Questions for Americans, Part II

(Part 1)

5. What's the most gut wrenching decision you've ever had to make and how did you process that, come to that decision?

Obviously this was moving away to South Carolina last month. The decision was a long one, starting back in the spring when I started looking out-of-state "just in case" I couldn't find a job locally. As the weeks went on, and I interviewed here and in Michigan, it became increasingly clear that I was going to have to move. I had no other options left aside from moving back in with my parents and living off of their largesse. I've done that twice already for health reasons, and they have helped me so much it was fundamentally unfair of me to impose that on them again. The decision was fraught with tears and waffling, excitement and fear, but it has been made, and followed through.

6. What does [faith in Jesus Christ] mean to you? What does it mean to you to trust in Christ and what does it mean on a daily basis? I mean, what does that really look like?

As a side note, Warren tried to play this question off as well, we got more than 2000 question suggestions from our audience and I had to pick one to ask, implying that if it were up to him he wouldn't have asked. I call BS. The reason for this forum was to elucidate which candidate was the "christian" one and which wasn't. Asking this question was pure spectacle, pandering to the sheep who hang on his every word.

Faith in Jesus Christ should be a positive emotional experience for people. It should make people feel better about themselves (i.e., that they are saved) and work for the betterment of others (cf. the sermon on the mount). It may include acts as benign as daily prayer, weekly church gatherings, and Bible study.

Thanks to the reparative therapy counselor I had in college, I learned that I do not need to rely on some imaginary force to realize my own worth. I don't need an angry sky-father threatening me with eternal torture to make me do good things for myself and those around me. I don't need to profess faith in and unswerving loyalty to any human to secure any place in Valhalla, Nirvana or heaven.

In my life, I make choices based on what I see, what I can verify, and what provides actual help to those around me. If someone is emotionally hurt, which is more helpful: to sit and listen to them or to tell them you'll pray for them then walk away? I'm not saying those two things are mutually exclusive. Many people do pray for them AND sit and listen, and those are the people who are acting most like Jesus. What I'm saying is that I will do what actually helps and ignore what has no basis in reality.

7. At what point does a baby get human rights?

The question begs its own answer: when it is a baby! Until it's born, it is a fetus. Does that mean that fetuses can't be protected? Of course not, but they get their protection and rights through the rights of the mothers. It makes no sense to give individual rights to things that can't survive outside their mothers' bodies!

If one tries to give rights at conception, one would have to realize that as many as 40% of fertilized eggs never implant and a certain percentage spontaneously abort shortly after implantation, before the mother has even felt any effects and before any pregnancy test can detect it. Many other pregnancies spontaneously abort because there is some defect in the fetus that would make it unable to survive to term or outside the womb. Who then gets charged with the deaths? Does the government take entire control of the mother while she's pregnant to make sure she's doing everything right, or should they charge a mother with manslaughter or homicide if there is a miscarriage?

And this was the point of the question: governmental control of a woman's body. A body of power remains in power by suppressing everyone who isn't in power. A patriarchy works by oppressing women, children, and everyone outside their group. If we believe that humans have rights, we must give women control over their own bodies, and that includes what is inside their bodies. To address the unasked question: Abortion rights must be preserved. Comprehensive sexual education must be provided to every person so that appropriate and healthy choices can be made. It's no coincidence that unintended pregnancies occur most often among the poor (who can't afford contraceptive services) and the undereducated (who don't know enough about how to take control of their own reproduction).

8. How do you define marriage? Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?

There are two types of marriage, and most people who get married participate in both without realizing it. There is religious/spiritual marriage, generally blessed by a religious leader within the constraints of a certain religion. In these marriages, the religion can define who is elegible to get married and what circumstances lead to marriage (or dissolve the marriage). Most religions use marriage in a bit of circular logic: marriages are legimating acts for sex, and generally procreation, and any marriage that isn't consummated by having sex aren't true marriages. Some christian sects, like the Roman Catholics, actually define consummation in fairly graphic and specific detail.

The other type of marriage is one based on secular, civil laws. These are regulated by the state and legitimate property and inheritance. It's only been very recently that "love" has been the defining characteristic of a marriage. Since in civil marriage procreation has no sway, the genders of those engaging in this legal partnership should not matter.

Another unasked question: should gays and lesbians get married? Yes. It is the height of hypocrisy to say that gays and lesbians should get all the equal rights of marriage, but not be able to marry. We went through a period of similar laws based on a false premise of "separate but equal." It is also highly hypocritical to deny the existence of lesbians and gays, attempt to legislate that sex is only right in the bounds of a marriage, then deny marriage to a substantial portion of the population. Since the sex-based definition of marriage is religious, denying marriage rights based on sex illegally (in my opinion) imposes the views of a religion on the population as a whole.

A Constitutional amendment has never been used but once to deny rights, and that was removed by another amendment in short time. Amendments grant rights and clarify rights.

9. Was the Supreme Court of California wrong?

This was asked of Senator McCain only. It refers either to the decision to grant same-sex couples the right to marry in the state, or the decision to reword the proposed amendment to reflect that it would remove existing marriage rights. Whatever the meaning of the question, I think the court was exactly right.