Early in the day, experts in the field emphasized the importance of sticking to the mission of the non-profit entity. The discussion of integrity and ethics in this matter was quite pronounced, and I felt that the message really hit home. Later in the day, we were placed into groups of maybe 8-10 people; each group culturally and professional diverse. We were given a set of exercises, only one of which I still recall. We were asked to discuss and make a decision on a large donation to the organization that came with specific details- details that attached restrictions to the donation, most of which ran contrary to the mission of the organization.
I remember sitting, actually stunned in silence, as our group, made up of professional community and religious leaders, worked assiduously, even in a fictional exercise, to find a way to accept that donation. They worked to alter the mission and the services of the organization- whatever it took. I was appalled.
President Bush is beginning to push his "traditional marriage amendment" again in a seemingly desperate attempt for support. Of interest in this matter, is not my stance on gay marriage, which I have frequently commented on, rather the opinion of Vice-President Dick Cheney. The Vice-President opposes a constitutional amendment on traditional marriage, not because he is suddenly open-minded on the issue, but because his daughter is gay. Analogically, the very conservative Vice-President opposing a gay marriage amendment is like the pro-life parents that recommend an abortion to their daughter because an early pregnancy threatens her college education and subsequent career.
The obvious politicking of the issue is embarrassing, as frantic Republicans seek to rekindle the conservative flame that was so successful in 2004. However, my only point is to ask what is the chance that Vice-President Cheney would be opposed to a constitutional amendment on traditional marriage if his daughter was not gay? In the same manner, how adamant would President Bush be if his daughter was gay? Finally, how much would any Republican, except the most evangelical, care about the issue if it was not seen as a dividing issue- one that successfully factored in President Bush's reelection?
It seems that people make decisions, in business, politics and their personal lives based on their personal interest- not what is right or wrong. In the midst of opportunity or in the fear of danger, principle and ethics are tossed aside. The justification of these decisions is often easy, even if the intent is obvious and well-known to others. It is like when people say it is not about the money, then, of course, it is usually about the money. When people change their opinions on an issue, it is usually because the opposing argument now holds a more opportunistic or consequential interest.
Post a Comment