Allow Same-Sex Marriages as a Basic Individual Right

For centuries, most people of the Judeo-Christian tradition have believed that God frowns upon people of the same sex having sexual relationships.  Indeed, for centuries they often thought God demanded that they execute, often very gruesomely, men thought to be having sex with men.  This vision of morality has been transformed for the better, but translated into governments only recognizing opposite sex marriages.  In recent times, the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, and then Massachusetts came to recognize same-sex marriages.  Today in the United States, the District of Columbia, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont recognize same-sex marriages.  In addition, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin offer either civil unions or domestic partnerships to same-sex couples.  Forty-one states forbid same-sex marriages, including North Carolina which just passed a ban by referendum earlier this year.

The referendum ban of same-sex marriage in California was challenged in federal court and was declared unconstitutional.  This ruling is under appeal and is still working its way through the federal court system.  Washington passed a law authorizing same-sex marriage and Gov. Chris Gregoire signed it earlier this year.  The Maryland legislature also authorized same-sex marriage this year and Gov. Martin O'Malley has signed it into law.  But, referendums to ban same-sex marriage in Washington and Maryland will be on the ballot in November.  Maine, which presently bans same-sex marriages, has a referendum on the November ballot to allow them.  Minnesota, which presently bans same-sex marriage by statute, has a referendum on the November ballot to additionally forbid same-sex marriage in their state constitution.

How does one rationally analyze the role of governments with respect to marriage and with respect to same-sex marriages in particular?  We have to decide what marriage really is and why government has necessary and legitimate functions with respect to marriage.  In the oldest Judeo tradition, marriage was commonly not a domestic partnership between one man and one woman.  Each husband might have several wives.  This was surely not marriage of the nature of those recognized by government in America today.  Early Christians commonly did not marry, since many thought the end of the world was rapidly approaching with the return of Christ.  After that brief period, Christian marriage was often a means of cementing favorable relationships between families, clans, tribes, aristocrats, and even nations.  A young woman was pretty much the property of her father and the father eventually traded her to a man for a degree of allegiance and goodwill in many cases.  She was now her husband's property.  Marriage was not the spiritual union of two people in the way many think it is today.  It was a commercial and political act in many cases.  The church supported this viewpoint of marriage by providing a patina of spirituality, though spiritual connections between the husband and wife were very commonly missing.

Even today, the role of government is not to provide a spiritual content to marriage or even to assess whether such a spiritual basis for a marriage exists.  An honest evaluation of marriage as provided by government license and contract is that every marriage is a domestic partnership and any spiritual meaning to the union is provided by the married partners independent of government.  The domestic partnership that governments offer is a legal contract with legal implications for shared property, procreation and the raising of children, taxes, mandated time off work to care for one another, and permissions to make medical decisions for one another if one partner is unable to make such decisions.

The only case of such issues in which the sex of the partners may make any difference at all is with respect to procreation and the raising of children.  In the modern world, adoptions may easily take the place of procreation, but many married partners also have no children and there is no title of aristocracy demanding an heir.  Should children be adopted in the relatively rare case by two partners of the same sex, there is little reason for one having to be a high-earning man, since many women are now high-earners.  The domestic partnerships that are formed by government marriage licenses are just as appropriate today for partners of the same sex as they are for partners of opposite sexes.

Each and every American adult competent to care for himself has a very broad sovereign right to life, liberty, property, the ownership of his own body, mind, and labor, and the pursuit of his own happiness.  Legitimate government cannot violate that broad range of fundamental individual rights.  There must be a strong presumption against laws that limit the exercise of personal actions which do not do harm to others.  Legitimate government does not interfere with the association of one adult with other consenting adults, unless substantial harm is thereby done to others.  Legitimate and individual rights-protecting government is highly limited and minimal government.  If it acts to place limits on the relationships and associations of individuals, it must have a very substantial reason for such limits and a strong case for the harm those associations or relationships would do to others.  The only way such harm to others occurs is if the partnership uses force to harm others, but there is no new issue here since initiated harm done by force by any individual to others is already prohibited.  There is no more reason to prescribe the number and sex of domestic partners than there is to do so for a business partnership.  Indeed, a domestic partnership is very much like a business partnership in all respects relevant to the role of government.

