Response to Minnesota Marriage Minute video, Episode 18

Minnesota for Marriage has another video out, Episode 18. Once again, they're abusing statistics.

Give it a look, if you haven't seen it yet.

The question they're addressing today is

“Aren’t committed gay and lesbian relationships just the same as marriage relationships?”

They, of course, conclude that there's something very different about committed same-sex relationships.

No doubt many gay and lesbian couples profess love for one another but studies of gay relationships show that they are fundamentally different than the marriage relationship.

Really? Well, let's what these studies say.

"Marriage is characterized by by a lifelong commitment of both love and fidelity. Indeed, fidelity is universally expected in marriage, however, fidelity and monogamy are fundamentally lacking in many gay relationships. One recent study by gay researchers at San Francisco State University found that only 45% of gay male relationships are based on an expectation of monogamy. Other studies have put the percentage of gays and lesbians in open relationships as high as 75%. The New York Times wrote an article about this entitled "Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret." The article said that couples having sex outside of their marriage might point the way for the survival of the institution. Dan Savage, a prominent gay sex counselor, is an outspoken advocate of open relationships, not only among the gay community, but among married heterosexual couples as well. He says, quote, "Monogamy is ridiculous and people aren't any good at it. We're not wired for it, we didn't evolve to be. It's unnatural, and it places a tremendous strain on our marriages, and our long-term commitments to expect them to be effortlessly monogamous." This attitude by the nation's leading media and gay advocacy voices shows how redefining marriage will impact all of society. If marriage is redefined to be genderless, our marital expectations will be challenged and the norm of monogamy and fidelity will be undermined. This would have profound adverse effects on children, parenthood, social responsibility, and the public good." 

So, what's wrong with their argument? Several things. First, take a look at "Indeed, fidelity is universally expected in marriage. . ." All you have to do is look at any polygamous culture (such as some in the Middle East) to falsify that statement. Or, you could look right here in the United States. Wikipedia cites numbers of 15% of married hetero couples having agreements that would allow extramarital sex (unfortunately, the most recent study on the issue that Wikipedia cites is from 1983, and when I poked around on Google Scholar for more recent studies about hetero open relationships, I was unable to find anything useful. Perhaps someone else knows of something?).

Second, they don't actually address the New York Times article they cite (found here). They simply take it as a given that the article is clearly wrong. Some passages from the article:

The study also found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions, Dr. Hoff said. A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer.

[. . . ]

According to the research, open relationships almost always have rules.

[. . . ]

A couple since 2002, [Chris and James] opened their relationship a year ago after concluding that they were not fully meeting each other’s needs. But they have rules: complete disclosure, honesty about all encounters, advance approval of partners, and no sex with strangers — they must both know the other men first. “We check in with each other on this an awful lot,” said James, 37.

Notice that it's not exactly willy-nilly, sex with whomever they please when they please.

That transparency can make relationships stronger, said Joe Quirk, author of the best-selling relationship book “It’s Not You, It’s Biology.” 

“The combination of freedom and mutual understanding can foster a unique level of trust,” Mr. Quirk, of Oakland, said. 

“The traditional American marriage is in crisis, and we need insight,” he said, citing the fresh perspective gay couples bring to matrimony. “If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”

Yeaaaaaa. . . . What's the divorce rate right now? Among heterosexual couples? Even if they can't agree with having open marriages, I suspect that an awful lot of couples could learn a thing or two about openness, honesty, trust, and communication from couples that have successfully negotiated open relationships. At any rate, Yanta did not address the reasons the New York Times said that open marriage may show a way to save the institution of marriage.

Now, the Dan Savage part annoys me for a couple of reasons. One, is it shows Dan Savage using the naturalistic fallacy when he calls monogamy "unnatural." I could just as easily say "Using chemotherapy to treat cancer is unnatural, therefore, using chemotherapy is bad." More importantly for this post however, is the implicit assumption by Yanta and Minnesota for Marriage that Dan Savage speaks for the the LGBT community. He doesn't. Yes, he's prominent. However, Pat Robertson is also prominent, but he does not speak for the entire Christian community. Even the Pope doesn't speak for every Catholic.

