The payroll tax cut is coming up again. If you remember, at the end of the last year an agreement was reached to push the extension of the tax cuts for the wage earner 60 days down the road. It was hoped that at that time, which by the way is now, both sides of the aisle and the president would be in a more cooperative mood. But, it appears that they still aren’t ready to make a deal.
But, for me, there should be no deal.
If you don’t know, you should, the few extra dollars in you paycheck are coming at a high cost. The payroll tax cut is really a reduction in the Social Security tax that each of us pay. That means for as long as the tax cut is in place, Social Security is getting less money. Less money for a fund that needs every cent it can get right now to stay balanced. (Some may say that the fund is broke. While I don’t believe it, that is for economists, not this blog. But, if we don’t fund it like it should be, it will be broke and we don’t need an economist to tell us that.)
Also, at the same time all of this is going on, we are asking those that make more money than 99% of us to pay more taxes to help out. I think it is a good idea. We have a budget issue, we have a down economy and we need to help those that are in need get through this. We can’t do it if we are afraid to ask those that can help for little more.
Why is it that we that are earning wages are asking for a tax cut when we are asking others to pay more in taxes? It shouldn’t be that way because we are all in this together. To ask one side to help and not expect it from ourselves is, well, selfish.
With that said, I say we should let the payroll tax cut expire for wage earners. Take the few dollars more to help the overall budget and keep funding Social Security. Also, let the high income tax cuts expire. We can’t keep asking others to pay more in taxes when we are giving ourselves a tax cut.
This is our community and we are all in this together. Let’s start thinking that way.
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Institutional rights don't trump individual rights
In a speech to supporters in Colorado, presidential candidate Mitt Romney blasted President Barack Obama over his administration’s decision to force religious organizations to provide birth control pills and other related drugs in the health plans they offer. The Catholic Church doesn’t believe that the use of birth control is moral. Other Christian organizations and churches believe the use of most birth control pills is actually abortion. The religious organizations believe that by offering the drugs in the health plan they are supporting an immoral act.
Romney says that if he was president, he would allow the exemption on religious grounds. In the speech he accused Obama of restricting religious freedom. While Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he tried to exempt religious institutions from providing the drugs in the health care mandate in the state. But, the legislature overruled his policy.
Romney is making the choice between an institution (that does have deep religious concerns with birth control) and the individual’s right to make those choices. His belief is that groups, in this case the Catholic Church, are equal in status with individuals. Keep in mind, Romney is the same man that said corporations are people too.
A pillar of conservatism is that the individual holds all the power and the responsibly. It is the individual’s choices that determine his responsibility. Apparently, that is true up to the point that the individual is covered under a health plan.
By allowing the Catholic Church to be exempt from offering birth control in their health plan, it limits the individual's choice and personal freedom. Just because the church provide the drugs doesn’t mean they are suggesting anyone should use them. The church can use their freedom of speech to express their concerns about birth control.
If it was allowed, it could create many other divisions, not even just in the birth control issue. Should a church have health insurance policies rewritten that restrict what clinics, hospitals and doctors can receive payments from the health plan because they offer birth control and abortion? This, even though the health of the woman may dictate that she goes to one of them?
President Obama made the right decision on the birth control issues. The individual’s right to make choices must be greater than the group’s ability to control those choices.
-----
Romney says that if he was president, he would allow the exemption on religious grounds. In the speech he accused Obama of restricting religious freedom. While Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he tried to exempt religious institutions from providing the drugs in the health care mandate in the state. But, the legislature overruled his policy.
Romney is making the choice between an institution (that does have deep religious concerns with birth control) and the individual’s right to make those choices. His belief is that groups, in this case the Catholic Church, are equal in status with individuals. Keep in mind, Romney is the same man that said corporations are people too.
A pillar of conservatism is that the individual holds all the power and the responsibly. It is the individual’s choices that determine his responsibility. Apparently, that is true up to the point that the individual is covered under a health plan.
