This article discusses the political double standard of legislating to protect the ‘unborn child’ while consistently opposing legislation that would help protect those that have already been born from the documented risk of gunfire-related death and injury.  The nature and effectiveness of the NRA’s political contributions and lobbying efforts are discussed, and the often used argument of traffic-related fatalities to defend the loss of life by firearms is explored.  It is postulated that the issue of gun-related injuries and death in children, regardless of a ‘constitutional right’, will become the indefensible issue that will put pressure on politicians to enact sensible firearm legislation despite political contributions and lobbying efforts.

The Double Standard

The gun lobby and the Pro-Life movement both largely reside on the political right.  Both have impressive lobbying presence and both seek to have legislation enacted favorable to their cause.  Yet, when it comes to the issue of protecting ‘children’, conservative politicians treat these two entities as legislative opposites.

The Pro-Life movement argues that life, with all the rights and privileges thereof, begins at conception (ref).  Thus abortion, performed at any point during the pregnancy, is held to be equivalent to murder, some even opposing the procedure in cases of incest and rape as is the stance of former Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry (ref) and current candidate Rick Santorum (ref).  The National Pro-Life Alliance (NPLA) (ref) and the Susan B. Anthony List (ref) have each published their legislative agenda and include such items as Defunding Planned Parenthood, H.R. 3 (No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act), Overturning Roe v. Wade with a Life at Conception Act, and others.  The view of the embryo/fetus being equivalent to a child is clear in NPLA’s opinion of their legislative agenda: “None of these battles will be easy.  But they are ultimately winnable.  Pro-lifers owe the unborn nothing less”.

Some attempted legislation is noteworthy: a Georgia state lawmaker attempted to redefine rape victims as ‘Accusers’ (ref); this past year South Dakota State Rep. Phil Jensen (R), sponsored a bill that would have let some people legally kill abortion providers by changing the definition of justifiable homicide – a homicide would be permissible if committed by a person “while resisting an attempt to harm” that person’s unborn child or the unborn child of that person’s spouse, partner, parent, or child (ref);  and another piece of legislation sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), H.R. 358 (the Protect Life Act) would have freed hospitals from any abortion requirement, e.g., a woman requiring an emergency abortion, even including the transfer of the patient to a facility that would (ref).

And, there is much religious conviction behind the Pro-Life movement.  Consider GOP presidential candidate Santorum’s position that a rape victim should accept “this horribly created baby” as it was still a gift from God, even if given in a “broken” way - ref).

Regarding legislating on this belief, the matter is not without ambiguity as there are valid questions as to when the life of a child actually begins.  The field of reproductive biology has shown that, at minimum, two-thirds of all human eggs fertilized during normal conception either fail to implant at the end of the first week or later spontaneously abort; and some experts feel that the number is even greater describing the pre-implantation loss of embryos (that are well along the way regarding cellular division) to be “enormous”, as high as 80% (ref).   The implantation of embryos in humans has been described as being ‘horribly inefficient’.  So, if life begins at conception and we require baptism for salvation, a valid question would be why a compassionate Creator would design a reproductive system that results in a holocaust of lost lives (ref) and denies so many innocents the opportunity for salvation.  And if one wants to take the stance that conception only counts as life if the embryo survives implantation, then what would be the basis for opposing embryonic stem cell research?  Yet, despite the legal and medical/scientific uncertainties, the convictions/beliefs are strong enough to propose and enact legislation to protect the ‘unborn child’.

However, when it comes to infants/children who become victims of gunfire, there are no such uncertainties.  These individuals have been born into this world, have a certificate of live birth, and are entitled to protection under many enacted laws.  The American Academy of Pediatrics has called the mortality and morbidity associated with firearm-related injuries in children as being ‘epidemic’ (ref).  As was reported in a University of Michigan Health System report, the CDC has reported the rate of firearm deaths in children under age 15 as being almost 12 times higher in the US than 25 other industrialized countries combined.  American children were found to be 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in those other countries.  And when researchers studied the 30,000 accidental gun deaths of Americans of all ages that occurred between 1979-1997, they found that preschoolers aged 0-4 were 17 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the 4 states with the most guns versus the 4 states with the least guns.

The nature of some of these firearm injuries/deaths in the pediatric population is horrific as reported by the media: a family returning from a baby shower had their car ambushed by two gunmen wounding both parents and killing their two-month-old infant (ref); an infant being shot and wounded in the home by another child handling a gun (ref); a four-month-old infant being shot and wounded in an exchange of gunfire in a neighborhood (ref); a 12-to-18 month old boy being one of four killed by gunfire in an act of domestic violence (ref); a pregnant teen being shot and killed where the fetus did not survive delivery (survived about a week as an infant girl) (ref); a father, engaged in substance abuse, who murdered his 3-month-old son by gunshot (ref).  The list could go on and on.  I submit that these infants are every bit as defenseless as a fetus.  And although the Pro-Life movement sometimes invokes a picture of an aborted fetus as an emotional way to make their point, the same could be done with a murdered infant (WARNING: the image contained in the following link involves a graphic display of a gunshot wound to the head of a young child and is not suitable for viewing in a work setting: image 1).

Yet, despite these statistics, incidents, and opinion issued by reputable associations and agencies regarding the health risks guns pose to children, conservative lawmakers in large part consistently oppose legislation that could help curb this loss of life, such as expanding background checks, requiring safe storage of guns in the home, and closing gun show loopholes that facilitate firearms falling into the hands of criminals, the mentally-ill, terrorists and drug traffickers (all of whom are known to have taken children’s lives).  A law was passed in Florida this past year that not only prohibited physicians from enquiring if a gun was in the home (asked as part of injury prevention) but actually imposed penalties up to and including loss of the license to practice medicine if the questioning was deemed to be ‘unnecessary harassment’ (ref).  Further, lawmakers are expanding public exposure to guns without imposing tighter regulatory controls governing gun safety; e.g., reciprocity of concealed carry across state lines despite widely varying requirements for such a license, and permitting concealed guns in parks and restaurants (including those that serve alcohol) where our children play and our families eat.  And it doesn’t help that legislation was signed into law that defunded federal research on gun safety, first with the CDC (1996) and just recently with the NIH, the NRA referring to the work of those agencies as being ‘junk science’ (ref).

And therein lies the glaring political double standard: staunchly defending the life of the ‘unborn child’ through legislation while failing to enact legislation to protect those that have already been born.  I submit that arming up under the claimed ‘right to defend oneself’ is irrelevant as a solution to this appalling loss of young life, and must actually be a contributing factor to the problem as gun show vendors certainly wouldn’t sell their products to anyone other than a ‘law abiding citizen’, right?  But then again, how would one know unless one checks.  Consider Colin Goddard’s ability to walk out of an Ohio gun show within 20 minutes where he purchased an Egyptian-made AK-47 variant and a Tech-9 assault pistol – obtained without a background check and without producing any identification (ref). (Colin is a Virginia Tech massacre survivor who sustained 4 bullet wounds and now works for The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.  The purchases mentioned here were part of an intentional undercover operation, involving a hidden camera, to show the need to tighten-up gun sales).

This hypocrisy represents politics at its worst and reveals that the actual political agenda has little to do with protecting children.  It is about manipulating hot button issues and pandering to special interest groups for political and financial gain.

The NRA: Political Contributions and Lobbying

A recent article (ref) described the NRA’s ties to the firearms industry (both in representation on its board and the substantial financial support it receives), how the relationship between the NRA and the firearms industry changed during the long-term decline in personal and household gun ownership in America, and how that organization’s manipulation of fear and paranoia are used to enhance gun sales and drive fundraising.  This section will detail the nature and effectiveness of that organization’s political contributions and lobbying efforts.

A document detailing NRA political contributions and lobbying expenditures has been published by OpenSecrets.org (ref).  Quoting from its summary:

“The National Rifle Association goes to great lengths (and spends a huge sum of money) to defend the right to bear arms. It is opposed to virtually every form of gun control, including restrictions on owning assault weapons, background checks for gun owners, and registration of firearms. NRA’s influence is felt not only through campaign contributions, but through millions of dollars in off-the-books spending on issue ads and the like….  During the 2010 election cycle, the NRA spent more than $7.2 million on independent expenditures at the federal level — messages that advocate for or against political candidates. These messages primarily supported Republican candidates or opposed Democratic candidates”.

In 2011 the organization spent $2,085,000 on lobbying efforts, with 28 lobbyists hired, 14 current revolving door personnel, and with 56 bills mentioned.  In the current 2012 election cycle, and consistent with its long-term record, political contributions were heavily weighted to Republican vs Democratic lawmakers, 89% vs 11%, respectively.  In the US House of Representatives this current election cycle, the NRA has contributed $33,000 to 20 Democratic lawmakers while contributing $218,838 to 157 Republican lawmakers, the leading recipient being Eric Cantor (House Majority Leader) with $7,450.  A listing of various bills lobbied by the NRA in 2011 is contained in the document and include H.R. 822 (National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011), S.570 (A bill to prohibit the Department of Justice from tracking and cataloguing the purchases of multiple rifles and shotguns), H.R.308 (Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act), and others (see document for complete list).

Are lawmaker’s legislative votes tied to political contributions?  Consider 2000, the year following the Columbine High School massacre, when there was strong public support for enacting gun control legislation.  That assault, carried out by two senior students on April 20, 1999, killed 12 students and one teacher, injuring 21 others directly, making it the deadliest such high school massacre in American history (ref).  In 2000 close to a million moms marched on Washington and other cities on Mother’s Day, demanding sensible legislation out of Congress on the issue of gun safety.  Although polling consistently showed that their demands were backed by public opinion, they found that it was the flow of millions of dollars in campaign contributions that mattered most.  Quoting from a PublicCampaign.org article published in 2000 (ref):

“Since 1997, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its allies have made political expenditures outweighing those of gun control groups by a ratio of almost twenty-three to one, $5.8 million to $258,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Last year, in the wake of the Columbine tragedy, Congress voted down proposals to require background checks for sales at gun shows-where three out of four of the weapons used at Columbine were bought.

The 44 senators who said “no” to background checks on three separate roll call votes over the course of a week in May 1999 were the beneficiaries, on average, of nearly 29 times more campaign cash from gun rights groups than the 40 senators who said “yes” to background checks on all three votes — $23,340 v. $815. After the Senate finally approved a three-day waiting period for gun show purchases, the House took up the issue in June 1999. The 212 House members who voted the NRA’s way on two separate roll call votes were the beneficiaries of 31 times more campaign cash from gun rights groups than the 189 members who voted in favor of background checks — $11,195 v. $355″.

And in Colorado, the NRA gave thousands of dollars to state lawmakers in a successful effort to defeat several gun control laws inspired by the Columbine massacre (ref), including requiring background checks at gun shows, increasing the age of buying a handgun from 18 to 21 years, and safe storage of guns at home (the latter defeated after a 1997 publication in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that gun safe storage laws significantly reduced unintentional shooting deaths in children younger than 15 years – ref).  In the month before the gun debate the NRA sent Colorado lawmakers more money, $16,950, than in the previous three years; and as political contributions go in Colorado, that figure was very high, one government watchdog group describing it as “a financial arms race”.  These legislative defeats came the same week that Littleton, CO, was rocked with two new murders – two Columbine High School sophomores (15 and 16 years old) were found shot to death at a sandwich shop near the school (ref).

In a previous article, Our Unrepresentative Representation (ref), I describe how politicians have become beholden to special interest contributions as they can not raise nearly enough money in their own districts to support the cost of a campaign (and SCOTUS’s Citizens United decision has only made matters worse).  It is not unusual for more than 90% of the contributions to come from outside their districts and for the majority to come from out-of-state with the largest single out-of-state source typically being the greater Washington DC area from which many lobbying groups operate.  And politicians are reliant on such funding to keep their job as campaign spending is highly correlated with campaign success.

Although the votes being ‘bought’ to support the agenda of the NRA and the firearms industry may be good for gun sales under the pretense of a constitutional right, they have not been so good for the health and well-being of children in our country.

The Gun vs Automobile Fatalities Argument

One of the counter-arguments often made by ‘gun rights’ advocates is that of traffic-related fatalities, including those in children; i.e., what’s the problem with guns when automobiles claim more lives than guns do in this country.  And they do.  However, that argument creates a false comparison in at least a couple of ways.

First, it is not the absolute number of deaths that is as important as determining the risk of death.  For example, when considering a medication or undergoing a medical procedure, one does not want to know the absolute number of individuals who have suffered an untoward event, one is interested in understanding the odds that it may happen to them.  For that reason, untoward events are expressed in terms of a ‘rate’.  And, in assessing product safety, a summary of deaths is the very first starting point.

When data are normalized to control for factors such as size of the population and economy, we can examine the rate of firearm homicides (ref) and traffic-related deaths (ref) in America versus peer countries.  In instances where comparisons can be made, there is typically a marked difference.  Some examples follow.  In America the per capita adjusted rate of traffic-realted fatalities is 1.78 times that of Spain, but the rate of firearm homicide in America is 14.66 times that of Spain.  The US rate of traffic-related fatalities is 2.73 times that of Germany, but our rate of firearm homicide in is 7.71 times that of Germany.   And the rate of traffic-related fatalities in America is 1.6 times that of Australia, but our rate of firearm homicides is 11.71 times that of Australia.  Consider also that automobile ownership in the US is widespread with most households owning one or more private cars (ref), but that gun ownership is concentrated in less than a third of US households (ref).  Although one might argue specific numbers, what is important is directionality, and the disproportionate rate of firearm-realted deaths in the US versus peer countries derived from these sources are in the same direction as those published by the CDC and other sources such as the field of actuarial science (ref).

