Substitute word ‘gender’ for ‘sex’
Let’s take “sex” out of the conversation about gender equality. We are fully aware of how this three-letter word has been distorted in our culture, most often referred to as an act of physical intimacy and too often used pejoratively within the context of the argument about “appropriate” relationships.
The view of a relationship between gay or lesbian partners is far too frequently reduced to “sex,” hence failing to acknowledge the greater nature of these friendships, much as will be the case when considering a heterosexual relationship as only “sexual” in kind. Just how much of a typical couple’s total relationship during any given week is defined by “sexual” satisfaction when compared with all of the other avenues available for expressing a loving friendship?
How about substituting “gender” for the more loaded term “sex,” and thinking about the gay and lesbian relationship as gender-alike, as opposed to homosexual or lesbian, which for too many suggests some sort of lewd association? The point here is that when we discuss the merits of individuals electing how they want to spend their lives together in matrimony, we misrepresent certain choices as we focus on “sex” instead of the greater lifestyle produced by the joining together of two persons.
This prompts a question: Why shouldn’t any gender-alike married couple expect to be accorded the very same benefits as a gender-different couple?
JOHN H. WILSON
The Second Amendment says: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Since a militia is made up of civilians, one can understand why it must be well regulated, why civilians must maintain weapons, and why it is read as one sentence.
The body of the Constitution tells how to regulate the militia. Article 1, Section 8, explains that the right to maintain and bear arms includes regulation by Congress, including organizing, arming and disciplining.
The same section reads: “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” It also says: “To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.”
Herein lies the reason for the Second Amendment. The “well regulated militia” was to avoid establishing a peacetime standing army. It is why George Mason’s original master draft of the Constitution says: “Standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit.” Our Founding Fathers did not want a perpetual free standing army.
A true conservative preserves the entire Constitution the way it was intended, rather than only the half that feels good. Now that we have so many concealed-carry militiamen, let’s apply the Second Amendment and retire the army.
Despite Cargill’s move away from gestation stalls, or individual maternity pens, most pork producers continue to use them because they are a humane way to house pregnant pigs (“Cargill changing housing for its sow operations,” June 10 Business Today).
The American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Swine Veterinarians both agree that maternity pens provide for animal welfare. Individual pens allow for individual feeding and care and prevent sows from fighting and injuring other animals.
The noise on this issue is coming solely from loudmouthed animal rights radicals at the Humane Society of the United States. This group is so extreme that its food policy director has compared farms to Nazi concentration camps.
According to polling, consumers widely side with farmers and veterinarians over animal rights activists when it comes to animal welfare issues. That’s something any food retailer should keep in mind.
Senior research analyst
Center for Consumer Freedom