President – Obama 53% – McCain 44%

Proposal 1 – 60% Yes, 40% No

Proposal 2 – 52% No – 48% Yes

We didn’t write an article on Proposal 2 because it just seems pointless. Moral arguments aside, why amend the state constitution to allow one specific form of scientific research? Several other states have already done so and there’s got to be only so much embryonic stem cell research to go around. It seems extremely doubtful that any significant new “business” would choose to reside in Michigan if this passes. Prop 2 seems like a poor reason to amend the constitution. Many other forms of stem cell research continue to show promise. Why single out only embryonic research?

Sec. 2. The people of the State of Michigan find and declare that:

(a) Modern medical research, including as found by the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine in a March 1999 report, has discovered beneficial uses for marihuana in treating or alleviating the pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with a variety of debilitating medical conditions.

(b) Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports and the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics show that approximately 99 out of every 100 marihuana arrests in the United States are made under state law, rather than under federal law. Consequently, changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill people who have a medical need to use marihuana.

(c) Although federal law currently prohibits any use of marihuana except under very limited circumstances, states are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law. The laws of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Washington do not penalize the medical use and cultivation of marihuana. Michigan joins in this effort for the health and welfare of its citizens.

You can read the entire text of the proposal here.

Of course, the people opposing this law are invoking families and public safety, with names such as Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Kids and No Pot Shops. This is the same sort of jibberish that the anti-gun people pulled back in 2001 when they tried to repeal Michigan’s concealed carry laws.

Does anyone remember the group called People Who Care About Kids? This was the group that opposed the CCW laws. Thanks to the Internet Archive, you can take a look at their web site by clicking here. It’s humorous to read their dire predictions:

We need 151,356 signatures by March 27, otherwise the lead will start flying on July 1 [2001].

…

One of out 50 residents carry a gun on them at all times. In the shopping malls, movie theaters, parks or even in courtrooms. You’re at your kid’s soccer game, and a bunch of people around could be packing heat.

…

Violent crimes like murder, rape and robbery will skyrocket.

Well, of course, none of these dire predictions came to fruition. In fact, as the state police are required to report each year, concealed carry licensees are in fact much less likely to commit a crime than a non-licensee.

The same sort of, well, just plain stupid arguments are used against medical marijuana in Michigan. The opponents fret about “pot shops” and the harm to children. I suppose the opponents prefer drug houses and dealers. But that is beside the point, because this law requires state approval to get the marijuana.

This is a simple matter of freedom and common sense. Marijuana is harmless. No one has ever overdosed on marijuana. If someone is ill and can’t keep food down because of chemo, cancer, or AIDS, then why not let them help themselves in this way? The process would be regulated by the state and drug dealers would not be involved.

It’s time to continue expanding personal freedom in Michigan by approving 2008′s Proposal 1!

This is why, in our opinion, the Republican Party is on the wane. They thrive on anti-gay bigotry. This site has been accused of having a conservative bias, but that couldn’t be farther from the truth. We are solidly libertarian. We believe that government should stay out of the marriage issue in general. However, since government does recognize marriages and confers special rights on those who are married, we believe that marriage should be inclusive. Gay people shouldn’t have any different right to get married to the person they love than a non-gay person. Unless and until the Republican Party gets on board with equal rights for gays, they will have a hard time gaining majorities again in the United States. It’s just a simple case of freedom and civil rights.

The point of this article is not the Republican Party, however. We wanted to point out how many people (including the donors mentioned above) use the Bible to support their bigotry. We believe that the DeVoses of the world will fade into history and be remembered as those people who opposed equal rights. The Bible has been used many times in the past to justify bigotry and hatred.

Thanks to the fantastic Google Books service, we can search old books for the people who debated in favor of slavery and against women’s suffrage. We look at these arguments today as curiosities, but at the time, they were extremely influential.

For instance, one book from 1852, called Bible Defense of Slavery lays out a biblical justification of slavery. This book purportedly traces the origin of the “negro race” to Ham, Noah’s son, who Noah cursed for looking at him naked while he was sleeping in a drunken stupor (See pages 90-91).