Second, automobile-related deaths are largely occurring within the intended purpose of the product, i.e., transportation, the vast majority being highway related.  This risk is recognized and as such the product has been heavily regulated typically including proficiency testing in the presence of law enforcement prior to the issuance of a license (as well as periodic retesting), mandatory registration with an insurance requirement, product recalls when safety issues are identified, and child safety issues are also addressed (ref).

On the other hand, the fatalities being described for firearms (e.g., homicide, suicide) are not a result of the product being used within the intended purpose of protection, hunting, etc.  This falls under what is known as ‘product abuse potential’ and that is when regulation is usually applied to limit the opportunity for such ‘off label’ use, such as is the case with a narcotic that can cause health risks outside of its intended purpose.  Consider that firearm-related deaths have been identified as the second greatest cause of the life expectancy gap in America compared to peer countries (ref) (automobiles being first), and yet the notable difference in regulatory requirements between the two.  Washington state, for example, does not require training nor permits before a gun purchase, does not compel registration, and allows individuals without a serious criminal record or history of mental illness to obtain permits to carry a concealed weapon (ref); and should H.R. 822 (concealed carry reciprocity) become federal law, these individuals would be legally allowed to carry their concealed guns across state lines, and depending on the state into public parks, restaurants and bars.

And some risks between the two products are clearly different, e.g., a car stored in the garage has been shown to pose little risk to a child in the home, however guns stored in the home have claimed many young lives (ref).  Regarding ‘concealed carry in bars/restaurants’, an intoxicated automobile owner can arrange for one in the party to be a designated driver; but with the holder of a gun who becomes intoxicated (and we know with certainty that some licensed gun owners will become intoxicated while in possession of their firearm, as was the case for Tennessee state lawmaker Curry Todd who sponsored that very legislation and claimed that no responsible gun owner would - ref) the idea of a designated gun operator is ridiculous.

This argument is best taken off the table until the firearm-related death rate in America versus peer countries approaches what we see for traffic-related fatalities, and firearms face a similar level of regulatory oversight as do automobiles.

Discussion

Although the ‘gun rights’ versus ‘gun control’ debate is often painted as an ‘us versus them’ matter, the issue of safeguarding the health and well-being of children should not be.  It was certainly never the intent of a constitutional right to trump the protection of children.  And it is time to stop construing the need for safety regulation as an assault on a constitutional right and ‘trying to take our guns away’; automobiles are regulated to address safety concerns and still have widespread ownership in America.  The health risk guns pose to children has been recognized by major associations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and such notable agencies as the CDC.   It’s time that we stop trying to treat the symptom of the illness (advocating the carrying guns to protect ourselves) and begin striking at the heart of the illness which is our markets readily arming the less-than-law-abiding citizen and the mentally-ill, as well as failing to store guns properly in the home (as I write this article a 4-year-old child in a neighboring town shot himself after finding an unsecured gun in the home – ref).  And, frankly, having been awarded a NIH training grant during my graduate training, I find it a bit incredulous that an organization such as the NRA, that is tainted with industry money, refers to the work of the CDC and NIH as ‘junk science’.

What is occurring with the gun industry and its advocate group, the NRA, is strikingly reminiscent to what we witnessed with Big Tobacco that denied the health risks and where that industry used its lobbying clout to fight regulation and continue marketing strategies that were ultimately shown to be harmful to the youth of this country.  And, as was discussed in a prior article, the effectiveness of gun safety education in children is questionable as a solution and we should not be transferring the responsibility of safety to children (ref).  If history is any lesson, the issue of gun-related injuries and death in children, regardless of a ‘right’, will become the indefensible issue that will put enough pressure on politicians to enact sensible legislation despite political contributions and lobbying efforts.  Where Big Tobacco fought against regulatory intervention to defend their customer’s ‘right’ to smoke when and where they wished, the health risks of second hand smoke were ultimately confirmed.  The effect on health with guns is much faster than that of tobacco, but the end result is the same – death, disfigurement and debilitation, and steps should be taken to reduce those risks, especially with children.

Regarding the Pro-Life movement, although not agreeing with them on the issue as to when a human life actually begins, I respect their right to such a belief but feel that it is best left within the practice of their faith.  I personally want to see abortion minimized and believe that an effective intervention would be the widespread availability of family planning counseling and sex education, rather than the defunding of it.  And I do not agree that a woman who has had her body assaulted by rape should be made to bear the consequence of that crime.  However, politics is a world where special interests are played for financial and political gain, and the Christian Right has been so played by the very party where it largely resides.

David Kuo, a conservative Christian, was second in command of President GW Bush’s Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.  in his book “Tempting Faith” (ref)  he detailed how that office was used almost exclusively to win political points with both evangelical Christians and traditionally Democratic minorities.  Prominent national Christian leaders were referred to as “the nuts” by the president’s political strategist Karl Rove, and although greeted with smiles were referred to behind their backs as being ‘ridiculous’, ‘out of control’ and ‘just plain goofy’.  This while Kuo’s office was being used to mount ostensibly ‘nonpartisan’ events designed with the intent of mobilizing religious voters in 20 targeted states.  Regardless of what side one sits on, such tactics are offensive.  We are best served by honest debate, not political manipulation.

The issue discussed in this paper, protecting the health and well-being of children from a an established health risk, should be one that unites the vast majority of Americans.  And, regarding our politicians who claim that their Pro-Life stance is about the protection of children, I believe they will be much more believable when we see the same legislative fervor they show for the unborn being extended to those that have already been born.

The US experiences a grossly disproportionate rate of firearm-related deaths in minors as compared to peer countries, and firearm deaths amongst the young account for more than 25% of the decreased life expectancy gap in America.  The firearms industry, that is experiencing a long-term decline in American gun ownership, provides substantial financial support to the NRA and has had ties to that organization’s Board of Directors.  The NRA has become a powerful lobbying force at both federal and state levels with a record of opposing legislation that would negatively affect firearms sales and advocating for legislation that expands firearm sales.  That our elected representatives continue to enact firearm market expansion policies, without implementing tougher regulatory restraints on gun sales to curb firearm deaths in minors, represents the worst of special interest-driven politics and is nothing short of a dereliction of duty in governance.

Disproportionately Higher Death Rates and Decreased Life Expectancy

In examining the crude firearm homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants in countries that have a population exceeding 3.8 million and a GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power, in excess of $20,000 (World Health Organization, 2002), the US rate dwarfs that of any other industrialized country (ref).  The firearm homocide rate in the US was 5.5 times higher than Italy (the next highest) and several European Union countries reported insignificant levels of firearm homicides: only 45 were reported in the UK, 15 in Denmark, 10 in Norway, and 7 in Ireland.  Whereas the US reported a total of 10,801 firearm homicides in 2000, the European Union, having a population of over 376 million (exceeding that of the US) reported only 1,260 firearm homicides.  And in Japan, where less than 50 handguns were present (they are reserved to athletes participating in international shooting competitions), only 22 firearm homicides were reported.  Despite the mantra that guns keep us safer, research published by Dr. Jean Lemaire (Professor of Insurance and Actuarial Science, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania) has shown firearm deaths account for more than 25% of the decreased life expectancy gap of Americans compared to the other 34 richest countries, much higher than the combined effect of all colon and prostate cancers (ref).   This effect on life expectancy is attributed to firearm deaths occurring at early ages.  And there is some evidence that just owning a gun significantly increases the chances of dying, even when controlling for variables like neighborhood and education (ref).

The US experiences a grossly disproportionately higher rate of firearm deaths in children than other industrialized countries (ref).  According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths in children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the US than 25 other industrialized countries combined.  American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in those other countries.  Firearm-related deaths in children under 15 years of age by country are graphically displayed below (ref).

As reported in a University of Michigan Health System report (ref), “when researchers studied the 30,000 accidental gun deaths of Americans of all ages that occurred between 1979-1997, they found that preschoolers aged 0-4 were 17 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the 4 states with the most guns versus the 4 states with the least guns.  Likewise, school kids aged 5-14 were over 13  times more at risk of accidental firearm death in the states with high gun ownership rates.  The findings indicate that gun availability is associated with accidental death by shooting”.  Additionally, it was noted that more than 90% of suicide attempts with guns are deadly and teens in homes with firearms are at higher risk for committing suicide.

Although programs have been developed to educate parents and children about gun safety, the effectiveness of such programs in children is questionable (ref).  In the June 2001 issue of Pediatrics a study was published entitled ‘Seeing is Believing: What Boys Do When They Find a Real Gun’ (ref).  In that study, 29 groups of boys aged 8 – 12 years were observed in a room where a gun was hidden.  Many of the children found and handled the gun, and half of the children actually pulled the trigger.  ”More than 90% of the boys that handled the gun or pulled the trigger reported that they had previously received some sort of gun safety instruction.”   And an article published by the American Academy of Pediatrics entitled “They’re Too Smart for That” (ref) examined parents’ beliefs about how children would react to finding guns, with particular emphasis on how parents reasoned about children’s actions.  All respondents in the survey, regardless of gun ownership, geography, race, gender, education level, income, or child age, were equally likely (around 87%) to believe that their children would not touch guns they found, 52% reasoned that children were “too smart” or “knew better”.  The conclusion of the article was that caregivers’ unrealistic expectations of children’s developmental levels and impulse control may effectively relieve adults of responsibility and place the burden on children to protect themselves.

The American Academy of Pediatrics identifies gun-related injuries as one of the leading causes of death in minors and issued the following in a position statement on the matter (ref): “Because firearm-related injury to children is associated with death and severe morbidity and is a significant public health problem, child health care professionals can and should provide effective leadership in efforts to stem this epidemic”.

Irresponsible Legislative Actions and Inactions

Despite the well established health risks that guns pose to minors, this past year Florida Governor Rick Scott, backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), signed into law legislation that threatened physicians with disciplinary action, including fines or even loss of the license to practice medicine, for “unnecessarily harassing a patient about firearm ownership during an examination” – “unnecessary harassment” being left undefined (ref).  And despite the role physicians have played in counseling families and patients on risks to children (e.g., household poisons, unsupervised swimming pools, riding bikes without safety helmets), the law prohibited physicians from even asking parents whether they have a gun in the home (unless the doctor has a “good faith” belief that it is “relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety”).  Represented by lawyers from The Brady Center and the law firm of Ropes & Gray, three Florida physicians organizations, as well as several individual doctors, filed suit to strike down the law as a violation of the First Amendment; a preliminary injunction was granted by US District Judge Marcia G. Cooke, Southern District of Florida – Miami (ref).

And despite the disproportionate rate of firearm deaths in US citizens and minors, legislation is being, or has already been, enacted both federally as well as in multiple states that expand public exposure to guns without imposing tighter regulatory controls governing gun safety.  H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, passed the US House of Representatives and is pending in the US Senate.  This legislation would allow those having concealed carry handgun permits to freely cross state borders with their weapons despite widely varying requirements across states in obtaining such a permit.  As noted in a recent Washington Post editorial (ref), Washington State “has among the most lax guns laws in the country, requiring neither training nor permits before a purchase.  The state does not compel registration and allows individuals without a serious criminal record or history of mental illness to obtain permits to carry a concealed weapon”.  In conjunction with this legislation, states are passing laws that permit concealed carry permit holders to bring their weapons into public parks and restaurants (including those that serve alcohol) where children play and where our families dine.

On a broader level, US firearm agents estimate that around 80 percent of the weapons used by Mexican drug traffickers come from the US, where cartel leaders are hiring Americans with clean records to make the purchases for them; the drug war waged by these cartels has claimed more than 31,000 lives since late 2006 (ref) with some of the violence spilling over onto US soil including such tactics (as reported by the Tucson, AZ police) of placing a gun into a baby’s mouth and abducting children (ref).  Despite our concerns over terrorism and the threat that extremist groups pose to the safety of our families and children, an American citizen working for al Qaeda posted a video calling on Americans to take advantage of lax gun laws here to better kill fellow Americans (ref).  This operative stated: “What are you waiting for?…America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms.”  The video prompted a coalition of US mayors to contact Congress and President Obama to address what has been called a glaring threat to US national security.  And both felons (ref) and individuals with a history of mental illness (ref), two classes that have taken the lives of innocent citizens, are finding it easier to have their gun rights restored in court. The Virginia Tech massacre that claimed 32 lives and wounded 25 others, and the attempted assassination of Arizona Representative Giffords that claimed six lives including that of nine-year-old Christina Taylor-Green, were both attributed to the mentally-ill acquiring guns.

So where are our elected representatives on this matter?  Death is what is known as a ‘hard endpoint’ in assessing safety.  With data clearly showing that US citizens, including minors, are experiencing a disproportionately higher rate of firearm death as compared to peer nations, why aren’t our legislators working to more tightly regulate the safety of this product?  The answer lies with an organization that has become a powerful lobbying force in Washington DC, around the country, and has even been active internationally (ref) – the NRA.

The NRA: Ties to the Firearms Industry, Commercial Pressures, and Tactics

Ties to the Firearms Industry

The NRA and the gun industry are linked including ties to the organization’s Board of Directors (ref).  And a document published by the Violence Policy Center entitled Blood Money: How the Gun Industry Bankrolls the NRA, details corporate donations to the organization (ref).

