“The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26 decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry did not rule on Proposition 8’s constitutionality, and the district court’s 2010 injunction does not apply statewide.” That is the view of a group called Alliance Defending Freedom, which filed a petition on Friday to ask the California Supreme Court to order the state’s county clerks to enforce the state’s marriage amendment.
“Our current lawsuit asks the California State Supreme Court to affirm and enforce the rule of law – declaring that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision not to address the validity of Prop 8, that constitutional amendment remains the voter-approved law of the land,” the group said in a statement Friday.
The filing was denounced by California Attorney General Kamala Harris.
“Today’s filing by the proponents of Proposition 8 is yet another attempt to deny same-sex couples their constitutionally protected civil rights. It is baseless and we will continue to fight against it,” Attorney General Harris said.
In a brief filed Friday with Governor Jerry Brown, Ms. Harris argues, “The petition for a writ of mandate is a last-ditch effort to circumvent the federal district court’s injunction, which operates directly against state and local officials. The Court should reject both the request for a stay and the petition because they are an impermissible collateral attack on the district court’s final judgment.”
They go on to argue, “This Court is not the proper forum to litigate the scope or validity of the district court’s injunction; that question is properly presented, if at all, to the federal district court. Further, petitioners do not seek to preserve the status quo but rather to upend it.”
Following the Supreme Court’s decision which found that the backers of Prop 8 lacked legal standing to protect the proposition, “they can identify no harm that would befall them.”
The Supreme Court ruled that in order to have standing, “the litigant must seek a remedy for a personal and tangible harm.”
As they note from case law: “All a federal court need determine is that the state has suffered a harm sufficient to confer standing and that the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the court is authorized by the state to represent its interest in remedying that harm.”
“The public interest weighs sharply against issuing a stay in this case,” Ms. Harris argues. “After years of litigation, there is now a final determination that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. To revive Proposition 8, as petitioners have asked, by ordering county officials to enforce it would command the violation of gay and lesbian Californians’ federal constitutional rights.”
However, ADF is arguing that the proper legal process was not followed in this case.
“Everyone on all sides of the marriage debate should agree that the legal process must be followed. Public officials should enforce the marriage amendment because they are not bound by the district court’s injunction,” said Senior Counsel Austin R. Nimocks. “The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, and the district court’s injunction does not apply statewide; therefore, county clerks should abide by the state constitution.”
They argue, “Immediately after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit lifted its stay of the district court order on June 28, California State Registrar Tony Agurto ordered all county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses in violation of state law. Even though the registrar does not have the authority to issue such orders to county clerks, California Attorney General Kamala Harris publicly stated that she will take legal action against any clerk who declines to follow the registrar’s directive.”
The petition filed in Hollingsworth v. O’Connell demonstrates that the district court’s 2010 injunction does not bind all county clerks, according to ADF.
The petition argues, “This Court’s case law requires executive officials charged with ministerial duties to execute those duties regardless of their or others’ views about the constitutionality of the laws imposing those duties.”
Additionally, according to the petition, “Article III, section 3.5 of the California Constitution prohibits government agencies and officials from declaring state law unenforceable, or declining to enforce state law, on the basis that the law is unconstitutional, unless an appellate court has first made that determination. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Perry has been vacated; hence there is no appellate decision holding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Petitioners are thus entitled to a writ of mandate requiring Respondents to comply with state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.”
“The more than 7 million Californians that approved Proposition 8 have a right to see the rule of law–and the constitutional initiatives that the people enact–respected,” Mr. Nimocks said.
UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky told the LA Times that the court would likely reject this bit “if the justices viewed it as an invitation to intervene in a federal matter.”
“I don’t see how a state court can countermand or limit a federal court order,” Professor Chemerinsky said. “When federal courts ordered desegregation, state courts could not limit the scope of their orders. I don’t see any difference.”
“The authority of local government officials, and the future of the initiative process itself, is put at grave risk if state officials are allowed to nullify a proposition by executive order, backed by no binding legal precedent,” said Andy Pugno, who is general counsel for ProtectMarriage, and who filed the petition along with ADF.
They argue that there is no law that gives the governor or any other official control over county clerks in the issuance of marriage licenses.
