IRAN NUCLEAR WEAPON AGREEMENT VOTE

A vote on the Iran Nuclear Weapon agreement is coming up soon.  This is a pretty important issue, with plenty of risk for the future whether the agreement is ratified or rejected.  The first point, that I think is not being discussed, is that the purpose of the negotiation process when it started 2 years ago was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.  Even with the sanctions in place, they have been getting closer to that goal.  The agreement was designed to stop that progress.  That was the goal the partners in the negotiations agreed to try and reach.  
The purpose of preventing Iran from supporting terrorist regimes was never the purpose of the agreement.  It appears the agreement gives us as much chance to do that for at least the next decade that the first Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians gave us to reduce their nuclear arsenal, and ours.  There are no guarantees that Iran will not violate the agreement, which is why we have the strongest inspection terms that have ever been in place by a "rogue" nation.  

If this was such a key issue, why did we not have this discussion 2 years ago when the discussions started and the goals of the negotiations we set? It seems very dysfunctional to want to change the outcome or the purpose of the negotiations after they've been completed, based on a different set of goals. That appears to be "politics as usual", unfortunately, complaining about what has been accomplished, instead of having a rational and objective discussion of a very important issue. 

I would like to hear the opponents of the agreement discuss objectively what they believe the outcome of rejecting the agreement would be.  Have they explored this option with the allies who are part of the agreement and represent the largest component of the sanctions?  What happens if we reject the agreement on our own, but our allies don't agree to restart the process on a different basis, and to keep or strengthen the sanctions?  Might this lead to no restrictions on Iran, no inspections, and the release of billions of dollars currently frozen by the sanctions?  Isn't that a real possibility of rejecting the agreement?  The chance of needing to use military force against Iran exists in both options .... but isn't it realistic to believe that the chance of needing to use military force is less with the agreement in place, than if it is rejected? 

When people suggest that all we have to do is to reject the agreement and we can start over with a new goal, with the same sanctions in place or stronger sanctions put in place,  I don't know what facts this suggestion is based upon.  I don't hear anyone explaining what evidence they have that the rejection will be a better way to reduce the risk of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, or that it will with certainty prevent Iran from gaining relief from the sanctions put in place by other nations, who might or might not share any goal beyond preventing the development of a nuclear weapon.  No one has discussed what level of sanctions we can put in place alone, without the agreement of the other nations who have been part of the 2-year negotiation process.  

I hope readers will add their considered thinking about the issue and the options before the Congress over the next few weeks.

SUPREME COURT DECISION – GAY MARRIAGE – NEXT STEPS

The Supreme Court has now decided that denying the rights and benefits of Marriage to a segment of the population for any reason, including sexual orientation, is not consistent with the equal rights guarantees of our Constitution.  This follows a long line of Supreme Court decisions over the past few decades that have invalidated State laws that sought to deny basic rights to different segments of the population, for reasons from gender to race.  This decision confirmed a fundamental truth that basic rights and benefits provided by law to one group of the population cannot be denied to other groups for mere differences in gender, race, sexual orientation, religious belief, or other factors.

This decision is great, and is a totally appropriate outcome, based on the guarantees of equal rights under our Constitution.  However, it was not necessary for the decision to pick a “winner” and a “loser” on this issue.  In any debate where the issue is seen to be of critical importance to both groups, a decision such as this won’t likely end the desires of the “losing” group to find a way to reverse the decision. So we have heard statements from groups who strongly believe that marriage is a religious act or sacrament and should not be re-defined by any government, that actions will be explored and undertaken to reverse this decision.

The only way to reverse a Supreme Court decision regarding rights guaranteed by the Constitution is of course to amend the Constitution.  Several states passed amendments to their State Constitutions to limit the definition of marriage by law to one man and one woman.  These have now been invalidated by the Supreme Court decision.  But these states could begin the Amendment process defined in our Constitution to adopt a similar definition in our national Constitution.  That activity would likely take years, cost multi-millions of dollars, and continue the divisive debate in our national politics.  That will likely add to the difficulty in growing collaboration between parties on other key issues, adding to the dysfunction in our national politics.

There is another approach … to follow the “win-win” approach to this issue that was outlined in the last blog post.  The core of the issue is the tying of civil benefits to what is essentially a religious event or sacrament.  This action essentially violated the principle of the Separation of Church and State, and that has led to the divisive issue we have today.

This situation could be prevented simply by altering our civil laws to remove this core problem.  We could chose to de-link civil benefits from the religious event of “Marriage”.  We could choose to alter our laws to link the civil benefits that are currently tied to “Marriage” to a civil event, called a “Committed Family Unit”, Committed Union” or some other term other than “Marriage”.   We already have the situation where most couples participate in a “Marriage” ceremony in a church, and then obtain a civil Marriage License in a Court.  Why not simply change the title of the civil license issued by the State as a “Committed Family Unit License” instead of a “Marriage License”, and leave the definition of “Marriage” to the religious institutions?  If the civil rights, benefits and obligations were linked to a “Committed Family Unit License” instead of a “Marriage License”, wouldn’t that provide a “win-win” solution acceptable to all sides of this issue? 