Not only is there no reason to place a prohibition on same-sex domestic partnerships, but because our individual rights are equal, we cannot limit marriage contracts to only those who desire a single partner of the opposite sex.  While anyone may exercise their own freedom of conscience in the belief that same-sex domestic partnerships are immoral, abhorred by God, or simply biologically uninteresting to them, government and the People whose individual equal rights are to be protected by government cannot make such judgments in the political realm without violating the freedom of conscience of others with a differing viewpoint.  They cannot legitimately use force to prevent others from exercising control over their own bodies and minds, from evaluating and choosing whose most intimate company they desire, and from pursuing their most personal and individual happiness.

Individual human beings are complex and highly differentiated.  We are all different in the way our minds observe reality, analyze and evaluate it, and assess our own relationship to it and to others.  Our biochemistries differ, our senses operate at many different levels, our nervous systems feel differently, our bodies take very different forms, and we respond very differently to other individuals.  Among the most complex and highly differentiated aspects of an individual's nature is his or her sexuality.  We cannot be serious about the individual right to pursue happiness if we have government place obstacles and unequal treatment in the way of individuals whose sexuality is different than that endorsed by a religion or just recent and local tradition.

It is a basic violation of individual rights for government to discriminate against individuals based on their sexuality.  Legitimate government ought to provide same-sex marriage contracts which are equivalent to those it provides to couples of the opposite sex.  It should even provide a more enlarged concept of domestic partnership contracts as broad in terms of the combination of adult individuals bound in the contract as is the case in small business partnerships.  Government commonly interferes with our freedom of association in far too many ways.  It is time that it stop interfering with that broad freedom of association in our domestic partnerships which it is the right of each and every adult individual to claim.

Understanding this, one should vote for Question 6 in Maryland to allow same-sex couples to marry in Maryland.

Scott Rasmussen on the GOP

There is a very important difference between the GOP and the Democrat Socialist Party which Scott Rasmussen understands.  He notes that this difference is obscured by the politicians:

Establishment Republicans in Washington broadly share the Democrats' view that the government should manage the economy. They may favor a somewhat more pro-business set of policies than their Democratic colleagues, but they still act as if government policy is the starting point for all economic activity.

He observed that Democrat Party members are comfortable with the idea that Washington is the "starting point for all economic activity."  However, the membership of the Republican Party thinks very differently and therefore believes that its Washington leadership is wrongheaded with its comfort in control of the economy by Washington.  He says:

The GOP base sees government as a burden that weighs the private sector down rather than a tool that can generate growth if used properly. Ninety-six percent of Republican voters believe that the best thing the government can do to help the economy is to cut spending and free up more money for the private sector.

To the degree that Romney's plan for economic recovery involves the government getting off the back of businessmen, with lower taxes, fewer regulations, and more opportunities to develop our resources, the Democrats and the media mostly complain that this is no plan at all.  For them, all economic planning must involve a government action managed intimately by a horde of central planners.

But, 96% of Republicans understand that business and economic activity are very capable of taking care of themselves in the private sector, if only the government will get off of their backs and allow them to earn a living and hire Americans.  Unfortunately for the Republic and for Republicans, Romney seems to understand this, but is largely unwilling to state it clearly for fear of leaving the comfort zone with the Republican Establishment, Washington politicians, and the media.  If Romney loses this election or just squeaks in as the next President, it will be because he failed to state emphatically enough what most Republican Party members understand.  Government is the Problem.

The Union that did not Represent its Members

Unions that do not represent the interests of their members are common.  This is fundamentally why union membership in the private sector has fallen to only 6.9% in 2010 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  The many grossly underfunded union pension funds are another clear proof that the unions pay little attention to the best interests of their members.  The International Association of Machinists (IAM) is involved with the recent Boeing altercation in which they and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) claim Boeing built a production line in the Right to Work state of South Carolina in retaliation for a strike in Washington state by the IAM.  It used to represent the employees at the facility in South Carolina, as well as those in Washington.  It is interesting to see why the South Carolina machinists decertified the IAM.