However, what's really wrong with this video is that the argument it makes and conclusion it draws really aren't connected. Let's assume for the sake of argument that an important quality of marriage is monogamy and not having sex outside your monogamous marriage, i.e., fidelity (note that being polyamorous, I obviously don't truly agree with that, but I'm willing to see what it does to the argument). Nothing in the New York Times article or the quote by Dan Savage, nor in the statistics quoted by Yanta, demonstrates that same-sex relationships are inherently different from heterosexual relationships. All it demonstrates is that a large number of homosexual people (and also some heterosexual and bisexual people) do not yet accept the idea of monogamy as a value. If Yanta's argument could be said to demonstrate that gay relationships are inherently different from straight relationships because a percentage of gay people are in open relationships, then Yanta's argument must also be said to demonstrate that straight relationships are inherently different from straight relationships because a percentage of straight people are in open relationships. That seems a contradiction, wouldn't you agree?

The importance of fidelity is separate from whether same-sex marriage should be allowed, and judging by the prevalence of adultery (without an agreement to be open), is a point that you would need to make to the heterosexual couples at least as much as you would to gay couples. Many same-sex couples would (and do) actually agree that fidelity and monogamy are important (25% - 55%, based on Yanta's own stats), and may very well join you in making that argument. That is, if you weren't sidelining them by claiming that their relationships are obviously inherently different from yours, or inherently wrong.

(As I was writing all of the above, another thought occurred to me. Is it possible that one of the reasons a larger percentage of gay relationships are open is precisely because gay relationships are marginalized by mainstream society? If you're being told that your attractions and relationships are wrong even though it is simply a part of who you are, and you are not harming anyone, then I would not find it at all surprising if that led to you being willing to buck society by trying out new relationship models.)

Minnesota Marriage Minute video, a response to Episode 17

Minnesota for Marriage has released Episode 17 of their Minnesota Marriage Minute video series, this time addressing the question:

Shouldn't marriage be redefined to accommodate the growing number of children of gay and lesbian couples?

Obviously, their answer is going to be "No." The interesting part is what reasons they give for saying "no," through the voice of Kalley Yanta. Yanta starts by saying that there are actually very few same-sex couples raising children, only 22% of same-sex couples in fact, using numbers from the Williams Institute at UCLA. It appears that Yanta's numbers may be out of date, actually, as the number is actually closer to 17%. The US Census Bureau (which the Williams Institute based some of it's numbers on) found some errors and revised their numbers in Sept, '11. The Williams Institute prepared a new snapshot using the revised numbers. Yanta does also use some numbers pulled from the Census data.

So, basically, when I checked the numbers and did the math, I came up with 0.21 percent of households in the US are same-sex households, and 0.04 percent of the total population is a same-sex couple raising their "own" child (which the Census defines as "never-married children under 18 who are sons or daughters of one partner or spouse (Person 1) by birth, marriage (stepchild), or adoption."). These numbers are lower than the ones Yanta uses, which of course she would undoubtedly believe strengthens her argument, which goes like this:

Why should the definition of marriage, which has served us so well, be redefined for the 99.88 percent of households, in order to accommodate the desires of the 0.12 percent? 

That's her entire argument. Well, let's consider an analogous situation. Prior to Loving v. Virginia in 1967, multiple states had laws on the books that banned interracial marriages. Just as today, we have laws banning same-sex marriage. Loving v. Virginia overturned the laws banning interracial marriage, and three years later the US Census Bureau conducted the census of the US. In 1970, the total population was 203,392,031, and the number of interracial marriages was approximately 65,000. That's a percentage of 0.031. That's less than the current percentage of same-sex couples (since same sex marriage is only legal in a handful of states, compared to interracial marriage being legal in all states in 1970, I'm using the figures for total same-sex households, not just those legally married; it's certain that many of those unmarried same-sex couples would like to be married, but cannot be legally). I don't have numbers for how many of those 65,000 interracial couples had children, but obviously the percentage of the total population would have been less than the percentage of same-sex couples with children in 2010.

