Get ready, gay Hoosiers! It's already illegal in Indiana for you to get married. But that's just not enough for the religious right. They want a constitutional amendment that says marriage is between one man and one woman.
Why do they want a constitutional amendment? Because it's so much harder to change. See, if they just run with the current law on the books, then gay marriage rights can be provided by any upcoming legislature. Amending the state constitution, though, means it would take years and years to ever allow homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals in Indiana.
That's because changing the constitution in Indiana isn't easy (nor should it be.) To change the constitution in Indiana, the amendment must pass through two separately elected legislatures and then also pass a vote by the citizens. The amendment currently being discussed would have to be approved by the current legislature, then re-approved by the legislature in 2013 or 2014, then approved by voters in 2014.
So what happens if this amendment gets passed (you're kidding yourself if you don't think this is on the path to get passed.) Immediately, nothing will change for the gay community; they can't marry now and they won't be able to marry then. The change is in the number of hurdles they'll have to jump to finally get the same rights as everyone else. You see, today gay marriage could be allowed at any time. If this amendment gets through, though, gays wouldn't be able to gain marriage rights in Indiana until 2018...at the EARLIEST. And to get them by 2018, the legislative stars would have to align in a very specific way.
Why are they even trying to pass this amendment? To protect marriage, so they say. What supporters of the amendment fail to discuss, though, is that homosexual marriage is not the problem with marriage today. Divorce rates are through the roof, number of people married multiple times is through the roof, custody battles are increasing in both frequency and ferocity. The problem with marriage today has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals or with gay marriage. Today's problems with marriage have only to do with marriage between one man and one woman. The fight to "save marriage" should be focused there.
(Because so little data is currently available it's not worth showing statistics, but early information from the states that allow gay marriage indicate incredibly low divorce rates among gays.)
The government should stay out of the business of who can or cannot get married. The government should view marriage the same as they do a contract; government should recognize the contract and help to settle disputes over it. If homosexuals wish to marry, then they should be allowed to marry.
Government should stay out of the religious side of marriage, too, though. When gay marriage is legalized (an inevitability, even if far off) then no requirement to conduct gay marriages should be made of churches. If a church does not wish to conduct gay marriage ceremonies, then there should be no legal requirement for them to do so.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Government & the NFL 2011 Lockout Labor Mess
The folks at reason.tv always put out some really good videos. They are always smart and well-produced, and often funny.
Recently, they tackled (get it?) the current problems with the NFL and its players. It is a short video that does a great job of showing why the government should stay out of the affairs of private business.
Recently, they tackled (get it?) the current problems with the NFL and its players. It is a short video that does a great job of showing why the government should stay out of the affairs of private business.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Smoking Bans in Bars Simply Not Necessary
I'm having lunch at Manly's Irish Mutt. It's a little pub on the east side of Indianapolis. Nice place. Traditional bar/pub menu, but with a little bit of an Irish twist. Over 21 only. No smoking allowed.
No smoking because they want to be no smoking. Not no smoking because a law mandated it.
Great crowd at lunch. I got here about 1:00 and the bar rail was packed and several tables sat, as well.
A lot of people will tell you that smoking bans for bars are necessary in part because bars can't realistically go smoke free and keep their business if the bar next door allows its patrons to light up. Bull.
This is my second visit to Manly's. It's been packed both times. Evidence, I submit, that there is sufficient demand to have both smoking and non-smoking adult establishments.