However, in the meantime, counties like Yolo County continue to marry same sex couples.
The Sacramento Bee has an article on Freddie Oakley’s efforts. A few weeks ago the Yolo County Clerk said, “It’s astonishing to me how fast the sort of tide of culture has changed to accept marriage equality,” she said. “I would have to say that when I joined the protest in 2007, I thought we were in for a much longer haul.”
“In a way it boils down to respect for the law,” she said. “Because folks have really gone through the process available to any American or group of Americans who want to challenge the status quo. They have used every peaceful reasonable means.”
“I did not think we’d see a payoff this soon, but I really give all of the credit in the world to all of the folks who did not give up the fight,” Ms. Oakley added.
Even if this seemingly longshot legal maneuver were successful, how Prop 8 proponents expect to be able to roll back the huge tide of public opinion, that has turned sharply in recent years, remains to be seen.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Here is the problem being glossed over…
[url]http://www.oprah.com/packages/fatherless-sons.html[/url]
[url]http://www.oprah.com/oprahs-lifeclass/Oprahs-Lifeclass-Daddyless-Daughters-Part-1[/url]
The gay marriage debate is over. Gays can marry. Now it is time to start figuring out how we help the increase in fatherless children that will have special development needs as a result.
I’m glad you believe that the gay marriage debate is over. But, why is fatherless children the issue and not parentless children?
[quote]The gay marriage debate is over. Gays can marry.[/quote]
Gay marriage is still banned in 35 states.
I meant in CA.
[i]But, why is fatherless children the issue and not parentless children?[/i]
You need to read up on the phycology of childhood gender development, and the general outcomes for fatherless children.
I think those that are pushing gay marriage are ignoring this deficiency and are pretending that parental gender role models do not matter. They do. It is proven that male children lacking a father role model more often have anger issues, and female children have more self-confidence issues. There are plenty of significant studies that prove these problems. There are no significant studies that prove that these problems are mitigated having two female parents.
My concern is the tendency to end up with a father that comes in and out of the lives of the child along with a mother who is either a substance abuser or has otherwise “checked out”
I’m much less concerned about the impact of a same sex couple on the psychology of the children.
” It is proven that male children lacking a father role model more often have anger issues”
I wonder about that. How much of that is testing the impact of same sex marriages rather than the impact of an absentee father in an unstable environment? In other words, are you perhaps mixing one strand of research and attempting to jam it into a very different circumstance? You’re not a trained psychologist, I suspect you’re misapplying research here.
[quote]“It is proven that male children lacking a father role model more often have anger issues”[/quote]More often than who? More often than [u]not[/u]? More often than others do? Let’s say you’re right that this is proven, or, at least, there’s some evidence that a fatherless childhood is a factor.
Why target the tiny percentage of sons that have lesbian mothers? Look at the bigger world. More than half of marriages break up. Many children end up with [u]only[/u] a mother because she’s never been married the father.
What’s your universe of children of lesbians for which you’re developing a concern? How many of them will have “special development needs”?
[quote]Now it is time to start figuring out how we help the increase in fatherless children that will have special development needs as a result.[/quote]
What about the motherless children? (Gay men have children too you know).
That too. I agree. For some reason there are not many studies on this, I think because the occurrence of motherless children is much rarer.
[i]Why target the tiny percentage of sons that have lesbian mothers? Look at the bigger world. More than half of marriages break up. Many children end up with only a mother because she’s never been married the father.
[/i]
You are missing the point. I am not “targeting” any lesbian mother. I am simply going to the health and well-being of fatherless children. Do you deny that the children of lesbian mothers will be fatherless?
[quote]“I am not ‘targeting’ any lesbian mother. I am simply going to the health and well-being of fatherless children. Do you deny that the children of lesbian mothers will be fatherless?”[/quote]Of course, you are targeting lesbian mothers when you say that “now is the time” since gay marriage is here.
I’m curious how this became the tipping point. How many fatherless children have there been prior to gay marriage? How many have anything to do with lesbians?
I can’t deny that the children of lesbian mothers could be fatherless by definition. But, this implies that their lives will be without the natural fathers or other “male role models.” In any case, this cannot be viewed as a Big Problem in anybody’s book.