So, why was it ok to redefine marriage in 1967 to accommodate the desires of 0.03 percent of the population (or less, if you just look at whatever number had children)? Equality, of course.

No matter how small a particular sub-population is, we do not have a right to deny that population equal rights with the majority. Ever. One of the strengths of a republic like America is that the minority is protected from an absolute tyranny of the majority. Or at least, that's how it's supposed to be. That's what the 14th Amendment, the 1st Amendment, and the "balance of powers" is supposed to help ensure. This is part of what the Supreme Court recognized in 1967, and why they overturned the miscegenation bans that were in place at the time.

Some thoughts on marriage

This is sort of a thinking out loud post, so I'm not sure you should expect any attempts at tight arguments. Looking into this question of same-sex marriage has me pondering: what exactly does marriage mean to me?

There was a time when I wasn't sure that I would ever get married. I'm polyamorous, but marriage is illegal between more than two people in any state, never mind what gender they are. Marriage says something pretty powerful about your commitment, and since I don't accept the idea that in a poly relationship there is such a thing as First or Second (for me-- if you're in such a relationship, and the arrangement is known by all involved and is satisfactory to all involved, I've nothing to say against it), I wasn't sure that I would get married until and unless it became possible to marry more than one person at a time legally. Yet, I am legally married.

I got married because I loved and love my wife. At the time, I wasn't involved with anyone else (nor am I currently, sadly), so perhaps that made the decision easier. But I also came to a conclusion that there was no reason to deny myself and her legal benefits and rights (like next-of-kin rights, if either of us is ever unable to make medical decisions for ourselves) that are granted to married couples. If either of us ever gets in a relationship with another that develops to a point wherein we would like to marry that person as well, then we will likely have to simply have the ceremony and accept that we don't have the full benefits of legal recognition.

So anyway, I married out of love. I married because I had this wonderful partner who brought a joy to my life I'd never really known, and I wanted to express and demonstrate that commitment to friends, family, and society at large. I wanted to share in the seriousness that people treat a marriage. When you refer to someone as "my girlfriend" or "my boyfriend," people tend to not see that relationship as being on the same level of seriousness and commitment as "my wife" or "my husband," regardless of how serious the couple sees the relationship, and regardless of how serious and committed the couple is in reality. In a similar way, I don't think people take non-legal status marriage as being of the same level as a legal marriage, which is very frustrating and hurtful to those who have no choice in the matter. If you're married (or even if you're single), how would you feel if you were hearing "well, your marriage isn't a real marriage"? Just imagine that for a while. Don't just imagine that someone is saying it to you directly, because many people aren't so rude as to say that to your face, but also imagine that it's simply something that seems a subtle, yet pervasive part of the culture (like . . . pink is for girls, blue for boys, or something). Your marriage isn't real, despite all the love and commitment you've put into it. What feelings come to you?

So, love. Commitment. Sharing with society, and sharing in society's acceptance of that relationship. There is, of course, something to the idea that if the love is there, the rest of the world simply shouldn't matter. That's true, to a point. I would still be with my wife even if society didn't accept our relationship, and I would still be committed to her. But we are social creatures, we humans. We evolved as such, and we build our society and social mores around that social nature. We're so damn social that introverts like myself often have a hard time dealing with a society that doesn't understand why we need time alone. And we're so damn social that introverts like myself still want to be a part of the social world that is society. As such, most of us who get involved in long-term, romantic, loving, and committed relationships are going to want to make that relationship a part of society by publicly and legally declaring our love in the form of marriage. I am no exception.

So that's it. That's the whole and entirety of why I got married. I found someone (who happened to be a woman) that I loved deeply and romantically, someone I was committed to, and wanted to be with for the long haul, even for the rest of my life, and she shared those feelings. She and I already recognized and knew this, but wanted to have our relationship recognized and acknowledged by society. We wanted society to know that we loved each other, and had committed to being with each other, and we wanted society to take that seriously. In our society, the way to do that is by getting married.