It has been reported that the NRA received between $19.8 million and $52.6 million through its Ring of Freedom corporate giving program, of which 74% (between $14.7 – $38.9 million) came from members of the firearm industry.  The NRA’s Executive Vice President (and current chief), Wayne LaPierre, promised that the “National Rifle Association’s newly expanded Corporate Partners Program is an opportunity to corporations to partner with the NRA…This program is geared toward your company’s corporate interests”.  Of the 22 “corporate partners” acknowledged in the Ring of Freedom, 12 manufacture assault weapons, and numerous high-capacity ammunition makers are additionally cited as “corporate partners”.  MidwayUSA, a high-capacity ammunition magazine manufacturer is cited as having donated between $5,000,000 – $9,999,999  to the organization.  Others, including Berretta USA Corp and Springfield Armory, Inc (manufacturers of guns, high capacity magazines, and gun accessories), and Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, LLC (manufacturer of gun accessories) are cited as having donated between $1,000,000 – $4,999,999 to the organization.  A second program, The NRA Round-Up Program, created by MidwayUSA founder Larry Potterfield, allows buyers to “round-up” their purchase to the nearest dollar with the difference going to the NRA.

This activity represents a 180-degree turn from the organization’s position as noted in Americans and Their Guns, an official history of the organization published in 1967, which stated that the NRA “…is not affiliated with any manufacturer of arms or ammunition or with any jobber or dealer who sells firearms and ammunition”.  Such a link of a not-for-profit organization to profit-making corporations raises valid concerns regarding the objectivity of the organization, such as the effectiveness of its Eddie Eagle “gun safety” program (the effectiveness of such programs in children is questionable as was discussed above).

It would be naive to believe that the firearms industry is contributing this level of funding to a powerful lobbying force solely for ideological purposes; i.e., Second Amendment rights.  It is difficult to dismiss that this is also about special interest monies buying influence in DC to the benefit of the industry.

Continuing Decline of Gun Ownership in America and Commercial Pressures

An evaluation of national data spanning nearly 40 years (contained in the General Social Survey, the GSS, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago – the GSS being the most frequently analyzed source of information in the social sciences) shows that personal and household gun ownership in America has been in decline since the 1970′s (ref).  From 1977 to 2010 the percentage of American household that reported having any guns in the home dropped more than 40 percent.  And from 1985 to 2010, the percentage of Americans who reported personally owning a gun dropped more than 32 percent.  Reasons cited for this decline include: the aging of the current-gun owning population, primarily white males; a lack of interest in guns by youth; the end of military conscription; the decreasing popularity of hunting; land use issues that limit hunting and other shooting activities; environmental land zoning issues that force shooting ranges to close and limit new range construction; and, the increase in single-parent homes headed by women.

As reported in Bloomberg (ref), this decline in gun ownership “makes the business imperative clear: to maintain profits, the industry must sell more guns to fewer people”, and thus raises a valid concern about NRA initiatives and the ties it has to the firearms industry.  For example, concealed-carry laws enable manufacturers to appeal to old customers with new products “ranging from the Ceretta PX4 (‘well-suited for concealed carry’ according to the manufacturers website) to the Ruger SR40c (‘another srtong concealed carry option from Ruger’)…Colt’s Single Action Army Revolver…weighs 40 ounces – such ‘subcompact’ guns are easily hidden and cost less than $600″.  Consider the NRA-supported Florida gag order on physicians enquiring about guns in the home as a safety issue; dissemination of information by the medical community about the risks to children in homes with guns could only negatively impact gun sales.  Consider the NRA’s opposition to expanded criminal background checks on gun sales (including its support of a loophole allowing suspected terrorists to purchase guns without identification or background checks – ref).  Expanded background checks could not only negatively impact gun sales in this country, but the flow of high powered weaponry our markets are providing the Mexican drug cartels as well – at the expense of the very corporations who are heavily funding the NRA.

Does this special interest organization wield influence over our elected officials?  Consider the case of Senator David F. Durenberger (R- MN), as reported in the NY Times, who contacted the NRA seeking their support in rolling back a provision that permitted thousands of felons in his state, including those convicted of violent crimes, getting their gun rights back (ref). The senator’s chief of staff, Doug Kelley, stated that Senator Durenberger “ran into a stone wall” as the NRA threatened to pull its support for him if he did not drop the matter, which he eventually did.

Tactics: Manipulating Fear and Paranoia

Consider the NRA’s use of conspiracy theory and manipulation of paranoia and fear that has contributed to enhanced firearms and ammunition sales (ref).  Although President Obama abandoned efforts to enact gun control legislation, earning him a F rating from the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, the NRA twisted the President’s actions as being a plot to secretly destroy the Second Amendment.  NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre issued the following: “But it’s a big stinking lie, just like all the other lies that have come out of this corrupt administration.  It’s all part – it’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment in this country…Before the President was even sworn into office, they met and they hatched a conspiracy of public deception to try to guarantee his re-election in 2012″.  This was followed by another statement from La Pierre that a “second term by President Obama would break the back” of the Second Amendment.  As was noted by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, “The NRA says the way you can tell Obama is coming for your guns, is that he’s not coming for your guns.  It’s genius!  That is the insane paranoid message from the NRA this year”.  The article delves into other such manipulation of fear and paranoia by the organization.

The NRA made claims in mailers and TV ads during Obama’s 2008 campaign that the candidate planned to ban handguns, hunting ammunition, and use of a gun for home defense.  FactCheck.org, a non-partisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate for voters” (ref), examined these claims and found them to be false (ref).  The Obama campaign asked broadcasters to take down ads from the NRA as they were misleading, citing FactCheck.org’s work as well as a separate Washington Post article.  The NRA attacked FactCheck.org on its web site claiming that the organization was neither impartial or independent.  But consider the outcome.  Gun sales surged after Obama’s election (ref).  ”According to FBI figures for the week of November 3 – 9, 2008, the bureau received more than 374,000 requests for background checks on purchasers – a nearly 49 percent increase over the same period in 2007″.  One gun store, the Virginia Arms Company, reported running out of some models such as the AR-15 rifle (the civilian version of the military’s M-16) and was running low on others.  Such assault weapons were among the firearms that gun dealers and their customers say they feared Obama would hit with new restrictions or even take off the market.  A similar spike in firearms sale occurred following the election of President Clinton.  The firearms industry, that provides substantial funding to the NRA, was the ultimate financial beneficiary of this activity.

It’s time we question the NRA’s stated purpose of preserving Second Amendment rights.  The organization is heavily tainted with firearm industry money and it is difficult to dismiss that what we are witnessing is a manipulation of our constitution, to the financial benefit of an industry, at the expense of American lives, including the youth of this country.

Discussion

It is difficult to support the argument that guns keep us safe when firearm deaths in America, including those in minors, are grossly disproportionately higher here than in peer countries and when firearms deaths are a leading contributor to the decreased life expectancy gap in America.  In fact, it seems as if the pro-gun advocates feel the need to defend themselves from the consequences of widely available firearms that they advocate; a market where guns have been readily obtained by the mentally ill, convicted criminals, drug traffickers, and even terrorists.

My career was spent in generating and evaluating information assessing product safety in a regulated industry where I authored numerous benefit/risk documents in support of marketing applications and have been before federal regulators on issues of product safety.  The overall safety of a product is assessed by an integration of benefit and risk, i.e. what is the intended use and purpose of the product and whether the benefits outweigh the risks.  What one should be able to show is that the intended benefits outweigh the risks, and if risks exist what needs to be done to limit risk and enhance the overall benefit/risk ratio of the product.  Although the risks of firearms have been well documented and quantitated (homicides, use for suicides, unintentional death), the claimed benefit of safety/protection is difficult to quantitate.

If the purpose of owning a handgun is for protection, the product is causing a substantial loss of life outside that intended purpose – not just to ordinary citizens, but to our law enforcement officers as well where this past year gun violence became their leading cause of death on the job (ref).   And analysis has shown that although armed and trained, and in some cases wearing body armor, in 73% of the cases the officers were not able to defend themselves -they never saw it coming as they were the victims of ambush or surprise attacks, with the head typically being the target (ref).  Police Chief Mike Wilson, Atchinson, KS, who lost a well-trained and protected officer to a surprise attack stated “When someone assassinates you from behind, all the training, education and equipment is sometimes not much help”.

Although claims have been made that the reduction we have seen in crime is associated with an increase in concealed carry licenses, it is well established that correlation does not imply causation and is an invalid approach upon which to draw conclusions (ref).  That same mistake was made when multiple epidemiological studies led physicians to believe that women on hormone replacement therapy were at a lower risk of developing coronary heart disease; controlled studies demonstrated the opposite.  Regarding guns, one could just as easily say the the decrease in crime is due to declining personal and household gun ownership in America.

Although it has been claimed that guns serve as a deterrent to crime, analysis of two matched cities (Seattle, WA and Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) failed to support that claim (Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities, JH Sloan, MD, et. al, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 319, No. 19, 1988, pp. 1256-1262).  Although the two cities were shown to be largely similar, Vancouver had more restrictive gun ownership/possession requirements.  Key findings from the study include: 1) although the assault rate was only slightly higher in Seattle than Vancouver, the rate of assault involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle; 2) the risk of death from homicide was found to be significantly higher in Seattle than in Vancouver, this risk being explained by a nearly five-fold higher risk of being murdered with a handgun in Seattle as compared with Vancouver; and, 3) rates of homicide involving means other than guns were not substantially different in the two cities.  That study, and others, have been summarized by the Violence Policy Center (ref).

And although gun owners are described as ‘law abiding citizens’ having the right to defend themselves, the disproportionately higher rate of firearm homicides in this country would indicate that there are plenty of ‘non-law abiding citizens’ in possession of guns.  Investigative reporting by the NY Times recently matched concealed carry permit holders in NC (one of the dwindling number of states where this information is still available) to recent criminal court cases and found 2400 permit holders that had been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor (excluding traffic-related crimes) in the past 5 years – 10 committed murder or manslaughter, 8 with guns (ref).  And when it comes to weaponry, just one individual can inflict a massive loss of life as has been seen on far too many occasions.

Even if a protective/deterrent benefit could be accurately quantified that offset the collateral damage from this product, such benefit is being obtained at a high price to our citizenry, including our youth.  And frankly, when a product is associated with a substantial loss of life outside of its intended purpose, expanding public access and exposure to the product as a solution is both unusual and illogical.

Having been engaged in cancer research at the Medical College, University of AZ, in the 1970′s, what is occurring with the firearms industry is strikingly similar to what we witnessed with ‘Big Tobacco’ in the 1970′s and 1980′s that denied the health risks and continued market expansion activities that adversely affected our youth.  In fact, the NRA was admired by Philip Morris management and cited as a template for carrying out effective pro-industry activities in which a corporation could not legally engage (ref).  A January 1988 Phillip Morris Five Year plan stated: “In 1988 we intend to create local smokers’ rights associations throughout the US…We intend to link (the captains of these associations) to local, state and ultimately a national rights organization.  Once the national organization is established and funded, we will … create a self-sustaining membership organization similar the National Rifle Association”.  My belief, is that with the well-established health risks associated with firearms, that industry will eventually face the same regulatory pressures as did Big Tobacco, but not after much damage has been done.

Although it is well-known that special interests buy influence in our government, our legislators should find themselves in a particularly troublesome position in advocating legislation that expands public exposure to guns without addressing the substantial loss life with which the product is associated, especially in minors.  We enact laws to protect minors in this country, and yet in this case our legislators are failing to take legislative action that could help prevent unnecessary loss of life.  In fact, they are moving in the opposite direction.  I submit that it was not the intent of the Second Amendment to justify the unnecessary loss of American lives.   And for our legislators to be engaged in enacting market expansion policy for gun products, without implementing tougher regulatory restraints on gun sales to curb firearm deaths in minors, represents the worst of special interest-driven politics and is nothing short of a dereliction of duty in governance.

In a couple of past articles I have discussed the moral crisis we face as a country when our elected officials are continuing to support failed special interest-driven economic policy (backed by financial industry lobbyists) that has contributed to an increase in poverty (ref) (ref).  Based on a 2000 study conducted by Columbia University’s School of Public Health, an estimate of  lost US lives in 2009 due to poverty exceeded 1.2 million, including children – an estimated annual increase of over 350,000 lost American lives since 2000 while tax cuts to the wealthiest are preserved and heating subsidies and other safety net programs to the needy are being cut.  So, the grossly disproportionate rate of firearm deaths in American minors must be but small potatoes to our special interest-driven legislators these days.

Acknowledgement: appreciation for editorial comments extended to Hilton J. Cancel (career law enforcement and President, North Carolinians Against Gun Violence)

The Occupy Wall Street movement has reason to protest.  Special interest-driven deregulation policy was at the heart of the recent economic collapse.  It has been the “99%” that has paid the price for this policy failure with lost employment, devalued housing prices, retirement accounts being cut in half, and increased levels of poverty while the wealthiest in America continued to do well.  A valid question is why our elected representatives are not working together to put a stop to failed policy that has been so damaging to the majority of Americans.  This article will examine the disproportionate number of the wealthy who hold elected office in Washington and the conflict of interest they face in setting policy versus their own financial interests as well as the special interests that finance their campaigns.  And it will explore an incentive that politicians have to stay in office where they can act on non-public information to their own financial benefit.  It examines the issue of whether our Congress has become ‘Our Unrepresentative Representation’.

