Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] what next?

["Christian M. Cepel" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike Miller wrote:
> As far as I can see, you are the first person to make any statement 
> about the ACLU using "democratic methods."  I don't even know what that 
> means. They are not a government agency run by elected officials.

No... it was in the same post I quoted below... I just cut too much and 
mistakenly said "another post".  I'm not sure, but I think it was your 
post. (I'm mostly likely wrong here.)

> Give some examples.
>
> OK, that's one example.  Any others?

See Below.

> I'm supportive of equal rights for homosexuals and I oppose 
> discrimination against them.  I think we should be able to protect 
> someone's wishes in case they are injured.  So, you might want a certain 
> person to care for you if you are disabled, but maybe your parents don't 
> want that person to do it.  Unless that person is your legally-married 
> spouse, your parents can probably overrule your wishes.  We should allow 
> for you to have a legally-binding contract that would give you what you 
> want.  This is more generally than homosexual relationships and it has 
> nothing to do with marriage per se.  I think it is only fair that when a 
> married person would get family benefits for his/her spouse, that a 
> homosexual person should be able to get the same benefits for his/her 
> life partner.  The latter idea may be controversial, and maybe it 
> shouldn't be legislated, but it is a good idea for corporations to make 
> the offer.

I have no problem with civil unions with the same 'privileges' and 
rights.  I just don't believe 'marriage' is an entity of the state. 
Judges perform 'civil unions' which are recognizable by state & federal 
law, and extend those rights/privileges/extra punishing taxes.  A 
marriage is performed by a religious leader who is also at the time 
serving in the duly appointed role of performing the requirements of a 
civil-union.  That's how I see it, and because that's the way it's been 
for the past history, but with the distinction not clearly written into 
law because it's just common sense that EVERYBODY knows.  It's only 
current thought that has sought to blur the distinction which had been 
clear to everyone up until recent history.

For the most part, I think we're saying the same thing here.  The only 
thing I disagree with is parental issues.  I fundamentally believe that 
marriage was established by God as a perfect model, and sex and therefor 
children restricted to within that framework.  I say perfect, because I 
believe for a child to not have both a mother and a father is damaging. 
 But... I know this does blur the issues of separation of church and 
state, and is likely something I cannot push for, and will have to 
allow.  Time will tell if there is truth to my belief.

> > I can think of plenty of stepped on civil liberties and constitution 
> > violations that they wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.
>
> Give some examples.  Seriously, I am interested.

This and the above requests for examples are valid.  I'm not much good 
at going back through and finding these things, but I will try to find 
the time, unless some like minded individual does it first on my/their 
behalf.

> OK, but you'll pay for the child delivery and a lot more.  If it's about 
> money, your plan is to spend, not to save.

Oh you are so very correct.  I am not about saving money.  When I 
complain that my tax dollars go to do it, I am complaining that my tax 
dollars are paying for something I find abhorrent as opposed to 
something I find to be a miracle and a joy.

Besides, even more to the point, when Raina and I were expecting our 
first, and we were still college students and didn't have benefits yet, 
we were going to have to turn to the state for help with pre-natal, 
birthing, post-natal care, etc.  Our state already provides this for a 
large percentage of the population.

With this in mind, I _HATE_ that abortion is considered the 'cost saving 
alternative', and thus used in cases where the mother might consider 
having the child if there were not pressures brought to bear by 
societal, governmental, medical entities.

I have a wonderfully HORRID story about just one such true event here at 
MU's Student Health Center, which I've gotten permission to write up for 
WhatIsPartialBirthAbortion.org (rather stagnant again... would welcome 
contributers), but have never found the time.

In this case, the wife of a friend (both professional gradate students, 
and the wife a professional photographer rather well off) finally became 
pregnant after a long period of trying.  She went to the student health 
center to get a pregnancy test and maybe some prenatal advice and vitamins.

Did I mention she was previously a Korean national, but with flawless 
English?  Did I mention that they had been trying to have a baby?  Did I 
mention that they were overjoyed.

She tried to tell the folks at Student Health, but they would not listen 
and felt for certain that this foreign girl was there to keep a 
pregnancy from hijacking her studies, her foreign government visa (where 
the do legislate such things) (ignoring the fact that she was married 
and well on her way to citizenship), and the shame of being an Asian 
unwed mother... I mean of course because the _Know_ how the different 
Asian societies treat women that have had out of wedlock intercourse... 
not to mention, that as a foreign graduate student, probably surviving 
on ramen and rice (to be sure,... nothing she's one of the best cooks 
I've met and has turned me on to a LOAD of Korean dishes) who cannot 
afford the pre/post-natal, birth, child rearing (utter nonsense).

They pushed some pills into her hand and told her to go into the 
bathroom to take them.

She tried to get them to tell her what they were, and find out why she 
should take them.

The pushed some more.

She tried to call her husband, but he was unavailable by phone.

She managed to get out of there with the pills in her possession, but 
not in her stomach and talk to her husband to find out exactly what they 
were.

They _were_ RU-486 the medical abortion pill.

Never mind that she didn't want an abortion and DID want the baby.

Never mind that RU-486 is an extremely hazardous drug which is required 
by law to be monitored closely by medical personnel to prevent the many 
hemorrhage deaths the pill has caused before.

Never mind that she was WAY past the period for which RU-486 is legal 
and safe to be used to cause an abortion.

Disaster was only averted because she was at least assertive enough to 
say, "I want to know what this is before I take it."

Needless to say that they were furious.


I still mean to write this up with a lot more detail and eloquence and 
drafts sent to my friend for fact-checking, but for now, that's the gist 
of this particular story.



--
  //Christian

Christian Marcus Cepel            | And the wrens have returned &
EMAIL:PROTECTED icq:12384980  | are nesting; In the hollow of
371 Crown Point, Columbia, MO     | that oak where his heart once
65203-2202 573.999.2370           | had been; And he lifts up his
Computer Support Specialist, Sr.  | arms in a blessing; For being
University of Missouri - Columbia | born again.    --Rich Mullins

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion