The will of the people to be unconstitutional

The California Marriage Protection Act, which provided that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," was voted into law by Californians in the November 2008 election. Earlier this month, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned the law more commonly known as Proposition 8.

This has supporters of the proposition in an uproar, claiming that Walker denied the people of California their free will. It's ironic that the California Marriage Protection Act itself denies an entire class of people their free will to marry. Of course, Proposition 8 supporters would argue that all it does is to explicitly define "marriage" in the state's constitution as it has been defined for millennia.

In fact, polygamy -- one of the more ancient practices -- was long considered a legitimate marriage, both in religions and in society. It was not uncommon for a marriage between an adult and a girl in her early teens to be recognized without controversy. Because the Confucian philosophy dictated that Chinese marriage brings together families of different surnames, it was not considered incestuous to marry one's maternal relative, and families would intermarry from one generation to another.

In modern marriage, neither religion nor moralities have any relevance, at least insofar as the state of California is concerned. Walker made this case in his ruling when he wrote the following clause:

Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.

He was also careful to recognize that overturning the law in no way impinges on anyone's religious freedoms:

Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize marriage for same-sex couples.

A marriage in a California church, temple, or synagogue is not legally recognized if the state has not licensed the couple to marry. A legal marriage licensed by the state is valid even if there has been no religious ceremony. From the perspective of the state of California -- which is the only jurisdiction of the California Marriage Protection Act -- marriage is simply a legal status of two consenting persons, with the associated rights and responsibilities prescribed by law.

Furthermore, within the scope of authority of Proposition 8, marriage is a state matter. California is obligated to execute state law only to the extent that it is constitutional under the United States Constitution. That constitution happens to have an equal-protection clause -- Amendment XIV -- that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Judge Walker wrote that "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." Proposition 8 reflected the will of the people of California ... to enact an unconstitutional law. For that reason, it should not stand.

Drill, baby. Drill!

In light of the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, you would think that Sarah Palin and other Republicans who chanted, "Drill, baby. Drill!" during the last election are feeling a little foolish now. So where do GOP lawmakers stand on the mantra now that the devastation that drilling for oil can do to the environment is glaringly apparent?

Although some have tempered their position, others continue to staunchly defend offshore drilling. As you might expect, you could find a supporter of "Drill, baby. Drill!" in a landlocked place like Utah. Surprisingly, even a GOP legislator from Texas, which has a long Gulf coast, still supports it. It's likely a safe bet that continuing supporters of offshore drilling receive campaign funding from the oil industry.

Universal health care

I've had extensive first-hand experience with the health-care system in this country. It amazes me how we can have the finest health care and medical technology in the world, yet have it so out-of-reach of so many Americans who really need it. It's a tragedy that the cost of it is so unnecessarily high, not only on an absolute basis, but also relative to other modern countries.

I favor universal health-care. However, my reasons for doing so go beyond the moral grounds. I also think that it's the only way to fix our health care system from a political/capitalistic perspective.

It seems to me that there are four main drivers of dysfunction in our health-care system:

1. third-party payers
2. health-care fraud
3. malpractice litigation
4. pharmaceutical lobby

These factors end up working at odds with each other in the end-to-end provision of health-care. They create protected markets, drive out competition, and push the costs through the roof. They also segregate access to health-care.

In the end, I don't think it's possible to repair our current system. As long as we try to do a fix here and another there, the problems will persist. My opinion is that the only way to create a healthy (pun intended) health-care system is to totally dismantle the current system and completely rebuild it from the ground up under a completely different framework. Probably the only way to end up with a cohesive health-care system that delivers quality care to all Americans rather than only wealthy ones is under -- dare I say it -- a somewhat socialistic model.

I know, now I'm sounding like a bleeding-heart liberal. However, I think the health-care system is a unique beast. It is the only case where I am a proponent of socialism. Otherwise, I'm a big believer in free enterprise. I believe in free trade and limiting regulation on most industries. I also oppose government subsidies of goods. In fact, I believe there are ways that capitalism can be integrated into certain facets of a universal health-care system under a mostly socialistic model.

Out of the frying pan, into the fire

It's looking less and less likely that the current health care bill will be ratified by congress. This probability has some posing the question, what happens if nothing happens? They make the point that the cost of health insurance is sure to go up if we allow the status quo. Anthem's recently announced 39 percent hike to some premiums bears that out.

What they do not address is what would happen to the cost of health insurance if the health care bill were passed.

Let's take a look at that. The bill turns 94% of Americans into a captive market for the health insurance industry, adding millions of revenue streams to their coffers. When all Americans are required to buy health insurance, what incentive will the industry have to cut premiums? Proponents of the bill would answer that it sets up an insurance "exchange" to create the competitive forces that drive prices down. But we already have an insurance exchange -- it's called the free enterprise marketplace. And look how well that has done at keeping prices down.

So instead of asking what happens if nothing happens, we should be asking what happens if the bill does pass. It could be a lot worse than the status quo.

Too stupid to fail?

Today's Sunday comics had a surprising synchronicity. Although I'm sure they didn't plan it that way, This Modern World segues seamlessly into Doonesbury. Read them both (click the comic strip to zoom in) -- it's as if they were one strip today.

(Read the rest of my post below the jump)




There might just be something to this too-stupid-to-fail concept. The small banks have proven to be smarter than the big banks. These smaller players mostly avoided the risky predatory lending schemes that wrecked larger institutions. Yet it's the big banks that we bail out. I'm with Rahm -- it doesn't make sense to me either.

The Convention

Tolerance as practiced by people of faith

A 2007 study from the University of Minnesota looked at the acceptance of atheists in American society. Using new national survey data, it shows atheists are less likely to be accepted, publicly and privately, than any others from a long list of ethnic, religious, and other minority groups.

It's safe to assume that atheists are completely accepting of their fellow atheists' religious beliefs -- or, more accurately in this case, their lack thereof. That leaves only religious people with the distrust of atheists.

Atheists are so distrusted and despised by people of faith that less than half of all Americans would be willing to vote for an atheist to be their President. When faced with a laundry list of religions and ethnic minorities, almost forty percent feel that atheists do not at all agree with their vision of America (thirteen percentage points higher than the next most unagreeable group). When asked if they would disapprove if their child wanted to marry a member of this group, 47.6% disapprove of their child marrying an atheist (fourteen percentage points higher than those who would disapprove of their child marrying a Muslim, the second most disapproved group). These numbers are even higher among Americans of faith than they are in the general population.

While most religions preach tolerance and acceptance, it turns out most of their believers are anything but tolerant when it comes to atheists. Surprisingly, they're even more tolerant of people of different faiths, even though an atheist is the least likely to proselytize them.

Self-interest would dictate that a religious person would prefer to have an atheist in the Oval Office than someone of a different faith because the atheist would be the least likely to allow religious convictions to influence the decisions they make as President. Surprisingly, it turns out the atheist would be the last person they would want for their President.

Most parents would want their children to marry an intelligent spouse. Since atheists, on average, have an IQ almost six points higher than a religious person, it would seem that an atheist would be the more desirable spouse. Apparently, however, parents would prefer their child marry someone of lower intelligence over marrying an atheist.

While it's well and good to preach tolerance from the pulpit, god forbid you practice tolerance in your life.