In 2007, when Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. owned the facility in North Charleston, South Carolina, the IAM narrowly won an election to represent 200 employees there.  Vought was a Boeing parts supplier and the IAM strike against Boeing forced Vought to close the South Carolina plant temporarily.  The new IAM members were laid off.  Meanwhile, the IAM and Vought spent a year discussing the new labor contract.  The employees were grumbling and there was indication that a decertification attempt was underway.  The IAM quickly put an offer of Vought to a vote, though this surprised Vought which was working up better offers.  Apparently, the IAM wanted some contract to lock in the new members in South Carolina no matter what.  Some employees were unaware of the emergency vote on 7 November 2008 set up by the IAM just as Vought was.  The IAM announced that an overwhelming 92% of membership had approved the new contract.  After some investigation, it was found that of the 200 affected employees, only 13 had voted.  Twelve members out of 200 had committed everyone to a new labor contract.  Many of the relatively new labor union members complained that the 1.5% wage increases would not cover the increased union dues and inflation.

In July 2009, Boeing announced it was buying the South Carolina facility from Vought and completed the purchase that month.  The employees filed to decertify the IAM that month also.  The IAM was thrown out because the workers had concluded that it was not interested in their best interest.  Subsequently, the IAM is furious that Boeing is building a second 787 Dreamliner production line in this South Carolina facility using the now 1000 employees there who are no longer union members.  The Obama-packed NLRB is backing the union vendetta both against Boeing and these dissatisfied former union members.

The Obama Administration Land Grab

Rebekah Rast has written an interesting 10 June 2010 article for the Americans for Limited Government blog on the Obama administration's plans to steal more land from the American People.  She notes that the federal government owns about 30% of all the land in the U.S., including land for national parks, national forests, wildlife refuges, military bases, and myriad other purposes.  I have written about this problem earlier.  Particularly in many heavily federal government owned western states, the federal government has more control over the economy of a state than does the Governor and the the state legislature combined.

A memo of the Department of the Interior on its plans to use the Antiquities Act of 1906 to grab several tracts of land from among 14 listed as desirable was leaked to a Utah congressman, whose state is more than 60% owned by the federal government.  The 1906 law gave the President the right to designate any area of land that presents historic or scientific significance as federal land.  This is eminent domain gone wild!  Some of the planned acquisitions are as big in area as Rhode Island and Delaware combined!  It is thought likely that about 2 or 3 of these desired tracts of land will be taken and designated as national monuments.  Which tracts of land will be taken will be decided by political cronyism.

The Utah governor is so upset with federal restrictions on land use and the subsequent negative impact on the state economy that he authorized the use of eminent domain to take land back from the federal government.  He hopes other states will do the same.  I wrote about this earlier.

Rast notes that Harry Reid, despite 13.7% unemployment in Nevada, a state more than 80% owned by the federal government, blocked a pit mining operation on federal land in Sloan Hills which was to have provided sand and rock for 20 years to be used by companies for cement making and other purposes.  A great deal of money invested in the project was lost, along with many jobs.

She also notes that many logging jobs have been lost in Washington state.  Many small towns have lost the industry that was their lifeblood due to protected forestry laws.  Federal control of timber leases and roads for access to the timber has been used to create many ghost towns.

Pro-Capitalism, Anti-Socialism March in Washington, D.C.

My wife Anna and I went to the Washington, D.C. march on the Capitol on Saturday, 12 September 2009 to demonstrate in favor of:

• The sovereign Rights of the Individual to his own life, his own liberty and property, and to the pursuit of his own happiness.
• The moral and practical superiority of Capitalism over Socialism.
• To defend and protect the Constitution with its severe limits on the power of the federal government in order to protect the General Welfare served by the Rights of the Individual, the violation of which is Tyranny.
• To oppose the huge Debts destroying the future of our Children.
• To reduce taxes and stop government spending.
  
• To oppose the Chicago Politics of Special Interests and Thieves feeding in a frenzy upon the taxpayers.
• To send the Czars back to Russia.
• To prevent the government takeover of Health Care and allow insurance to be bought across state lines and to implement tort reform.
• To protest the nonsense of Man-Made Global Warming and the Control of Energy Use by government.
• To protest the Bank and Auto Company Bailouts.
• To protest the Loss of Jobs due to the Pursuit of Socialism.
• To protest the government's Anti-Business Bias and the intent to Kill Entire Industries.
• To protest against Class Warfare and Racism.
• To protest Congress's failure to read the bills it passes.
  
