News Today

Editors Note: This is part three of the News Today mini-series “It’s not working, and we’re running out of money to throw at it”, which is an attempt by yours truly to demonstrate productive ways that the country can reduce its spending. The first edition was the War on Poverty, and the second was the War on Drugs.

As America pushes itself towards greener pastures, with all the debate over cap and trade and global warming truths and myths, one of the issues that has gotten pushed to the back-burner has been our excessive consumption of fossil fuels.

When I was in grade school, along with the hole in the ozone (which is largely ignored now), this was one of the big issues that we were educated on. It’s a pretty important issue, as well. Gasoline, coal and other fossil fuels are not going to be here forever. How much longer is an issue that is up for debate, but one thing is for sure. If we wait too long to transition off of them then the rapid change could be devastating to our economy and our citizens.

You thought $4 a gallon was bad? Once oil becomes harder and harder to find you can expect prices at the pump to go dramatically above that. This would undoubtedly lead to a crippling economic crisis.

Some estimates put that date just 50 years away, others give us 150 years. The estimates of 150 years assume that new technology will allow us to tap into reserves that are currently untouchable. That new technology requires funding though, which would likely drive up the overall cost and not give consumers much relief at the pump (consider McCain’s off-shore drilling plan, which would have lowered gasoline prices by one whole penny over a seven year period). Why spend that money and funding on a doomed industry?

Even if we ignore the fact that these resources aren’t renewable, it’s pretty easy to see how our reliance on oil financially hurts Americans. The equation goes like this: Decreased production (which we’ve had since the 1980’s) + increased reliability on foreign production (which we’ve been doing for decades now) = more money spent by Americans that goes directly out of America.

There has been some progress on the issue. The Obama administration’s decision to upgrade the government fleet of cars with hybrids and more fuel-efficient cars, for one, helped lower one of the largest gas bills in the country. Still, 85-95% of our energy consumption comes from the burning of fossil fuels, around 60% of which is used for transportation. No way around it, this is simply unsustainable.

Stephanie B, who is a rocket scientist (how cool is that?) and runs a great blog by the way, summed it up pretty perfectly in her latest Soapbox Sunday post:

“Improving energy efficiency represents money we don’t spend. Period. It’s energy we don’t use and money we don’t pay indefinitely. A solar array represents energy you won’t be using from now on. What’s not to love about that? What’s the down side? The only disadvantages to alternate energy sources are their technical immaturity and production cost, both of which could be drastically improved with increased demand.”

Sources:
http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/fossil.htm
http://rockets-r-us.blogspot.com/2009/12/soapbox-sunday-do-your-homework.html
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/fossilfuels.htm
http://www.pronetworks.org/index.php/blogs/post/green_energy_why_not

Editors Note: The numerous economic challenges facing our country are daunting, and even writing about it can prove to be quite a tough task. The issues that we’re facing are so massive and complex that it’s difficult to detail in just a single post, much less describe possible solutions.

But in order to avoid sounding like a G.O.P. talking point, solutions must be offered.

So on that note, I’m going to be introducing a “mini-series” on News Today, appropriately titled “It’s not working, and we’re running out of money to throw at it.” Hopefully the series will be able to paint a clearer picture of the situation our country is in, and ways that we can work to get out of it.

The first edition of this series will be the “War on Poverty.”

. . .

Since Lyndon B. Johnson first announced his “War on Poverty” in the 1964 State of the Union address, America has spent over $5 trillion trying to eradicate poverty. Surely we’ve made some substantial progress during those 45 years right?

Wrong. We’re no closer to a great society now than when we started, and you could even argue that we’re worse off. Let’s examine.

The government typically uses the “poverty threshhold” to measure poverty rates in the United States. This measure defines poverty as a lack of goods and services commonly taken for granted by mainstream society (adjusted for interest as well). Even though there are other ways to measure poverty levels, let’s start with this one.

For more information on how the census compiles poverty rates, along with other ways to measure the rates, go here.

From the United States census:

• The official poverty rate in 2008 was 13.2 percent, up from 12.5 percent in 2007. This was the first statistically significant annual increase in the poverty rate since 2004, when poverty increased to 12.7 percent from 12.5 percent in 2003.
• In 2008, 39.8 million people were in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007 — the second consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty.
• Since 1960, the number of people below poverty has not exceeded the 2008 figure of 39.8 million people.
• The 2008 number is not significantly different from 1993, 1962, 1961, 1960 and 1959 estimates.

Now it’s only natural that the poverty rate rose during this economic crisis, but even if we disregard the recent upturn in poverty, the actual poverty rate has stayed relatively the same since it first was recorded in 1959. Also, despite drastic changes to fiscal and economic policy, the way that the poverty rate is computed has only changed slightly in 45 years. In fact, some estimate that the poverty rate would double if a realistic family budget was used to measure it.