Our ceremony was brief, but it meant the world to us. We wrote it ourselves (with a few adaptations from a marriage ceremony book, and tradition), and wrote our own vows. We invited her eldest brother to be the officiant, and he accepted. My favorite colors are black, red, and silver, while hers are black and orange. Black, red, and silver work together a bit better than black and orange, so we chose those as our colors. I wore a black suit, with a red shirt and silver tie, and she . . . she was absolutely gorgeous in a scarlet dress that she designed herself, and that was brought to life with help from a local costume designer. We chose the music, and got a musical acquaintance who had done other work for weddings to turn our choices into "wedding sounding" music ("Paint It Black" was played in a "wedding style" as she walked up the aisle; it was great :)). She choked up during our vows, and I smiled far more than usual all day long. My best friend stood as my best man (I was best man for his both of his weddings, so he owed me one; I don't think he minded though, as he couldn't stop grinning it seemed), and another good friend stood with him. She had her sister (we forgot to tell her she was expected to give a toast at the reception; whoops) and brother standing on her side. The musician gave us a discount because she mentioned Dungeons and Dragons in her vows (it's how we first bonded). For my vows, I admitted that she was right "most of the time." At the reception, we "danced" to "Little Red Riding Hood," by Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs. I got tipsy on white wine (but was sober by the "wedding night"). And I smile now, with something in my eye, to remember it all.

Then my smile fades, because I remember why I'm thinking about marriage, and what it means to me. I've been looking into arguments against same-sex marriage, and they mostly seem to come down to tradition (which is a piss-poor argument for denying rights), religion (but not every religion agrees on the issue, and America is supposed to have a separation of church and state), and procreation. And this last is the only one that ever gave me pause, because clearly a same-sex couple cannot have children in the biological sense. But when I look at what my marriage means to me, children simply don't enter that picture. Yes, my wife and I are planning to have children. However, children are not the meaning of my marriage. My marriage will mean the same to me even if we never have children.

Why then, do we deny marriage to same-sex couples? Am I unique in my feelings on marriage? I doubt it. When's the last time a romance movie had a couple get married because they really wanted to have kids? I can't think of one; the premise of the romance movies is always love and commitment and love some more. It looks to me like this culture has accepted that marriage has a meaning built on love, and not procreation. So, why?

Why?

Minnesota Marriage Minute video response

For those of you not aware, this November in Minnesota there will be a question on the ballot for voters to answer:

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

If approved, the Minnesota Constitution would be amended to include the following in Article XIII:

Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.

Leaving the question blank counts as a "No."

Now, it's already illegal in Minnesota to marry a same-sex partner. Supporters of the amendment have pushed this Constitutional amendment to prevent lawsuits from overturning the current law, and to prevent the legislature from changing the law, as happened in New York last year. It's a preemptive strike. The group Minnesota for Marriage has been campaigning to see the amendment passed, and one of the things they do is post YouTube videos called "Minnesota Marriage Minute" videos that lay their case out in short little segments. I'm going to address some of those videos in this and future posts. I won't address them all, because some are simply informative, like the first video that lays out basically what I just said. I'm also not going to necessarily address them in the order they were given.

First up, let's look at Episode 5. 

In this video, they ask "What is the common good of marriage?" The answer they give is:

"Well, marriage serves a vital and universal societal purpose to channel biological drive and sexual passion that might otherwise become socially destructive into enduring family units that have the best opportunity to ensure the care and education of any children produced by that drive and passion."

Kalley Yanta, the host, follows that up with a quote that she says is from the Supreme Court,

"marriage is '. . . fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race'"

but doesn't cite which case. My own search indicates it may have come from the decision in Loving v. Virginia (1967), in which the court overturned a conviction of miscegenation (interracial marriage), and with it, declared all anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. The part that Yanta seems to be quoting says:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

So, yes, the Supreme Court has said that marriage is fundamental to humanity's existence. It also said that it's essential to the pursuit of happiness by free men, and that the freedom to marry or not cannot be infringed by the State. They were speaking of race, of course, but I don't find it much of a stretch to apply to same statements to same-sex attraction. But I guess that's what we're arguing about, isn't it?