By allowing the Catholic Church to be exempt from offering birth control in their health plan, it limits the individual's choice and personal freedom. Just because the church provide the drugs doesn’t mean they are suggesting anyone should use them. The church can use their freedom of speech to express their concerns about birth control.
If it was allowed, it could create many other divisions, not even just in the birth control issue. Should a church have health insurance policies rewritten that restrict what clinics, hospitals and doctors can receive payments from the health plan because they offer birth control and abortion? This, even though the health of the woman may dictate that she goes to one of them?
President Obama made the right decision on the birth control issues. The individual’s right to make choices must be greater than the group’s ability to control those choices.
-----
Monday, February 6, 2012
Kindergarten funding in Michigan
The good news is, Michigan “encourages” local school districts to offer all-day kindergarten. The bad news is school districts will lose money if they do or if they don’t.
Last year, the Michigan legislature, with Governor Rick Snyder’s approval, passed a measure that will continue to fully fund kindergarten for those school districts that offer it as a full day, rather than a half day as it is now. School districts that don’t will only receive half of the state’s grant for each child that participates in half day kindergarten.
Expanding the amount of time that students are in the classroom is a great idea. They will be much better prepared for first grade and the rest of elementary school. The trouble is that school districts will lose money no matter what they do. If they opt to expand kindergarten to full day, there will be the extra expenses of more classrooms, more teachers and all the other things that go along with children in school longer. But, the districts will continue to receive only the current funding levels. If the districts don’t expand to full day, they will only receive half of the current funding, so they lose money.
The Berkley school district, as reported in local newspapers, might be an example. It will cost the district $700,000 more to add full day. But, they won’t receive any additional money to cover the costs. If they don’t and save the money, the school aid to the district will drop by a million dollars.
Kindergarten should be expanded to a full day. There is no reason to keep it at a half day. It will be a better use of the resources and better prepare the children for elementary. But, the way the legislature did it was foolish and doesn’t recognize the issues on the local level. First, the school aid budget was already chopped by about $470 on average for each child. This means districts are already fighting rising costs and lower funding. This is not a naive complaint that doesn’t realize that tax revenues are down because of the economy. But, the school aid budget had a surplus that equaled about $430 per child, the Governor borrowed money to balance the budget. This could have made a big difference to school districts.
More importantly, there is a gap between what the political rhetoric is and what we are willing to pay. If education is such a high priority in the state, (as it should be) why aren’t we willing to properly fund the budget? We have made cuts in the amount of taxes that businesses pay without seeking new sources of income to make up for the loss. Then, to balance the budget, the state takes a surplus the state has in the school aid fund to make up the difference.
Education is the second most important function of a community, just behind law enforcement. Let’s fund it properly.
-----
Last year, the Michigan legislature, with Governor Rick Snyder’s approval, passed a measure that will continue to fully fund kindergarten for those school districts that offer it as a full day, rather than a half day as it is now. School districts that don’t will only receive half of the state’s grant for each child that participates in half day kindergarten.
Expanding the amount of time that students are in the classroom is a great idea. They will be much better prepared for first grade and the rest of elementary school. The trouble is that school districts will lose money no matter what they do. If they opt to expand kindergarten to full day, there will be the extra expenses of more classrooms, more teachers and all the other things that go along with children in school longer. But, the districts will continue to receive only the current funding levels. If the districts don’t expand to full day, they will only receive half of the current funding, so they lose money.
The Berkley school district, as reported in local newspapers, might be an example. It will cost the district $700,000 more to add full day. But, they won’t receive any additional money to cover the costs. If they don’t and save the money, the school aid to the district will drop by a million dollars.