Let the business choose their environment, don't mandate it with laws that only strip our liberties.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Fall of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Great news for the homosexual community in their battle for civil rights. After a surprisingly little amount of debate (relative to what we could have expected only a half-dozen years ago), President Obama today signed into law the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Most people think that DADT was horrible, and it was. But let's not forget that DADT, when first put into effect, was a step in the right direction. Previous to DADT, a person was asked if they were homosexual while signing up for the military. If you said yes, you got axed right there. DADT stopped the military from asking the question, so you then only got axed if you announced your homosexuality or were otherwise outed. Literally, Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
The only problem I have with the repeal of DADT is not with the repeal itself, but with the way it was repealed. The President campaigned on his intention to repeal DADT. For his first two years in office, he and others (mostly Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans) had more than enough votes to eliminate DADT immediately. Instead of acting immediately on the issue, like someone would if they were truly passionate about it, they put it off. For more than 18 moths after Obama'a inauguration the repeal of DADT was hardly mentioned by those with the power to repeal it.
Instead, Obama and his cronies put DADT on the back burner, and brought it to the forefront only as we entered the midterm election season. The repeal of DADT was used as a way of exploiting the homosexual community for political gain in an election year. A wonderful civil rights accomplishment was twisted into something disgusting. And Obama slamming his fist on the bill after signing it and proudly exclaiming, "It is done!" What a joke. He had no passion for this issue just a handful of months ago.
My complaints about how DADT came to an end, though, are heavily outweighed by the sheer importance of the fact that it finally did come to an end. This is a day that the advocates for not only homosexual rights, but true civil rights in general, will hail as one of the most important steps of our time. I hope that today can be used as a stepping stone towards our one day accepting our homosexual friends as equals in all areas of our society and in all areas of our lives.
Most people think that DADT was horrible, and it was. But let's not forget that DADT, when first put into effect, was a step in the right direction. Previous to DADT, a person was asked if they were homosexual while signing up for the military. If you said yes, you got axed right there. DADT stopped the military from asking the question, so you then only got axed if you announced your homosexuality or were otherwise outed. Literally, Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
The only problem I have with the repeal of DADT is not with the repeal itself, but with the way it was repealed. The President campaigned on his intention to repeal DADT. For his first two years in office, he and others (mostly Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans) had more than enough votes to eliminate DADT immediately. Instead of acting immediately on the issue, like someone would if they were truly passionate about it, they put it off. For more than 18 moths after Obama'a inauguration the repeal of DADT was hardly mentioned by those with the power to repeal it.
Instead, Obama and his cronies put DADT on the back burner, and brought it to the forefront only as we entered the midterm election season. The repeal of DADT was used as a way of exploiting the homosexual community for political gain in an election year. A wonderful civil rights accomplishment was twisted into something disgusting. And Obama slamming his fist on the bill after signing it and proudly exclaiming, "It is done!" What a joke. He had no passion for this issue just a handful of months ago.
My complaints about how DADT came to an end, though, are heavily outweighed by the sheer importance of the fact that it finally did come to an end. This is a day that the advocates for not only homosexual rights, but true civil rights in general, will hail as one of the most important steps of our time. I hope that today can be used as a stepping stone towards our one day accepting our homosexual friends as equals in all areas of our society and in all areas of our lives.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Term Limits? Maybe not as good an idea as it sounds...
Term Limits may sound great to you. Have you considered, though, that they essentially create Senators & Congresspeople that are lame ducks for years at a time? If we were to elect any legislator into the last term they were constitutionally eligible for, they would have the same lame duck lack of responsibilty to constituents as those voted out of office have for a couple months at a time today.
Can you imagine the attitude our legislators would have about which laws to pass if they had no one to answer to for two or six years? A SIX-YEAR lame duck Senator? I cannot fathom the number of laws that would be passed favoring our Senators and Congresspeople instead of favoring We, The People.
Yes, our efforts to decrease political nonchalance could actually increase political corruptness. Surely that's not what anyone wants. There's a good article here from the great people at United Liberty that discusses a couple reasons why we should not want term limits. It also address some alternatives to term limits that would help put the power of Congressional decision-making back into the hands of the people. Check it out, and leave a comment with your thoughts.
Can you imagine the attitude our legislators would have about which laws to pass if they had no one to answer to for two or six years? A SIX-YEAR lame duck Senator? I cannot fathom the number of laws that would be passed favoring our Senators and Congresspeople instead of favoring We, The People.