Let's look more at what Yanta says. A little later on, she gets into defending the idea that children do best in a marriage between their biological parents.

"The overwhelming body of social science evidence establishes that children do best when raised by their married [biological] mother and father"

Except, that's wrong. The consensus of the scientific community is that there is no evidence to suggest that being raised by a homosexual parent, or two same-sex parents,  is detrimental to children's well-being (yes, that link is from Wikipedia; follow the citations). It's true that the data is not as good as one might like, but every study to date, despite the problems they have with sample size and other things, points to children doing just fine when raised by same-sex parents, even when compared to children of heterosexual parents. It is true that children of divorced parents tend to have more issues, and possibly children of single parents, but that is not an argument against same-sex parents. A couple other links for you to peruse: Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents: A Review of the Literature, and a Google Scholar search for "children of gay parents."

Yanta then goes on to say:

"No matter ones view of homosexual marriage, it is undeniable that every child born into a same-sex relationship is intentionally denied the love and affection of one of her biological parents."

But that alone is not enough to deny parents the right to marry the person they love. Interestingly, that same argument could be applied to arguing against giving unwanted children up for adoption, or sperm banks for couples in which the father is infertile, or surrogacy in cases where the woman in a hetero relationship is infertile. In each case, a child is intentionally denied the love and affection of at least on biological parent. Is Minnesota for Marriage going to argue that these are bad things?

Look again at the what they call the common good of marriage:

"Well, marriage serves a vital and universal societal purpose to channel biological drive and sexual passion that might otherwise become socially destructive into enduring family units that have the best opportunity to ensure the care and education of any children produced by that drive and passion."

Other than sexual passion, it's unclear what other biological drive Yanta and the Minnesota for [Straight] Marriage group is referring to here, but I'm going to guess 'procreation' based on the context of the whole video. Certainly that's a position I've seen before when looking at arguments against same-sex marriage. It's definitely true that many gay people have desires for children, and raising a family. Same-sex attraction doesn't change that aspect of human nature. But given that there's no evidence that being raised by same-sex parents is detrimental to children, how is it that same-sex parents could not do this equally well when compared to heterosexual parents? Indeed, it would appear they're already doing it well.

And yes, for now I'm ignoring whether that's actually a good definition of the common good of marriage, or not.

So, what are your thoughts on this video?

A few quick things

Just a few quick things I wanted to bring to people's attention:

First something I should have mentioned when I talked about my aunt's death. There's now a Facebook page called "Grief Beyond Belief" that's there to provide support and resources to non-believers facing death and other things to grieve about. The religious often have communities to aid them through grieving, but these usually come with phrases such as "she's in a better place" or "they're with God now." Obviously, that's not very comforting to non-believers. So, if you have a need for grief support, or wish to help provide some, or have ideas to help, go there, read the Info page, and if you wish, "Like" it.

Second, another Facebook page (ok, they're all Facebook pages). This one is "Support the Secularity of Public Schools." It seeks to gather together those who support maintaining the separation of church and state in publicly funded schools in the USA, and doing things like keeping non-science such as creationism out of the classroom. One really cool part? The admins are Damon Fowler, Jessica Ahlquist, Harrison Hopkins, and Zack Kopplin. The first three I've talked about before, but I haven't mentioned Zack. Zack's the guy who went toe-to-toe with the government in Louisiana to repeal a law that was clearly a stealth move to get creationism into the classroom again. He succeeded too. Seriously, check out his story, and join the group.

