Mark Time

An Apology to Classical Presbyterian

A few weeks ago, Toby Brown on Classical Presbyterian published two articles (Here and Here) regarding his decision to file charges against the Rev. Janet Edwards for her performance of a lesbian civil union and related matters.

In Toby's comments section, I took him to task for his decision (here, here, here, and here).  I stand by my words regarding the filing of charges in a case where the accuser does not know the defendant, does not have special knowledge of the situation, and where someone else who fits the other criteria is able to file the complaint.  However, I was intemperate in my remarks.

I had an "AHA!" moment regarding this today over at the Truth in Love blog.  I had imputed motives to Toby's actions.  I do not live inside his head, and there is no hole in the wall behind my cubicle that allows me to inhabit his brain.  I cannot truly speak to his (or anybody else's) motives for taking an action or making a statement.

Toby - I am sorry for my less than reasonable language.  I am also sorry for assigning a motive (particularly a negative motive) to your action.  I will take steps to avoid a doing either again in the future, though I suspect that I will backslide again at some point.

Mea culpa.

Washington State Marriages - Children Required

(My alternate title:  The Gay Rights Movement Loses A Supporter Again)

The gay rights folks in Washington State have gone too far.  Once again, they have found a way to piss off straight supporters in their bid for gay marriage.

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance is proposing a ballot initiative (957) that would:

1. Require that heterosexual couples prove that they are able to have children before they can receive a marriage license, and
2. Automatically annul any Washington marriage that fails to produce children within 3 years, and
3. Require proof that couples married outside of Washington state file proof of procreation within 3 years of their wedding, or be labeled "unrecognized", and
4. Establish a process to prove procreation, and
5. Make it a crime for people in an "unrecognized" marriage to receive marriage benefits.

This is clearly aimed at invalidating a ruling by the Washington Supreme Court that upheld the ban on gay marriage.  That ruling declared that a legitimate interest existed for the legislature to limit marriage to those couples that could produce children.

Carolyn and I have decided not to have children, for reasons that I don't feel the need to go into here.  This would directly affect us if we lived in Washington.

The WDOMA folks clearly recognize that this is absurd.  They are hoping that challenges to this law would cause the Washington Supreme Court to overturn their previous ruling.

What this move fails to do is take into account the degree to which gay rights folks can anger their straight supporters.  Making my marriage illegal in order to try to make yours legal is not a good strategy.  It angers me.  I've been a strong supporter of gay rights, but if this type of move were to propagate across the country, I would drop that support - because MY marriage would be under attack by those whom I support.

Let's face it - homosexual people are at most 10% of the population.  In order to have laws changed to support gay marriage, the support of a significant portion of the straight population is required.  This move - by directly attacking all heterosexuals INCLUDING YOUR SUPPORTERS - is doomed to fail.  Worse than that, it will erode the support of the gay rights movement among straight people.

Drop this attempt.  You are dangerously close to losing my support.  You NEED the support of straight people in order to achieve your agenda.

I Guess They'll Skip Her House on Halloween ...

In Durango, Colorado, two teenage girls (17 and 18) were successfully sued for delivering a gift of cookies to a neighbor's house.

Wanita Renea Young was at home when her neighbors came over with a Random Act of Kindness - a few cookies.  They had been delivering cookies to their neighbors on Avenida Del Sol in Durango, CO for about an hour, having skipped a dance to be kind to their neighbors.  They even skipped houses that were dark - only going to houses where the light was on and someone was presumably up (at 10:30pm on a Friday summer night).

Ms. Young was so frightened by these scary girls (see picture with Follow Up story below) that she called the Sheriff.  The Sheriff didn't see anything illegal.  She ended up going to the hospital with symptoms of a heart attack.

Wait - it gets better.  She later sued the girls, and won a judgment from a Small Claims Court judge (who is apparently very small himself) for $900 in medical costs, plus $1 in damages.

The good news is that the kids are alright.  MANY people have offered to pay their costs.  They'll even be going to NYC to appear on Good Morning America. (Followup #1)

But then it gets even worse.  Apparently, Wanita Young's husband won't stop calling the girls' house.  Herb Young is the subject of a restraining order requested by the father of one of the girls. (Followup #2)

Wanita Young - you are truly a hard-hearted person.

