We The People Posted About Ted Cruz’ Big Fat Gay Marriage Ban… Here’s what I think...

In his Valentine’s Day blog post, Joel Lopez gives an overview of a Bill filed in the U.S. Senate by Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah, both Republicans whom I admire in many ways (e.g., their solo stand to block Obamacare funding); but not in this bit of legislative folly.  Joel also wrote a thoughtful commentary to my recent post on marriage equality, in which he finds my post “…hits the nail on the head when it comes to what most liberal Americans think when it comes to marriage equality.”  While I don’t think it will surprise Joel that I disagree with the Cruz-Lee legislation, he and others might be surprised that it’s because I believe my views on marriage equality to be fundamentally conservative, not liberal.

The Cruz-Lee Bill seeks to expand States’ rights.  But, it does so by weakening and infringing on individual, fundamental Privacy, Liberty and Due Process protections in the U.S. Constitution.  In Loving v Virginia (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear the right to marry is a decision an individual is free to make without governmental interference, other than establishing minimum ages.  So, while the States have constitutionally-protected rights and expressly reserved powers to them – like the authority to establish age of consent, & minimum ages for marriage, that authority has limits.  For me, many of those limits stop at the water’s edge of individual constitutionally-protected rights; like the right to marry.

To illustrate, consider a different circumstance protected by the same provisions of the Constitution. I noticed in Joel’s first blog post that he and his wife homeschool their first grader.  In the early 1980s in Texas, then-Attorney General Jim Mattox, a Democrat, publicly stated he did not believe parents were qualified to raise their children, much less teach them at home.  General Mattox then went on a crusade to crush parents’ rights to homeschool their children.  What resulted was a years-long battle to protect the individual rights of parents to direct their children’s education and upbringing from the overreaching intrusion of the State, culminating in a Texas Supreme Court decision in favor of parental rights and family privacy.

The battle over marriage equality is simply a rose by another name; a distinction without a difference in the context of constitutionally-protected Privacy, Liberty and Due Process interests of the individual.  Constitutional rights are not issued in Small, Medium or Large like a T-Shirt or a fountain drink.  It’s either a right, or it isn’t.  In matters of marriage and family, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the Liberty interest in family privacy “has its source, and its contours are ordinarily to be sought, not in state law, but in intrinsic human rights…” (as stated in Smith v Organization of Foster Families, a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court case) (Emphasis Added).

It’s important I reiterate my position on marriage equality is neither liberal, nor rooted in any liberal ideology.  My position is that marriage equality has always been protected; right there in the U.S. Constitution, just waiting to be recognized, expressed and exercised to the benefit of anyone being discriminated against.  I don’t have to agree with everyone’s choice of spouse to respect their individual right to choose that spouse, much like I don’t have to agree with a parent homeschooling their child to respect their protected right to do so.  Ultimately, it’s my conservative recognition that in order to expand States’ rights regarding marriage would necessarily infringe on the rights of individuals that guides my position.  That’s the very definition of an unconstitutional law.  Sens. Cruz and Lee both have deep, broad experience in the practice of constitutional and appellate law.  Their proposal is a naked, shameful political stunt to throw red meat at what is a clear legal issue. Regardless of any majority (read here, “mob”) effort to suppress individual rights, the Cruz-Lee Bill should go no further than the bad idea pile. 

Reigning in abusive, expansive, intrusive, overreaching government is always an act of conservatism; a clinging to and defense of the founding principles of individual rights, free from government infringement.  Edmund Burke famously said, “Those who do not know history are destined to repeat it.”  I believe it’s imperative that every citizen be willing to stand up and protect the fundamental rights of any citizen.  The infringement of one right only ever leads to the infringement of another.  Thus, the infringement of my neighbor’s rights today will inevitably and eventually lead to the infringement of my rights tomorrow; and vice versa.  That’s why I support marriage equality; and why I oppose the Cruz-Lee Bill.