Policy Was at the Heart of the Great Recession

Alan Greenspan, who presided over the Federal Reserve for 18 years before stepping down in 2006, was one of our nation’s leading voices for deregulation.  He was considered an economic sage whose words affected market direction and, as noted by Bob Woodward, was celebrated as the “Maestro” (ref).   Yet, it was a humbled Alan Greenspan who admitted before Congress in 2008 that his belief in deregulation had been shaken (ref).  ”Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief” he relayed to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.  Henry Waxman, chair of the committee, asked “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”  Mr. Greenspan’s responded “Yes, I’ve found a flaw…I’ve been very distressed by that fact”.

When the Fed cut interest rates to near record lows from 2001 until mid-2004, housing prices climbed far faster than inflation or household income giving rise to concerns of a speculative bubble in both home prices and construction that would go bust; concerns that were ignored and calls for tighter regulation on subprime mortgages and other high risk mortgages were resisted.  Republican lawmakers tried to blame the mortgage meltdown on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac claiming that Democratic lawmakers blocked measures to reform the companies.  Greenspan disagreed placing far more blame on Wall Street companies that bundled subprime mortgages into pools and sold them as mortgage backed securities.  He stated that demand for these securities was so high that Wall Street companies pressured lenders to lower their standards and produce more “paper” (note the impact of repealing Glass-Steagall below).  Mr. Greenspan stated “The evidence strongly suggests that without the excess demand from securitizers, subprime mortgage originations (undeniably the source of the crisis) would have been far smaller and defaults accordingly far lower”.

A 2008 report published by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) agreed with Mr. Greenspan’s testimony.  The report concluded that the financial crisis originated from distortions and incentives created by policy actions and identified 2004 as being critical to causality (ref).

Quoting from that report:

“In 2004 four time specific factors came into play. (1) the Bush Administration ‘American Dream’ zero equity mortgage proposals became operative, helping low-income families to obtain mortgages; (2) the then regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), imposed greater capital requirements and balance sheet controls on those two government- sponsored mortgage securitisation monoliths, opening the way for banks to move in on their “patch” with plenty of low income mortgages coming on stream; (3) the Basel II accord on international bank regulation was published and opened an arbitrage opportunity for banks that caused them to accelerate off-balance-sheet activity; and (4) the SEC agreed to allow investment banks (IB’s) voluntarily to benefit from regulation changes to manage their risk using capital calculations under the ‘consolidated supervised entities program’. (Prior to 2004 broker dealers were supervised by stringent rules allowing a 15:1 debt to net equity ratio. Under the new scheme investment banks could agree voluntarily to SEC consolidated oversight (not just broker dealer activities), but with less stringent rules that allowed them to increase their leverage ratio towards 40:1 in some cases.) The combination of these four changes in 2004 caused the banks to accelerate off-balance sheet mortgage securitisation as a key avenue to drive the revenue and the share price of banks….

“When OFHEO imposed greater capital requirements and balance sheet controls on Fannie and Freddie, banks that had been selling mortgages to them faced revenue gaps and an interruption to their earnings. Their solution was to create their own Fannie and Freddie look-alikes: the structured investment vehicles (SIVs) and collateralised debt obligation (CDOs). The influence of the controls affecting Federal Mortgage Pools and the corresponding response in private label RMBS is shown in Figure 2 [see report]. This new surge of RMBS caused by the Fannie- Freddie regulator was picked up much too late by Bank regulators to take effective action. ”

In the context of the above it is important to note some other deregulation (also, failure to regulate) policy decisions.  The banking industry had been seeking repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act since at least the 1980′s and it occurred in 1999 (ref).  Glass-Steagall was legislation that was put into place following the Great Depression that, amongst other things, separated commercial from investment banking to remove the conflict of interest inherent to an institution controlling both (note Greenspan’s testimony that investment banks were pressuring commercial lenders to issue more “paper”, i.e. risky mortgages, because of the high demand for mortgage-backed derivatives).  Also, there was CFTC’s failed attempt at regulating and bringing transparency to OTC derivatives in the late 1990′s thus allowing the market for those financial instruments to grow unregulated for the next ten years (ref).  These instruments, backed by risky assets, were at the heart of such dramatic failures as Bear Sterns and AIG.  And there was tax policy that contributed to pushing more income and wealth into a small sliver of our population when our economy is 70% personal consumption.

Reference for above figure (ref)

In both instances where 1% of our population held up to 24% of this nation’s income (prior to the Great Depression and Great Recession) our country experienced a severe economic downturn (ref).

Above figure from Krugman (ref).

And who paid the price for these failed policies?  It was those in what has been called the “99%” by the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Their purchasing power not keeping pace with the growth of the economy.

Their homes losing value (most often the middle class’s key investment).  Their retirement accounts being cut in half.  And jobs disappearing as corporations cut back on expense to maintain profitability.  And this pain is being experienced while the richest of Americans quintupled their income during the heart of the Great Recession (ref) and millionaire households (the “1%”) hold a sum of wealth equivalent to almost three times the size of our national economy that is anticipated to double within the next decade as money makes money at historically low tax rates (ref).  And income from that wealth (dividends and capital gains) is not subject to payroll tax that supports programs that the rest of America depends on during their senior years (Social Security and Medicare).

And yet the drumbeat of deregulation and tax policy largely benefitting the wealthiest continues.  We continue to hear that it is not smart to tax our ‘job creators’; yet job creation in large part was anemic during 4 year periods where ‘trickle down’ policy was in place (ref).

* Total Non-Farm Payroll expressed in millions

The money we borrowed to support the tax benefit to the wealthiest (the debt being assumed by America’s taxpayers and future generations) went to support both ‘Wall Street’ and high growth business interests abroad (ref).  We continue to hear that regulation is stifling business, and yet it was deregulation of the financial industry that was at the heart of the financial crisis as noted by both Mr. Greenspan’s testimony as well as the OECD report (see above).  We continue to hear about privatizing Social Security; this after we have witnessed the level corporate risk taking that lead to the financial crisis Mr. Greenspan said left him in ‘shocked disbelief’.  And with an estimated 45,000 Americans dying each year (ref) (including over 2000 military veterans) due to a lack of access to essential care, those who are denied coverage are required to pay tax to support the healthcare benefits of our elected officials, the same officials who are accepting large sums of money from special interests opposed to universal coverage.

And there is question about the emotion underlying the Occupy Wall Street movement?

With these failed policies having caused so much pain for much of America, a fair question is why our elected representatives are not working together in putting a stop to this. They are, after all, our elected representation.  It is difficult to dismiss that many of our elected officials face a conflict of interest regarding their charge to represent ‘the people’ versus their own financial self-interests as well as the special interests that carry them to office. This article will examine the disproportionate number of the wealthy who hold elected office in Washington and the conflict of interest they face in setting policy versus their own financial interests as well as the special interests that finance their campaigns.  And it will explore an incentive the wealthy have had for staying in office where they can act on non-public information to their own financial benefit.  It will explore whether our Congress has become our ‘unrepresentative representation’.

Unrepresentative Representation

Disproportionate Wealth

The Senate has been called a millionaires club (ref) with about half of its members holding that status.  In 2009 244 members of Congress were millionaires – 138 Republicans and 106 Democrats (ref).   However, a picture is worth a thousand words.  The following graphics were sent to me by one of my readers:

A significant imbalance exists (around 40- to 50-fold) regarding the number of millionaires holding elected office in Washington versus the general public.  The median American family had a net worth of $96,000 in 2009 per the Federal Reserve Board while the median net worth for members of the US House of Representatives and Senate was $725,000 and $2.4 million, respectively (ref).  The reference provides a list of the 20 wealthiest members of Congress based on 2009 reports, 10 Republican and 10 Democrats, with Representative Darrell Issa (R-California) holding the top spot with an average net worth of over $300 million dollars.

Special Interest Contributions

There is a high correlation between candidate spending and winning elected office (ref).  In the 2010 midterm elections, candidate spending correlated to success in 85% of House races and 83% of Senate races.  And historically the correlation has even been greater; in 2004; 98% of House seats and 88% of Senate seats went to the candidates who spent the most.  Why does this correlation exist?  Because candidate exposure is expensive.  Elections are won by the expensive tactic of manipulating high probability voters through repeated messaging over TV during prime time hours (information obtained from a political consulting group during my exploration of a Senate run).  The average cost of winning a Senate seat was $8.28 million in 2010 and $1.09 million for a House seat (ref).

Most self-financing candidates faltered in the 2010 cycle and significant investments from outside groups helped to elect more than 200 federal candidates.  ”In two-thirds of races where outside groups spent at least some money on advertisements and other political communications, the dollars spent supporting the winner, coupled with amounts spent opposing the loser, exceeded dollars spent supporting the loser or attacking the winner..” (ref).

As a candidate can not raise near enough within their own district to support an election effort, the vast majority of campaign contributions come from outside sources.  What follows for Representative Issa’s campaign contributions (Jan 2005 – Dec 2007) holds true for most elected officials.  Only 5% of his contributions came from within his district; 54% ($674,370) came from outside his state and 94% ($1,173,693) came from outside his district (ref).  The largest sum of out-of-state contributions came from the Washington DC area where special interest lobbying groups operate.

Conflicting Interests

Personal Wealth vs Tax Policy

Regarding the disproportionate number of the wealthy holding elected office, consider tax policy, especially capital gains and dividends.  Capital gains in the 1970′s were taxed at 35% (ref) and have since been lowered to the current 15% rate (ref).  Capital gains and dividends comprise a disproportionate amount of the income for the wealthy and, as Warren Buffet has noted, is responsible for the lower net income tax paid by the wealthiest (ref).  Additionally, this income is not subject to payroll tax that supports Social Security and Medicare, programs that much of America depends on in their later years.  The president’s plan to raise taxes may include a change in how capital gains are taxed (ref).   Consider that the richest 0.1% of Americans pay 44 percent of all capital gains taxes and the richest 1% pay 68% of that tax.  The bottom 80% of Americans account for less than 3% of all capital gains taxes paid.  About 40% of members of the US House of Representatives and nearly half of all US senators reported capital gains in 2009 (ref).  Many of the GOP presidential candidates have suggested eliminating the capital gains tax all together (ref).  Increasing the tax rate on capital gains, which largely affects the wealthiest and which would help reduce the federal deficit, would directly affect 176 members of the House and 48 US senators (ref).  I submit that many in our Congress face a conflict of interest between their own financial self-interests versus policy that could help reduce our federal deficits to the benefit of our future generations.

Campaign Financing vs Representation

The conflict that exists for politicians whose campaigns are financed largely by money raised outside their districts is apparent and expressed in their behavior.  A few examples are provided below.

During the healthcare reform debate it was found that more that a dozen lawmakers placed comments into the Congressional record that were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by lobbyists working for Genentech (ref).  This was caught because the remarks made by multiple lawmakers lined up word for word.  Genentech’s PAC had made financial contributions to many House members including some who filed statements into the Congressional Record.  Although the head of Genentech’s Washington office claimed that “there was no connection between the contributions and the statements”, company employees had been among the hosts at fund-raisers for some of those lawmakers.  Additionally there is the example of senator Joe Lieberman’s behavior during that debate.  Consider his position of opposing a public option after he had reportedly accepted $427,644 from insurance companies since 2005 including at the time a recently received sum of $65,200 from Aetna and its employees (ref), this after tax payer money supports his own healthcare benefits.

Consider the attempts to raise taxes on the wealthiest of Americans to help reduce deficits.  A recent poll (ref) showed nearly three-quarters of Americans (including two-thirds of Republicans) favoring such a measure as well as the evidence that when such policy was in place in the 1990′s our country had a strong economy and was paying down its debt.  So a reasonable question is how can 100% of senate Republicans oppose a tax increase on the wealthiest when up to two-thirds of their party constituents agree with an increase.  Consider that behavior in light of a substantial level of funding for Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS reportedly coming from a small circle of extremely wealthy Wall Street hedge fund and private equity moguls “bitterly opposed to a proposal by congressional Democrats – and endorsed by the Obama administration – to increase the tax rates on compensation that hedge funds pay their partners” (ref).  These hedge fund moguls and other wealthy donors contributed tens of millions of dollars (to protect their interests) that helped to secure big GOP victories in the 2010 midterm elections.

Consider CFTC’s Brooksley Born’s failed attempt to regulate and bring transparency to OTC derivatives in the late 1990′s (ref).  These are the financial instruments that were at the heart of dramatic corporate and fund failures that sparked the market collapse at the start of the Great Recession.  In 1998, ten years before the economic crisis, a hedge fund (Long Term Capital Management, LTCM) was near collapse and had used these instruments to leverage $5 billion into more than $1 Trillion while doing business with 15 of Wall Streets largest financial institutions.  At that time the President’s working group was informed that the entire American economy hung in the balance and the Fed intervened to avert the crisis.  Although the attempt to regulate was portrayed as a battle of ideologies between Born (Keynesian) and Greenspan/Rubin (Austrian and neoconservative laissez faire), Wall Street lobbying efforts proved to be powerful.  ”Under heavy pressure from the financial lobby, legislation prohibiting regulation of derivatives by Born’s agency was passed by the Congress”.  This paved the way for ten years of unregulated growth of a market that was highly profitable to Wall Street and ultimately harmful to much of America.