An Open Letter to Charities Regarding Over-Soliciting and Telephone Solicitation

Dear Charity Fundraising Personnel,

My wife and I make a good living. We have also made the decision not to have children, so our expenses are comparatively lower than people with children. That means that we have a little extra money. We believe in donating to charities that help people. We also believe in spreading our money widely rather than concentrating on one or two causes.

Unfortunately, it seems that you regard a donor as another name to be sold to other charities. This causes LOTS of mail at my house. Additionally, some of you feel that if I gave once, I'll give again - right away. That ADDS to the pile of mail. The end result of this is that we now receive 3 or 4 letters per day from charities wanting our money.

What effect does that have on you? There are a few:
1. Most solicitations from charities that we have never donated to are recycled unopened.
2. All solicitations from charities who mail to us too often (once a week in some cases) are recycled unopened.
3. Many solicitations from charities that we do donate to are caught up in the above, and recycled unopened.

There's just too much mail coming in wanting my money. This Presidential Election year has made it worse. My wife and I are registered in opposite parties, and BOTH parties seem to feel that we'll donate to them - even to Senate candidates from other states! It's gotten to the point where I want to consider stopping donations just to cut down on the amount of mail.

When it comes to telephone solicitations, things are even worse. Our telephone numbers are on the national and state Do Not Call lists. Now I know that charities are exempt from those rules, but what makes you think that I want to have my dinner interrupted by a rude person demanding my charity money anymore than I want the interruption from someone selling a timeshare? We are sufficiently upset by this that we have made a rule - we will NOT donate to someone who solicits money via telephone AT ALL. No phone pledges, and no mailed donations either. You call us, you're cut off!

There are a few simple rules to getting our money:
1. Be a cause or charity that we believe in. It's a very good sign if we've given you money in the past - you're likely to get more. It also helps if you have a good reputation for putting most of your donations to work, rather than using them to raise more.
2. Send us a letter requesting funds once or twice a YEAR. I make my donations based on the amount that I want you to get for the whole year. Asking me more often isn't going to make me give more - it's going to annoy me and you'll get less.
3. For Pete's Sake - don't send me a letter with suggested donation amounts where the lowest amount is MORE than I gave last year. That's just pushy. Maybe I can give you more that last year, and maybe I will. Maybe I have reasons that I don't want to give as much as last year - because I've chosen to allocate my charity money differently or because my finances are tighter. When I give you $100 one year, and your letter lists options of $150, $300, and $500 you're telling me that you see me like a big piggy bank. Try $100, $150, and $200. Or better yet, $75, $100, and $150. I use Quicken and keep track - when I put your name into the electronic checkbook it tells me exactly what I gave you last time.
4. Don't EVER, EVER CALL ME. That will get you a polite request to put me on your Do Not Call list, and a complete stoppage of donations. Repeated calls will get you an FTC or state complaint. It's perfectly fine to call me to ask if I'll participate in your activity (work on houses, serve at the soup kitchen, walk in a fundraiser, donate blood), but DON'T CALL ASKING FOR MONEY.
5. Sometimes, I only want to donate once. Maybe my deceased aunt or her family requested a donation to the "whatever disease she had" fund. I want to honor her memory in a more permanent way than flowers, so I donate to your charity. That doesn't mean that I'm now a convert to the cause and want to donate again.

Follow those rules, and you'll stop wasting money on mailed solicitations and phone calls, and start putting my money where it should be - to serve the end goals of the organization.

Sincerely,

Mark Smith

(I've submitted this to the Outside the Beltway Traffic Jam)

No More Ladies Night in NJ

The NJ State Division of Civil Rights has ruled that "Ladies' Night" in bars in the state is illegal.

For those of you not familiar with the concept - Ladies' Night was a special night each week where the bar allowed women free cover charge and reduced drink prices.

This article from the Home News Tribune details the story.

Apparently, David R. Gillespie filed a complaint several years ago, stating that the promotion was illegal because it discriminates against men.

I'm a little torn on this one, because it really is discriminatory. However, the whole idea was created to draw women into the bars in the first place on slow weeknights, in order to give men a reason to be there (and to buy drinks). Mr. Gillespie has managed to shoot his entire gender in the foot on this one.

Don't worry - the Governor (who's fighting for his job at the moment) is against this ruling, calling it "bureaucratic nonsense".