Say "I Do" to Marriage Equality

“I’m getting married!”  Well, not now. I’m not even dating anyone.  But, I do hope to be married one day.  I believe we all hope to be in a relationship where we are loved unconditionally and made to feel special.  Marriage is the bedrock foundation of family in our country. In fact, fifteen times since 1888, the U.S. Supreme Court has held marriage to be a fundamental right of all individuals.  In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause…”

For reasons passing understanding, the government plays a role in marriage.  What I mean is the government issues marriage licenses, grants divorces; and is in the midst of trying to define marriage.  It’s a pretty big issue: “gay marriage” and “defense of marriage” are terms we hear in the media quite a lot lately.  Lawyers and legislators are busy every day, too; locking horns and battling over who should be allowed to marry.  So, let’s begin by defining what I’m talking about today: Marriage Equality.  Not gay. Not straight.  Just equal.

Make no mistake, marriage is big business.  I don’t mean weddings, and all the related expenses, or the endless TV shows about weddings, brides, bride-zillas, dresses, cakes, and the list goes on and on.  I mean, the business of marriage!  Couples who aren’t married pay higher taxes.  Married couples have legal rights of survivorship, and can make unlimited gifts to each other without being taxed. Married couples are entitled to financial benefits relating to their spouses, such as disability, pension and social security benefits.  And, marriage offers 1,138 Federal benefits and responsibilities, not including hundreds more offered by every state.

What do I mean by marriage equality?  Imagine you and your fiancé go to the county courthouse to get a marriage license.  You pay the fee, but the clerk refuses to issue the license.  Why?  Well, they don’t approve of who you plan to marry.  And, the law says you can’t marry the person you’ve chosen, and who has chosen you.  Now, instead of picturing a same-sex couple, imagine that one of you is white, and the other is black.

Nearly 50 years ago, around the time my parents were born, Richard and Mildred Loving were banned from the State of Virginia for being married.  Richard was white.  Mildred was black.  Embarrassing, right?  They sued for their right to be married, took the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court... and won - opening the way for interracial couples in the U.S. to marry legally.  How fitting that their name would be “Loving”.

The New York Times recently ran an Editorial discussing the expanding influence of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v Windsor. The overall premise of the article is that the Court’s decision clears the way for an expansion of equal rights among the gay community.

Nobody at the courthouse interviewed or screened my parents when they went for their marriage license.  Nobody made sure my mother was tall enough, or that my dad was thin enough, or that they fit some state-sanctioned ideal for how a couple should look.  So, why would we do that to anyone?  The State’s role in marriage is ministerial, meaning – you pay the fee, and the State issues the license.  Whether a church will marry you is a different matter, and churches are free to not bless any marriage.  The Catholic Church, for example, doesn’t allow divorced people to be married in their church, unless the previous marriage is annulled.  So, if the government really wants to regulate marriage, perhaps we should start by outlawing divorce.

      Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah introduced S.1808 - Marriage and Religious Freedom Act to the senate on December 12, 2013. This amendment specifies that the term "person" includes anyone regardless of their religious beliefs and or partner.It prohibits the government form discriminating against a person in accordance with their religious beliefs, marriage (recognized as the union of one man and one woman) or sexual relations. Currently, this amendment has only been introduced to the Senate and has just begun it's long, enduring process through the legislature."This non-discrimination bill is significant, indeed, very important,” said Archbishop Cordileone.  “It would prevent the federal government from discriminating against religious believers who hold to the principle that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. This is of fundamental importance, as increasingly such individuals and organizations are being targeted for discrimination by state governments – this must not spread to the federal government (USCCB Press Conference)." Many people view marriage equality as a threat towards religious beliefs and religious freedom, causing very negative views on this amendment. I believe that 45 years from now, denying couples the right to marry will be an embarrassing blemish in our history and denying religious freedoms, much like our embarrassment today for the way we treated interracial couples 45 years ago.  Marriage and religious freedom is a fundamental, constitutional right.  Not just for some of us, but for all Americans.  I’m not willing to give up any of my rights, which is why I support marriage and religious equality for all Americans.

With Liberty and Subsidies for All...