So basically, what we’re doing isn’t working.

Some of the programs work effectively. Food stamps, for one, have proven to be one of the most responsive ways to help the poor in times of economic downturn. Food stamps also double as a mini-stimulus of sorts, because it injects money relatively quickly into our economy.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 11% of our budget in 2008 was spent on social safety net programs, such as food stamps, child-care assistance, etc… This actually isn’t even that big of a chunk of our spending, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t room for improvement.

What I propose is a process of system integration, to help make our social programs more streamlined and cost effective. I say process because it’s important that this not be an “event,” or a one-time fix. By first recognizing similarities in programs we can increase (over time to ensure a smooth transition) the level of cooperation and coordination between those programs.

Using a scale similar to the one proposed in 2007 by Thomas Corbett and Jennifer L. Noyes of the Institute for Research on Poverty (University of Wisconsin-Madison) we could transform our social programs into a well-run and efficient arm of the government, one that isn’t creating a tax-burden for future generations.

Institutional Similarity

• Routinized programs: Agencies that engage in core tasks or activities that are rule-driven and repeated without significant variation. Most benefits-issuing programs fall into this category.
• Mixed programs: Agencies that have some routinized elements such as a focus on determining eligibility for scarce benefits but also encompass tasks that seek to alter individual or family functioning. As noted, many work-oriented welfare systems fall into this category.
• Nonroutinized programs: Agencies typically characterized by a reliance on professional norms, collegial rule-making environments, flatter institutional hierarchies, and significant discretion at the front lines. Many, though not all, social service agencies that deal with very problematic family issues often fall into this category.

Relationship Intensity

• Communication: Clear, consistent and nonjudgmental discussions; giving or exchanging information in order to maintain meaningful relationships. Individual programs or causes are totally separate.
• Cooperation: Assisting each other with respective activities, giving general support, information, and/or endorsement for each other’s programs, services, or objectives.
• Coordination: Joint activities and communications are more intensive and far-reaching. Agencies or individuals engage in joint planning and synchronization of schedules, activities, goals, objectives, and events.
• Collaboration: Agencies, individuals, or groups willingly relinquish some of their autonomy in the interest of mutual gains or outcomes. True collaboration involves actual changes in agency, group, or individual behavior to support collective goals or ideals.
• Convergence: Relationships evolve from collaboration to actual restructuring of services, programs, memberships, budgets, missions, objectives, and staff.
• Consolidation: Agency, group, or individual behavior, operations, policies, budgets, staff, and power are united and harmonized. Individual autonomy or gains have been fully relinquished, common outcomes and identity adopted.

Thoughts?

Sources:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.html
http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_poverty
http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
http://liheap.ncat.org/pubs/brock.htm
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/research/reorgsocpol/systemsintegration/QandA.htm
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/research/reorgsocpol/systemsintegration/Corbett_Noyes_APPAM2007.pdf

Anybody ever read this book? Written by Jon Scieszka and illustrated by Lane Smith, it’s the story of a boy caught up in a “math curse,” where he begins to see math problems in everything.

Personally, looking at the numbers for the United States budget feels like a “Math Curse” nightmare to me.

Here are the fiscal year’s figures on government spending and debt (the
government’s fiscal year runs Oct. 1 through Sept. 30).

. . .

Total public debt subject to limit Nov. 20  —  $11,953,740,000,000
Statutory debt limit  —  $12,104,000,000,000
Total public debt outstanding Nov. 20  —  $12,010,562,000,000
Operating balance Nov. 20  —  $45,510,000,000

Interest fiscal year 2009  —  $383,365,000,000
Interest fiscal year 2008  —  $451,154,000,000

Deficit fiscal year 2009  —  $1,417,121,000,000
Deficit fiscal year 2008  —  $454,798,000,000

Receipts fiscal year 2009  —  $2,104,613,000,000
Receipts fiscal year 2008  —  $2,523,642,000,000

Outlays fiscal year 2009  —  $3,521,734,000,000
Outlays fiscal year 2008  —  $2,978,440,000,000

. . .

Okay, so what do these massive figures all mean?

The public debt, or national debt, is comprised of by two things - securities held by the public, and securities held by government accounts. We’re currently sitting around $12 trillion in the red. Around 60% of that $12 trillion (over $7 trillion) is considered “owned by the public,” and was spent on your behalf by your government.

The $12 trillion national debt figure doesn’t even tell the full story though, as some intra-governmental debt obligations (like the Social Security Trust Fund) are not included in the budget. A more accurate figure would be our gross debt, which will likely be 90.4% of our entire GDP for 2009. That figure is slated to go up over 100% of our GDP by 2011.

The Statutory Debt Limit is how high Congress has approved our national debt to go — currently $12,104,000,000,000 thanks to a measure in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Obviously, our deficit is how much money we lost that year.

