Category Archives: Liberty

Gay Marriage And States Rights

Gay Marriage

Watching the story surrounding the arguments before the Supreme Court is fascinating.  I love hearing the back and forth not only among the partisans but the “experts” as well.

Some thoughts.

I love President Obama being called out:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and some of the other more conservative justices expressed irritation that the case was before them at all and said President Obama’s stance – to enforce the law but not defend it – contradicted itself.

“I don’t see why he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions” and not enforce the law if he thinks it is unconstitutional, the chief justice said.

This goes to the decision by the President that the law was unconstitutional and that his Justice Department wouldn’t defend the law in court.  However, Obama is still enforcing the law and when the law was struck down by a lower court, Obama appealed it to the Supreme Court.

 Then, I never would have thought I’d see the day when a liberal Justice would appeal to the concept of state’s rights:

“It’s not as though there’s this little federal sphere … you’d be really diminishing what the state has said is marriage,” Ginsburg said.

I think that if Ginsburg rules DOMA unconstitutional because of state’s rights, the left is going to have a hard time fighting state efforts to ban gay marriage.

As for me, I think that gay marriage is protected federally in the same way that interracial marriage is protected federally.

Potty Talk

Outhouse

So, a long time ago I was working as a busboy at a hotel on campus at the University of Minnesota.  Out of the blue, one of the waitresses says to me, “You are the strangest person I know.”

Huh.

For a long time I’ve been thinking about what the ramifications might be if when we legalize gay marriage.  When we finally move from the old places to the new places.  What will that mean practically.

What will the changing definitions and norms of the sexes mean in today’s culture.  And I keep coming back to bathrooms and locker rooms.

Consider, for example, why we have different rest rooms for different sexes?  Why is that?  What is the reason for the segregation?  I have no historical basis to go on, so I can only assume that it’s because women don’t want men seeing them in their most vulnerable and likewise don’t want men dropping trau in their presence.

Makes perfect sense.

Until you think it through.  Stalls all around.  And, being a long time man, I’ve never barged in on another guy in his “private time” to see, accidentally or not, anything that would make a nun blush.

Ever.

Yet the norm remains.  Men in men’s rooms and women in ladies rooms.  Why?

So, if we are now having fair and open discussion surrounding the fact that some people are straight and others are gay, and more importantly that that is okay, is there ever going to be a discussion surrounding potty etiquette?   I’ve thought about it but never thought that I would start it.

Bring on Arizona via Moe:

Kavanagh’s [new amendment] prohibits a person from entering a “public restroom, bathroom, shower, bath, dressing room, or locker room” if the sex designation of that facility does not match the individual’s birth certificate.

So, I never went there, but it’s close.

If there is a case for separate restrooms based on sex, is there an equally strong argument for separate restrooms based on sexual preference.  Now take it further, the YMCA or any other gym.  If we decide to build and maintain separate showers for men and women, for what I think are obvious reasons, isn’t there at least as compelling reason to build separate facilities for gay and straight people?  After all, if a woman doesn’t feel comfortable showering in front of a man who might be sexually attracted to her, don’t I have the same reasonable right to the same expectation?

Now, before anyone goes all crazy on me for being some looney wacko, understand that I’ve experienced this to a degree.  I used to live in Seattle and have vacationed in the parks of Orcus Island.  And one of those camps had a jacuzzi and sauna, co-ed, with an expectation of nudity.  For the first 10-15 minutes it was out-of-this-world-strange.  However, after that initial period of weirdness, things kinda gelled into normal and it was like nothing was odd at all.

So,now that I’m not the guy that started it I can wonder out loud in print.

How The Old North State Feels About Gun Regulation

Gun Control.Elon.2013.02.24

I live in North Carolina and this surprised me.  I would have thought the banning of weapons would have polled lower.  The waiting periods and background checks…?  I’m less surprised by.  They are good ideas.

See the poll here.

North Carolina – Gay Marriage

Gay Rights

Marriage.  I think the word has two different meanings.  One speaks to the personal and spiritual belief in the institution.  The other is nothing more than a contract between two individuals as recognized by the state.

Independent of one’s view of the spiritual meaning of the act of marriage, it is clear to me that the institution as recognized by the sate should view the union only as a contract; independent of religion or sex.

To that end, a church in North Carolina, after seeing the state vote in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage by 61% of the vote, has decided that it will no longer perform marriage services for anyone until gay marriage is recognized by the state of North Carolina.