Yes, our efforts to decrease political nonchalance could actually increase political corruptness. Surely that's not what anyone wants. There's a good article here from the great people at United Liberty that discusses a couple reasons why we should not want term limits. It also address some alternatives to term limits that would help put the power of Congressional decision-making back into the hands of the people. Check it out, and leave a comment with your thoughts.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Sink-Burris Clearly Wins Indiana Senate Debate
It is obvious. Libertarian Rebecca Sink-Burris is the best candidate in Indiana's race for the U.S. Senate.
The first of three debates between the three candidates recently took place. Throughout the course of the debate a few very obvious and very predicatable things happened. The candidates from the two major parties routinely avoided questions when the opportunity to turn to mudslinging presented itself. In the few instances where mudslinging was not a top priority, being a copy-cat seemed to be. (On more than one occasion, one of the two major parties candidate responded to a debate question with an answer that nearly duplicated the response of Libertarian Sink-Burris.)
The simple fact is that, while the other parties were busy avoiding the topics in lieu of a little mudslinging, Rebecca Sink-Burris consistently remained on-topic and answered the questions that were presented. And she did better than simply answering them - she provided the most well thought out explanations of the three candidates.
If you're looking for a reason to believe that the Libertarians are worthy of your consideration, you are very likely to find it here: First of Three Indiana U.S. Senate Debates
The first of three debates between the three candidates recently took place. Throughout the course of the debate a few very obvious and very predicatable things happened. The candidates from the two major parties routinely avoided questions when the opportunity to turn to mudslinging presented itself. In the few instances where mudslinging was not a top priority, being a copy-cat seemed to be. (On more than one occasion, one of the two major parties candidate responded to a debate question with an answer that nearly duplicated the response of Libertarian Sink-Burris.)
The simple fact is that, while the other parties were busy avoiding the topics in lieu of a little mudslinging, Rebecca Sink-Burris consistently remained on-topic and answered the questions that were presented. And she did better than simply answering them - she provided the most well thought out explanations of the three candidates.
If you're looking for a reason to believe that the Libertarians are worthy of your consideration, you are very likely to find it here: First of Three Indiana U.S. Senate Debates
The Democrat Rates Sink-Burris Rather High
The first of three debates between the three candidates for U.S. Senate from Indiana was a couple of nights ago. The writers of the Indy Democrat wrote a blog about the debate that was, for the most part, rather predictable.
As you might expect, the blog tore the Republican candidate apart.
As you might expect, the blog gave too much praise to the Democratic candidate.
What you might not expect was the Indy Democrat's response to the Libertarian candidate, Rebecca Sink-Burris. Although the blog declared the Democrat the winner, the actual writing in the blog clearly states otherwise. It is obvious by reading the post in the blog that the writer felt the the Libertarian Sink-Burris outperformed both of the two major party candidates.
It is obvious the supporters of the major parties consider the Libertarians, and specifically Rebecca Sink-Burris, a respectable and viable candidate. Check out these links to see if you do, too.
Indy Democrat praises Rebecca Sink-Burris' Performance
First of Three Indiana U.S. Senate Debates
As you might expect, the blog tore the Republican candidate apart.
As you might expect, the blog gave too much praise to the Democratic candidate.
What you might not expect was the Indy Democrat's response to the Libertarian candidate, Rebecca Sink-Burris. Although the blog declared the Democrat the winner, the actual writing in the blog clearly states otherwise. It is obvious by reading the post in the blog that the writer felt the the Libertarian Sink-Burris outperformed both of the two major party candidates.
It is obvious the supporters of the major parties consider the Libertarians, and specifically Rebecca Sink-Burris, a respectable and viable candidate. Check out these links to see if you do, too.
Indy Democrat praises Rebecca Sink-Burris' Performance
First of Three Indiana U.S. Senate Debates
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)