Kindergarten should be expanded to a full day. There is no reason to keep it at a half day. It will be a better use of the resources and better prepare the children for elementary. But, the way the legislature did it was foolish and doesn’t recognize the issues on the local level. First, the school aid budget was already chopped by about $470 on average for each child. This means districts are already fighting rising costs and lower funding. This is not a naive complaint that doesn’t realize that tax revenues are down because of the economy. But, the school aid budget had a surplus that equaled about $430 per child, the Governor borrowed money to balance the budget. This could have made a big difference to school districts.
More importantly, there is a gap between what the political rhetoric is and what we are willing to pay. If education is such a high priority in the state, (as it should be) why aren’t we willing to properly fund the budget? We have made cuts in the amount of taxes that businesses pay without seeking new sources of income to make up for the loss. Then, to balance the budget, the state takes a surplus the state has in the school aid fund to make up the difference.
Education is the second most important function of a community, just behind law enforcement. Let’s fund it properly.
-----
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Immigration
It can’t be said that there are many parallels between Newt Gingrich’s political philosophy, if it can be collected into one coherent philosophy, and the structure of the Responsible Community. But, we do need to give Gingrich his due when he is right, even if not for the same reasons.
Today is Florida’s Republican primary and immigration is a big issue because of the large amount of immigrants, both legal and illegal. Mitt Romney, Gingrich’s biggest rival in the presidential primary, has developed his “self-deportation” plan that has some truth at the core. He believes that as a country, we need to somehow remove the illegal immigrants from the neighborhoods of America and return them to their home country. There, they can apply to come to America legally. He would do this by cutting off the jobs the immigrants obtain when here. This is the truth at the core of his plan; we would have much less illegal immigration if there weren’t jobs going unfilled here.
But, Romney is not likely to be willing to go up against business owners and fine them for hiring illegals. Remember, he is a pro-business candidate, having run a capital investment firm very successfully. It just can’t be seen how the pro-business, less regulation candidate is going to stop businesses who need cheap docile employees.
If Romney wants to remove the illegals from our neighborhoods, he will have to drive the padding wagon down the street, dragnet style. He will have to round them up and send them home.
Gingrich doesn’t think that is such a good idea, nor do I. Gingrich has said something like rounding up someone’s grandmother that has been here for many years to deport her is against humanity and, besides, can’t really be done. (Gingrich is right on both points. Can you image removing 10 to 20 million people from the country? Panic and chaos would be pandemic. There would be riots and armed conflict in the streets of our towns. Our courts would be filled with backlog cases for many years, if not lifetimes.)
These people are here because we needed them to fill jobs that went unfilled. While they may have taken jobs that legal immigrants could have filled, it is not as bad as it seems. Once here, they created a synergy that created more jobs. Economically, they hold entire communities together. They rent houses and apartments, buy food for their families, entertain themselves and buy shirts from JC Penny. By removing about 10 to 15 percent of the population, if it could be done, would send us into another recession. The jobs it is said the illegals took would be gone along with all the other jobs that were created from the goods and services they purchased.
That is not to suggest that we should not do a better job of keeping illegals from the country in the first place. A blog post from May 2010, End Illegal Immigration in Five Steps, outlines five steps to end illegal immigration without ten foot concrete walls around the country. Let’s make sure every person has a national identification card so we know who is legal and who isn’t, that every business knows that there will be severe consequences if they hire undocumented workers, manage our borders not control them and build the economies in the home countries. We also need to provide a path for documenting workers that aren’t currently legal instead of deporting them.
Solutions for problems like illegal immigration come from practical community based solutions not from politically motivated ideological double speak. Romney is suggesting that we get tough by cutting off the supply of jobs at the same time he says we need to get rid of regulations and help business. This is Romney’s double speak. Gingrich at least is defining the issue in practical terms.
-----
Today is Florida’s Republican primary and immigration is a big issue because of the large amount of immigrants, both legal and illegal. Mitt Romney, Gingrich’s biggest rival in the presidential primary, has developed his “self-deportation” plan that has some truth at the core. He believes that as a country, we need to somehow remove the illegal immigrants from the neighborhoods of America and return them to their home country. There, they can apply to come to America legally. He would do this by cutting off the jobs the immigrants obtain when here. This is the truth at the core of his plan; we would have much less illegal immigration if there weren’t jobs going unfilled here.
