Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Caldwell goes Gay rebuttal

An article I wrote in the Idaho press tribune received an interesting rebuttal that I found interesting and thought it should be shared. As is turns out a friend of mine I see at the gym every morning wrote it. The interesting thing about our relationship was that I met him when I found out he was one of the group of protesters from the Canyon area human rights task force protesting a church conference I had organized a couple of years ago called "Shake the nation."

Tom and I have commonly disagreed on many issues but over the years have come to appreciate eachother when discussing contraversial issues, I greatly admire him for his stand on what he believes even though we do disagree in many areas.

Anyway, I believe what he wrote is innaccurate on many on the issues discussed and were misunderstood but was also surprised at the language that was used calling me ignorant and that I was biased assuming that I was just on a rant which I assure you was not the case.
The problem with writing an articlwe in the paper is that you dont get a chance to respond for 30-90 days, so I wait.....

Tom's rebuttal is here:

Tom Munds’ letter published on 2-10-10 reflects his personal biases as well as his lack of understanding of the issues. With the new Caldwell equal employment policy, sexual orientation cannot be a factor in hiring or firing employees. Thus, heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bi-sexuals will be treated the same regardless of their sexual orientation. None is elevated over another. Gender identity has nothing to do with sexual orientation. I identify myself as a male. If others think that I exhibit feminine traits, thus I must be female, sorry Tom Munds, under truly equal employment policies, I can’t be fired because of my gender identity, no matter that identity.

Throughout our nation’s history, laws have been implemented to deny equal rights to citizens. As society has evolved, our laws have also evolved. It is no longer our “Constitutional” right to own slaves. Laws denying interracial marriage and forbidding some sexual acts between consenting adults are no longer considered “Constitutional” even though those laws might still exist on some record books. Laws allowing homosexuals to be granted employment opportunities equal to heterosexuals are being passed. Mr. Munds asserts that granting homosexuals rights in employment equal to heterosexuals and bi-sexuals is not lawful, but I would leave that to the lawmakers and the courts.

Munds asks if the decision of the City to provide equal rights in employment will benefit us all, or just one group. Have laws overturning the “Jim Crow” laws of the last century benefited us all, or just one group? Clearly we all benefit when we remove legal barriers to full citizenship for all Americans. The “don’t ask , don’t tell” law has removed an estimated 13,000 homosexual men and women from our military ranks. When it is repealed, we will all benefit. We are all Americans, including "those" people.

What I would ask is that readers when reading this artiocvle reflect on the article titled "Caldwell goes Gay" and see which one makes more sense. I will post thoughts and clarify my views in a following post.

The intent of the original article wasn't to condemn a group of people but to show the unconstitutitonality of legislation or special rights to small groups without addressing the laws that should be made for all people and really had nothing to do with what perspective I had about the group in question.

This was about civil law and the constitution law, this was about how the lack of knowledge of it creates arbitray legislation that is more corruptive to human rights that to support them.

No comments: