Ocean Grove is a religious retreat founded by a group of New Jersey Methodists in 1869. The Camp Meeting Association owns approximately 1 square mile of land in Neptune Township that includes the ocean front pavilion. Over the years the facility has been used for religious services, along with a variety of other events such as weddings, plays and musical performances.

When a lesbian couple applied for the use of the pavilion to hold a civil union ceremony in 2007, the association turned down their request on the grounds that the union violated their religious beliefs. The State ruled that as long as the association makes the pavilion available for weddings, it must be available to same-sex couples. Rather than allowing civil unions to take place, the association has responded by stating that it will no longer make the facility available for anyone.

Given the myriad possible locations for an ocean front wedding, it seems likely that this complaint was specifically designed to call attention to the cause of same-sex marriage. While I wholeheartedly support the idea that homosexual couples should enjoy the legal benefits of marriage, I find it hard to sympathize when they insist on trampling the rights of others in the process. Just as the same-sex couples should have the right to have their unions recognized, so to should a religious organization have the right to use their facilities in a way that is consistent with their beliefs.

What activists on both sides of the issue fail to recognize is that marriage is in fact two separate institutions with two very different meanings. From the traditionalist point of view, marriage is a religious institution, and no court order or constitutional amendment can ever alter that fact. As our society becomes more tolerant, progressive churches will gradually accept the notion of gay marriage, and those more bound by traditional beliefs will not. Both groups will be well within their rights to address the issue as they see fit, and individual members will be free to seek out congregations that best represent their personal values and beliefs.

Just as the church has no constitutional right to impose its will on the people, the government has no right to impose its will on the church. By attempting to force a religious organization to sanction civil unions, New Jersey has clearly overstepped the boundary between Church and State. While I do not agree with those who oppose same-sex marriage on purely religious grounds, I must support their right to do so in the context of marriage as a religious institution.

The larger debate over same-sex unions is not about religion; rather it centers on marriage as a civil institution, and the corresponding legal rights and responsibilities that come along with that commitment. While religious organizations should remain free to act in accordance with their convictions, governments should not discriminate by granting or withholding legal rights on the basis of sexual orientation. Still, we have laws in many states that prevent lifelong partners from making medical decisions for one another, bequeathing their estates, or even visiting each other in the hospital. Only the most blatantly bigoted individuals would agree that these restrictions should continue to bear the force of law.

In many respects, I am a steadfast traditionalist, but I fail to see how a same-sex couple seeking legal recognition of their long-term relationship can in any way lessen the significance of my marriage. The real threats to traditional marriage in this country are not homosexuality, but our high divorce rate, our willingness to accept cohabitation as a socially acceptable alternative, and the staggering number of children born out of wedlock. Traditional marriage has been on the decline for over 40 years. Granting equal access to the legal benefits of marriage for same-sex couples will not hasten its demise.

While there is no question that same-sex couples should be afforded the legal benefits of marriage, the government will never be able to grant them the right to be married in a church. Unless the activists on both sides of the battle recognize the boundaries between the religious and civil aspects of marriage, the real threat will be to our liberties.

Homosexuals and blacks are the two minority groups in our country that have been discriminated against in the most blatant and persistent fashion throughout our history. Both groups have made tremendous advances in recent decades as a result of legal protections, and a general shift in attitudes among the population. Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, virtually every form of discrimination based on age, race, religion, physical disability and sexual orientation has been outlawed. For some reason, we still see fit as a society to prevent same-sex couples from enjoying the legal benefits of marriage.

One would think that blacks and homosexuals would be well served to combine forces in their efforts to eradicate the last vestiges of discrimination, but the exit poll results from California and Florida tell a very different story. White and Asian voters in California were almost evenly split on the issue, with each group voting 51% to 49% in opposition to the amendment. Hispanic voters were 53% to 47% in favor of passage. Black voters, however, voted overwhelmingly in favor of the marriage ban by a 70% to 30% margin.

Voters in every racial category supported the same-sex marriage ban in Florida by varying degrees. The least intolerant group was made up of whites who voted to pass the amendment by a 60% to 40% margin. 64% of Hispanic voters were in favor of the ban, while a shocking 71% of black voters cast their ballots in favor of legalized discrimination against homosexual couples.

The pundits have already begun the endless debate over what the 2008 election really means in terms of our shifting attitudes. Does the fact that we freely elected a black man to the most powerful office in the world mean that we are finally prepared to give up our old prejudices, or does it simply indicate that dissatisfaction with the current administration was so great that any Democratic candidate would have won by a convincing margin? I suspect the latter to be true. The fact that one aggrieved minority is so obviously willing to enforce legal discrimination against another indicates that we are still a long way from becoming a truly tolerant society.

RELATED ARTICLES

Will Gay Marriage Decide Our Next Election

CNN Exit Poll Results

The most commonly cited statistics indicate that there is a large lifetime earnings gap between those with college degrees and those without. Unfortunately, these statistics paint an incomplete picture. Simply comparing all high school graduates and all college graduates in aggregate terms provides very little insight. What we need to do is break these large populations into manageable cohorts before it is possible to draw any meaningful conclusions.

There are several questions that would be worth our while to study in greater detail before enacting any sweeping policy changes.

• What is the earnings differential between high school graduates who receive vocational training versus those who don’t?

• What is the difference between college graduates with technical versus liberal arts degrees?

• Is a Humanities degree from a bottom tier college really worth more than vocational training in high school or community college?

• What is the value of technical training at the high school level compared to that received at a two-year college?

• How do community college graduates fare against those who study at for-profit technical schools?

These are just a few of the questions we need to ask, and unfortunately I don’t have ready access to the answers. My guess is that if we examined these questions thoroughly, the argument in favor of college for all would be considerably weakened.

