Sunday, August 24, 2008

What would Gail do?

I think that slots in Maryland should be legal and run by private corporations. I would rather not see the government involved in slots, other than through taxation. But this post is not really about the pros and cons of slots. After reading this article in the Baltimore Sun, I am absolutely beside myself over a comment attributed to Delegate Gail Bates:

Bobo, like Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot, is opposed to the concept of gambling as a way to provide state revenue. Bates opposes gambling for religious reasons [emphasis mine]. Kittleman said he favors slots as a revenue raiser but strongly objects to listing specific locations - the measure spells out Baltimore City and Allegany, Anne Arundel, Cecil and Worcester counties - in the language of the referendum question.


This is unbelievable. I have known for years that Bates wants to legislate the bible upon us all, but even I am shocked at this blatant admission of her intentions.

I am not trying to get into a debate about where our morals come from. We can all agree that murder is wrong with or without religion, but some things are perceived to be wrong only because it says so in some spirit book (like gambling, homosexuality, etc.). I think that it's wildly inappropriate for our elected officials to be basing their positions on legislation solely on what the bible says.

In my mind, it is far from clear that gambling is morally wrong. Gambling does not harm anyone but the person who loses their money. I would err on the side of letting people do what makes them happy as long as they don't harm others in doing so.

What would you, dear reader, think of me if I said that the reason I support legalizing slots with little or no regulation is because I had a dream that Smurfs will come and kill us all unless slots are legalized. Gail Bates' reason for denying slots is just as ridiculous.

But what do you expect from Gail Bates? This is par for the course.

4 comments:

Eludius said...

The Christian right is her base. If that's what they believe should be the guiding light of government, then she is the correct person to represent them. I think her governing by her religious beliefs is better than the hypocrisies and opportunism that guides some of our other politicians.

Anonymous said...

I think people should leave their books of fiction out of public law. The same people supporting her because she's of their beliefs would have a conniption if a non-Christian (say, Muslim or Buddhist) were to be elected and start making laws according to THEIR beliefs.

Anonymous said...

I second Eludius and would add that the personal agenda continues to rule most political agendas. It's the rare leader who can lead, and the rare representative who really represents consituents.

Freemarket said...

"I think people should leave their books of fiction out of public law. The same people supporting her because she's of their beliefs would have a conniption if a non-Christian (say, Muslim or Buddhist) were to be elected and start making laws according to THEIR beliefs."

Well said, I could not agree more. My main problem with Bates is that, in this case, she is DENYING others rights to do what they want based on her personal religious beliefs. None of her religious base would be impacted by slots, unless they used the slots themselves. She should not be trying to save anyone's soul as an elected offical.