John Hinton/Winston-Salem Journal

Green Street United Methodist Church in Winston-Salem says it won’t conduct marriages for heterosexual couples until United Methodist pastors are allowed to officiate at marriages for same-sex couples.

The church’s 18-member leadership council is asking pastors to conduct relationship blessings rather than marriage ceremonies in the sanctuary until the United Methodist Church changes its policies, according to a statement by Equality NC, a statewide organization working to secure equal rights and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender residents.

And the church isn’t just saying that they view the state recognize same sex marriages as legitimate contracts, rather they are going a step further:

In a statement on its website, church officials declared that committed same-sex relationships are “no less sacred” as heterosexual unions.

Good for them!

Personal Conviction

Rob Portman

At then end of the day, in today’s political atmosphere we’ve gotta take what we can get.  And, when the taking is the right thing from the get go, perhaps even the better.  But it would have been nice if we could have come to this conclusion without having to experience what love means first had:

CINCINNATI –  Republican U.S. Sen. Rob Portman said Thursday that he now supports gay marriage because one of his sons is gay.

Ohio’s junior senator made the disclosure during an interview in Washington, The Cincinnati Enquirer reported.

“It’s a change of heart from the position of a father,” he told three reporters during the 45-minute session in his office. “I think we should be allowing gay couples the joy and stability of marriage.”

I’m not so sure that this signals a tipping point in the GOP, after all, Cheney supports gay marriage, but I could be wrong; this could be the beginning of the thaw.

If only Mr. Portman could have arrived at this conclusion under different circumstances.

Religion In The State

Prayer

My take on the separation of church and state is that we don’t want to create a national religion that would allow the leaders of the church to be the leaders of the state.  As was the case when folks first left England for the “new land”.  At that time, the King of England was also the head of the Church of England.

Of course, over time, here in America we have taken this concept and twisted it to all kinds of silly that now prevents us from offering a prayer before graduation, before a football game.  It prevents kids from singing Christmas carols during winter concerts.  Local governments are unable to display mangers.

Not, in my opinion, the intent.

Mississippi seems to be going the other way in an equal manner:

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant has signed a bill that could lead to student-led prayer over school intercoms or at graduations or sporting events.

It says all school districts must adopt a policy to allow a “limited public forum” at school events such as football games or morning announcements, to let students express religious beliefs. The policy must include a disclaimer that such student speech “does not reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position or expression of the district.”

In the same way and manner that I don’t think that we should forbid coaches from holding a small prayer before hitting the hardwoods, I don’t think that we should be mandating a forum either.

However, when we begin to legislate stuff like this we end up with all kinds of twisted and tortured legislation that, when boiled down, is really meant to say, “Just leave me alone!”

My hope that this might just be a good common sense codified is the ACLU’s response:

Bear Atwood, legal director for ACLU of Mississippi, says the group will wait to see if there’s proselytizing in schools before deciding whether to file a lawsuit.

What else can ya expect from a dude named “Bear”?

Nullification

Constitution

Lately, and mostly, it’s been conservatives and republicans that get all crazy on the nullification kick.  Recently the trend has centered on the 2nd amendment and gun control or regulation.

Trust me, I resonate with the concept and the idea; the federal government is limited in what it can do.  And everything that is not given to the feds is given to the states.  I get it.

But we don’t live in that world anymore.   That world ended when the Supreme Court ruled that a man, on his own land, raising his own wheat, couldn’t grow as much as he wanted to feed his own animals.

Period.

So it is with great joy that I see the left jumping on the bandwagon:

CONCORD, N.H. (Mar. 13, 2013) Today in a lopsided vote, the Democrat-controlled State House of Representatives in New Hampshire approved Representative Dan Itse’s HB399, the Liberty Preservation Act.  If passed into law, HB399 would nullify the NDAA “indefinite detention” powers that Barack Obama signed into law at the end of 2011.  The vote was 337-15 (roll call here).

Pure awesomeness.

I don’t think this will matter.  Federal law trumps state law, does anyone younger than 40 know what trump is, so there is little hope that this in reality matters, but it’s cool.

Liberty And Faith

Pope Francis

I should note that I am not Catholic.  Like all good upper Europeans I am Lutheran, born and bred for generations.  In fact, it was Martin Luther that broke from the Catholic Church all those years ago when he nailed his issues to the church doors.

That being said, read on.

Not hours after being elected to head the Catholic Church, being the first Latino Pope and the first Pope to be elected from the Americas, the Facebook is aflutter with his views on homosexuality:

Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.

