Mountain Views News          Saturday, March 30, 2013

17

OPINION

LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN

 Mountain Views News Saturday, March 16, 2013


HOWARD Hays As I See It

Mountain 
Views

News

PUBLISHER/ EDITOR

Susan Henderson

CITY EDITOR

Dean Lee 

EAST VALLEY EDITOR

Joan Schmidt

BUSINESS EDITOR

LaQuetta Shamblee

SENIOR COMMUNITY 
EDITOR

Pat Birdsall

SALES

Patricia Colonello

626-355-2737 

626-818-2698

WEBMASTER

John Aveny 

CONTRIBUTORS

Chris Leclerc

Bob Eklund

Howard Hays

Paul Carpenter

Stuart Tolchin

Kim Clymer-Kelley

Christopher Nyerges

Peter Dills 

Hail Hamilton 

Rich Johnson

Chris Bertrand

Ron Carter

Rev. James Snyder

Bobby Eldridge

Mary Carney

Katie Hopkins

Deanne Davis

Despina Arouzman

Greg Wellborn

Dr. John Talevich

Ben Show

Sean Kayden

Jasmine Kelsey Williams

STUART Tolchin..........On LIFE


IS THERE A SECRET?

 “What was the New Deal 
anyhow? . . . It was, I think, 
basically an attitude - an attitude 
that found voice in expressions 
like ‘the people are what matter to 
government’, and ‘a government 
should aim to give all the people 
under its jurisdiction the best 
possible life’.

 

 “The New Deal began on March 25, 1911 - the 
day that the Triangle Factory burned.”

- Frances Perkins 

 The Supreme Court this past week heard 
arguments on two notable matters. One was 
whether equal rights should be subject to popular 
referendum.

 They’ve dealt with this question before, 
notably in 1967 in the matter of Loving v. 
Virginia. Mildred and Richard Loving, a black 
woman and white man, had been sentenced to 
a year in prison for having married each other, 
in violation of Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law.

 The Court ruled that no, rights and protections 
guaranteed by our Constitution are not subject to 
veto by regional popular vote or state legislatures.

 As to relevance to the current matter before 
the Court, Mildred Loving, a year before she died, 
put it this way in 2007 – the fortieth anniversary 
of the decision: “I believe all Americans, no 
matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter 
their sexual orientation, should have that same 
freedom to marry. . . I am still not a political 
person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my 
name is on a court case that can help reinforce 
the love, the commitment, the fairness and the 
family that so many people, black or white, young 
or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the 
freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and 
loving, are all about.”

 The second matter pertains to the Defense 
of Marriage Act. I’ll the first to stand in defense 
of marriage, but wanted to see where it most 
needs defending. To do that, I looked at divorce 
statistics from the U.S. Census.

 In 2009, the most recent year from which 
statistics on individual states are available, the 
U.S. rate of divorce per thousand in population 
was 3.4. Currently there are nine states and the 
District of Columbia that allow gay marriage. 
The average divorce rate in these states was 2.7 – 
well below the national average. (The average for 
the four states that already allowed gay marriage 
in 2009 was 2.8).

 There were figures available for 25 of the 29 
states that ban gay marriage through statute and/
or their state’s constitution. The average divorce 
rate in these states was 3.9 – higher than the 3.4 
nationally, and far above those states that allow 
gay marriage.

 The Supreme Court decision, of course, 
could affect the entire nation, so a country-wide 
comparison would be appropriate. Canada 
enacted nation-wide marriage equality in 2005. 
Three years later, their divorce rate stood at 2.1.

 The lesson here is that the strongest, most 
long-lasting marriages are to be found in those 
places that enjoy marriage equality.

 Last week I wrote of how news of the new 
Pope seemed to overshadow the anniversary of 
the Iraq War. While this week was all about the 
gay marriage debate, there’s another anniversary 
that warrants commemoration.

 On March 25, 1911, 146 workers, mostly 
daughters of recent Jewish and Italian immigrants 
age 16 to 23, perished at the Triangle Shirtwaist 
Factory in Greenwich Village, New York. These 
ladies had been working nine hours a day 
Monday through Friday, seven on Saturday, for 
between $7 and $12 a week.

 Fire started on the eighth floor of the 10-story 
Asch building. There were no functioning 
alarms; exits and escape doors had been routinely 
locked to prevent theft and unauthorized breaks. 
Twenty perished when a faulty fire escape 
collapsed and fell 100 feet.