Third, there's a new political party being formed, and they've got a Facebook page, complete with charter and platform: National Atheist Party. Now, I'm not going to come out and say I fully and one hundred percent endorse this. I have a few quibbles with parts of the platform (needs more emphasis on education, for example), and frankly, I'm not sure that this is the best idea for moving forward with the atheist cause, or the humanist cause. But I'm not sure it's a bad idea either. If the goal really is to get candidates that are avowed atheists elected, well, that might be discriminatory as well. I'm personally happy to vote for someone who's not an atheist, so long as I can find sufficient common ground with the candidate's views and policy proposals. I also think the name might backfire from a PR perspective. However, I still appreciate what they're trying to do, and the platform positions I mostly agree with, despite quibbles. Therefore, I wanted to bring this to people's attention, and let them make up their own mind. So head on over there, take a look, and make a choice.

Oh, and one more thing. Apparently, I've fallen from the Light Side and joined the Dark Side, because I signed up for Twitter: @NathanDST. Still trying to figure it out (sorta), and not sure if I'll keep with it, but I'm there for the moment. Do what you want with that info (oh dear, that wasn't a Facebook page, was it? whoops).

RE: The Law is the Law

It's rare that I bother to open up Forwards in my email. I see that "Fw" tag, and I click delete without opening. This time though, the title made me curious, seeing as it came from a family member, and I wondered if they were trying to tell me something. Let me show it to you.

THE LAW IS THE LAW So "if" the   US government determines that it is against the law for the words "under God" to be on our money, then, so be it. And "if" that same government decides that the "Ten Commandments" are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it. I say, "so be it," because I would like to be a law abiding  US citizen. I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions. I would like to think that those people have the American public's best interests at heart.   BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE? Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings,   I don't believe the Government(Federal, State and Local)  and its employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations   which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life. I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day. I'd like the"  US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays." After all, it's just another day. I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all it's just another day. I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter.   It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct."  In fact.... I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God....) because, after all, our government says that  it should be just another day....  What do you all think???? If this idea gets to enough people,maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the "minority opinions"   and begin, once again,   to represent the "majority" of ALL of the American people. SO BE IT........... Please Dear Lord, Give us the help needed to keep you in our country! 'Amen' and 'Amen'

Interesting ideas. Let's discuss!

"I say, "so be it," because I would like to be a law abiding  US citizen. I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions. I would like to think that those people have the American public's best interests at heart." --Great! I'm glad you want to be a law abiding citizen. Hopefully our politicians really do have our best interests at heart.

"Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings,   I don't believe the Government (Federal, State and Local)  and its employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations   which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life." --You can pray to and trust in God all you want, that's one of your rights, and it's a good one. Our politicians are also allowed to do that, privately. Publicly, they are representatives of the government, and it's in everyone's best interest if they don't endorse a particular religious view. Yes, a generic god still endorses a particular religious view, since not all religions have a god (Jainism, for example). However, the bit about not participating in Easter and Christmas celebrations? I'm going to be nice, and assume that you're referring to the public celebrations put on by members of government, and not the employee's private lives. So in terms of the public celebrations, Christmas at least has become decidedly secular, and almost seems like two holidays that just happen to occur on the same day: one, the Christian version, and the other, a secular version. One emphasizes the birth of a mythological savior, the other emphasizes peace, harmony, and family get-togethers. I don't see why anyone would have an issue with the secular version. Peace and harmony? Our government could probably use more of that anyway.

Easter now . . . the eggs and the Easter Bunny suggest that it's not entirely Christian, and indeed, historically many of it's traditions are stolen from older religions, but I'm not sure how secular it's become. On the one hand, it almost seems to simply be a way of celebrating the end of winter, and I personally find that something to celebrate! On the other hand, I'm not entirely certain that it's sufficiently divested itself of it's religious traditions, so to have government celebrations of the holiday might be seen as endorsement. Debatable.

"I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day"--Ok, Good Friday is pure religion, so I'll give you that one. Christmas and Easter, see previous comments. But Thanksgiving? Really? You can be grateful without being grateful to God. You can get together with family and friends to reconnect, have a few laughs, and tell people thank you. I see no reason the government should not endorse that, as it's not a strictly religious value.