This week, the New York Times Editorial Board published an Editorial touting a report from the Congressional Budget Office estimating 2.5 million people will leave the workforce full-time over the next decade as a result of the Affordable Care Act.  The Editorial rationalizes this estimate as somehow being a good thing.  And, this is where my hair started to fall out!

The Editorial states, in part:

“[T]hanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums — many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have.”

Are you kidding me?  Thanks to “available subsidies”?!?!?  Really?  Where do they think these subsidies come from?  Who do they think pays for those subsidies?  Why, oh why, would anyone think the government is in a position to improve the quality of the healthcare system, or make it more efficient?The Editorial describes the ACA as “liberating” American workers from the burden of having to work for their health insurance.  I’m left scratching my head at why seemingly intelligent people are content to turn our country into a socialist society.Somebody, somewhere has to pay for all this “free” health care.  And, while the Times Editorial claims 2.5 million workers will leave the labor force by choice, employers are making cuts as a direct impact of the ACA’s regulatory burdens.The President’s centerpiece legislative achievement is crumbling around him, but the New York Times Editorial Board is still serving up the Kool-Aid and telling us what a crowning achievement it is for the American people.  In weighing the value of the ACA, I need only to consider how our health care is improved by the expansion of – wait for it – the IRS, and the addition of 16,000 additional agents to carry out enforcement.  Remember to turn your head and cough!

He Shall From Time To Time...

The mandate set forth in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires the President to report on the state of the Union. A recent Associated Press (AP) article questions the propriety of continuing the tradition. I question the integrity of questioning the tradition. Admittedly, State Of The Union speeches have grown painfully predictable: with the President listing the accomplishments and ambitions of his Administration. But, should we scrap the tradition, or should We The People actually expect and demand more from the Executive?

This question came to mind as I read the AP’s historical track of SOTU addresses. One after another, presidents found various ways to basically assure Americans that everything was hunky-dory; that the State of our Union is “strong”. All presidents, that is, except for Gerald Ford, who, in 1975, on the heels of Watergate, and having been elevated in a convoluted succession to the Presidency, honestly confronted our national circumstances. President Ford soberly reported, "I must say to you that the state of the union is not good."

And, what happened? America got better. The country improved as a whole. President Ford, lackluster and, at best, a placeholder in the Presidency, was direct, honest and clear about our national circumstances. He went on to challenge Americans about where we can go and what we can accomplish together as a united nation. Rather than rhetorically classifying America as “strong”, he challenged us to become stronger. And, it seems we did.

Wouldn't it be refreshing for the President to seize the opportunity of an unusually large audience to shape a clear vision for America; to identify the things that unite us, rather than lay out yet another 5-point plan on what he plans to accomplish politically? What if, like the pastor who only has the opportunity to capture the hearts and minds of a large audience at Easter and Christmas, the President used each of his State Of The Union addresses to renew the passion of Americans for America, rather than ignite the partisan bitterness over policy and politics? Rather than declaring his ownership of a pen, and a phone, perhaps the President might recognize the opportunity of his bully pulpit to inspire Americans to a vision beyond what government can give them.

Like the preacher says, “I ain't done, but I’m gonna stop for now.”

About Me... In The Middle

Have you ever been left right in the middle?  That’s where my politics fall; in the middle.  The middle isn’t as lonely as you might think.  It’s where the real numbers are, if not the real power.  For me, politics is defined by breaking down the word: “poly” = many; and “tics” = blood-sucking insects.

The Constitution guides my political views.  I believe you have the right to burn the American Flag, and I have the right to call you a moron for doing so.  I do not favor limiting speech, including religious speech.  I believe in the right to bear arms, but not access to military assault weapons.  I believe the government is out of bounds on domestic surveillance and privacy intrusions.  I believe Voter ID laws disenfranchise citizens, but requiring proof of healthcare coverage is nullifying this point. I believe the Constitution protects all citizens, including the unborn ones.  I don’t care who you love or marry, as long as I’m not taxed to pay for it.  The government has no business in women’s private healthcare, including paying for any of it.  And, any discussion of paying a fair share should start with EVERYONE paying their fair share.