• To protest the Arrogance of King Obama, Queen "Let them eat cake" Pelosi, and Jack "Jackal" Harry Reid and their band of power-lusting allies who refuse to listen to their bosses, The People.

I was impressed that so many Americans have come to understand what is going on and have discovered what the basic principles of good American government are. The media is mostly downplaying the number of people who showed up and is, of course, characterizing them in unflattering terms. The Democrat DC authorities apparently estimated the size of the crowd at 60,000 to 70,000 people, but there was a click head count at one portal into the demonstration area which reached 500,000 counted. The demonstration lasted at least 7 hours. I arrived several hours into the demonstration and I believe there were 100,000s there when I worked my way onto the East Capitol lawn. What is more, on the way there, the trash cans were full of many thousands of signs which had already been discarded by people who had left the demonstration before I got there! I am confident that there were at least about 1,000,000 people who attended the demonstration. You should look at the pictures of people there shown here. Most of the MSM reported that 10,000s of demonstrators attended the protest and many simply said 1,000s protested. How unbelievable! How obviously untrustworthy the MSM is!

I encountered people I knew to be from Maryland, Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Michigan. I found that many understood that the global climate is primarily a function of sun cycles rather than man's emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels. I found that many understood that the real number of unemployed is much higher than the 9.7% the federal government claims it is. Others understood that the Democrat reform of health care was motivated by a desire to control the People's health and lives, not to improve health care. But most of all, I was impressed that most people understood that our government is one of limited powers given in our Constitution. They also understood that those limitations are primarily so that individuals will be free to manage their own lives, rather than being reduced to dependent slaves by their government.

Hurrah!!!! The American people cannot all be fooled for very long!

July 4th Tea Party in Washington, D.C.

I will be attending the 4th of July Tea Party in Washington, D.C. to make it visually clear that some Americans do still care about defending their sovereign individual rights. Please consider coming yourself or going to one nearer you. Information on the Tea Party in Washington, D.C. is found here.

I suppose the socialists will now call me a Redneck! Or will they ignore the fact that fascists are socialists and call me a Fascist? Maybe that woman CNN reporter will pretend to interview me while casting such insults.

Washington Teachers Union Opposes School Reform

Of course, it is news to no one that the Washington Teachers Union (WTU) opposes the reform of the nation's lowest performing school district. The WTU is the principal reason why this school system which is spending as much or more money per student as any school district in the nation is so miserable in performing the only function that matters: educating students.

New Orleans put most of its 78 public schools into a special Recovery School District after Hurricane Katrina. Now, about half of its schools are charter schools and the district has no union contract. The American Federation of Teachers, which strongly backed Obama, has vigorously opposed the reform efforts in New Orleans. Mayor Adrian Fenty and Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee of Washington, D.C., have become thoroughly fed-up with the WTU opposing school reforms and the elimination of awful teachers. They are considering restoring the school district's power to create nonunionized charter schools. They may declare the school system in a state of emergency in order to end the need to bargain with the WTU.

Obama has praised their efforts, but will be in the middle between them and the teacher's unions to whom he owes his election. It will be very interesting to see if he helps Fenty and Rhee or if he opposes their efforts behind closed doors. Union leaders regard the chances of the district getting a state of emergency ruling from the federal government to be very remote, given what Obama owes them. They do have some concern that the district might be able to regain its power to charter schools, however.

Rhee has proposed that teachers be more directly accountable for student performance and will offer them much higher salaries in exchange for weaker tenure rules. The 4,000 member WTU has refused to bring her contract offer to a vote. Rhee thinks the teachers will vote for it if they are allow to do so. Apparently the WTU also thinks the teachers might vote for the higher salary and more accountability contract also! It is delicious to see these Democrats fighting so much among themselves.

Fenty is the second D.C. mayor to seriously wrestle with school reform. It is good that D.C. voters have come to care about school reform. The District of Columbia is more heavily Democrat than any state. So this sets up conflict between Democrat politicians and the teachers unions. If the reform ever occurs and if D.C. students ever gain enough self-confidence to believe that they are capable of managing their own lives, it will be interesting to see if many of them start to fall away from the dependency offered them by the Democrats.