Incentives (Insider Trading)

As reported by 60 Minutes (ref) “members of Congress and their aides have regular access to powerful political intelligence, and many have made well-timed stock market trades in the very industries they regulate”.  Essentially, there is no law prohibiting Congress from ‘Insider Trading’, something that is a criminal offense for corporate insiders.  Consider, for example, the closed door meetings between Congressional leaders and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke where lawmakers were being warned that a global financial meltdown could occur within a few days.  These meetings were so secretive that cell phones and Blackberries were confiscated beforehand to prevent leaks.  Literally the day following one such meeting, Alabama representative Spencer Bachus (who was at the time the ranking Republican member on the House Financial Services Committee and now its Chairman), bought option funds that would go up in value if the market went down.  So although publicly he took the position of trying to keep the economy from cratering, he was privately betting that it would.  Consider that it was Congress that enacted financial deregulation policy, and a ranking committee member who supported such policy could act on insider information to profit from its failure while much of America suffered the consequences of its failure.

Before retiring, Congressman Brian Baird (Washington) spent six unsuccessful years trying to get his colleagues to to prohibit insider trading in Congress and establish rules governing conflicts of interests.  Despite outcries from the offices of Democratic Congresswoman Pelosi and Republican Speaker Boehner following the airing of the 60 Minutes report (both were questioned publicly by Steve Kroft about their involvement in the practice), at least 93 members of Congress have signed on as cosponsors of the Stock Act and for the first time the bill has been introduced in the Senate.

Discussion

Republic, Lost

Harvard law professor, Lawrence Lessig, is author of “Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – And a Plan to Stop It”.  A point he made in interview (ref) is that the OWS movement has it wrong when it refers to the 99%.  Dr. Lessig points out that only 0.05% of America max out Congressional campaign contributions, and only 0.26% give more than $200.  As money provides access to government, it is not OWS’s 99%, but rather the 99.95% that is denied access.  He points out that as 30 – 70% of a politician’s time is spent in fundraising, they become dependent on the funders rather than the people (and it is only worse now as the Citizen’s United ruling gives corporations the rights of a person).  Politicians are therefore responding to a small sliver of our society.  And he notes that politicians also extort business for financial gain by demanding corporate participation in campaign fundraising to get what it wants.

In a separate interview (ref) Dr. Lessig makes the point that in 1980 98% of financial assets traded in our economy were subject to the normal rules of transparency, anti-fraud requirements, and basic exchange-based rules of the New Deal.  By 2008, 90% of traded assets were traded invisibly because they were not subject to such obligations.  But what concerns him is what happened after 2008.  After “every independent analyst had said there was a link between the structure of deregulation and the collapse (and he mentions Greenspan’s Congressional testimony),…Wall Street was able to blackmail the Democrats and the Republicans into handing them essentially a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card and effect no fundamental change in the architecture of our financial system”.

The Real Cost of Poverty: Lost American Lives

But the real cost of this special interest-driven policy failure is in the staggering number of American lives it has claimed.  The latest census shows that 1 in 2 Americans have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income (ref).  ”The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families”.  However, what is not discussed is that one of the consequences of poverty is that it claims lives.

As I wrote in a previous article on income/wealth inequality as a moral crisis for this country (ref), a study conducted by Columbia University’s School of Public Health estimated that in 2000 875,000 deaths could be attributed to a cluster of social factors bound up with poverty and income inequality (ref).  The Great Recession has caused an increase in poverty and applying the 2000 mortality rate in the Columbia University report to the number of Americans currently living in poverty an estimated 1,228,169 Americans died in 2009 from the effects of poverty and income inequality (ref).

This estimated annual increase of more than 350,000 lost American lives due to poverty since 2000 (of which failed policy has contributed) dwarfs the total 4484 US military fatalities incurred over the entire course of the Iraq War (ref).  This staggering loss of American lives due to the consequences of poverty is never part of the political dialog and our news sanitizes the picture of poverty in our country.

Consider that Congress just reached a deal that would prevent yet another threatened government shutdown by including a cut of $3.5 billion for low-income heating and utility subsidies (a cut of about 25%, ref) while maintaining the Bush era tax cuts largely favoring the wealthiest.  In striking such a deal, our Congress has placed a higher value on special interest-driven policy than the lives of American citizens – and that does represent a moral crisis for our country.

Beware this Boy

A Christmas Carol is one of my favorite seasonal stories.

In writing the above this holiday season I was reminded of Scrooge saying that if the poor are to die then “they had better do it and decrease the surplus population”.  I could hear the voice of  Marley’s ghost screaming at Scrooge that “Mankind was my business”.  I could see the Ghost of Christmas Present revealing the two wretched children to Scrooge, the girl being ‘Want’, the boy being ‘Ignorance’ and saying to him: “Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased.”

Really not a bad time of year to reflect on what has happened to our Congress.  We must erase the writing on the brow of ignorance.   We must not allow our Congress to remain Our Unrepresentative Representation.

********

Dear Skip:

I sat with you at the Cary Rotary luncheon last week; you were familiar with my wife Mary who ran for Mayor of Cary in 1998.  I write some of what follows having been a corporate officer in a regulated industry, pharmaceuticals (part of the health care sector).  Additionally, I have been a successful business founder/CEO in this state.  The difficulty I had with parts of your presentation involves what I believe to be poor, and even misleading, representation of certain issues.

Regulation and Job Creation

There is a long history of business placing profit over public well-being – thus the need to regulate.  For example, would you want to know that if your grandchildren were to take a medication that it would not kill them by poisoning, or that the medication actually had the opportunity to provide them relief from pain, suffering, and even save their lives?  It was only just a few decades ago that companies were regulated to provide evidence of positive benefit/risk – in the 20th century, one product was released that killed well over 100 people through poisoning, and the thalidomide matter formed the basis of the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendment.  The industry was successful over a long period of time in holding off regulation saying that the cost would be burdensome – we hear much of this same story in other areas today.

My belief is that repeal of certain regulation and failure to regulate has had a much greater negative effect on employment.  In recent years, for example, repeal of Glass-Steagall; the failed attempt to regulate and bring transparency to OTC derivatives by CFTC’s Brooksley Born at the hands of free market ideologues and Wall Street lobbying efforts (she was decimated on Capital Hill); the big 5 Wall Street investment banks successfully petitioning SEC to allow them to carry more debt and reduce the ‘haircut’ on risky assets (Lehman levered up 30:1 prior to its collapse that shook the world credit markets); and the predatory lending practices of financial institutions that led to a devaluation of US real estate: all have been considered significant contributors to the Great Recession, the collapse of our financial markets and devaluation of retirement accounts, and the loss of millions of jobs.

Your treatment of this matter was quite one-sided.  Bottom line is that business objection to regulation tends to be more about reducing the cost of doing business (increasing profits) than about job creation; and certainly not about public nor environmental well-being.

Healthcare Reform

The ‘mandate’ does not require one to buy health insurance as was presented; what it says is that if one does not have health insurance (that they will be able to buy on a competitive exchange) they will be taxed (this fine being less than the cost of an insurance policy).  The reason being is that virtually all people in this country will use the healthcare system at some point and they will be treated regardless of whether or not they have insurance – and that cost is passed to other policy holders; e.g., the issue with free-riders.  In medicine, there is an ethical ‘mandate’ to treat – there is not a group of emergency room physicians that would permit an individual to bleed out on the table regardless of insurance status.  As this ethical mandate exists, I see no reason that a mandate should not exist to either carry insurance or pay a tax.  We can demand that individuals who drive a car carry insurance, and we can revoke that right if they fail to do so; however, we can not ethically revoke an individual’s right to life saving medical treatment.

What I took offense to in the objections to healthcare reform was that in this country we are losing an estimated 45,000 citizens/year due to lack of access to essential care (Harvard Medical School study); included in that figure are up to 6 military veterans who lose their lives every day because of lack of access to essential care in a country where they put their lives on the line.  I took great exception that those individuals who either could not afford, or were denied, coverage were required to pay income tax to support our federal legislators healthcare benefits while those same legislators received substantial sums of money from special interest groups to help them keep their jobs.

The reform is not as strong as it could be because of the political process, but it is a start and can be improved over time.  And there are some truly good points, such as reducing cost by improving medical practice; e.g., imposing penalties for high rates of hospital readmission or nosocomial infection.  Additionally, in medicine an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and more broadly available health insurance will allow for better preventative medicine.

Marriage Amendment

This amendment was portrayed as limiting marriage to one man and one woman.  It actually goes much further than that as the language used in that amendment is exceptionally broad and will affect the rights of individuals in such relationships as civil unions (even objected to by Renee Elmers) and ‘committed relationships’.  Legal opinion I have read states that the language in this amendment has not been part of any prior NC law, nor used by any other state.  My personal belief, looking at the language of the amendment advocates, both the public in rallies and Senator Forrester’s comments, is that religious definition is being applied to common law – and that should not be occurring.  Additionally, the rights of a minority should not be put to a vote by the majority.  My belief is that this amendment, should it find its way into law, will result in numerous instances of litigation.

In closing, you stated during your presentation that you are not always popular with what you do.  That goes with the turf of being an elected official or even an executive in the private sector as I have been; can’t please all the people all the time.  But what the public does deserve is a fair treatment of the issues, and I did feel that [your presentation] fell short.

–
Dr. Art Kamm

Republican politicians catering to the Tea Party and the Religious Right, intersecting entities, have a fine line to walk.  With research showing that Tea Party supporters tended to be highly partisan Republicans well before there ever was a Tea Party (ref), this group represents an important part the Republican base, a base that Republican politicians need to keep energized and motivated.  However, on the other side of the coin, the Tea Party is rapidly losing ground in the world of public opinion (ref).   Polling this past summer showed that over a 14 month period public opposition to the Tea Party more than doubled from 18% to 40%.  Additionally, research on national political attitudes showed that out of 24 groups and individuals, the Tea Party finished dead last (24th) with Sarah Palin, the outspoken Tea Party advocate, finishing right behind at 23rd (ref).  The Tea Party finished lower in public opinion than much maligned groups such as Muslims (20th) and Gays (17th).  Additionally, as the above cited research also showed that (other being a Republican) the strongest predictor of becoming a Tea Party supporter was a desire to see greater involvement of religion in politics, it is not surprising that the Christian Right also scored well down in public opinion (21st).

So, there lies the dilemma for Republican politicians; how to energize an important part of their base without alienating/offending the middle (what they need to win elections).  And, as just occurred this weekend, some of this activity is kept a bit under the radar.

This weekend an event took place in Washington, D.C. called the Values Voter Summit (ref).  Unless one follows civil rights matters, one would know little of the groups that sponsored the event: the Family Research Council (FRC) and the American Family Association (AFA).  The event was attended by the ‘who’s who’ of the Republican Party (list of political participants will follow).

Both groups have been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as Hate Groups, not because of religious beliefs but because of their continuing use of hate language, discredited research, and malicious falsehoods that demonize the LGBT community.  Claims made by these groups include such things as gay rights advocates want to “recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order”; that gays orchestrated the Holocaust and were responsible for the killing of 6 million Jews; and that homosexuality is an illness that can be cured.  Should you wish to see the nature of information issued by these groups I provide the link to an advertisement placed by SPLC in the Washington Post that provides both statements and references (ref).  Should one wish to review the top 10 Anti-Gay Myths and how they have been debunked, you can find them at this link (ref).

The problem with the language and falsehoods these groups issue is that it reinforces bigotry and hatred thus contributing to hate crimes.  Analysis of FBI data has shown that homosexuals are far more likely than any other minority group in the United States to be victimized by violent hate crimes (ref).

The LGBT community are citizens of the United States and are thus entitled to protection against bigotry, hatred, bullying that leads to suicide of our youth, and assault.  As cited in a previous article (ref), our first president issued the following words, “…the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance…” (ref).   Regrettably, the prominent politicians who participated in this event, by their stature and mere presence, have given sanction to bigotry and assistance to persecution for their own political purpose.  And what purpose?  One need look no further than the cause of the anger behind Occupy Wall Street movement to understand that.  So the time has come to stop this manipulation of bigotry and hatred for political and financial gain.  Until we call this out, that Party will continue to manipulate this part of its base to carry out its agenda.

It is time to bring these prominent politicians ‘out of the closet’ so to speak.  The intent of the Washington Post ad placed by SPLC was to get public officials to think twice before lending their names to groups like FRC and AHA again.  However, the ad failed to mention these politicians by name; they were essentially given a bye with the public.  I will provide those names here as well as the link that identifies all confirmed participants (ref).  My belief is that these individuals need to explain to the other 70% of America their participation in a summit backed by groups whose language fosters violent crimes against a segment of our citizenry.

Over ten years ago one of our sons almost lost his life during a vicious after-hours assault near his college campus.  The assailants were sent to prison.  One of the assailants during the criminal trial claimed he wasn’t directly involved.  The district attorney issued the following statement: “If you run with the pack, you are responsible for the kill”.

Confirmed Speakers (Politicians)

John Boehner (R-OH) – House Speaker

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) – House Majority Leader

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) – Presidential Candidate

Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY)

Herman Cain – Presidential Candidate

Newt Gingrich – Former Speaker of the House and Presidential Candidate

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA)

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)

Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) – Presidential Candidate

Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) and Presidential Candidate

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS)

Mitt Romney – Former MA Governor and Presidential Candidate

Rick Santorum (R-PA) – Former US Senator

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

Former Rep Linda Smith (R-WA)

Discriminatory laws, such as NC’s constitutional amendment that would prohibit marriage except that between one man and one woman, are most often opposed, and rightfully so, as an infringement of civil rights.  But discriminatory laws can be damaging in yet another way; the potential to hamper economic growth and job creation.  With the mandate of the 2010 election being job creation and getting the economy growing at a faster clip, a valid question, one actually posed by CEOs (ref), is why the NC legislature devoted so such time and effort to this amendment rather than focusing on initiatives that would help stimulate the economy.