In this approach, the granting of a “Committed Family Unit License” by a Court would be based on recording oaths from the participants that they desired to be recognized as a “Committed Family Unit”, that they were free from other commitments that would prohibit them from freely accepting this commitment, and that they understood and accepted the obligations on themselves of a “Committed Family Unit” … the same benefits and obligations that are now linked to Marriage licenses.  These licenses would be issued to any couple of legal age making the application and taking the oaths, without regard to the gender, race or religious beliefs of the couple, and without requiring the existence of a religious “Marriage” ceremony.  In this way, every couple would be treated exactly the same, would have the same rights, benefits and obligations, and would have the same level of public and legal respect, without any difference in civil law between those couples who had a religious “Marriage” ceremony and those who did not.  The choice of participating in a religious “Marriage” ceremony would be an independent choice of the couple, and the determination of whether to agree to administer the “Marriage” ceremony or sacrament to any couple would be left to the churches and religions.  Just as we leave the decisions of Baptism, Communion, Ordination and other religious sacraments to the churches and religions.

As always, I would be interested in having anyone with other points of view contribute their comments on this blog entry.

June 27, 2015

GAY MARRIAGE

GAY MARRIAGE

This first blog entry will explore the subject of Gay Marriage.  As the Supreme Court gets ready to rule on this issue, I’m afraid they will determine a winner and a loser on this issue, instead of returning the issue to the Congress to develop a policy that accommodates the needs and concerns of both sides on this issue.

If the Supreme Court determines that the Equal Rights provision of the Constitution means States cannot deny the rights and benefits of marriage under civil law to one section of the population, then the Liberals win and the Conservatives who believe that marriage should be limited to the traditional definition of one man and one woman will lose.  Or if they decide that there is no such Constitutional protection, and allow the States to discriminate on this issue, then the Liberals lose and the Conservatives win.

In keeping with the purpose of this blog, I’d like to suggest the “Third Alternative”, or what others call a “Win-Win” alternative.  I hope to demonstrate that by accommodating the needs and concerns of both sides, a possible “Third Alternative” policy could be developed that would satisfactorily resolve the issue for most Americans.

First, let's review what the most often publicly stated positions are with regard to this issue:

1. Conservatives and Republicans seem to believe that Marriage should be defined as an institution limited to one man and one woman. They are opposed to any move by the Government to define Marriage in any other way.   Many are in favor of a Constitutional Amendment to limit Marriage to one man and one woman to prevent the Courts from finding a "right" to a broader definition of Marriage in their interpretation of the Constitution.

2. Liberals and Democrats seem to believe that Marriage should be defined to include all types of family units including and beyond one man and one woman, and that the definition of Marriage and the assignment of the rights and civil benefits cannot and should not "discriminate" against sexual orientation, lifestyle or other family unit choices, based on our Constitutional guarantees of equal rights and justice for all.

At face value, there might not appear to be "common ground" on this issue. It seems we are on a course as a society where one side will continually try to force its point of view on the other . . . the classic definition of "Win-Lose".   However the Supreme Court acts this month, if they choose a “Winner” and a “Loser” in their decision, which will not “settle” the issue for long.  Whichever sides “loses” will surely seek a way to invalidate or supersede the decision.

Before suggesting a "Third Alternative", I'd like to review a couple of principles and values that I believe most Americans would admit to sharing, and following that to suggest an approach to this issue based on these principles and values that hopefully might represent a "Win-Win" for all concerned parties.

Here are the principles that appear to be relevant to this issue:

1. Two of the bedrock principles upon which our country was founded are religious freedom for all, and Separation of Church and State. To me, this does not restrict the Government from acting with the acknowledgement of the existence of a Supreme Being, as this belief is a core value upon which the Declaration of Independence rests.   This is also echoed in our Pledge of Allegiance.  But no specific religion’s view of God is endorsed in any of our founding documents or routine pledges or even our public oaths of office. 

But the Separation of Church and State doctrine does restrict the Government from putting into public law the teachings of any single or group of specific religions.  Such teachings may be viewed as important elements of a life well lived and of a wholesome society, but they should be advocated as a preferred choice and not enforced as public law . . . even despite the view of a majority that such laws would result in a more wholesome society.   But this doctrine requires a clear separation between specific religious teachings about the ideal ways to live life, and the public laws which govern all of us of whatever, or no, religious affiliation. Our Constitution and our public laws spring from the desire to ". . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility . . . promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty. . .". Thus, public laws are appropriately restricted to those regulations deemed necessary to protect the rights and well-being of all citizens in the context of a free society based on individual liberty.