Another, from 1861, called Slavery Sanctioned by the Bible, examines both Old Testament and New Testament arguments in favor of slavery. For instance:

As a starting point I cite the Apostle’s code of reciprocal duties for masters and slaves as we may fairly call it which is found in chapter sixth of Ephesians:

5 Servants be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh with fear and trembling in singleness of your heart as unto Christ

6 No with eye service as men pleasers but as servants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart

7 With good will doing service as to the Lord and not to men

8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth the same shall he receive of the Lord whether he be bond or free

9 And ye masters do the same things unto them forbearing threatening knowing that your master also is in heaven neither is there any respect of person with him.

An 1869 book, called Women’s Suffrage – a Reform Against Nature, makes the argument that women should not be able to vote because, basically, it’s against nature (sound familiar?):

As “the head of every man is Christ,” so “the head of the woman is the man;” as “he is the image and reflected glory of God,” so “the woman is the glory of the man.” “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” “The woman is to learn in silence with all subjection not to teach nor to usurp authority over the man but to be in silence.”

What’s the point of this demonstration? the Bible has been and is used to justify all sorts of cruel, oppressive, and bigoted behavior. But what these people forget is probably one of the most important passages of the New Testament – “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,” Jesus said, “do ye even so to them…”

It’s easy to dismiss those who argue against equal treatment, but there are real consqeuences. We’ve seen a recent videotaped beating of a student who was speaking out against bigotry. Students are bullied and verbally and physically abused because they are gay. Suicide is the number one cause of death amongst gay teens. Yeah, right. It’s a choice.

The proposal, which consists of 11 pages of fine print, sprinkles in a few items that most people support with items that start to look a little too targeted. For instance, the proposal would “strengthen the ban on illegal aliens’ ability to register and vote,” “require post-election audits of election procedures,” and “enact anti-fraud measures to protect the integrity of Michigan’s election process.” Those sound like reasonable reforms, and they are probably added into the proposal to make it easier to support. However, when one starts looking at the other legislative and judicial reforms, one sees that governmental representation is dramatically decreased. For instance, the Senate would be reduced from 38 members (1 Senator per 260,000 Michigan residents) to 28 members (1 Senator per 353,000 Michigan residents). In addition, it would decrease the state House from 110 members to 82. This would further strengthen the political party machinery grip on state elective positions, making it even harder for newcomers and non-politicians to get elected. Not to mention that this is a clearly anti-democratic step in the wrong direction. We would prefer to see an increase in both houses of the legislature, so that there are fewer citizens per representative, making for a truly citizen-oriented elected body.

Next comes the axe drop on the Judicial branch. The proposal would reduce the number of Supreme Court justices from seven to five and the number of appeals court judges from 28 to 21. As though the courts weren’t clogged enough already, this would make it even harder to work a case up through the appeals process.

If this all seems strangely targeted… well, it is. The Michigan Democratic party is solidly behind this measure and we’re finding out more about the motivations behind this measure every day.

What sort of motivations? This week, the Mackinac Center, a free-market think tank in Midland, uncovered the plan on the United Auto Workers’ web site. They had posted a PowerPoint presentation explaining the proposal and its effects. Check out the link for the full report, but here are some highlights:

Destroy Michigan Government Now - Whining Democrats

Destroy Michigan Government Now - Judicial Branch

Essentially, this is a proposal to ensure total Democratic Party control over the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of state government. We here at Grand Rapids Pundit want to be quick to point out that we are not Republicans. We do not think that this would be a good idea if it worked in the Republicans’ favor. Instead, we prefer split government, where no one party controls all the branches of government. This proposal is a thinly-veiled attempt by the Democratic Party of Michigan, in heavy collaboration with the United Auto Workers, to fundamentally change the structure of state government in their favor.

Hopefully voters will do their research before voting on this proposal, should it make it to the ballot.