To zero in on the tiny community of children of lesbian mothers suggests your concern is more with the lesbianness of the mothers rather than the fatherlessness of their children. There are so many millions more fatherless children other than those of lesbians out there that need your attention.
[i]To zero in on the tiny community of children of lesbian mothers suggests your concern is more with the lesbianness of the mothers rather than the fatherlessness of their children. There are so many millions more fatherless children other than those of lesbians out there that need your attention. [/i]
To disregard the negative impact to even a single child is callous and indicates a disturbing social trend to dismiss the needs of children when they get in the way of the adults demanding they get theirs.
I am not targeting lesbian mothers. I don’t give a flying crap about them. I only care about the health and well being of ALL children. You might be willing to throw a few under the bus just to achieve some social agenda, not me. There is already FAR too many fatherless children. Adding a single additional fatherless child adds to the existing problems. I suspect that gay marriage will increase the number of lesbian mothers having or adopting children. That is why I say “now is the time.”
What is your problem anyway? Are you really against developing social services to help resolve the deficiencies in childhood development because he or she is fatherless? Are you really going to deny this just because doing so might hurt some lesbian couple’s feelings? I would think lesbian parents and future lesbian parents would welcome the help. However, maybe I am wrong and protecting the feeling of the adults is more important that trying to ensure maximum health and well-being of ALL children.
Do you know any gay parents? Do you know any children of gay parents? How’re they doing?
[quote]Are you really against developing social services to help resolve the deficiencies in childhood development because he or she is fatherless?[/quote]
I am all for expanding social services to benefit children with development issues, if there is some way to identify those issues. I’d even be willing to raise taxes to pay for those social services.
” For some reason there are not many studies on this, “
Perhaps because to study it, you would need to do a longitudinal study and there is not enough data at this point to do one.
Prop 8: California Supreme Court rejects application for immediate stay.
“07/15/2013 Application for stay denied … The request for an immediate stay or injunctive relief is denied.”
“Perhaps because to study it, you would need to do a longitudinal study and there is not enough data at this point to do one.”
Right. There’s the longitudinal study on lesbian families, but none for male same-sex families yet.
“That too. I agree. For some reason there are not many studies on this, I think because the occurrence of motherless children is much rarer.”
This is kind of my point. There aren’t that many long term studies done on children raised by gay parent. You cant equate studies of kids being raised by single mothers and kids being raised by two moms. A lot of other negative factors correlate with single moms, and probably contribute more to study results then lack of a father.
[quote]“07/15/2013 Application for stay denied … The request for an immediate stay or injunctive relief is denied.”[/quote]
So, is that it? Is there any further legal recourse for the Prop 8 supporters at this point?
[i] A lot of other negative factors correlate with single moms, and probably contribute more to study results then lack of a father.[/i]
K. Smith, this is an issue that our psychology profession has vetted very well.
Here is a good article for you to read and attempt to explain as irrelevant for lesbian moms.
[url]http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/co-parenting-after-divorce/201205/father-absence-father-deficit-father-hunger[/url]
In addition…
[quote][b]Incarceration Rates.[/b] Young men who grow up in homes without fathers are twice as likely to end up in jail as those who come from traditional two-parent families…[/quote]
[quote][b]Suicide[/b]63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes[/quote]
[quote][b]Behavioral Disorders.[/b] 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes [/quote]
[quote][b]High School Dropouts.[/b] 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless ho[/quote]
[quote][b]Juvenile Detention Rates.[/b] 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes [/quote]
[quote][b]Confused Identities.[/b] Boys who grow up in father-absent homes are more likely that those in father-present homes to have trouble establishing appropriate sex roles and gender identity.[/quote]
[quote][b]Aggression.[/b] In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed “greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households.[/quote]
[quote][b]Criminal Activity.[/b] The likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is raised without a father [/quote]
“They argue that there is no law that gives the governor or any other official control over county clerks in the issuance of marriage licenses.
This applies most directly to former Governor Schwarzenegger,who in a lengthy published interview early in his quest for the governorship, stated that he was an admirer of, and expressed wishful musing about, Adolph Hitler’s success in acquiring AUTOCRATIC PERSONAL POLITICAL POWER, though not Hitler’s deeds.
