Point of View August 5th, 2010

I’ve not been posting things on Facebook (see my most recent entry regarding integrity) so I thought I'd post a few articles I find interesting on my blog. You are always welcome to share articles and comment on them.


http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100805/a-gavel-falls-on-marriage-the-proposition-8-decision/index.html
Excerpt: Judge Walker’s decision is sweeping and comprehensive, basically affirming every argument and claim put forth by those demanding that California’s Proposition 8 be declared unconstitutional. That proposition, affirmed by a clear majority of California voters, amended the state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In one brazen act of judicial energy, California’s voters were told that they had no right to define marriage, and thousands of years of human wisdom were discarded as irrational.


He continued: “Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”

What bothers me about this verdict (as mentioned in the article as well) is that although many people make a family work in varying ways due to necessity, the definition of a marriage, as created by God for the purpose of procreation has been destroyed and reduced to irrelevancy. If anyone can be married, start a family and receive the legal and financial benefits of the marital institution, then why not offer those same options to single people? Why not do away with marriage and civil union’s altogether? Why shouldn’t two women (or two men), living together, whether ‘committed’ to each other or not, be able to claim each other on insurance, benefits, legal documents and the like?

After all, why is marriage such a big deal?



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/When-profiling-isn_t-racist-1007301-99944154.html

Excerpt: Because of a correlation between race, sex and disease, the physician is using a cheap-to-observe characteristic, such as race or sex, as an estimate for a more costly-to-observe characteristic, the presence of a disease. The physician is practicing both race and sex profiling.


Does that make the physician a racist or sexist? Should he be brought up on charges of racial discrimination because he's guessing that his black patients are more likely to suffer from prostate cancer?


Should sex discrimination or malpractice suits be brought against physicians who prescribe routine mammograms for their female patients but not their male patients?

Asking people to show their documentation or prove their citizenship is no more profiling than asking to see a driver’s license or proof of insurance when you are stopped for speeding by the police. I don’t need to reference all the news articles about illegal immigrants, detention and crimes committed while in this country.

What about the store clerk that asks for your ID when presenting your credit card for purchase; or the waiter at the restaurant that ‘cards’ you when you order a drink? Is this profiling?



http://article.nationalreview.com/438967/illogical-immigration/victor-davis-hanson

Excerpt: Some 11 million to 15 million illegal aliens are now residing in America, most after crossing into America unlawfully. Once a federal law is arbitrarily not enforced, all sorts of bizarre paradoxes arise from that original contradiction. As proof, examine the following illogical policies and contradictions involving illegal immigration.

Take profiling — the controversial questioning of those who appear likely to be illegal aliens. Apparently, American border guards have developed criteria for profiling those deemed likely to be unlawful aliens. Otherwise, how would they have arrested and deported hundreds of thousands in 2009?

I’ve written about my feelings on immigration here and a few others. I don’t have a problem with PROVING that I can live here legally, or expecting everyone else to offer the same proof.