But, Romney is not likely to be willing to go up against business owners and fine them for hiring illegals. Remember, he is a pro-business candidate, having run a capital investment firm very successfully. It just can’t be seen how the pro-business, less regulation candidate is going to stop businesses who need cheap docile employees.
If Romney wants to remove the illegals from our neighborhoods, he will have to drive the padding wagon down the street, dragnet style. He will have to round them up and send them home.
Gingrich doesn’t think that is such a good idea, nor do I. Gingrich has said something like rounding up someone’s grandmother that has been here for many years to deport her is against humanity and, besides, can’t really be done. (Gingrich is right on both points. Can you image removing 10 to 20 million people from the country? Panic and chaos would be pandemic. There would be riots and armed conflict in the streets of our towns. Our courts would be filled with backlog cases for many years, if not lifetimes.)
These people are here because we needed them to fill jobs that went unfilled. While they may have taken jobs that legal immigrants could have filled, it is not as bad as it seems. Once here, they created a synergy that created more jobs. Economically, they hold entire communities together. They rent houses and apartments, buy food for their families, entertain themselves and buy shirts from JC Penny. By removing about 10 to 15 percent of the population, if it could be done, would send us into another recession. The jobs it is said the illegals took would be gone along with all the other jobs that were created from the goods and services they purchased.
That is not to suggest that we should not do a better job of keeping illegals from the country in the first place. A blog post from May 2010, End Illegal Immigration in Five Steps, outlines five steps to end illegal immigration without ten foot concrete walls around the country. Let’s make sure every person has a national identification card so we know who is legal and who isn’t, that every business knows that there will be severe consequences if they hire undocumented workers, manage our borders not control them and build the economies in the home countries. We also need to provide a path for documenting workers that aren’t currently legal instead of deporting them.
Solutions for problems like illegal immigration come from practical community based solutions not from politically motivated ideological double speak. Romney is suggesting that we get tough by cutting off the supply of jobs at the same time he says we need to get rid of regulations and help business. This is Romney’s double speak. Gingrich at least is defining the issue in practical terms.
-----
Monday, January 23, 2012
Body autonomy, at the core of abortion rights
In a perfect world, everyone’s rights would be given the same weight. But, the practical matter is, in a community that has its entire existence invested in the freedom of the individual, there are times when someone’s right must be overridden by someone else.
As examples, we can say troubling things that can harm people, but it is our right to express. When Occupy took over ground to stage their protests, they prevented others from using the property for other reasons. We take up arms to fight the enemy to save ourselves and our way of life, but many of our own and others die in the process. In the end, these and other freedoms that we as a community feel so fervently about are worth the loss.
All freedoms are based on body autonomy. It is the basic idea that individuals can’t be forced to submit to the will of others. It may have had a different meaning in the past, perhaps anchored in the anti-slavery movement. But, in this expanded usage, not only does it apply to involuntary servitude, but also to other freedoms.
As it is with all other freedoms, it is also true with abortion, perhaps with deeper implications. But, because the end result may be more troubling to some, it doesn’t mean that the individual freedom to make the choice is any less sacred. The fact is, a woman can’t be made to labor for someone else if she doesn’t choose to. To discount her right of body autonomy would be placing an entire class of people below the rights of all others.
Abortion will be a big issue in the upcoming election. Many of the candidates will talk high mindedly about how abortions should be stopped. But, when all the rhetoric is set aside, it will mean a woman is being forced to give up her right to body autonomy. During the election season, many states will also make an attempt to pass citizens initiatives that restrict or prevent abortions. Many will attempt to define life at conception or at the first heartbeat so abortion can be curtailed. It still means the same thing, woman will lose control.