Now I want to take a special look at the interest portion of government spending, as this has been a hot topic in the news lately. For decades the United States has increased its borrowing and we’ve now reached trillion-dollar-a-year rates.

According to the White House, by 2019 the cost of paying off our interest will be more than the combined federal budgets this year for energy, homeland security, education and both the Iraq and Afghanistan war.

This is some pretty scary stuff. From Edmund Andrews, New York Times:

“Americans now have to climb out of two deep holes: as debt-loaded consumers, whose personal wealth sank along with housing and stock prices; and as taxpayers, whose government debt has almost doubled in the last two years alone, just as costs tied to benefits for retiring baby boomers are set to explode.”

One thing that is really at stake here is our dollar. There are three main hazards coming our way in the next couple of months. The first will be dealing with all of the new debt we’ve acquired. The next will be $1.6 trillion of marketable debt that the Treasury must work to refinance (pretty please with sugar on top, China?). Finally, eventually the Fed will have to normalize interest rates, which could cost the Americans quite a lot of money (According to the New York Times, an increase of one percentage point in the Treasury’s average cost of borrowing would cost American taxpayers an extra $80 billion this year).

Even as the government looks at these looming budgetary numbers, they are preparing to borrow $3.5 trillion over the next three years.

“What a good country or a good squirrel should be doing is stashing away nuts for the winter,” said William H. Gross, managing director of the Pimco Group. “The United States is not only not saving nuts, it’s eating the ones left over from the last winter.”

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/23rates.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/11/20/financial/f141157S11.DTL
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

One of my favorite quotes from George Washington was two little snippets of advice that he had for the young United States of America.

His first word of advice was that we should not form political parties (oops!) and the second had to do with the U.S. making alliances with foreign countries.

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have as little political connection as possible… Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalships, interest, humor, or caprice?… It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”

– George Washington.

Well, for better or for worse, we didn’t listen to George on this one either. Would we have been wise to?

. . .

Today the United States holds alliances all across the world. We’re allied in one form or another with almost all of Europe, several countries in Asia, and with many countries in North, South and Central America. With these alliances come both assets and liabilities, but what real assets are we talking about here?

Let’s take a look at one alliance in particular, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

NATO was formed on April 4, 1949. Originally it was a pact between the United States and 11 other countries, but over the years NATO’s ranks have swelled to 28 countries. The point of NATO was to provide a military support between its members.

From the treaty:

“The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

NATO member’s military spending accounts for about 70% of the military spending in the entire world. You can bet that’s not divided up evenly between all 28 members of NATO either. In fact, the United States military spending works out to about half of the military spending in the world.

To make a bad situation worse, we have treaties like the 2002 Berlin Plus Agreement. Signed between the European Union (EU) and NATO, the Berlin Plus Agreement gives the EU rights to the use of NATO assets should NATO decline to intervene in an international crisis. What was that whole bit about entangling our peace and prosperity with the toils of European ambitions again, George?

Six months into President Barack Obama’s administration Obama received a letter from several Central and Eastern European NATO members stating that the “ability to sustain public support at home for our contributions to Alliance missions abroad … depends on us being able to show that our own security concerns are being addressed in NATO and close cooperation with the United States.”

Here’s the thing, almost all of the countries that were demanding more resources from the United States spend less than 2% of their GDP on defense spending. The government puts defense spending at 20% of the United States GDP, but if you account for past military expenses such as veteran’s benefits and interest from debt that number jumps dramatically to about 54%.

“The primary purpose of our alliance from a military standpoint is to provide for the security of Japan.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on a recent visit with Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama. “It allows Japan to have a defense budget … of roughly 1 percent of GDP.”

These countries are able to spend virtually nothing on defense because the United States is doing it for them. What is it that the U.S. is getting in return though, other than an excuse to spend that much money on the military?

Justin Logan of the CATO Institute worded it best:

“America’s alliances are no longer considered responses to security challenges. Instead, they have become ends in themselves. In an era of record-breaking budget deficits and serious economic problems at home, the billions of dollars Uncle Sam pays each year to baby-sit Europe and East Asia ought to be coming in for scrutiny, not perpetual affirmation.”

Sources:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10954
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/George.Washington.Quote.2D30
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-C4B3E460-5AD5C2A3/natolive/index.htm
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

There were a number of races and issues that were voted on yesterday. Let’s take a look at some of the more intriguing races and results.

NY-23 Special Election - Despite the best efforts of conservative star-power like Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, voters in this district (A Republican lock since the Civil War) chose Democrat Bill Owens over the Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. Still, it would be wrong to label this a defeat for the hard-right Tea Party movement. They had enough influence to knock G.O.P. candidate Dede Scozzafava out of the race and brought some much needed national attention to their movement.