The above-cited correlations and traits appear to be largely absent in the kids raised by stable lesbian couples:
[url]http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html[/url]
Frankly: your linked article is “Co-Parenting After Divorce.”
So are you advocating against divorce?
[quote]June 11, 2012
APA on Children Raised by Gay and Lesbian Parents
How do these children fare?
On the basis of a remarkably consistent body of research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, the American Psychological Association (APA) and other health professional and scientific organizations have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. That is, lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. [b]This body of research has shown that the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children are unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish[/b].[/quote]
So…. the legal battle continues. The US Supreme Court did not speak to the constitutionality of Prop 8 and left the issue in contorted legal limbo.
Does a ruling by the Federal Court in SF automatically apply to all of California or does the previous State Supreme Court ruling validating Prop 8 as constitutional under State law apply outside of the jurisdiction of the SF Federal Court?
[quote][b]Data on such families are sparse,[/b] but they are important for establishing whether a child’s environment in a home with same-sex parents would be any more or less nurturing than one with a heterosexual couple.[/quote]
[i]Frankly: your linked article is “Co-Parenting After Divorce.”
So are you advocating against divorce?[/I]
No Don, but I would prefer that you read the article before commenting on it.
[quote]Two new studies challenge previous claims that children raised in gay households are no worse off than those raised by married heterosexual parents.
In a survey of 2,988 adults aged 18-39, those raised by lesbian mothers had negative outcomes in 24 of 40 categories when compared to children of married heterosexual couples.
The New Family Structures Study found that those raised by gay fathers had negative outcomes in 19.
“Children appear most apt to succeed well as adults when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father and especially when the parents remain married to the present day,” University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus said in his study.
A second study challenges a popular American Psychological Association report that has long claimed there is no difference in being raised by gay or heterosexual parents.
Both studies were published in Social Science Research.[/quote]
“No Don, but I would prefer that you read the article before commenting on it.”
Kind of like you last week? bahahahaha
[b]How an Absent Father Affects Boys and Girls Differently[/b]
[url]http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/10/19/fathers-and-delinquency-in-the-american-family/[/url]
[i]”No Don, but I would prefer that you read the article before commenting on it.”
Kind of like you last week? bahahahaha[/i]
That was my point DP. Kinda’a don’t get others’ subtle sarcasm too well do you?
Frankly, the Psychology Today article doesn’t appear to say anything about lesbian mothers and their children. It was about absent fathers generally. Are you coming around to my view that arguing about married lesbians isn’t worth the time when there’s a big problem out there?
By the way, I agree that to “disregard the negative impact to even a single child is callous.” I’m just saying that attributing problems that are fairly universal in our society to a small minority is a little questionable.
So are two dads better than one?
I don’t think two dads are better than one, but the dataset is so small we have no way to measure outcomes to answer the question.
JS: [i]Frankly, the Psychology Today article doesn’t appear to say anything about lesbian mothers and their children. It was about absent fathers generally. Are you coming around to my view that arguing about married lesbians isn’t worth the time when there’s a big problem out there? [/i]
True, but much of the article and the studies focus on kids that grow up without a father. And if there is one thing we know about the children of lesbian parents is that they will grow up without a father. Is it a big problem? If it impacts a single child then yes, it is a big problem because we know about it but do nothing.
I can think of so many things that affect “a single child” such as malnutrition, poverty, abuse — that your fixation on the children of lesbians seems more than just odd. Liberals have long decried the lack of resources provided to children in homes where adverse conditions prevail. They advocate for universal preschool, for more resources for the poor, for school lunch programs, for expansion of food stamps. All so that no “single child” should go hungry, have inadequate preparation for school, have insufficient housing. All so that “no single child” should have his or her future harmed by materials conditions that inhibit healthy development.
You routinely support political positions that harm hundreds of thousands of children. The party you are most aligned with just acted to cut the food stamp program. You routinely decry the expansion of that program, one of the most successful anti-poverty, anti-hunger programs in our history, one which feeds not just a “single child” but millions of children.
Yet you obsess about the children of lesbians. You denigrate gay parents. You consistently rail about this issue, and have said things about gay parents that indicate that you hold them inferior. You even went so far as to say they “degrade our culture.”
