Pennsylvania: why did you elect Eichelberger?

This is a little dated, but I feel like I need to comment on Pennsylvania State Sen. John Eichelberger (R) statements on a June 19 radio debate. Especially seeing as I haven't heard anything about it in mainstream news.

Eichelberger, in an interview with WHYY Radio about a month ago, talked about his upcoming constitutional marriage proposal and said that gay marriage was "dysfunctional" and would eventually lead to "polygamy, marrying younger people."

But the best part was when the senator decided to add this jewel to the conversation:

"They’re not being punished. We’re allowing them to exist, and do what every American can do. We’re just not rewarding them with any special designation."

Now I'm not the biggest fan of any long-term relationship, but I've always been taught that two people who love each other have the right to have their relationship legally recognized. This, of course, gets into a sticky situation - religion VS politics.

I have also been raised to believe that marriage is a religious institution. And as much as I hate to admit it, marriage should be dictated by religion. Ergo, marriage shouldn't be a political issue whatsoever. As a supporter of the separation of church and state, marriage should be kept in the churches (or mosques, or temples) and the government (federal and state) should issue "civil unions" to peoples wanting their relationship recognized.

This results in a somewhat simple solution to the problem with the debate of gay marriage. If there is no longer a government supported religious institution, then anyone wishing to have a legal merger between two parties can have a civil union. This, in turn, leaves the religious organizations the right to include (or exclude) whomever they see fit for the "holy right" of marriage. And ultimately, people can choose they're own way to define their relationships (wife/husband or partners).

It's actually kind of funny to me. Religious organizations tout on that marriage is something dictated by God, but they are wanting it to be dictated by the government - which is about as far from God as I can imagine.

But most importantly, if we were to actually do what the Constitution exists for and SEPARATE church and state, we could keep idiots like Eichelberger from spreading unnecessary hate and ignorance that only blind-sight his constituents and piss everybody else off.

CLICK HERE to hear audio experts and see a video response from Eichelberger.

Don't use Internet for Hate

It's a pretty simple concept for the majority of technology users: don't use the Internet to hurt other people. Everybody gets angry, everybody needs to vent, and the Web gives us the ability to express our opinions in a relatively safe environment.

And everybody knows that there are certain things that we do not, under any circumstances, ever do - the most important being post personal information.

But it seems a New York social worker forgot the rules on Internet etiquette last week.

On July 3, CNN.com reported about Long Island mother Margery Tannenbaum, who allegedly posted a sexual personal ad on Craigslist.com about a 9-year-old girl.

The ad did not inform the reader that the girl was underage, but it did give her home number and e-mail address for interested men to contact the child. CNN reported that the advertisement read: "I need a little affection... I'm blond, I'm cute and I'll be waiting."

Margery Tannenbaum is a sick, demented social pariah who deserves whatever public backlash she will receive. We've already seen this behavior once before - with Lori Drew and the "MySpace Hoax" debacle that resulted in the suicide of a 13-year-old girl.

Like Drew, the situation with Tannenbaum is the same old song - her daughter and the 9-year-old victim got into a fight. To get revenge, Tannenbaum posted an ad under the personal's section of Craigslist. The victim's mother told CNN that "she received 22 calls in one day, in all around 40 calls from various men who saw the ad, including some seeking an escort service."

Drew had her misdemeanor conviction thrown out by an appellate court judge, but hopefully Tannenbaum won't get off so easily. It's time we start sending a message to "adults" who think that endangering minors is a respectable way to reap revenge.

Apparently, Tannenbaum has never heard of WhitePages.com and the "reverse lookup." Just because she only put a phone number doesn't mean that one of these men couldn't have looked up the victim's home address and showed up looking for sex.

When Tannenbaum's lawyer was questioned, he said, "I think this has been blown out of proportion to what the actual alleged act was."

Tannenbaum posted a sex ad with information leading interested suitors to a 9-year-old girl. What exactly has been blown out of proportion? How does the mind of any adult not process that posting a sex ad with personal information about someone else is not a reckless, irresponsible, immature and dangerous act?

It doesn't even matter that the girl was a minor. Posting that kind of information about anyone can lead to devastating consequences. It is an absolute breech of personal privacy and perpetrators should have any access to the Internet immediately suspended.

But then again, Tannenbaum probably doesn't think she did anything wrong, which is probably the biggest crime of all. Too bad a lack of common sense and social decency isn't punishable by law.

See the original article at: www.mtsusidelines.com (click the link, it'll take you right to the column)