First I should point out there there was zero -NONE- hope that the new Pope would change course on the Catholic view of homosexuality.  Whatever your view  of homosexuality, folks who are gay or the rights of gay people in a government, to think that the Pope would come out and change direction is a totally pie in the sky hope or expectation.

That being said, I have no issue with people who view the issue of homosexuality as a binary proposition and chose to leave the church over their view.

But this gets to the heart of the matter.

In my understanding of Christianity as a whole, and certainly my personal belief, is that all of humanity is born into sin and cannot escape  our condition as imperfect people.  That our acceptance into heaven, and here I break with Catholics, is based on the Mercy of the Divine and not the merit of the creature.  In the same way I love my new born child, who has no cognitive ability to love at that moment, I accept that my inability to love my Creator in no way affects His love for me.

Gay or straight.

My issue with people who take the position that homosexuality is a sin isn’t so much with their verdict, my personal take is that I have no earthly idea what the Almighty will consider, but with their treatment of the individual.  In the same way that we love, tolerate and pray for all people, I would expect that the church an its followers would extend the same love and compassion to members who might be gay or who might in other ways and manners exhibit sinful behavior.

Lastly, I would like to add that being Catholic is a personal choice.  Their beliefs and tenants are their own.  I may not agree with every group of people in their own private missions, but I don’t begrudge them for having them.

What A Woman Wants

There has been lot’s of play on the book written by Sheryl Sandberg and her view on why women are not making more progress in top positions in the corporate world.  I have my ideas, but I came across this today via Mark Perry:

Isn’t it odd that people who exhort us to increase the numbers of women in powerful, high-paying jobs on the speculative grounds that this will be good for the world, discount the roles of women as mothers, which are (usually) of undeniable benefit to their kids? Many women have figured this out. One put it this way: “The world will not be affected one way or another if it has one more accountant during the next decade. But my kids will be profoundly affected by having me raise them.”

Many women also find that devoting their time to raising happy, ethical, and responsible children is more rewarding than spending 60 hours a week at the office. Why should they be made to feel that they are letting down the team?

 

Judge Halts New York City’s Soda Ban

Gavel

With not one single day of legal training and not enough interest to even read the reviews of books that discuss law, I have a idea of what I think should and should not be.

I think the Constitution was meant to limit what the federal government may do.  Further, it lists several things that it CAN do.  And every thing else is relegated to the states.

Therefore, I think that the feds cannot regulate firearms but states, counties and cities may.  It’s why I think that schools should be more locally run and funded and why things like alcohol, speed limits and hunting should be left to the states.

Now, to those local governing bodies.  I’m pretty sure that they can legislate freely.  Zoning laws preventing high rise apartments?  Go for it.  Wanna ban alcohol in the county?  Sure.  No hunting on Sunday?  Fine.

Bad ideas all, but certainly doable.

Which, when I consider the soda ban in New York, sums up my feelings regarding that law:

Stupid but legal.

Imagine my surprise when I saw this:

A judge invalidated New York City’s limits on large sugary drinks on Monday, one day before they were to go into effect, dealing a significant blow to one of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s signature public health initiatives and a marquee project of his third term.

The decision by Justice Milton A. Tingling Jr. of State Supreme Court in Manhattan blocks the city from putting the rules into effect or enforcing them.

I like the idea of bad ideas not being implemented, but I want that to be done in a legal manner.  I’m pretty sure that the city of New York can regulate soda in anyway they see fit.  But the judge doesn’t see it that way:

Justice Tingling said the rule banning the drinks was “arbitrary and capricious.”

In his opinion, Justice Tingling specifically cited a perceived inequity in the soda rules, which applies to only certain sugared drinks — beverages with a high milk content, for instance, would be exempt — and would apply only to some food establishments, like restaurants, but not others, like convenience stores.

“It applies to some but not all food establishments in the city,” Justice Tingling wrote. “It excludes other beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners and/or calories.”

The judge also wrote that the fact that consumers can receive refills of sodas, as long as the cup size is not larger than 16 ounces, would “defeat and/or serve to gut the purpose the rule.” The judge also appeared to be skeptical of the purview of the city’s Board of Health, which the Bloomberg administration had maintained has broad powers to seek to better the public’s health. That interpretation, the judge wrote, “would leave its authority to define, create, mandate and enforce limited only by its own imagination,” and “create an administrative Leviathan.”

We’ll see how it plays out.  But for now, people in NYC are free to decide to buy a large soda.  And good for them.