Your position on this is hypocritical, based on flimsy evidence, and largely a result of your personal animus and prejudice against gays. You will deny that, of course, but we have your own diatribe on the last thread on this issue. It’s all there, in your own words; your strong, unfounded bias against gay parents.
“I don’t think two dads are better than one, but the dataset is so small we have no way to measure outcomes to answer the question.”
Then on what do you base your supposition? Bias, religion, intuition?
I actually find your numbers on fatherless children fascinating but compare them to outcomes for children in the foster system and kids without dads but one or two moms are much better off in general than those with no parents at all. By the way there are around 500 children in the Foster Care system in Yolo County.
I once had a student named Omar who was having behavioral issues. i had already spoken with his mother so one day I told him ” Omar, I’m going to call your father.”
I’ll never forget his response. He said “Let me know when you find him. I’d like to meet him.”
So I get what you are saying but if that is your only knock on two women getting married, while it is worth noting and trying to address, it isn’t enough to stem the tide of history. However your homophobia combined with your xenophobia is enough to keep California with its 55 electoral votes in the Dem column for a long time. Keep up your politics of hate your superminority views are really doing a great service in keeping your party out of the Whitehouse.
[quote]That was my point DP. Kinda’a don’t get others’ subtle sarcasm too well do you? [/quote]
Bahahahaha
[i]You routinely support political positions that harm hundreds of thousands of children.[/i]
That is bullshit Don. I could easily say the same about you. Look at how many trillions your party and the people with your ideological worldview have spent on ending poverty and look where we are. Look at how your President and Congress has helped the economy grow far too few jobs in the first recession recovery ever that has been jobless. How has that not harmed children?
It is your party that protects the status quo education system…. that works with its union benefactors to block any meaningful reform and destroy any programs that might allow children in poverty to escape their prison of a crappy school. You effectively trap thousands of children in a guaranteed life of low economic prospects, dependency and crime. And then you blame Republicans for not giving you more money so you can puff up having “saved” these children from their crappy circumstances.
It is your party that has given away the treasury and racked up even more debt to pay off its public sector union benefactors at the expense of funding for programs that would otherwise help children.
It is your Party that continues to harm children and blacks with these failed policies that are really only feel-good tonics for liberals… and now your are bringing millions of Hispanics into your fold. That is where we are heading in this country thanks specifically to you and your ilk.
And now you want to ignore the proven harm done to children that lack a father. You want to ignore this harm and just attack the messenger because the facts do not sit well with your political and social template. I am so disgusted with adults continuing to act like children. Adults that whine and cry and throw tantrums that life and rules are unfair and they don’t get enough when children are harmed by their selfish interests.
I’m not saying that gay couples should not be allowed to have children, and I completely agree that loving same-sex parents are better than any situation of family dysfunction. But gays and lesbians divorce at a higher rate. Add the impacts of this to the impacts of fatherless and motherless children, and it is obvious that we need to be planning now for additional services that these kids will need.
I have direct experience with a fatherless upbringing. My bothers and I had our share of all of the symptoms that psychologists list as being risks for fatherless boys. My wonderful and loving mother could not teach me how to become a good man if she magically cloned herself into two mothers. You and others debating this with me, with all due respect, are acting like stubborn idiots. There is nothing to be gained trying to force me to accept your opinion that the problem is non-existent or too small to warrant any attention. That is you and others putting your need to feel right and intellectually superior at the expense of the kids that would fail to get the attention they need and deserve. That is despicable.
With all due respect (and I do respect you even as you don’t me), your are completely and fatally wrong on this point.
[quote]That is bulls**t Don. I could easily say the same about you. Look at how many trillions your party and the people with your ideological worldview have spent on ending poverty and look where we are.[/quote]
The food stamp program has helped millions. It is one of the most successful programs ever in reducing poverty and helping poor families cope.
[quote]Look at how your President and Congress has helped the economy grow far too few jobs in the first recession recovery ever that has been jobless.[/quote]
“My” Congress?!?
[quote]It is your party that has given away the treasury and racked up even more debt[/quote]
Factually incorrect. That has been a bipartisan process.
[quote]and now your are bringing millions of Hispanics into your fold[/quote].
News flash: they’re already here. Working here, mostly.