 One witness recounted how he “looked up 
at the burning building, saw girl after girl appear 
at the reddened windows, pause for a terrified 
moment, and then leap to the pavement below . . 
. The emotions of the crowd were indescribable. 
Women were hysterical, scores fainted; men 
wept as, in paroxysms of frenzy, they hurled 
themselves against the police lines.”

 Among those in the crowd was social worker 
Frances Perkins. Charged with heading up a new 
Committee on Public Safety (derided as “do-
gooders”), she got the backing of state legislative 
leaders like future N.Y. Governor Al Smith, and 
Smith’s successor as governor, Franklin Roosevelt, 
pushing through legislation on worker safety, fire 
extinguisher and alarm requirements, workplace 
eating and toilet facilities, and limiting work 
hours for women and children.

 Roosevelt brought Perkins to Washington as 
his Secretary of Labor – the first woman to serve 
in a presidential cabinet. In addition to being 
a central figure in New Deal programs like the 
Civilian Conservation Corps, Public Works 
Administration and National Recovery Act, she’s 
responsible for much of what we now take for 
granted; workplace safety regulation, child labor 
laws, the forty-hour workweek, minimum wage 
and overtime laws – and Social Security.

 I thought of that “attitude”, that “government 
should aim to give all the people under its 
jurisdiction the best possible life”, in contrast 
to efforts underway in the Supreme Court to 
have government do the very opposite - to place 
restrictions on fellow Americans in their own, 
very personal, “pursuit of happiness”. 

 Getting back to the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory 
story; the Factory’s owners, Max Blanck and 
Isaac Harris, were indicted but found not guilty 
on criminal charges. They then lost a civil case 
in which they were assessed $75 per deceased 
victim. However, they collected a $60,000 
insurance settlement which amounted to $400 
per victim.

 Two years after the tragedy, in 1913, Blanck 
was arrested for violating the new regulations by 
again locking his factory doors during working 
hours. He was fined twenty bucks. 

 The other day as my dog, Milo, and I were 
making our customary walk around the circle 
in the canyon, we met a neighbor who was 
walking down the hill. She is a teacher and 
was running kind of late and had to walk fast 
but I assured her my dog and I could keep up 
with her. Well, even though she is older than 
I am my dog and I could not keep up the pace, and I can’t blame 
my dog. I’ve been living in this canyon for 38 years and can easily 
remember when I used to run every morning up and down these 
hills and then would head off to work, pick up the kids, get dinner, 
and finish the day off by playing a little tennis. Well, let’s face 
it—the “kids” are now 40 and as energetic as I seem to remember 
myself in the past, it is now the present and I cannot even stay 
apace with 70 year-old School teachers.

 Milo and I were forced to admit defeat and said good-bye to 
the neighbor and prepared to turn back and walk back up the hill. 
I looked up and really didn’t feel like struggling home. I made 
a bold decision to continue down the hill and go to a restaurant 
for breakfast. I didn’t have to be in Court until 1:30 and until 
then Milo and I were free males, independent and in control of 
the world. Together we walked a few pleasant blocks down the 
hill, arrived at a breakfast place and seated ourselves outside and 
ordered. As a free, independent male I next noticed that I did not 
have either my morning medication or my wallet, but I did have 
my cell phone. Yes, my first act of independence was to phone my 
wife and ask her to meet us at the restaurant and to please bring my 
medications and wallet. She was happy to meet us and said she was 
sure that I would be happy to have her drive us home.

 We had a pleasing breakfast and as we drove home we retraced 
the route I had taken. On Laurel my wife noticed a wooden 
cabinet with a sign on top that read Little Free-Library. We opened 
the cabinet and saw that it was filled with books and contained a 
sign that said take a book and replace it with another. Isn’t that a 
wonderful idea? I plan to replace the book with another as soon 
as I can (really) but since removing the book I have spent almost 
every spare moment engrossed in the book I selected. The book 
is 552 pages long and is entitled THE LAWS OF OUR FATHERS. 
It is written by Scott Turow and seems personally intended for 
me. 

 Why do I think that is a secret message to me? Well the initials 
of the author (ST) are of course the same as my own. The first 
letters of the author’s first name and the first two letters of his 
surname combine to form my name (STU). So big deal. Listen to 
this. There are two characters named Stuart in the book. The main 
character grows up in Chicago and then goes to School in Berkeley, 
just like me. He is a lawyer, like me, and writes a weekly column 
like me. The book retraces his time at Berkeley during the ‘60’s 
when I was there. He is a non- practicing Jew with good friends 
who are Afro-American just like yours truly. His first marriage has 
broken up and he has remained friends with his ex-wife, yes, just 
like me and the substance of the book is a search for the secret, the 
missing link that will give his whole life meaning.

