Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Referendum 71 Has Flaws: Guest Post by Trestin Meacham

Reader and fellow blogger Trestin Meacham offers a viewpoint in opposition to guest blogger Dennis Brown on Washington State Referendum 71.

Trestin is an active and noted conservative blogger (check him out
here), and a frequent commenter on many blogs I follow, which is why I am pleased to include his post, and hope you'll read it with interest and respect.


Referendum 71 Has a Major Flaw

While I may disagree with the stance taken by Mr. Brown; I am glad to see him involved, and making his voice heard. A republic can only work if the people remain informed and involved.

I am what Mr. Brown might think of as an ultra conservative. I grew up in a small farming town where traditional values were lived. I am also a person of faith and spent two years of my life as a full time missionary. I DO think that homosexual behavior is wrong, and can be harmful to society. That being said, I have no malice in my heart toward homosexuals. I would never treat a homosexual as anything less than an equal. In my eyes we are all children of God, and each of us have flaws.

I think what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is neither mine nor the government's business. We live in a free society that allows individuals to live as they please. I, however, do not think that I should be forced to embrace behavior I find to be wrong. What happened to the days of homosexuals just wanting to be left alone?

Mr. Brown states that homosexuality has always existed, and he is right about that. Societies that have in the past openly embraced homosexuality, tend to be in the process of decline. You can find this in Egypt, Greece, and many other great powers of the past. We are now seeing our own nation declining. If or when we recover from this decline remains to be seen.

Putting aside all views of morality, this Referendum 71 has another major flaw.

I do not like the idea of the government dictating what the private sector can and can not do. We already have too much government in our lives. If an employer does not want to grant equal benefits to unmarried or same sex couples, they have that right. If you do not like it you should strike or boycott the company. The Constitution states clearly that all men are created equal.

What did the founders mean by equal? We are promised equal rights, not equal results.

The constitution grants same sex couples the right to speak out on this issue. It gives them the right to strike, leave, or boycott a company that they feel is mistreating them. It also grants an employer freedom in the way he runs his company.

While I may disagree with Mr. Brown on this issue, I thank him for speaking out. I wish more people would get involved in civic affairs.

Very Respectfully,
Trestin Meacham



Be sure to check out TheGonzoMama.com for more of Gonzo's musings!

2 comments:

EatTheWeak said...

I'm sorry, Trestin, but I don't see how your assertion that you don't hold any malice towards homosexuals computes with your assertion that their behavior somehow "harms society" and that employers ought to be permitted to discriminate against them for their sexuality and their unmarried status, especially when regressive laws forbid them from escaping their unmarried status.

Your notion that government ought to stay out of citizens' bedrooms and private lives computes perfectly with the notion that homosexuals shouldn't have their rights abridged by other citizens who have some specious notion that their behavior somehow harms society. You wouldn't support laws against interracial marriage, would you? You wouldn't think the unchangeable facts of someone's genetic make up should preclude their choices in love in the eyes of the state? Why then is it so difficult to provide our homosexual brothers and sisters with the same consideration?

IT Johnson said...

I agree that the state should not legislate "special protections" for anybody be they Red, yellow, black, white, brown, straight, or gay. The word "marriage", I believe should be changed to "civil union" in order to better reflect what it legally is, and it would enable advancement toward allowing gay and straight alike to be joined in a "civil union. Regarding private corporations; restricting anybodies' liberty based on religion, race, or orientation hurts the companies that develops such restrictive policies. As is the way in a market, the company would either adapt or operate at a disadvantage in relation to its competitors. Referendum 71 and the move to kill it are political in nature, and as such, is plagued by political maneuvering for the good of the politician and not the good of the people it is intended to serve. In general, government should not be so thoroughly involved in our wallets, bedrooms, or property. I believe that politicians should be taken out of this equation along with many other equations. It is not their constitutional duty to get involved in these issues. It should be left to private individuals and companies.