[quote]And now you want to ignore the proven harm done to children that lack a father. [/quote]
Never said that. I said your indignation on this issue is highly selective.
[quote]I am so disgusted with adults continuing to act like children. Adults that whine and cry and throw tantrums that life and rules are unfair and they don’t get enough when children are harmed by their selfish interests. [/quote]
I have no idea what this is about.
[quote]I’m not saying that gay couples should not be allowed to have children, [/quote]
But you say that they are: ineffective, inferior, create special needs, damaging children, unequal as parents, less optimal, and incomplete, and degrade our population. And you believe they should be stigmatized.
[quote]…it is obvious that we need to be planning now for additional services that these kids will need. [/quote]
Planning how? What did you have in mind?
[quote]You and others debating this with me, with all due respect, are acting like stubborn idiots….
That is despicable. [/quote]
You have a great day, too.
“and I do respect you even as you don’t me),”
Well that statement seems a bit incongruous after just having said ” are acting like stupid idiots”
[i]””and I do respect you even as you don’t me),”
Well that statement seems a bit incongruous after just having said ” are acting like stupid idiots”[/i]
Oh meds, there are a lot of people that I respect (and like) even as they periodically act like stupid idiots. I’m sure some of those people would say the same about me.
Frankly
“Now it is time to start figuring out how we help the increase in fatherless children that will have special development needs as a result.”
Maybe you could help us get a start on this by telling us what, specifically, you have been doing to help the preponderance of “fatherless” children that are in that state not due to their mother’s sexual preference, but because they were abandoned by their fathers ? Then we could extrapolate from the experience of helping this much larger group, to how we might best extend this same care to the children of lesbians.
[i]The food stamp program has helped millions. It is one of the most successful programs ever in reducing poverty and helping poor families cope. [/i]
I love this sentiment! We can reduce poverty by taking money from people that earn it, give it to politicians who then give most of it to public employee union member who then give the rest to people that are not earning it. And we say that this has reduced poverty. Ha! Let’s say that we agree that it has reduced hunger, but it has not done much at all to reduce poverty. However, it has increased the number of people that get food stamps. Once you do it and get over any stigma then just keep it up. Ever wonder why there are so many families where generations before have depended on food stamps?
Food stamps and welfare do help people, but they have also become a way of life for a growing number of people. But they do provide cover for a President who’s economic policies have failed to produce enough jobs.
Frankly
“Oh meds, there are a lot of people that I respect (and like) even as they periodically act like stupid idiots. I’m sure some of those people would say the same about me.”
Perhaps. However I fail to see how doing so advances the conversation which is, presumably what a blog is about .
[i]Perhaps. However I fail to see how doing so advances the conversation which is, presumably what a blog is about .[/i]
Here is what I think about that point.
People like me with weak-sensitivity wiring need to develop greater controls to prevent strong-sensitivity people from having negative emotional responses over something I say or write, so the better “hear” what I say or write.
People like you with strong-sensitivity wiring need to develop greater sensitivity coping mechanisms (e.g., grow thicker skin) to help them better “hear” what others say or say or write.
This cannot be a one-way street if your goal is greater communication and collaboration. However, political correctness is an attempt at making it a one-way street where the demands of the most hyper-sensitivity is the benchmark for what is considered acceptable. That being the case, many people just decide to stop talking and we become even more polarized as our relationships become weaker from lack of interaction.
Bottom line is that we are going to be better at communicating if we can prevent the flaring emotions that create so much internal noise that we no longer listen.
[quote]This cannot be a one-way street if your goal is greater communication and collaboration. However, political correctness is an attempt at making it a one-way street where the demands of the most hyper-sensitivity is the benchmark for what is considered acceptable. That being the case, many people just decide to stop talking and we become even more polarized as our relationships become weaker from lack of interaction. [/quote]
This really made me smile. Your first sentence states that this must be a two way street. Your second sentence places the entirety of the blame on “political correctness”. A neat deflection of shared responsibility for improvement to justifying why you think that only the “hyper-sensitive” are making demands. My comments were not based on an emotional response as you claim. They were based on the same principle that you cited when you stated that you thought TM should have been respectful and used language designed to calm the situation. I am not offended, angered or in any way perturbed by your name calling. I simply do not feel that it is the best way to have a rational discussion.