 Right now I’m only on page 485 and the secret has yet to 
be uncovered. I am sure that if any secret is found I will be 
disappointed ands realize that the Secret has little to do with me. 
Nevertheless, I just cheated and read the last sentence of the book 
which is “I think I’d like to raise her as a Jew,” he says. Sure I know 
that this book is but one of many by Jewish Lawyer authors who 
grew up in the 60’s and have experiences, ambitions and dreams 
much like my own. Sure the author is a Dylan fan just like me and 
I love the line “How many miles must a man walk down before you 
can call him a CAB.

 I wish that I had written that line but I didn’t. I guess that’s the 
difference between this author and all the other authors and me. 
They have published their books and I have not. Still, crazy as it 
is, I like believing that this book is intended as a special message 
to me. I like believing that it was somehow pre-ordained that I 
would take the unusual morning walk with my neighbor and end 
up retracing the route with my wife and discovering the Little Free-
Library and picking the book with the secret message intended just 
for me. Maybe this message will motivate me to actually write the 
book that I have always dreamed of but have never had the courage 
to begin.

 At this time of the year maybe it makes some sense to take 
seriously events and intentions that make no sense to other people. 
I think the important thing is how these messages personally 
influence each one of us.

HAPPY PASSOVER and HAPPY EASTER

Mountain Views News 
has been adjudicated as 
a newspaper of General 
Circulation for the County 
of Los Angeles in Court 
Case number GS004724: 
for the City of Sierra 
Madre; in Court Case 
GS005940 and for the 
City of Monrovia in Court 
Case No. GS006989 and 
is published every Saturday 
at 55 W. Sierra Madre 
Blvd., No. 302, Sierra 
Madre, California, 91024. 
All contents are copyrighted 
and may not be 
reproduced without the 
express written consent of 
the publisher. All rights 
reserved. All submissions 
to this newspaper become 
the property of the Mountain 
Views News and may 
be published in part or 
whole. 

Opinions and views 
expressed by the writers 
printed in this paper do 
not necessarily express 
the views and opinions 
of the publisher or staff 
of the Mountain Views 
News. 

Mountain Views News is 
wholly owned by Grace 
Lorraine Publications, 
Inc. and reserves the right 
to refuse publication of 
advertisements and other 
materials submitted for 
publication. 

Letters to the editor and 
correspondence should 
be sent to: 

Mountain Views News

80 W. Sierra Madre Bl. 
#327

Sierra Madre, Ca. 
91024

Phone: 626-355-2737

Fax: 626-609-3285

email: 

mtnviewsnews@aol.com

THE GREAT MARRAIGE DEBATE

GREG Welborn


This week the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing 
arguments about same-sex marriage. It is doing 
so in the midst of an almost national state by 
state debate over the role and definition of 
marriage in our society. That debate is healthy 
in that the concerns and desires of each side 
are being vetted in the court of public opinion, 
and each side can have confidence they have 
an opportunity to be heard. As readers of this 
column know, I have my own opinion on the 
probity of same-sex marriage, but that is not the 
purpose of this article. My concern here is the 
necessity that this issue be resolved politically 
and democratically. If the Supreme Court finds 
that there is a constitutional right to same-sex 
marriage, it will simultaneously guarantee 
that this issue remains divisive and polarizing 
for decades, and it will compromise all of our 
freedoms in ways we cannot imagine.

As to perpetuating the divisiveness of the debate, 
we need look no further than the Roe V. Wade 
decision. The court ruled that there was a “right” 
to an abortion and forced it into all the states. 
As a result, this issue remains contentious today. 
Since abortion is now a “right”, even if the whole 
of the nation turned against abortion, we would 
not be able to outlaw it. We can’t take away 
“rights” by a simple vote. The only way to change 
Roe V. Wade would be through another Supreme 
Court case. Thus, every presidential election is 
poisoned by the abortion issue because only a 
future president could appoint enough justices 
to overturn the decision. The people have been 
stripped of their right to debate and settle it., so 
the issue festers. 

Do we want this corrosive situation again for 
yet another significant societal-defining issue? 
I think not and hope that Liberals as well as 
Conservatives can see the wisdom in avoiding 
such an outcome.

Let us now turn to the freedoms that are at 
stake. If the court decides this issue by deciding 
same-sex marriage is a civil right, then the 
states’ freedom to regulate and police all manner 
of domestic arrangements would be severely 
restricted, and all of our religious freedoms 
would be fatally compromised. 