Whatever the rhetoric or the passion, abortion must remain legal and safe in this world, this country and this community.
-----
As examples, we can say troubling things that can harm people, but it is our right to express. When Occupy took over ground to stage their protests, they prevented others from using the property for other reasons. We take up arms to fight the enemy to save ourselves and our way of life, but many of our own and others die in the process. In the end, these and other freedoms that we as a community feel so fervently about are worth the loss.
All freedoms are based on body autonomy. It is the basic idea that individuals can’t be forced to submit to the will of others. It may have had a different meaning in the past, perhaps anchored in the anti-slavery movement. But, in this expanded usage, not only does it apply to involuntary servitude, but also to other freedoms.
As it is with all other freedoms, it is also true with abortion, perhaps with deeper implications. But, because the end result may be more troubling to some, it doesn’t mean that the individual freedom to make the choice is any less sacred. The fact is, a woman can’t be made to labor for someone else if she doesn’t choose to. To discount her right of body autonomy would be placing an entire class of people below the rights of all others.
Abortion will be a big issue in the upcoming election. Many of the candidates will talk high mindedly about how abortions should be stopped. But, when all the rhetoric is set aside, it will mean a woman is being forced to give up her right to body autonomy. During the election season, many states will also make an attempt to pass citizens initiatives that restrict or prevent abortions. Many will attempt to define life at conception or at the first heartbeat so abortion can be curtailed. It still means the same thing, woman will lose control.
Whatever the rhetoric or the passion, abortion must remain legal and safe in this world, this country and this community.
-----
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
No "Right to Life" Michigan license plates
If legislation that is before the Michigan Senate Transportation Committee passes, motorist will be able to purchase a license plate for their car that supports Right to Life of Michigan. Not only will the plate make a statement in support of the right’s “Pro Life” campaign, some of the money generated from the sale of the plate will go to Right of Life of Michigan. The organization has stated in press releases that they will use the money to support pregnancy centers around the state.
The Right to Life organization and other conservatives frame this as a free speech issue. The drivers of the cars that have one of the plates attached have a right to express their opinion. The right also believes that the state has the right to take positions on issues, comparing the position to things such as don’t drive drunk or stay in school.
The ACLU and other organizations on the left see it differently. They see this as a fairness issue. If the state is to sell plates that speak to a political point of view, they should offer the same to groups that are opposed to the idea. Also, funds that will be raised for Right to Life of Michigan will not be balanced with funds for the opposing point of view.
In a Responsible Community, the government is not chartered to support any political point of view – maybe even to go as far as not supporting any behavior other than to obey the law. Government in a community is created to facilitate the development of a safe and peaceful environment. To take a partisan side on any issue is to work against some of the stake holders in the community, a protection that is part of a constitutionally limited republic. In this case, the state is facilitating the right’s ability to express a political point of view, but is not providing the same ability for others. Even if the state was to offer a plate for pro-choice groups, it still falls outside of the state’s function.
On a practical matter, as soon as government steps in to a political issue, it will be impossible to delineate between the many points of view that exist in the community and support them all. Its attempt would create a confusing and wasteful use of resources, especially since it is outside of the function of government.
Let’s keep the government doing what it is chartered to do, create a safe and peaceful environment that supports all individuals in the community.
-----
The Right to Life organization and other conservatives frame this as a free speech issue. The drivers of the cars that have one of the plates attached have a right to express their opinion. The right also believes that the state has the right to take positions on issues, comparing the position to things such as don’t drive drunk or stay in school.
The ACLU and other organizations on the left see it differently. They see this as a fairness issue. If the state is to sell plates that speak to a political point of view, they should offer the same to groups that are opposed to the idea. Also, funds that will be raised for Right to Life of Michigan will not be balanced with funds for the opposing point of view.