2. The second principle actually springs from the first . . . that the "inalienable" rights with which all of us are endowed by our Creator include "liberty" and the “pursuit of happiness". These are the very essences of a "free society". No one should presume to define what “happiness” anyone else chooses to pursue, as long as the rights or well-being of others are not directly impacted by those choices. With regard to religion, each of us is free to affiliate with any religion we choose, and equally free to choose to affiliate with no religion. Each of us has the very clear expectation that our public laws are NOT going to be a translation of the teachings, rules or laws of any one religion.

One of the core elements of our human condition that many religions, and most Christian religions, believe was granted to us by our Creator is the element of "free will". As long as we do not infringe on the rights of others, or cause harm or damage to others or their property and well-being, we are all free to exercise this "free will" in making our own choices as we live our lives.   In our free society, each person is free to follow their own conscious in choosing the guidelines and rules in our own lives.

The nature of Islamic societies where religious frameworks or teachings do serve as the basis for public law, versus individual liberty and free will, should be an effective reminder today of the incredible wisdom of this element as one of the core principles and freedoms we rightly cherish in our own society.

With that as preamble, here is the suggested "Third Alternative" to the issue of Government's Role in Marriage:

1. Government should have no role in the definition of Marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, established by religions well before the establishment of our civil laws. It is in fact a sacrament in many religions.  Government should not take on the role of defining or re-defining what is essentially a religious institution and ceremony. This pertains to all levels of Government -- Supreme Court, Congress, Executive, State Legislatures and/or State Courts.

2.  Government does have an inherent interest in protecting the institution of the family, and in conferring a set of special rights, benefits AND OBLIGATIONS on the parties involved in family units through public law.

3.  Thus, Government's role should be to establish a single set of laws enumerating the rights, the benefits and, as importantly, the obligations of citizens wishing to establish a family unit as recognized by public law. Many of these already have come to be defined over the course of the past 200-plus years as related to "Marriage", and they should be simply transferred to public laws that refer to the more general definition of "Families" or "Committed Unions".

In this law, there would be several specific ways that validation of a union as a "Family" or "Committed Union" would be accomplished. The principle requirement would be the formal and legal request for the rights and benefits of a “Family” or “Committed Union” and the formal acknowledgement and acceptance of the legal obligations on each party requesting such designation.   Certainly the existence of any certified religious "Marriage" ceremony would be the basis for such definition under the law, as would a certified non-religious or sectarian "Commitment" ceremony.   The legal designation involving the acceptance of obligations would be a separate legal step.

And finally, reflecting the core principles of our free society discussed above, "Family" units or “Committed Unions” under the law would be a designation available to any citizens who are willing to legally accept the rights and obligations, and that make the commitment separately and together, that come from establishing a "Family" unit or “Committed Union” under the law.

This approach would seem to represent a "Win-Win" for both positions cited above:

--For Conservatives and Republicans, the Government would leave the definition of "Marriage" to the separate religions. The concern that the definition might be changed by Legislative act or by Court decree would be eliminated.

--For the Liberals and Democrats, the rights, privileges and obligations of "Family" units would be extended to all citizens who willingly enter in to a committed relationship with one another, consistent with the core principle of one set of rights, benefits and obligations for all under the law. There would be no "separate but equal" outcome here, which is an approach to public policy we have long rejected as a society, under the principles that "all are created equal" and thus have the same rights to “equal protection” under the law.

As a reader, your comments, suggestions, additions and disagreements with this posting are invited and truly encouraged. I only ask that posted comments contain appropriately respectful language to civil discussion and argument for them to remain as part of the discussion thread here.

Finally, I would like to encourage readers and visitors to suggest topics for future postings. On my own list, I plan to address the issues of Economic Development, Job Growth, Middle Class Prosperity, Illegal Immigration and Resolution of the Middle East conflicts in future postings. But I would like for this forum to reflect the interests and priorities of those who become the audience of interested readers, and so I welcome your input as to what topics should be included in the near future.

Thanks in advance for participating. 

PURPOSE OF THIS BLOG

PURPOSE OF THIS BLOG

This blog exists to present thinking about how our national policies could be developed in a new spirit of “One Nation . . . Indivisible”.  These are values that are in our Pledge of Allegiance, but do not seem to exist in the political processes today.  This first blog post will share the purpose for this blog and provide the basis for the thinking about specific issues that will follow in subsequent posts.

Being “One Nation … Indivisible” is not only a key part of the Pledge of Allegiance to our Republic that all Americans recite, it is in the most practical sense the key to our success as a society and the ability of America to be the “force for good” that we have mostly been in our history …. Certainly most of our recent history going back to World War I.  This does not mean that everyone in the country has all the same values, believes in all the same ideology, or would vote same way on all issues.  However, it does mean that one of the values we do share is respect for the needs and concerns of those Americans who think differently than we do.  