This article will examine the broad language of NC marriage amendment and its legal ramifications (not all of which are yet understood) and how these could only have downside potential for the economy and job creation.  In order to understand why the legislature focused on this amendment rather than on matters of the economy, the article will additionally discuss recent research that uncovered the most common predictive characteristics of today’s Tea Party supporter; characteristics that make the NC amendment but a reflection of what is happening on a broader scale around the country.

Legal Issues

As reported in the media, UNC – Chapel Hill law professor, Dr. Maxine Eichner, and some of her colleagues, prepared a report on the amendment this past June (ref). Dr. Eichner additionally published an opinion piece concerning the amendment’s unusually broad language (ref).  Although NC law already prohibits marriage except that between a man and a woman, the amendment’s language goes further: “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in the State.”  The term ‘domestic legal union’ has never been used in any prior NC law, has not been before any NC court, nor has it been interpreted by courts in any other state.  This language, for example, would certainly ban civil unions should the state later decide to grant such (a point that even conservative US Representative Renee Ellmers disagrees with, ref).  But its reach also extends to both same-sex and opposite-sex unmarried couples.  For example, consider two individuals who meet late in life and decide for financial reasons that they will not marry but rather live in a committed relationship; such individuals could lose many of their rights.  The ban would also invalidate domestic partner benefits already offered by municipalities such as Chapel Hill, Durham and Greensboro, and counties such as Mecklenburg and Orange.

Dr. Eichner explains that the courts could interpret the language to ban many of the limited range of rights available to unmarried couples, but the difficulty is knowing just how many rights might be affected.  She provided four examples:

• The language could override existing domestic violence protections for unmarried couples.  Such happened in Ohio when a similar amendment was added to that state’s constitution.  Although the Ohio Supreme Court ultimately restored those protections, the language of that amendment was narrower than that in NC.
• The amendment could undercut existing child custody and visitation rights designed to protect the best interests of children.
• The amendment could prevent the state from giving any further rights to committed couples to order their relationships. As examples: 1) it could prevent the right to determine the disposition of a deceased partner’s remains; 2) it could prevent domestic partners from being added to the list of categories of people who have surrogate medical decision-making rights if their partner is incapacitated; and, 3) it could prevent the state from in the future allowing second-parent adoptions by domestic partners which ensure that both partners have a legal tie to, and legal responsibilities (including child support) for the children they are raising.
• Less likely, but still possible, the courts could interpret the amendment to invalidate trusts, wills and end-of-life directives by one partner in favor of the other.

Should the amendment become law following next May’s vote, Dr. Eichner concludes by stating that it will take years of expensive litigation to resolve the meaning of the amendment but that when the dust clears “unmarried couples will have fewer rights over their most important life decisions than they would have had otherwise.”

Economic Considerations

I write this section from the perspective of having been founder and CEO of a multi-million dollar ‘small business’ in NC.  The business received recognition from both our local chamber of commerce as well as our regional chamber, and it provided employment to hundreds of individuals during its existence.  At one point it achieved 8 consecutive years of new business growth.  So I have some experience competing in the business world.  Although one can not look into a crystal ball regarding outcomes of business decisions, such decisions are based on upside potential to grow the business.  And a business is driven by the talent of its people, talent that creates efficiencies, enhances profitability, improves existing products and creates new products or services.

What stands out about the amendment is that it provides absolutely no upside potential to NC’s economy or business climate.  However, there are downside risks and three such risks are presented below.

Attracting and Retaining Unmarried Couples (especially the retired)

There is little doubt that this amendment will affect the decision of unmarried couples to relocate to, or remain in, NC.  As noted in Dr. Eichner’s opinion piece, the 2010 Census reported 222,800 such couples (both same-sex and opposite-sex) already in NC, an increase of 55 percent over the past decade.  Let’s consider those in retirement.  Our retired population is pure gold economically.  This population does not burden the struggling employment market as they have already stopped working, they do not burden the school system as their children have already moved on yet their property taxes support public education, and their retirement income and savings are spent on goods and services that create real demand and thus contribute to job growth.  And considering the depressed housing market, relocating to NC would involve real estate purchases in many instances, and the decision to leave NC could involve yet another existing home being placed on the already glutted market.  It seems a bit odd for Conservative politicians to be pushing for tax cuts (actually a weak economic stimulus as the tax benefit doesn’t all go into the economy, e.g., savings and debt pay down) but are willing to place into law an amendment that would make the state unattractive to segments of our retired population.  Should NC become an unfriendly place for unmarried couples or existing same-sex unions to relocate to, or remain in, (especially the retired), it could only have downside potential for the economy and job growth by negatively impacting demand for goods and services.

Attracting and/or Retaining Talent

An important driver of business growth is talent.  Talent innovates, it creates.  Take people away from a business and all that is left is brick and mortar.  I used to say that my real assets got in a car at the end of the day and drove home.  And talent is blind to race, gender and sexual preference.

Chris Hughes, co-founder of Facebook, a native of Hickory, NC, is gay and ‘knows what its like to grow up different in a small Southern town’ (ref).  He has stated that the amendment “is bad for business, bad for the perception of my home state on the national stage, and a far cry from job-creating legislation that NC lawmakers should be focused on”.  Additionally the legislation “will only perpetuate this stigma for a new generation of creative, talented youth, uninterested in second-class citizenship in a state they call home…The next Facebook or Apple or Google could be created by another North Carolinian…Be mindful of how you treat them and their families.”  Besides the difficulties in attracting talented members of the LGBT community into NC, there is also the issue of talent leaving the state and its adverse consequences on businesses where they were employed.

Attracting and/or Retaining Businesses

The success of a business, its ability to remain competitive, is driven by the talent of its employees.  If state law discriminates against a population of individuals, the ability of businesses to attract the best talent will be hampered.  At least 76 NC CEO’s signed a letter opposing the legislation (ref) (ref).  One of those CEOs, Ken Eudy of Capstrat, published his thoughts on the matter (ref): “As with other CEO’s, I believe that amending the state constitution would hurt our business climate.  I believe that knowledge-economy companies and entrepreneurs who are dreaming up the next Google or Microsoft would look at NC through a different lens … I’m concerned that incredibly talented people – designers, copywriters, strategists, account executives, web developers – will decide they don’t want to move to a state that takes the drastic step of writing discrimination against same-sex couples into its constitution.  It will hurt our ability as an agency to recruit the most talented people.”

It is of interest that in defending their tax policy, Republican leadership maintains that it’s a bad idea to raise taxes on our job creators (i.e. the wealthy).  Yet dozens of our CEOs, our job creators, were ignored when they objected to a piece of legislation that could only have downside potential for their businesses.  Despite claiming to be the business-freindly party, not one Republican in the NC Senate voted against the amendment.

Motivators

With America looking to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and with so many CEOs objecting to the amendment, what was the driving force behind this legislation?  To understand actions, one must understand motivation.  Motivational factors create ‘vision’, an important part of establishing direction.  This is why businesses put forth corporate mission statements and even individuals create their own personal mission statement, something I taught in my graduate-level leadership development classes.  The actions of businesses and individuals are driven by the vision of who and what they are and what they want to become.

Recent research (ref) published by Dr. David Campbell (Associate Professor of Political Science, Notre Dame University) and Dr. Robert Putnam (Professor of Public Policy, Harvard University) sheds light on the characteristics of those who became Tea Party supporters, the conservative group that played a pivotal role in the outcome of the 2010 ‘wave’ election; and because of that outcome has garnered significant political influence.  As but one example, consider how this movement drove John McCain, a previously moderate Republican US Senator, to abandon his ‘maverick’ persona during his last election campaign (ref).  In 2006 Drs Campbell and Putnam conducted an interview of 3000 Americans as part of their research into national political attitudes, well before the Tea Party existed.  This past summer they went back and interviewed many of the same people again.  As a result they were able to look at what people had told them, well before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter.  This research goes beyond just predictors, it provides insight into motivational factors of this group.

What they found casts doubt on the Tea Party’s origin story of non-partisan neophytes that sprang up from a grass roots movement opposing big government.  The Tea Party supporters of today were highly partisan Republicans well before the Tea Party existed and were more likely to have contacted government officials.  Republican affiliation was the strongest predictor of today’s Tea Party supporter.  They are overwhelmingly white and even compared to other Republicans they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks well before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.  They were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 on issues such as abortion and they still are.

However, other than having been a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire to see religion play a prominent role in politics.  ”They seek ‘deeply religious’ elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates.  The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is smaller government, but not their rank and file who are more concerned about putting God in government.”

And therein lies the driving force that created the NC amendment.  The overtly religious language issued by public supporters of this legislation; the use of scripture, pictures of the bible, and invoking God’s opinion in signs at pro-amendment rallies; and the language of legislators such as James Forrester (the senate sponsor of the amendment) who called Asheville, NC a “cesspool of sin” (ref), have been previously described by this writer as an assault on our constitution’s First Amendment Establishment Clause (ref).

But the impact of these motivational factors has reach beyond the NC constitutional amendment.  It explains the paucity of jobs bills out of the US House of Representatives after the Tea Party takeover despite a struggling economy.  It explains the ‘War on Women’ where Republicans in the House of Representatives mounted an assault of women’s health and freedom that would deny millions of women access to affordable contraception and life-saving cancer screening and cut nutritional support for millions of newborn babies in struggling families as well as curtail funding for abortion and abortion care (ref).  And beyond religion, the low regard of Tea Party supporters for immigrants and blacks explains voter suppression legislation (ref), redistricting that decreases representation of African Americans (ref), as well as drifting back towards segregated public schools (ref).

Dr. Paul Krugman published a prophetic opinion piece in November, 2009, warning that the GOP had been taken over by the right wing it used to exploit and that it had became the party of Limbaugh, Beck and Palin.  And, just as what happened in California where the GOP became a rump party remaining large enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with that state’s fiscal problems, the same could occur on a national level.  ”The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter.  Something unprecedented is happening here – and it’s very bad for America” (ref).

Discussion

Is the above conjecture? Let’s consider where we were in the year 2000 (ref).

Between 1992 and 2000 our government had cut 20% of the federal civilian workforce making it the smallest such workforce in 40 years; federal spending had been reduced from 22% GDP to 18%, its lowest level since 1966; our country was on track for the largest 4 year pay down of debt in our history with the potential to pay off all public debt within a decade and the national debt clock was turned off; surpluses were achieved in 2000 without borrowing from the entitlement programs; federal income tax for the middle class, as a percent of income, was at its lowest level in 30 years; our unemployment rate was reduced from 7.5% in 1992 to 4.2% in 1999, the lowest level since 1969; and over 20 million new jobs had been created.  This would seem to be a Tea Party dream list: surpluses, debt pay down, smaller government, and strong job creation.  Yet, if Tea Party supporters were previously highly partisan Republicans, it would have been these same individuals who voted away in 2000 what they now say they want in exchange for the same tax policies that increased our national debt from less than $1 trillion in 1980 to almost $4 trillion in 1992.  When a group votes away what they say they now want, in exchange for policy that had already been shown to produce the deficits they decry, something else is at play.  Thus the value of Drs Putnam’s and Campbell’s research.  Today’s Tea Party rank and file are not grassroots converts to ‘small government’ and their agenda is not about debt, deficits, healthcare, etc; those are but handy excuses to unleash the rage of conservative America against a changing America.

There are a couple of take away points from this article.

First, if the primary concern of the American public is getting the economy back on track and stimulating job growth, it will not occur with this Tea Party movement and its elected representatives – it just is not their focus as determined by its characteristics, motivational factors, legislative actions and voting record.

Second, discrimination and job creation just don’t mix.

Due to my recent  activity in opposing a NC constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex unions (marriage or any other form), I have been asked on more than one occasion if I am gay.  I am actually in my second heterosexual marriage having raised four children between us.  So what’s my beef with the NC constitutional amendment?  Quite simply, two things: 1) it restricts a civil right of a minority group; and 2) it represents an assault on one of our most cherished founding liberties, religious freedom as expressed in our constitution’s First Amendment Establishment Clause, that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion’ (ref).

Regarding civil rights,  NC lawmakers would be writing discrimination into the state constitution.  The US Supreme Court has already declared marriage to be a civil right in unanimously striking down miscegenation law (Loving vs Virginia).  The court declared: “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’, fundamental to our very existence and survival…To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statues, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the 14th Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law” (ref).  As has been the case with objections to same-sex unions (discussed below), religious opinion (invoking God’s view) was central to prohibiting interracial marriage.  In the criminal trial of the Lovings,  Judge Leon Bazile suspended the felony conviction against them upon the condition they leave the state. He stated “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.  And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages.  The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix”.

Judge Vaughn Walker, who presided over the Proposition 8 trial in California (Perry vs Schwarzenegger), ruled after considering testimony from multiple expert witnesses that prohibiting same-sex unions also violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment (ref).  The reasons for denying such a union on a civil level were shown to be every bit as discriminatory and ill-founded as those that attempted to restrict marriage based on racial classification.  In both cases, Loving vs Virginia and California’s Proposition 8, the prohibitions amounted to nothing more than discrimination directed at a segment of our citizenry.