"I'd like the"  US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays." After all, it's just another day."  --I've commented on the holidays, but now you bring Sunday into it. You're kinda mean, aren't you? Because unless I misread that, you're advocating the Supreme Court work without any days off. I've worked 7 days a week before, and it burns you out after a while. I don't really think it would be good for the country if our top Justices burned out, do you?

"I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all it's just another day." --Well, that's oh so very nice of you, but I've dealt with this.

"I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter.   It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct." --I'll let an economist or an accountant deal with the suggested savings, although I'm thinking you might be wrong (but maybe not). I just wanted to address the way you use "politically correct" in quotation marks, suggesting sarcasm at the popular usage of the phrase. Removing  government endorsement of religion is not just about avoiding offense, as the use of that phrase usually indicates. It's not even mostly about avoiding offense. It's about being a government that is truly for everyone. The majority is not everyone, because it obviously excludes the minority. It's about equality, and believing that you can get fair treatment from the government, even if you're, oh, let's say Jewish, as opposed to Christian. That's a little hard to do if you have government employees giving invocations to Jesus as a part of their job, or otherwise endorsing a religious view that I, or someone else (you perhaps), don't agree with.

"I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God....) because, after all, our government says that  it should be just another day...." --Well, actually, it was the seventh day that was set aside, not the first. But that's just me being petty. I will point out that this would probably wipe out any savings from your previous suggestion (more hours, more employees to cover the more hours, electricity bills from electronics being on, heating bills, etc).

"If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the "minority opinions"   and begin, once again, to represent the "majority" of ALL of the American people. " --I'll emphasize what I already said: It's about being a government that is truly for everyone. The majority is not everyone, because it obviously excludes the minority. Equating the "majority" to "all of the American people" is a gross contradiction, as well as just gross. Are you a minority? A woman perhaps, who's sex has previously been treated as second-class citizens (and still is at times)? Do you think maybe you've benefited from the government ignoring religious views about a woman's place? Are you black, or any other non-white color? Would you agree that you've benefited from secular arguments for equality, as opposed to religious ones claiming you're Cain's cursed descendants? Were you born out of wedlock? Take a look at how bastards were treated historically, with government support, and often with religious justification.

Or are you a straight, white male, with all the presumption of privilege that tradition can provide? If so, then perhaps you should try examining things from the perspective of someone without so much privilege.

Heroes

I have some new personal heroes, people who are inspiring me, adding to my courage, and frankly, renewing hope. Their names are Damon Fowler, Jessica Ahlquist, and Harrison Hopkins. All three have and are fighting to maintain a separation of church and state in our public schools, and have faced trials and tribulations that make anything I dealt with in high school seem minor in comparison. Let me tell you a little bit about them.

Jessica Ahlquist is a high school sophomore in Cranston, RI. She and a friend noticed a painting of a "school prayer" in the auditorium. Eventually, she decided to support the removal of the prayer, and when she had a chance, spoke to a sub-committee meeting about having it removed. Naturally, she thought that they would remove it, since it's obviously a constitutional violation. Well, sadly, she was wrong. After a number of meetings, and various news reports, the school board voted to keep the prayer. Many of her fellow classmates have vilified her and harassed her.  Well, happily, she hasn't given up. She's taking them to court with the assistance of the ACLU. You can find more detail at her blog. The very first post tells the story.

Harrison Hopkins is a senior, graduating this year, at Laurens District High School in Laurens, SC. Inspired in part by Jessica's activism, he contacted the ACLU and the Freedom From Religion Foundation last April regarding the plans of his school to put it to a vote whether or not to have a prayer at graduation. See, he understands that even if the majority said "yes," it would still be unconstitutional. After the FFRF sent a letter to the school, the vote and prayer were officially canceled. Despite receiving backlash from his community, he too is continuing the fight. The graduation hasn't taken place yet, so we'll see what happens.

