views against gay marriage. It is their right and I don't hate them for it. I disagree with them.  I also think they crossed the line when they actively tried to crush the rights of their countrymen (and continue to do so by signing onto legal briefs that promote same-sex marriage bans).  I cannot imagine Jesus Christ being okay with that tactic.  But, the backlash they felt in the aftermath of Prop 8 may have turned the tide.  The truth is that people within the Mormon Church (and among all religions, in general) are beginning to accept gay members and the gay community.  There is still work to do, but it's a beginning and that is a great thing. With that said, I will stand up for the Mormon Church when they are being denigrated by other Christian faiths, which I believe the majority accepts.  But I am speaking of the minority that bashes them as non-Christians. What a stupid, pointless, hateful debate. Mormons are Christians. They believe in God. Their views are different in that they accept that others can become Gods.  But who cares? They believe in God, they believe in the divine goodness and greatness of Jesus Christ. I just sit there with my jaw dropped in shock that other Christians would hate Mormons so much. Mormons have strong convictions and beliefs. I thought that would be something that other religions would revel in and not be upset about. That certainly is not Christ-like. Mormons may be the majority in Utah, but that is the only place. Mormons are a minority, like I am a minority. They are sometimes viciously attacked for their views, like I am. Me being gay is almost the same as what some Mormons encounter in other places on the globe. Mormons are torn down and mocked, like how some people tear my homosexuality and mock me. But, it is the minority thought in this country when it comes to being hateful and divisive. Most Christians accept the Mormon Church, it is just the hateful minority that will mock them and call them non-Christians. Just like the minority extremes that tear me down because I am gay. I search for examples that prove my point. This proves my point. I disagree with the Mormon Church but I love them and I respect their beliefs if they respect me as a human being and they respect my right to pursue happiness. There is always a hateful minority but the majority (most of the times, silent, which needs to change) loves me and respects me. They may disagree with homosexuality but I can't be hateful against them because I know there is hate thrown their way and that disappoints me.  I will stand up against hate, no matter where it is thrown. I'm against hate on all levels, even if it's with an organization or a person I disagree with. I seek the truth and want to stand up above the divisiveness in this country.  Divisiveness is at its highest levels in 25 years, according to a Pew Research study.  Something must be done to counter the hatefulness that is throwing this country into the gutter.

If my words do not persuade you, then I implore you to listen to President Thomas Jefferson, who said:

“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Thomas Jefferson is correct  If it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, what difference does it make to anyone what I do with my life?  As long as my rights do not inflict harm upon your body or inflict harm on your rights, then what difference does it make?  It does not.  Amen, President Jefferson, Amen!