Regarding the First Amendment concerns, make no mistake about it, what drove this constitutional amendment was fundamentalist Christian objections to homosexuality.  There is Ron Baity of Return America (ref), the group behind the campaign to pass the amendment, agreeing with conservative radio talk show host Janet Parshall that Satan’s attack on marriage must be stopped (ref).  Bill Brooks, president of the NC Family Policy Council to a group of around 3500 Christians at a rally that “…anything other than marriage shared between a man and a woman goes against God’s design for creation (ref).”  Patrick Wooden, pastor of the Upper Room Church of God in Christ in Raleigh stated “This state has to protect God’s holy institution…We want to put one more lock on the door (ref).”  And NC Senator James Forrester (R), the Senate sponsor of the Amendment, referring to Asheville, NC (that has a LGBT community) as a “cesspool of sin”, a remark that led to the issuance of an apology by the mayor of Gastonia to Asheville (ref).  All too reminiscent of the type of language issued by Judge Bazile in the Lovings’ criminal trial.

And the fundamentalist religious theme behind the NC constitutional amendment was on display in the signs held by supporters of the amendment, examples of which follow and some being incredibly mean-spirited. (Note: it is unclear as to whether the third picture came out of NC, but was felt to be useful regarding the nature of religious-based public displays on the matter).

Anti-Gay Marriage Sign

Persecution is inherent to an intermingling of church and state, something that the framers of our constitution understood well in crafting the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.  As Thomas Jefferson penned to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof’, thus building a wall of separation between church and State” (ref).

I will further explore in this article the false claim that America was founded as a ‘Christian Nation’ by today’s Religious Right.  And, considering the amount of Christian scripture cited by proponents of the Amendment, I will also consider whether the Bible should be considered an authoritative source upon which to base law.

Christian Right: Know Thy History

I have written about the claim America was founded as a ‘Christian nation’ in two prior articles.  The first was an examination of the consistent language issued by Thomas Jefferson over many decades (ref).  In the other I discussed the origins of the Religious Right through the Evangelical movement and how that movement was but in its infancy during the period of time that our Constitution was written and ratified (ref).  David Holmes work, ‘The Faiths of the Founding Fathers’, (ref) will be a primary source for this section.  I will also draw from the previously mentioned Jefferson article.

The Religious Right of today are  a ‘Johnny Come Lately’ to the Constitution party.  Holmes points out that “none of the founding fathers knew anything of the churches that became so large in the United States in the 20th century – the Pentecostals (or charismatics) and the nondenominational evangelicals”.  The evangelical movement was in its infancy in the post-Revolutionary War years, having started in Georgia through the work of the Wesley’s, credited with founding the Methodist movement (highly disciplined and conversion oriented) and the charismatic evangelical preachings of George Whitefield.  Their work left the legacy of evangelical “born again” Christianity, and the Methodists and Baptists were its greatest heirs.  ”None of the founding fathers was an evangelical, although Madison did attend a moderately evangelical Episcopal church in the last years of his life.  In fact, James Monroe was offended by an evangelical sermon he attended during his presidential tour of 1817, and John Adams belonged to the anti-Great Awakening wing of Congregationalism..”.

The Southern Baptists, who separated from their Northern brethren in 1845 (ref), had their roots in the Puritan movement.  Puritans believed in a union of church and state for it was only through such a union that humans could produce a Christian society conformed to scriptural teachings. As Holmes notes, “Their goal was to produce a sober, righteous, and godly Christian society”.  And it is the tug of war between that perceived role of religion, and vision of the founding fathers who provided for a separation of church from state, that has been ongoing almost since the inception of this country.  And that Puritanical influence is apparent in the language and signs displayed by the pro-Amendment Christian crowd in NC.

Regarding the first five presidents, with the exception of George Washington (who later however became Chancellor at the College of William Mary) Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were all educated at institutions of higher education during the Age of Enlightenment, a period that placed a high value on reason.  As such, it is not surprising that all were influenced by a religious outlook called Deism, an outlook that, as described by an American cleric “..is what is left of Christianity after casting off everything that is peculiar to it.  The Diest is one who denies the Divinity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement of Christ, and the work of the holy Ghost; who denies the God of Israel, and believes in the God of nature.”  In the decades preceding the Revolutionary War, Enlightenment rationalism unseated Christian orthodoxy at Yale, Harvard and other denominational colleges.  They took exception to what they considered ‘artificial scaffolding’ that was built around Christ for the purpose of what Jefferson described as ‘pence and power’.  As Jefferson penned to John Adams in 1823: “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.  But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors”.  (As a note, the correspondence between Jefferson and John Adams on religion, morals, and values has been compiled in Bruce Braden’s work ‘Ye will say I am no Christian’, [ref], another recommended read).

Regarding Christianity during colonial times, there was a tremendous diversity of Christian sects along with mainstream churches; and individual colonies treated this diversity in different ways.  For example, Rhode Island for decades excluded Roman Catholics.  Maryland had a law on the books for a while, the ‘Maryland Toleration Act’, that pertained to Trinitarians, and those who blasphemed that Christian dogma could face execution or forfeiture of all lands. James Madison, a Virginian and the primary author of our Constitution, learned of the persecution and jailing of dissenters to the Church of Virginia (Anglican).  There were clear examples of Christians persecuting Christians in Colonial America, an aspect of Christian history that did not go unnoticed by Jefferson who penned in 1782: “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.”

Jefferson considered The Virginia Act of Religious Freedom to be one of his greatest accomplishments.  As written in his autobiography about the crafting of that document, “Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting ‘Jesus Christ’, so that it would read ‘A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion’: the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination”.

So when one makes a claim that America was founded as a Christian nation, what sects or mainstream churches are they referring to?  Religious Freedom (“citizens are free to worship in any way or not at all – and that the state protects that freedom”) did not occur until the late 1780′s when our constitution provided for the separation of church from state with its First Amendment Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause.  Religious freedom in our country was born during a window of opportunity when Enlightenment rationality and Deist influences were at play.  And the assault on that freedom through the puritanical view of the Religious Right, whose influence came to bear largely after the ratification of the Constitution, jeopardizes one of our most precious founding liberties.

The Bible

As proponents of the Amendment have been citing much scripture as well as displaying pictures of the Bible, I want to consider whether that book should be viewed as an infallible source upon which to base common law.

“Priests…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live”; words penned by Jefferson to Correa de Serra in 1820.  With the Bible being held by fundamentalist Christians as the inerrant (incapable of being wrong) word of God, there is much we now know to be factually incorrect within the text.  We also know that prior to the printing press (which has accurately reproduced what is held by some scholars to be an inferior version of the text, the King James Bible), Biblical scripture underwent numerous changes over a period of many centuries at the hands of scribes.

Regarding Biblical views on creation, for example, we know that Earth was not the beginning of creation, that the earth did not precede the sun, that there was not a spontaneous creation of complex life along with one man who named all the animals (a monumental task), and that modern humans never bottle-necked down to a single couple.  Regarding the latter, DNA studies that allow us to trace both maternal (mitochondrial DNA) and paternal (Y chromosome) lineages, do identify a single male and female common to all of modern man (ref). However, they lived at different times, the female dating back about 200,000 years ago in East Africa and preceded the male (who was also probably in Africa) by perhaps 50,000 to 80,000 years.  And ‘mitochondrial Eve’ was not the only woman alive at the time; nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands.  ”In principle, earlier Eves can also be defined going beyond the species, for example one who is ancestral to both modern humanity and Neanderthals, or, further back, an ‘Eve’ ancestral to all members of genus Homo and chimpanzees in genus Pan.”  This draws into question as to how the Downfall of Man in the Garden of Eden could have ever occurred.  Man’s downfall at the hands of Satan posing as a serpent is a central tenet held by the Christian Right in that we are born into this world as sinners from the act of the first human couple and require salvation.

On a related issue, there is also the belief that a human being forms at the time of conception and inherits a soul carrying the sin of our original parents; no small matter as it is central to some religious opinion on the abortion debate.   Yet we know from studies of reproductive biology that 60 to 80 percent of all conceptions, an estimated half of them believed to be normal, are lost in menstrual flows each month (ref).  Would a compassionate Creator have designed a reproductive system that would deny so many innocents the opportunity for salvation?  And there is the issue of Chimera (ref), individuals who form early on from the fusion of two separate conceptions thus creating a singular human with a mix of tissues.  If a soul is incorporated at the time of conception, would these individuals have two souls, and if not on what basis?  It indeed is difficult to align elements of biblical text and other religious dogma with what we have learned.

“The whole of these books (the Gospels) is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it; and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine.  In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds.  It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills”.  Words Jefferson penned to John Adams in 1814.  And quite insightful as has been shown by studies of the text.

Textual criticism (the science of restoring the ‘original’ words of a text from manuscripts that altered them) has shown that there are more documented changes to scripture than there are words in the New Testament (Bart Ehram’s work “Misquoting Jesus” (ref), a recommended read on the topic).  Ehram, who was raised as an Evangelical Christian, chairs the department of religious studies at UNC Chapel Hill.  The alterations noted in scripture are the result of many centuries of manual copying by scribes who either made mistakes or intentionally changed or added passages to address contradictions or suit individual beliefs.  Many changes are minor, some are not.  A couple of examples.  The story of the woman taken in adultry (let ye who are without sin cast the first stone) is not found in earlier versions of the text.  Neither are the last 12 verses of Mark that are used by Pentacostal Christians to show that Jesus’s followers will be able to speak in unknown “Tongues”.  Both were incorporated by scribes many centuries later.  Were these scribes all subject to Devine Guidance with these additions to scripture?  There are many other examples as well such as the concept of the Trinity (an alteration of the word ‘who’ to ‘God’ in the Greek language?) and Joseph as the father of Christ.

If this text is held to be the inerrant word of God, let that remain a matter of faith, rather than viewing it as a factual source upon which common law can be based.  There are many fine teachings in the Bible, most notably Matthew’s account of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount where Christ bestowed his blessings on the merciful, the poor, the peacemakers, and others.  However, as was pointed out by law professor Gene Nichol in his article ‘Nailing Religious Tenets to the Classroom Wall’ (ref): “Is it possible that this central, unyielding, perfect statement of Christian philosophy [the Sermon on the Mount] is tougher to square with the actual agenda of the American political Right?”

Discussion

There is no doubt the NC Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex unions is a civil rights matter, for discrimination against a minority group would be written into the state constitution.  However, the driving force behind this amendment, religious opinion about homosexuality being a sin and a perversion of God’s creation, represents nothing short of a frontal assault on one of our most cherished founding liberties, religious freedom through a separation of church and state as expressed in our First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.  Considering the history of American Christianity in the immediate post-Revolutionary War period, unless today’s Religious Right wishes to change our constitution, religious belief belongs in the church and not as part of legislation. “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law” as Jefferson penned to Dr. Thomas Cooper in 1814.  And frankly, the use of scripture to demonize a segment of our population because of who and what they are is offensive and could hardly be considered Christian.

So, during this period of ultra-conservative politics that mingles church and state, this is a matter that has reach beyond NC.  It is a matter that can affect the freedom and liberty of all citizens to worship and believe as they see fit (or not at all if that is their preference) and not be burdened in civil society by religious discrimination.

In leaving the Legislative Building in Raleigh prior to the Senate vote, I couldn’t help but think of the words issued by our first president, George Washington (ref): “…the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance…”.  Indeed appropriate words for legislators in NC as well as other states to remember.

Should anyone wish to send their opinion of this Amendment to legislators, I provide the following e-mail addresses: Senator Forrester  James.Forrester@ncleg.net, Senate President Pro Tempore Phil.Berger@ncleg.net, House Speaker Thom.Tillis@ncleg.net, Speaker Pro Tempore  Dale.Folwell@ncleg.net, House Majority Leader Paul.Stam@ncleg.net

_________________

Senator Forrester:

I note that you are a physician.  I obtained my research degree at the Medical College University of Arizona and spent my career largely involved with clinical research studies of therapeutic agents, progressing to executive ranks in the pharmaceutical industry.

I came across a piece in the Gaston Gazette that reported on a meeting you attended and spoke at regarding the proposed NC constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage http://www.gastongazette.com/news/marriage-60684-state-one.html.  In that article the following statement is attributed to you:

“We need to reach out to them [homosexuals] and get them to change their lifestyle back to the one we accept”.

My belief is that you must have forgotten the medical dictum ‘First do no harm’, for the statement you made in public is reckless and may actually cause harm.

Both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association have taken positions that efforts to change sexual orientation have no scientific credibility and may cause psychological damage to patients.

The following is excerpted from the American Psychological Association’s Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

From their Research Summary:

Although sound data on the safety of SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts) are extremely limited, some individuals reported being harmed by SOCE. Distress and depression were exacerbated. Belief in the hope of sexual orientation change followed by the failure of the treatment was identified as a significant cause of distress and negative self-image (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002).

From their Resolution

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association affirms that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association reaffirms its position that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder and opposes portrayals of sexual minority youths and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation;

Additionally the following is excerpted from the American Psychiatric Association’s position statement regarding Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001a.aspx

1.     APA affirms its 1973 position that homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder.  Recent publicized efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians.  APA recommends that the APA respond quickly and appropriately as a scientific organization when claims that homosexuality is a curable illness are made by political or religious groups.

2.     As a general principle, a therapist should not determine the goal of treatment either coercively or through subtle influence.  Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or “repair” homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable.  Furthermore, anecdotal reports of “cures” are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm.  In the last four decades, “reparative” therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure.  Until there is such research available, APA recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals’ sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to First, do no harm.

Sometimes it helps to put a face on the matter.  Robbie Kirkland was a 15 year old who was continually subjected to negative ‘homophobic’ social pressures regarding his sexual orientation.  He took a key from his father’s key chain, unlocked his father’s gun and put the keys back.  He climbed up to the attic where he lay down on a mattress.  Then he shot himself in the head.  The suicide note was found in a notebook at his mother’s.  “I am sorry for the pain I have put everyone through…I hope I can find the peace I couldn’t find in my life”.