This simple concept seems easier to accept when it comes to religious ideologies than political ideologies, where today too many of us seem to disregard the political beliefs and ideas of those who think differently than we do.  Too many of us seem to believe that OUR political ideology is the ONLY right way to succeed, and any other ideology is doomed to fail.   Worse, we seem to accept a system where people of one party cannot objectively admit the mistakes or shortcomings of their beliefs, regardless of the facts, nor can they welcome the successes and achievements of people of the other party.  And we consistently vote for leaders who increasingly tell us that they won’t accept any compromise in their ideologies or beliefs.

I don’t understand where that arrogance comes from.  So let me ask you … is this kind of rigid ideological thinking very different from the divisions that exist in the Middle East, where governing is done on the basis of one religious ideology over another, instead of respecting the different ideologies of other major religions or sects?  When one ideology, whether political or religious, believes they are right and everyone else is wrong, there tends to be no respect for the other, and no accommodating of their needs and concerns.  To me, that is not America.  And from a practical and historical viewpoint, I don’t believe that a culture that embraces that thinking can support a strong nation, economically or otherwise. 

Our approach to governing and national policies seems to have decayed into “Win-Lose” thinking in the past few decades … there is no sense of developing policies that take into account the needs and concerns of both parties, and thus most Americans.  Most of our “leaders” today don’t actually act as “national leaders”, they represent the needs and concerns of their party or region or special interest group, without respect for or accounting for the thinking, needs and concerns of the other party or other segments of America.  It’s almost like the leaders of the opposition party are actually rooting for the failure of the governing party, to “prove” the wrongness of their approach, and of course, to ensure the election of their party in the next election.

This “our way is the only way” approach to governing, which exists on both sides and in both parties, has led to a dysfunctional government and divided country.  We are not acting as “One Nation”, and that makes us weaker at home and abroad.  I’d like to suggest as an alternative, that we adopt what Steven Covey called the “Third Alternative”, or what others call a “Win-Win” alternative.  As Covey points out in his teaching, when we are in an “independent” reality, “Win-Lose” thinking is fine.  These are situations like sports contests.  But when we are in an “interdependent” reality, like a society or a nation, then the only thinking that really prevails in the long term is “Win-Win”.  Both “Win-Lose” and “Lose-Win” thinking will decay over time as the losing party responds, sometimes in a very negative way, to having lost.   Note that in the past 17 national elections since the end of World War II, we have swung between the two major parties in terms of national leadership every 8 years with the exception of 2 elections.  It is only “Win-Win” thinking that prevails long term in an interdependent reality.

Our nation is very diverse today and becoming increasingly so.  We are diverse ethnically of course, and in gender (thankfully!).  But we are also diverse geographically and in our religious beliefs.  So it should not be a surprise that we are diverse in our political ideologies as well.  According to a June, 2015 Gallup poll, only 25% of Americans consider themselves to be “Republicans” and only 31% consider themselves to be “Democrats”.  Even when which party people “lean toward” is included in the data, the numbers are just 43% and 45%.  There just is no singular group or ideology that reflects the thinking of the majority of Americans.

So we really cannot be “One Nation” politically unless we start respecting and accommodating the needs and concerns of others who are different and have different beliefs than ourselves.  In developing national policies, our leaders need to respect and accommodate the needs and concerns of the other party, regardless of which party is in power.  And most importantly, this means developing policies that reflect the needs and concerns of the majority of the public, not the needs and concerns of one party, one region or any special interest group. 

Democracy, said George Bernard Shaw, “ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.”  If you are a voter who elects representatives who think just like you and whom you “punish” at election time for accommodating needs and concerns that are different from yours, then might you be part of the problem? 

To become “One Nation … Indivisible” again, we must embrace as a national value the respect for the needs and concerns of others.  We can work to ensure that our beliefs, needs and concerns are accommodated in national policies, but we must also respect the different beliefs of others with some humility, and work to accommodate their needs and concerns as well.   This is not what the politicians call “compromise”.  That is often “Win-Lose” where the losers are the public.  This is not taking “pieces” of what each party wants and loading them into one policy.  This is truly working to understand the needs and concerns that constitute a “Win” for each party, and creatively developing a “Third Alternative” policy that achieves a true “Win-Win” for each party, and for the public as well. 

The future blog posts here will seek to discuss how a “Third Alternative” approach could be developed to many of our national policy issues, and demonstrate the kind of policies that could be developed from “Win-Win” thinking.  The goal will be to show that the key needs and concerns of both parties can be accommodated when the value of respecting the beliefs of others and creatively seeking that “Third Alternative” drive the process.