Amendment 2 (or how we took rights away from people and love the bomb)

On November 4th we made history, we elected the first African American President of the US, and at the same time we managed to take two steps back and took away the rights of millions of Americans in the name of morality.

In Florida, California, Arizona legislation was passed to ban the marriage of homosexuals. In the case of Florida, the amendment is for the ban of any institution that is not the marriage between a man and a woman. We already have a "Marriage Protection Provision" in our Florida Constitution; which for legal purposes defines Marriage as the "union between one man and one woman" and bars the recognition of same-sex marriages from other states. The goal of Amendment 2, is to "ban gay marriage and civil unions" in our state.

And as you might imagine, this will have great repercussions. Gays and Lesbians cannot enjoy marriage tax cuts (talk about taxation without representation), spousal benefits, health care privileges, the benefits of a "will", divorce protection, adoption services and the list goes on. But wait a minute, neither can heterosexuals who do not want to get married. Good-bye common law marriage!

Why wouldn't heterosexuals marry? Many seniors do not get married, because they don't want to lose social security benefits, or just because they don't want to. In any case, why would we as citizens take away the rights of individuals? Why do we let the popular vote decide the faith of millions. Historically, the populus always takes away rights, and the courts give them back. Are you not convinced yet? Well, as this is a Health Care Ethics Blog, I will expand on Health and Marriage.

When a person loses his or her ability to make sound health-care decisions, the decision power goes to the next of kin. The "chain of command" is Spouse, Children, Parents, Relative, Friend. If no one can be contacted, the state assigns a Health Care Surrogate. Without Civil Unions, a partner that has spent many years and knows the person better than family, is demoted to "Friend", the last resort before the state intervenes. What if the family does not agree with the lifestyle of the person unable to make the decision? (this is the case with many homosexual couples) the family can deny access to hospital visits, hospice visits and even funeral visits to friends and yes, even the domestic-partner. Can you imagine not being able to see your loved one in the hospital (or for that case, one last time)?

What about Health Care Benefits? Well, Orlando Major Buddy Dyer, just announced plans to offer domestic-partner benefits for gay city employees. Will this be reverted?

In short, should we take away benefits from people simply because of their lifestyle? If a person wants to marry, we should let them. If they, they should not. But to give special privileges to people who get married, and then put limitations on whom they can marry, well that's just sad.

Lastly, here is a very sarcastic list that is being passed around the internet. Hope you enjoy.

Florida vs. Same Sex Marriage
What does Amendment 2 mean?
Six Reasons to Vote NO on Amendment 2

---------------------------------------------------------------

12 Reasons why Homosexual Marriage Will Ruin Society

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

Happy States, or expensive mistakes?

Is the legalization of medical Marijuana, just the legalization of Marijuana "veiled" with a medical label? And will the legalization of "Medical Marijuana", cost more than the legalization of "The Sensible use of Marijuana"?

This past Tuesday we witnessed history. We elected a new president, new senators, congressmen and passed new legislation. Among the provisions, questions, amendments and laws Americans voted on; two states approved the legalization of Marijuana for personal use.

My question is, did the the residents of Michigan vote for the legalization of medical marijuana, or for loopholes to be able to kick back and light up?

In Michigan, residents voted overwhelmingly in favor of Proposal 1 (61% in favor). The Proposal will legalize the medical use of Marijuana for patients that experience chronic pain that is not controlled with prescription drugs. It will also legalize the cultivation for personal use of Marijuana, the possession, use and paraphernalia related to the legal use of marijuana. It will also create a registry participation card that will have a fee, a tax and a renewal fee. 

Voters in Massachusetts decided (65%, and almost every town) to legalize the sensible use of Marijuana. People in Massachusetts in less than thirty days will be able to posses less than an ounce of weed legally. There will not be any prosecution, penalty or citation, unless you are under the age of seventeen. If you are under the age of seventeen the penalty is a four hour course (which will include classroom and peer discussions) and community service. This mandate goes as far as protecting individuals from being discriminated for having traces of THC in their bodily fluids, that means you cannot get fired for the sensible use of Marijuana in the privacy of your own time.

These two approaches provide with stark differences to the decriminalization of Marijuana. On one side, the legalization of Marijuana for sensible personal use, the other, the medical legalization of Marijuana for pain management. Marijuana legalization is not a new subject; thirteen states already allow the personal use of Cannabis (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon and Ohio have some sort of Marijuana decriminalization provision) and the list will probably grow in the near future. But which is more responsible?

Although many residents of Michigan with chronic disease will benefit; how many of the residents in Michigan will go to a Doctor, get a couple of signatures just to get the "license"? Will this create extra costs for our already over-used health system? Are Marijuana prescriptions going to be prescribed in alarming large numbers by a few physicians? How many physicians have moral objections, and will not offer this treatment to their patients? Is our Health System not burdened enough with questions of morals and legality; and now we add more legal/moral screwballs to make it more confusing and probably (and sadly) more costly. 

Or is it Massachusetts who got it right; the legalization of the Sensible use of Marijuana. No prescriptions, no shady doctor visits, no fake illnesses, no begging doctors that believe they have "higher morals" for available treatment. Just responsible citizens, who in their personal time, light up. No "medical" label attached. 

Michigan Proposal 1

Massachusetts Mandate

Now what?

As you might know, (unless you leave under a rock) we have a new pressident-elect.

We are amidst a great time in history, and depending on his leadership we can break through and overcome one of the greatest problems in America, or we could go the opposite way and really handicap us in the race to become once again the undisputed greatest country in the world.

I want to talk about our Health System. President-Elect Obama has a specific plan for us, and I hope it works. According to his plan, every American will have access to the same type of Health Care that Congress has -and if individuals decide that this plan is not enough- individuals can stay in the health plan that they currently have. Will it work? Only time will tell. Personally, I would rather have universal health care, but I don't believe a total reshaping of our system can happen in our lifetime.

Why is this so important? Well, a simple example is our Auto Industry. Every German car sold (that was built in Germany) has a larger margin of profit just because no German company has to pay ANY percentage of it's employees health care. On the other hand, every car built in America has attached to it's cost the percentage that the company has to pay for it's employees health insurance. In other words a smaller margin of profit. Now, multiply that by all of the products produced in the US. Is this an advantage to the socialist countries?

Do we need to reform our health care? Almost everyone (conservative or liberals) would agree. Is President-Elect Obama's solution, the best solution? Only time will tell.