Robbie Kirkland Picture

It is time that we stop discriminating against our diversity, for real lives are at play.  I ask that this legislature vote down the constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.

One would have thought that this issue would have been laid to rest following California’s Prop 8 trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, as recounted by Margaret Hoover, a conservative Fox News contributor, in her article, “My Fellow Conservatives, Think Carefully About Your Opposition to Gay Marriage” (ref).  One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, Ted Olson, was a constitutional conservative who helped found the Federalist Society, was G.W. Bush’s Solicitor General, and successfully argued Bush v. Gore before the Supreme Court.  The judge, Vaughn Walker, was a Reagan/Bush nominee whose first nomination stalled in the Senate due to perceived insensitivity to gays (ref).  So the trial was not stacked in ‘liberal’ California.  The plaintiffs brought seventeen expert witnesses to the stand in the fields of psychology, political science, economics, socio medical sciences and history.  Oddly, the lone two witnesses for the defense actually wound up providing evidence supporting the plaintiff’s case.  Olson and his Democratic legal partner, David Boies, successfully argued that Prop 8 violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, and is unconstitutional.  The judge ruled: “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Yet, despite the overwhelming scientific/medical/social/legal information debunking the fears about, and objections to, same sex marriage (and how such a ban is actually harmful), Prop 8 is once again returning to court (ref).  And the NC legislature is attempting to place such a restriction into the state’s constitution.  The usual suspects are at work again in NC: the damaging falsehoods about the LGBT community disseminated by hate groups; the actions of the Religious Right; and the manipulation of ignorance and hatred by politicians for political gain.

Hate Groups

NC House Majority Leader, Paul Stam (R), appeared this past week on American Family Association (AFA) radio with AFA’s president Tim Wildmon and the Family Research Council’s (FRC) president Tony Perkins.  The broadcast exchange is provided at this link (ref).  Both AFA and FRC have been categorized as ‘hate groups’ by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) (ref).  To be clear, this categorization is based on “propagation of known falsehoods – claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities – and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups”.

A sampling of some claims issued by these organizations follow.

Perkins, on TV, defended FRC’s false accusation associating gay men with pedophilia (ref), i.e. that gays are sexually predatory with children.  The American Psychological Association, amongst others has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are” (ref).  Additionally, in response to the “It Gets Better” anti-bullying campaign, Perkins has asserted that children are being recruited into that ‘lifestyle’, additionally referring to LGBT identities as “perversion”, “immoral”, and “disgusting”.  His claim that children can be “recruited” into homosexuality is disturbing because it is the same rhetoric that was used to support the Briggs initiative in 1978 to suggest that gays are predatory (ref) (ref).

AFA’s Bryan Fischer claimed that “homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and 6 million dead Jews”. Further, he described Hitler as “an active homosexual” who sought out gays “because he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough” (ref) (ref).  (So, the raping of women by Nazis in ghettos and concentration camps as documented by the US Holocaust  Memorial Museum (ref) was carried out by those ‘vicious and brutal and savage’ gays)?

The dangerous aspect of such language is that homosexuals are far more likely than any other minority group in the United States to be victimized by violent hate crime (ref).  Analysis of FBI data showed that homosexuals are 2.4, 2.6, 4.4, 13.8 and 41.5 times as likely as Jews, blacks, Muslims, Latinos and whites, respectively, to be the target of hate crimes.  Hate language, the dehumanization of individuals by the type of language issued by these organizations, is the ‘permission factor’ that reinforces bigotry and contributes to hate crimes.

It is this writer’s opinion that the House Majority Leader, by agreeing to appear with the leaders of these organizations as advocates for a ban on same sex marriage, has lent credence to these organizations and their poisonous language simply through the stature of his position.  I issued a communication of complaint to multiple members of the NC General Assembly on this matter.

The Religious Right

Right wing radio host Janet Parshall interviewed Ron Baity of Return America, the group behind the amendment campaign, on her show ‘In the Market’ (ref).  Regarding same sex marriage, Parshall stated that Satan had marriage in his ‘crosshairs’, and Baity agreed.

The perception of the Religious Right that America was founded as a Christian nation and is thus subject to law based on Christian scripture and beliefs, shows a poor understanding of the history of Christianity in this country.  A wonderful read on this topic is David Holmes’ (Walter G. Mason Professor of Religious Studies, College of William and Mary) ‘The Faiths of the Founding Fathers” (ref), the source that is primary to this section.  I believe a brief recounting of that history is important to the matter at hand.

The Evangelical movement, that eventually produced today’s Religious Right, had its beginnings in Georgia in the late 1730′s through two Anglican dons who were brothers, John and Charles Wesley.  The two formed the Methodist movement after a conversion experience.  A protege of theirs, George Whitefield, became one of the most dramatic and effective evangelists in the history of Christianity.  His audiences had to confront the terrorizing realization that they deserve damnation and could be saved from Hell only through the grace and forgiveness of God.  Until Methodism separated from Anglicanism in 1784, it remained in America as a small ultra-evangelical wing of the Church of England.  However, along with the Baptists, it represented the future of American Protestantism.

Religious influences on our first five presidents, and several of the founding fathers, were quite different from the developing evangelical movement.  Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were Virginians, born and baptized in the Anglican Church known as the Church of England or the Church of Virginia.  After the Revolution, the word England was removed and in its place the term Episcopal (we have bishops) was used.  John Adams came from New England.  Although respectful of Christianity, they all developed Diest beliefs; they tended to deny the divinity of Jesus and a few even seemed to to have been agnostic about the very existence of God.  I provided a brief overview of Diesm and our founding fathers in a prior article (ref).

Christianity was hardly cohesive in colonial times.  Nine of the thirteen colonies adopted their own church, and Christians on occasion would persecute, jail, and seize the property of other Christians.  Madison, the primary author of the US Constitution, witnessed dissenters to the Church of Virginia being persecuted and jailed in his neighboring Culpepper County.  It was the mix of Diest beliefs and the persecution inherent with an intermingling of church and state that formed the basis for our constitutional separation of church and state and religious freedom in America.

The language on this matter is quite clear.  The establishment clause, the very first sentence in the First Amendment states that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion’ (ref).  There is the ‘no religious test’ clause of Article 6 that states ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States’ (ref).  The words “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” were part of a treaty written during the presidency of Washington, signed during the administration of John Adams, read aloud in Congress without a single dissenting vote, and published in the lay press without evidence of public dissent (ref). “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law”, penned by Jefferson in a letter Dr. Thomas Cooper in 1814 (ref).  ”History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free and civil government.  This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes”, also penned by Jefferson in 1813 (ref).

The proposed amendment banning same sex marriage is a civil matter, not a church matter.  Members of the Religious Right are free to marry and restrict marriage as they please within their own church.  But in a civil setting any biblical interpretations regarding same-sex relationships, of which there are very few, statements like ‘Satan has marriage in his crosshairs’, that gays are sinners, etc., are required to be sidelined during discussion of civil law.  That is, of course, unless those individuals wish to change the constitution upon which our country was founded.

Manipulation by Politicians

Politicians as well have manipulated ignorance and hatred for political gain.  House Majority Leader Stam has likened gay marriage to incest and polygamy (ref).  His words: “you cannot construct an argument for same sex marriage that would not also justify philosophically the legalization of polygamy and adult incest”.  The analogy is ill-founded.  Same sex marriage involves the decision of two consenting adults to enter into a formal and recognized union.  Polygamy involves the marriage of one individual to multiple individuals, and incest is sexual intercourse between close relatives.  All are quite separate concerns; the claim is one of mixing apples and oranges.

In the same interview, when asked how the ban would differ from miscegenation laws, Representative Stam responded that “People can’t change their race. People can’t choose their race”, implying that sexual preference is a choice. This false belief has led to attempts to ‘cure’ homosexuals and opens some very dark pages in history.  As documented in an exhibit by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum (ref), the Nazi state, through active persecution, attempted to terrorize German homosexuals into sexual and social conformity with the ‘disciplined masculinity’ of Germany.  The atrocities committed against this population were horrific.  Is this pertinent today?  Consider Marcus Bachmann describing homosexuals as ‘barbarians’ that ‘need to be educated’ (ref) with his ‘pray away the gay’ counseling.  Both the American Psychological Association (ref) and American Psychiatric Association (ref) – amongst others – have ruled that efforts to change sexual orientation have no scientific credibility and can cause psychological harm to patients.

Discussion

Mankind has shown a remarkable propensity throughout history to attack its diversity.  Yet, where science is leading us is that we are a diverse human race and our diversity expresses itself in many ways. The Human Genome Project trumped 18th century race biology by demonstrating that there are no definable human sub-species; we are not different races of human beings, we are simply one diverse human race (ref).   Although we are a singular human race, mankind exhibits a diversity of religious belief.  Yet, regarding both race and religion mankind attacks these elements of diversity through hate crimes, extremism, discriminatory social policy, and uncountable lost lives in military conflicts.

There is little doubt that sexual preference is also a part of human diversity.  One doesn’t make a choice, a conscious decision, as to whom they are attracted.  Experts in the areas of psychology, political science, economics, socio medical sciences and history during the prop 8 trial in California exposed the objections and fears about same sex marriage as being unfounded; in fact showing that banning same sex marriage is not only discriminatory to a minority group, but damaging to that group and its children as well. Yet mankind is once again attacking an element of its diversity by issuing falsehoods, restricting rights, and fostering an environment that contributes to hate crimes and, yes, loss of life.

When the religious objections are removed, as is required in civil matters, what is left regarding the objections to same sex marriage is simply hatred born of ignorance and political manipulation.

This past week I issued correspondence to her office raising a significant moral issue facing our country; that by making cuts to safety net programs for the needy, the victims of the Great Recession, without shared or proportional sacrifice at the top, the GOP is placing a higher value on tax benefits to the wealthiest than human life itself.  One of the consequences of poverty is that it claims lives, and there is little doubt that the increased poverty we have experienced during this economic downturn is resulting in a greater number of lost American lives.

Just four hours after I issued that correspondence to her office I received an electronic response that could only have been a ‘form letter’ regarding funding for the WIC and SNAP (formerly Food Stamp) programs.  As that did not address the moral issue I had raised, I sent a follow-up communication.  I asked that she bring the matter before her colleagues in the Senate and have those who support such policy defend it before the US public.

I encourage all to write their elected representatives and demand a balanced approach during this economic recovery.  To request that they fight for programs, tax policies, and the right to negotiate fair salaries that will rebuild the purchasing power of our broad middle class, thus creating demand and stimulating job creation (ref).  And to invest in America, especially while we can borrow money at such low rates; to take on some ‘good debt’ by rebuilding and modernizing our infrastructure and educational institutions – growth-oriented projects that will increase our competitivenesss, grow our future economy, put our nation back to work (ref) and reduce poverty.  And the wealthiest should participate, just as they did during the more than 3 decades following our record Post WWII debt.

Can a motivated public make a difference in spite of the unlimited sums of special interest money that can now be spent on political campaigns?  All one has to do is to look at the example set in Wisconsin where a committed and incensed public stood up and demanded accountability, in the form of recall elections, regarding policies that damaged the middle class.

We, as individuals and as a country, are defined by our actions, our moral character.  We must not accept cutting safety net programs (food stamps, unemployment benefits) to the victims of the Great Recession, without first requiring shared, and even proportional, sacrifice at the top.  For not doing so places a higher value on tax benefits to the wealthiest than the lives of the less fortunate in our country during economically difficult times, and reflects a set of values that none of us as Americans should tolerate.

Dear Senator Hagan -

I voted for you in the last election.  Senator Dole’s ‘Godless’ claims against you were not only incorrect, but violated the ‘no religious test’ provision of Article 6.  I, as you, have done well in my career; my perspectives have been shaped in having lived my life at income levels that define poverty, the middle class and the wealthy. I left my corporate pursuits several years ago to care for, and support, my wife who was stricken with serious illness.

I am both upset and disturbed regarding the response I received from your office this past week.  I received a ‘form letter’ regarding the Food Stamp program that was issued on the same day as my correspondence.  There was obviously no thought put to it, nor do I believe that anyone could have taken the time understand what I had communicated.  The matter I raise involves a significant moral issue for our country.  The GOP, in proposing cuts to safety net programs during a period of increased poverty and poverty-related deaths (the victims of The Great Recession), without requiring shared or proportional sacrifice at the top, has placed a higher value on tax benefits to the wealthiest in our country over human life itself.  One of the consequences of poverty is that it claims lives, and with increased poverty associated with the Great Recession there is little doubt that this economic downturn is taking the lives of more of our citizens, perhaps as many as 1.2 million/year in total.  This significant moral issue should go to the floor of the Senate and before the country itself.  Those supporting such a position should be made to defend it before the public.  It is a statement of values that none of us as Americans should tolerate.  My belief further is that this is evidence that our Congress is now beholden to a different ‘person’ in retaining their job; a ‘person’ in the form of corporations and special interests that can donate unlimited sums of money to political campaigns.

I look to you to bring this very serious moral issue before your colleagues in the Senate.  Should you wish, and I am no stranger to public speaking, I would be glad to address the Congress myself on this matter should the opportunity present itself.

The points I make above are documented in this article that was contained in my prior correspondence: http://www.artonissues.com/2011/08/income-and-wealth-inequality-americas-moral-crisis/
–
Dr. Art Kamm