In a Responsible Community, the government is not chartered to support any political point of view – maybe even to go as far as not supporting any behavior other than to obey the law. Government in a community is created to facilitate the development of a safe and peaceful environment. To take a partisan side on any issue is to work against some of the stake holders in the community, a protection that is part of a constitutionally limited republic. In this case, the state is facilitating the right’s ability to express a political point of view, but is not providing the same ability for others. Even if the state was to offer a plate for pro-choice groups, it still falls outside of the state’s function.
On a practical matter, as soon as government steps in to a political issue, it will be impossible to delineate between the many points of view that exist in the community and support them all. Its attempt would create a confusing and wasteful use of resources, especially since it is outside of the function of government.
Let’s keep the government doing what it is chartered to do, create a safe and peaceful environment that supports all individuals in the community.
-----
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
At the debate of the Republican presidential candidates, each contender stood firm in their opposition to same sex marriage. Their opposition was based on religion, tradition or both. The debate was held at St Anselm’s College, a Roman Catholic grammar school for boys (in Wirral), in Manchester, New Hampshire.
Newt Gingrich, whose sister is gay and a supporter of President Barack Obama, started the conversation by saying that there was a bias by the news media bias because they keep asking the wrong question. The media should be asking about the consequences of same sex marriage instead. Gingrich said that the recognition of a marriage goes far beyond a loving couple who want to form a long term relationship. The consequences of allowing same sex marriages are that all married couples have to be considered for adoption and other rights. Gingrich suggested that this creates an institutionalized bigotry (his word) by the federal government against organizations, like the Catholic Church, because they will not consider gay couples in the adoption process. Gingrich said, therefore, that he supports the traditional sacrament of marriage, one man and one woman, to avoid the consequences.
Mitt Romney said that recognizing same sex marriages, as has been done in New Hampshire, is a mistake. His reason is that children being raised by a male and a female are better off.
Jon Huntsman, Jr. supports civil unions of same sex couples. He does not, though, support same sex marriages. His reason is that he is a traditionalist. Marriage, Huntsman believes, should be saved for one man and one woman. He added that “reciprocal beneficiary rights” should be part of civil unions and that states should talk about the subject.
Rick Perry said that he supports the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That law, the DOMA, was struck down in part by the federal courts. Obama decided against defending the law in the courts and Perry believes that the Obama administration is at war against people of faith by deciding not to defend the law in the courts.
Rick Santorum believes that marriage is a federal issue, while adoption by same sex couples is a state issue. He believes that there needs to be one law for the entire country that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Ron Paul didn’t respond to the marriage question. He does believe that government should get out of the marriage business. Paul has said in the past that he personal believes in marriage as between one man and one woman.
As mentioned above, President Obama did decide not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In part, the act said that states don’t have to accept a marriage from other states and that marriage between same sex couples are not to enjoy the same benefits as those of one man and one woman. In the case Smelt v United States of America, the Obama administration at first defended the law, as it is the policy of the administration to defend all federal laws. But, after pressure from civil rights groups from around the country, Obama withdrew his support and reinstated his original position of asking for full repeal of DOMA.
The definition of marriage is going to be a big issue in the presidential election this fall. The concern the candidates have with marriage is adoption and partner benefits. It is their belief that a child should be raised in a home with a man and a woman, the traditional marriage arrangement. Additionally, with providing benefits to domestic partners it both cost more and provides a de facto approval of the living arrangements.
But, can anyone tell me how same sex marriage is a problem? Same sex marriage doesn’t cause harm to anyone either in the relationship or in the community, so government should not attempt to prevent it. Since being gay it is not a choice, but a biological determination, raising children in the environment is not going to brainwash more children into the gay lifestyle. The argument about costing more is a moot point. It is likely that if there weren’t same sex marriages, there would be more traditional marriages and cost just as much. Finally, to argue that as a community we should continue with one man and one women marriage just because it is tradition is nonsense. Over the last 3,000 years many things have changed and the human species is still here. In fact, we have survived and prospered because we changed when it was deemed necessary.