Currently, each state, through the democratic 
process, regulates marriage, divorce, child 
custody, adoption, etc. If the court decides that 
same-sex marriage is a civil right, there can be 
no debate about these domestic issues. We can’t 
take away a civil right by the majority’s vote. One 
of the cornerstones of our federal system, where 
states are free to experiment and craft policies 
which meet their respective citizens’ needs, will 
be invalidated. 

More important, however, are the religious 
freedoms that 
would disappear. To 
understand this, we 
must understand the 
nature of the argument 
for same-sex marriage. 
Advocates are arguing 
before the court that 
defining marriage in 
the traditional way 
lacks any “rational 
basis” and that such 
definitions are borne of 
animus toward homosexuals. They are forced to 
argue this because it is the only way the justices 
can justify overturning the laws reflecting the 
will of the people. 

Such claims should be dismissible at face value. 
After all, are we really to believe that every major 
religion in the world for thousands of years has 
no other reason for defining marriage than 
animus toward gays? Are we to believe that no 
religion has the right to define marriage as a holy 
covenant? Is there no rational basis for trying to 
define a preferred structure for the family, which 
is the most important building block of society?

All these must be believed in order to strike down 
laws defining marriage as between one man and 
one woman, and the result will be devastating to 
religious freedom. We allow religions to define 
their religious practices unless a true civil right is 
violated. For example, we do not allow religions 
to stone their members, imprison them or even 
beat them for infractions. If same-sex marriage 
becomes a civil right, then no church will be able 
to ban it, restrict it, or consider it when hiring or 
promoting its pastoral staff.

If religions are prevented from weighing in on 
and defining the most basic structure of human 
interaction, then religions will have no right to 
define anything important. Religious groups 
will face massive lawsuits and criminal actions 
by local, state and federal agencies for civil rights 
violations. The mere removal of tax-exempt 
status would be enough to ruin most churches. 

Whether you are for or against same-sex 
marriage, this is an issue which must be defined 
through the political process. If, instead, 9 
justices make this decision, the issue will not 
simply fade away, but our most basic and 
cherished freedom will.

About the author: Gregory J. Welborn is a 
freelance writer and has spoken to several civic 
and religious organizations on cultural and 
moral issues. He lives in the Los Angeles area 
with his wife and 3 children and is active in the 
community. He can be reached at gregwelborn@
earthlink.net.

RICH Johnson

A column two weeks in a row? Wow! Well, 
here I am and I am weaving in and out 
of the complexities of life that have been 
handed to me these days. Hard times. 

The temptation during epic periods of hard 
time is to keep it to yourself. Who wants to 
burden others with our difficulties. Please don’t do that. On the 
same token don’t wear a sandwich board with all problems listed 
on back and front. But do bring a couple of friends into your 
inner sanctum. Share with them. Good friends will line up to 
offer encouragement in a variety of ways and means. (By the way, 
note to friends: We have two ears and one mouth for a reason” 
Listen twice as much as talk. Most of us know the answers to 
our problems. We just need to vocalize them and vent) Let a few 
good friends be there for you. It is life sustaining and vital to your 
wellbeing. 

Okay, enough said. Now, to lighten the day let’s talk about two 
medical school buddies.

These guys graduated at the same time but in two different 
specialties. Still, they were such good friends they decided to 
open a office together to share office space and personnel. Dr. 
Smith was a psychiatrist and Dr. Jones was a proctologist (if you 
don’t know what a proctologist is…look it up!)

They decided on a single sign on the outside of the building. It 
read: 

“Dr. Smith and Dr. Jones: Hysterias and Posteriors” 

Well, the town council was livid and insisted they change it. The 
docs changed it to:

“Schizoids and Hemorrhoids”

Still not acceptable to the council so they came back with:

“Catatonics and High Colonics”

No go:

“Manic Depressives and Anal Retentives”

Thumbs down again.

“Minds and Behinds?”, “Nuts and Butts?”, “Freaks and Cheeks?”, 
“Loons and Moons?”

Finally at their wit’s end, the two doctors came up with something 
the Town Council approved. Are you ready for it?

“Dr. Smith and Dr. Jones: Odds and Ends”

Have a terrific week. And remember, no man or woman is an 
island. Reach out both in your need and in your desire to help 
those in need.


TWO WEEKS IN A ROW

Mountain Views News

Mission Statement

 
The traditons 
of community 
newspapers and 
the concerns of 
our readers are 
this newspaper’s 
top priorities. We 
support a prosperous 
community of well-
informed citizens. 
We hold in high 
regard the values 
of the exceptional 
quality of life in our 
community, including 
the magnificence of 
our natural resources. 
Integrity will be our 
guide.