There is no question that our current public K-12 system leaves students poorly equipped to compete in a global economy, but for a large percentage of students, additional education is not the answer. We need to focus on improving the current system, rather than expecting our colleges and universities to make up for the shortcomings of our high schools. Thirteen years of public education should be sufficient preparation to become a productive member of society.

One of the first and most important steps we must take is to recognize that a one-size fits all solution simply doesn’t work. Instead of insisting that every child meet the same minimum levels of academic achievement, we should work to maximize the performance of every student based on their individual potential. This means presenting students with a wider variety of educational options earlier in the process, based on their interests, aptitudes, and abilities. I’m not suggesting that students should be forced into different tracks based on test scores, but that we should place a much greater emphasis on legitimate alternatives for students who do not intend to pursue a college education.

Although career opportunities for unskilled workers are becoming severely limited, there is little doubt that we will continue to need large numbers of carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and mechanics, along with a host of other highly skilled workers. Emerging industries point to the need for technicians capable of servicing wind turbines, photo-voltaic arrays, and hydrogen powered vehicles. There will continue to be plenty of jobs available for highly trained blue collar workers, but the knowledge and skills required to perform these jobs are becoming increasingly technical. It’s hard to argue the need to study art history, philosophy, or anthropology as a requirement for any of these careers, but there is no doubt that better preparation in the Three R’s is an absolute must.

We need to place a much greater emphasis on vocational and technical training in our public schools, and at the same time we must eliminate the stigma associated with these programs. All too often, vocational students are regarded as second-class citizens within their schools, even though many of these students will enjoy greater lifetime earnings than their college bound classmates. This is undoubtedly a factor in the high dropout rate for non college bound students. We must ensure that vocational students have access to training in a variety of relevant fields that will allow them to enter the workforce with a set of marketable skills. In addition to vocational training, we must also ensure that these students have the essential communication and computation skills required to function in the workplace and the modern economy.

Beyond high school, our community colleges should play a much larger role in allowing people of all ages to develop and maintain marketable skill sets throughout their working lives. In the past, it was entirely possible for a worker to spend an entire career using one set of basic skills. Today that is simply not possible. The pace of technological advancement is so rapid that a specific skill might be highly prized one day and worthless the next. A four year college degree is certainly not the answer to this problem. We need to look beyond the idea of education as simply being one phase of our lives, and to think instead in terms of lifelong learning. In today’s global economy, each of us will require constant training and retraining throughout our working lives in order to ensure our continued employability.

Sadly, the polarization of the electorate has made it more and more difficult to debate practical, effective, and affordable solutions to the problem. What we get instead are slogans designed to inflame the passions of one group or another. While both sides contribute equally to the breakdown of civil discourse, the most insidious statement on the issue of healthcare always comes from the left. Every four years, without fail, some democratic presidential candidate will proclaim that “healthcare is a basic human right.” This kind of statement is either the worst form of political pandering imaginable, or it demonstrates an incredible ignorance on the part of the speaker. Either way, it only serves to make meaningful debate more difficult.

Our founding fathers had a clear understanding of the inherent nature of rights, and of the fundamental difference between rights and entitlements. They understood that the pursuit of happiness was an individual quest, and that the outcome was not guaranteed by any government program or agency. They recognized that by exercising our right to freedom of expression, no cost or burden is imposed on any other individual or group.

When we declare that healthcare is a right, however, we automatically create a corresponding obligation on someone else’s part to provide it. Supporters of a right to healthcare will simply claim that this responsibility belongs to the government, as if the answer is so obvious as to require no further explanation. When we look beyond this simplistic answer, however, we realize that healthcare services aren’t actually provided by the government, but by highly trained, highly skilled individuals who choose to make their living as healthcare providers. The only role the government can play is to tax its citizens to pay these providers for their services.

Now we must assume that the millions of individual healthcare providers in this country would continue to offer their services under a government controlled system. Without their cooperation, no government program could function, and it is simply foolish to assume that there would be no change in the quality or quantity of medical services available under government control. A significant number of older individuals would elect early retirement, while younger professionals could opt to change careers. In the short term, however, many providers would be locked in by their years of training and experience, and have no choice but to participate in a government run system. The one option that many of these individuals could and would exercise is to significantly reduce the number of hours they are willing to work as government employees or contractors. This can only lead to shortages and rationing of healthcare services.

In the longer term, the situation would be dramatically different. Faced with less freedom of choice and diminished earning potential, fewer young people would opt for careers in healthcare in the first place. Our best and brightest students would seek out other career fields, and admission standards in our medical schools would be lowered as a result. The percentage of foreign trained doctors would also rise, as American students seek out more desirable career fields. In the UK today, after six decades of nationalized healthcare, roughly 40% of practicing physicians are foreign born and trained. The fact that these foreign doctors represent 150 different nationalities raises legitimate concerns about the quality and consistency of their medical training, and the language skills required to communicate with their patients.

If healthcare is a right, then someone must be responsible for providing it. When our healthcare professionals are not willing to deliver their services under a government controlled plan, what options do we have to ensure that this right is not violated? Do we draft our brightest students into medical schools and require them to render their services in the name of preserving our rights? Does our right to healthcare entitle us to trample the rights of our healthcare providers?

Proclaiming a basic human right when none exists only serves to make a productive debate less likely. We cannot hope to solve our problems without rational civil discourse. Healthcare is clearly not a right, but it is a fundamental necessity, and it must be viewed as such if we are to solve the problem.

RELATED POSTS

Revisiting The Oregon Plan: The Future Of Healthcare In America

What If No One Had Health Insurance