Damon Fowler I've talked about before. A senior in Bastrop, LA, he pointed out the law forbidding prayer at graduation to his school superintendent, said he would contact the ACLU if the prayer happened, and after consulting their attorneys, the school officially canceled the prayer. When Damon was outed as the letter writer, he suffered a "shitstorm" from his community. One of his teachers publicly insulted him in a local paper, he received threats of violence, and even death threats. The worst part? Eventually, his parents disowned him. His story went international, and the outpouring of support, emotionally, pragmatically, and even financially, has been absolutely amazing. Greta Christina wrote up a very nice summation and op ed piece on Damon's story over at AlterNet, and I highly suggest reading it.

So, now let me tell you why I find these three so heroic I would call them "personal heroes," a phrase I have rarely applied -- actually, never. They have taken a stand for what they believe in, despite severe opposition. They have faced up to those who ridicule, hate, and vilify them for being atheists, for wanting to see a separation of church and state, and for daring to speak up. The hardships they've endured are appalling. They've lost friends and acquaintances (and Damon lost family). I imagine that it's been emotionally difficult as hell at times, but they maintain and continue. Not a one of them indicates any serious regret for what they've done, and continue to do. They show a courage I can only hope to mirror. Their willingness to sacrifice of themselves for a greater good, for the rights of everyone (because make no mistake: church/state separation is good for everyone, not just atheists), shows a potential future for America and the world that is bright indeed.

If you want to learn more about these three in their own words, they've got a question and answer bit going on over at Reddit. Here's the link.

----This next bit gets a lot more personal. Stop if you don't want to see it, or you think you don't want to know. Keep going, and you take responsibility for gaining that knowledge.----

Here's the hard part. Heroes, by their actions and stories, call on us to be better than we've been, and to reach for our highest potential. They encourage us to step up and show the world what we're made of. Heroes encourage us to do, rather than simply be. Heroes . . . inspire.

If heroes inspire us to do things, then these three young people must surely have inspired me to do something, right? Yes, but it's not easy. I've lived for a long time with a fear that if my family, whom I love a great deal, ever found out that I'm an atheist, it would be . . . problematic. I've feared the pain that I might cause them, and I've feared ostracism and loss. My family is (so far as I know) Christian, one and all. My grandfather's a pastor, my mother "born-again," etc. When I was given a subscription to Discover Magazine at the age of 13 by my mother, she warned me that if I started talking about evolution, that subscription would be taken away. So, I think I've had good reasons for my fear (that's just one example). And because of those reasons, I've hidden myself from them. I've not directly lied by claiming beliefs I don't have, but I've dodged topics of discussion and kept my mouth shut. When I've written online in forums or comment sections of atheist/humanist blogs, I've done so under a pseudonym, just in case (that's also just in case a potential employer should ever google me). I've been hiding less of late then in the past, and censoring myself less, but . . .

But this means that my family doesn't know me. This means I can never let them be close, know who I am. Yet, I believe truth is important, very important. Truth matters. Reality is better than an illusion. And if three young people not even out of high school can face down entire communities, then I should be able to face my own fears.

Hi, my name is Nathan Salo Tumberg. It's a pleasure to meet you. I believe that humanity is a wonderfully fascinating, evolved creature, that is hopefully still evolving. I believe we have huge potential for good, and huge potential for evil. I believe that we are completely capable of being moral. I believe that meaning is all around us, in the lives we create for ourselves, the connections we make to our fellow inhabitants of this universe. I believe that critical thinking is one of the best tools we've devised, ever. I believe that questions are good, even great, and that discussion is even better. I believe that reality is more important than comfort. I believe that compassion is powerful, and key to morality. I believe in freedom and rights, and that these are worth fighting for. I believe that humanity is capable of being greater than we have ever been before, but I do not know if we will be.

I do not, however, believe that a god, any god, is necessary to, or for, the universe, morality, meaning, hope, or anything else. This life is what we have, and it's up to us to live it. If you don't like what I believe, that's fine. You don't have to. I'm open to discussion, but if you'd rather not, that's fine too. I'm not about to force myself or my thoughts on you.

My name is Nathan Salo Tumberg. Occasionally, I think. Would you care to have a discussion?