‘No’ reigns on ballot items
Posted on Monday, October 27, 2008
Those initiated acts, constitutional
amendments, and proposed laws
presently under consideration by Arkansas voters are a total mess. Just remember, “no” is the most powerful word in the English language. Let us start off with Initiated Act 1, which would forbid unmarried cohabiting couples from becoming adoptive or foster parents. Since the intent of this measure is generally directed against homosexuals, we should consider its deficiencies from the perspective of the proponents. Insert the usual disclaimers here. I am not a professional theologian, or even a good person. The opinions expressed here are my own and nobody else’s. In this discussion, we will presume, as I always do, that the Bible is the inerrant God-breathed revelation to mankind. Furthermore, homosexuality is condemned in scripture, and if Jesus had ever been directly asked, he would have taken the same position. Homosexuality is one of the many symptoms of man’s fallen condition.
This is where the Family Council’s position begins to fall apart. Homosexual conduct is a sin, and nothing more. Greed, fornication, adultery, murder and covetousness are also equally grave moral failings. Jesus tightened things up, reminding His followers that lusting is the same as adultery and hatred is another form of murder. If we accept the proponent’s argument, then why not check out prospective homes for hatred or greed ?
There has been plenty of trouble in the foster care system, and not one bit of it caused by gay people. The Department of Human Services needs to do a better job of screening and checking, and the backers of this suggested act should find about a thousand devout Christian parents to provide stable and loving homes for the kids in need. It’s “no” on Initiated Act 1.
The language of suggested Amendment 1 is rather technical, but it has been described as merely removing antiquated, and potentially offensive, language from the state constitution. “Idiot” seems like a relatively harmless word and I believe that it also carries a precise legal definition of who may not be allowed to vote. Not to be obnoxious, but it looks like plenty of daffy people already vote, but why would we want to take a chance of potentially including even more unfortunate people ? This is a hunch, but I have a bad feeling that there is something going on here more than merely fixing a few little harmless words. This one is a slam-dunk “no.”
Incredibly, the Arkansas Farm Bureau has come out against Amendment 2, which would provide for annual legislative sessions. It’s incredible because I hardly ever agree with the Farm Bureau about anything. In a nutshell, this proposal abolishes the very foundations of Arkansas’ citizen legislature. Perhaps that is the purpose, and if that is the case, its backers should say so.
Although they probably should not be called “idiots,” the General Assembly has certainly had a fair number of colorful characters, some going as far as dressing up like Colonel Sanders. If there are a few morons, then by gosh, they’re our morons and we should keep them just the way they are.
But seriously folks, convening a legislative session every year means that only the well-off can serve as representatives. This amendment creates a fulltime professional legislature and that idea deserves a lot more public discussion. If something comes up and we need some extra laws passed, the governor calls a special session. Problem solved. This one is easy. “Negative.”
Amendment 3 creates a state lottery and it is the most attractive of this bunch of oinkers. Everybody wants to help smart young people go to college. It is also true that there is an expense involved in running a lottery, such as prizes and paid staff. There will be a load of advertising that will espouse the “something-fornothing” mentality that has already gotten this country into so much trouble.
It has been suggested that this measure will open the door for casino gambling. Who knows ? That might be more honest than state government running a betting scheme for suckers. Without getting into all the “nanny state” arguments against this one, it ought to be observed that government has no business in this kind of enterprise. If I am going to question federal bailouts of big banks as an intrusion, how can I endorse a state run lottery with any credibility ? This one may pass, but I still say, “nada.”
Do you sense a pattern developing here ? Lastly, there is something called a “referred act” asking you to authorize the state to stand behind a maximum of $ 300 million in continued bonding authority for the Natural Resources Commission for water projects. The Arkansas Wildlife Federation thinks this gives way too much power to the Commission in regulating private land, and that’s good enough for me. Just ask yourself: is this any time for the State of Arkansas to be extending a substantial financial obligation ? We may still be on the hook for the highway bonds, so this is a good time to settle back and coast. Just to be consistent, here is one more solid, “no.”
—–––––•–––––—Free-lance columnist Pat Lynch has been a radio broadcaster in Central Arkansas for more than 20 years.
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online