Civil Unions, which some candidates have suggested is to step into the equal but separate argument. In a broad acceptance of Brown v the Board of Education, separate is not equal. It is inherently unequal by the very fact that they are separate.
Marriage as a contract is something the community should recognize no matter the partners. The benefit is to allow rights and property to pass to each partner and for other legal reasons. But, to define it as only between a man and a woman makes no sense.
-----
Follow us on Facebook.
Newt Gingrich, whose sister is gay and a supporter of President Barack Obama, started the conversation by saying that there was a bias by the news media bias because they keep asking the wrong question. The media should be asking about the consequences of same sex marriage instead. Gingrich said that the recognition of a marriage goes far beyond a loving couple who want to form a long term relationship. The consequences of allowing same sex marriages are that all married couples have to be considered for adoption and other rights. Gingrich suggested that this creates an institutionalized bigotry (his word) by the federal government against organizations, like the Catholic Church, because they will not consider gay couples in the adoption process. Gingrich said, therefore, that he supports the traditional sacrament of marriage, one man and one woman, to avoid the consequences.
Mitt Romney said that recognizing same sex marriages, as has been done in New Hampshire, is a mistake. His reason is that children being raised by a male and a female are better off.
Jon Huntsman, Jr. supports civil unions of same sex couples. He does not, though, support same sex marriages. His reason is that he is a traditionalist. Marriage, Huntsman believes, should be saved for one man and one woman. He added that “reciprocal beneficiary rights” should be part of civil unions and that states should talk about the subject.
Rick Perry said that he supports the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That law, the DOMA, was struck down in part by the federal courts. Obama decided against defending the law in the courts and Perry believes that the Obama administration is at war against people of faith by deciding not to defend the law in the courts.
Rick Santorum believes that marriage is a federal issue, while adoption by same sex couples is a state issue. He believes that there needs to be one law for the entire country that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Ron Paul didn’t respond to the marriage question. He does believe that government should get out of the marriage business. Paul has said in the past that he personal believes in marriage as between one man and one woman.
As mentioned above, President Obama did decide not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In part, the act said that states don’t have to accept a marriage from other states and that marriage between same sex couples are not to enjoy the same benefits as those of one man and one woman. In the case Smelt v United States of America, the Obama administration at first defended the law, as it is the policy of the administration to defend all federal laws. But, after pressure from civil rights groups from around the country, Obama withdrew his support and reinstated his original position of asking for full repeal of DOMA.
The definition of marriage is going to be a big issue in the presidential election this fall. The concern the candidates have with marriage is adoption and partner benefits. It is their belief that a child should be raised in a home with a man and a woman, the traditional marriage arrangement. Additionally, with providing benefits to domestic partners it both cost more and provides a de facto approval of the living arrangements.
But, can anyone tell me how same sex marriage is a problem? Same sex marriage doesn’t cause harm to anyone either in the relationship or in the community, so government should not attempt to prevent it. Since being gay it is not a choice, but a biological determination, raising children in the environment is not going to brainwash more children into the gay lifestyle. The argument about costing more is a moot point. It is likely that if there weren’t same sex marriages, there would be more traditional marriages and cost just as much. Finally, to argue that as a community we should continue with one man and one women marriage just because it is tradition is nonsense. Over the last 3,000 years many things have changed and the human species is still here. In fact, we have survived and prospered because we changed when it was deemed necessary.
Civil Unions, which some candidates have suggested is to step into the equal but separate argument. In a broad acceptance of Brown v the Board of Education, separate is not equal. It is inherently unequal by the very fact that they are separate.
Marriage as a contract is something the community should recognize no matter the partners. The benefit is to allow rights and property to pass to each partner and for other legal reasons. But, to define it as only between a man and a woman makes no sense.
-----
Follow us on Facebook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)