New York Mayor - After running the most expensive self-financed campaign ever, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg won an unexpectedly tight race Tuesday night with long-shot challenger City Comptroller William Thompson Jr.

Virginia - Republican Bob McDonnell, in a replay of Virginia’s Attorney General race four years earlier, cruised to an easy victory over Democrat Creigh Deeds in the Virginia governor’s race. “One of the reasons we were so successful is we had independents and Democrats come over to our side,” said McDonnell, in a quote that sounds eerily similar to our president. “For those of you who did not support me, I say give me a chance to earn your trust.”

New Jersey - Chris Christie became the first Republican to win statewide in New Jersey in more than a decade by ousting the Democrat incumbent Jon Corzine. Christie was aided by a poor showing from independent candidate Chris Daggett. Despite polling as high as 20 percent in October, Daggett, a former Republican and EPA official, was unable to break double digits at the polls.

Maine - Voters in this state chose to repeal a state law granting same-sex couples the right to marry, marking a defeat for gay rights activists who were hoping the state would become the first to approve gay marriage at the polls. Currently Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut are the only states to allow same-sex marriage.

Ohio - Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland and Toledo will be building Las Vegas-style casinos after voters in the buckeye state passed Issue 3. This was the fifth statewide vote on the issue since 1990, but with state unemployment hovering around 10% voters said yes to the promise of 34,000 new jobs, $1 billion in capital investment, and $651 million a year in tax revenues for local governments and school districts.

Sources:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/election/ohioans-approve-casinos-for-4-cities-382796.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29119.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/04/AR2009110402115.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29103.html
http://www.theweek.com/article/index/102397/Tea_Party_backlash_in_NY

Regardless of what happens at the polls today in NY-23, one thing is clear. The G.O.P. has a big red problem, one that is likely to get even bigger.

Still think this is astro-turf Nancy Pelosi?

Ask Dede Scozzafava if she thinks it’s not a legitimate grassroots campaign. At the beginning of the month Scozzafava held a 7-point lead over Democrat Bill Owens. Fast forward to today and Scozzafava, the G.O.P. candidate picked for NY-23, has already bowed out of the race and Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman holds a slim lead over Owens in polls, 36 percent to 35 percent.

Inspired by their NY-23 victory, conservatives and tea party activists have already set their sights on some other G.O.P. Senate recruits like Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida, former Rep. Rob Simmons in Connecticut, Rep. Mark Kirk in Illinois and even GOP incumbents like Utah Sen. Bob Bennett.

“I would say it’s the tip of the spear,” said Dick Armey, the former GOP House majority leader who now serves as chairman of Freedom Works, an organization that has been closely aligned with the tea party movement. “We are the biggest source of energy in American politics today.”

NY-23 has brought up some intriguing questions. What will the long-term impact of this conservative infighting be? Could this be the fall of the Republican Party? Are we about to enter a new era in American politics?

Some analysts think so, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out. In states from California to Connecticut the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is choosing candidates who appear at first glance to be strong general election prospects in their districts. Nevertheless these candidates are meeting tough resistance from grass-roots level from activists who believe in supporting the conservative cause, even if it means going against the party nominee.

“New York 23, on some scale, is the first battle of a larger internal Republican debate over how to define the party,” said former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, a conservative who is challenging Crist for the Senate nomination. “They want us to vote for their candidates, but they don’t want us to run for office.”

Sources:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/politics3237585;_ylt=AlPTu_LeTcdo21OVPHmfpFBh24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2ajVuNTVrBHBvcwM0BHNlYwN5bi1yLWItbGVmdARzbGsDLXJlYWRpbmdlbGVj
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_what_s_at_stake
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091103/pl_politico/29057

Every once in a while you have to give credit where credit is due. Too many people in this country have forgotten that a truly great public protest is like a fine work of art. It has to be carefully planned, timed and choreographed…

Anyways, regardless of what you think about their politics you have to admit one thing, the group ‘Billionaires for Wealthcare’ know how to protest. They recently interrupted a conference held by the health insurance lobbyist group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) by spontaneously breaking out into a sarcastic song (using Annie’s “Tomorrow” as theme music) thanking the lobbyists in attendance for killing the public option.

“People were surprised and laughed in that nervous ‘I don’t know what’s going on here!’ way.” Said Melissa Collom, one of the protestors. “Even the speaker himself chuckled as he stepped aside from the podium.”

Sources:
http://www.billionairesforwealthcare.com/
http://www.mediaite.com/online/singing-public-option-protesters-punk-health-insurance-lobbyists/

Another third party candidate is poised to make a legitimate run in an upcoming special election. Meet Doug Hoffman, a Conservative Party candidate who has been gaining support in his campaign to take over the New York House seat left vacant by the resignation of Republican Representative John McHugh.

The support for Hoffman isn’t just some astro-turf nonsense either. It’s even bigger than a legitimate grassroots uprising. In a surprising coup, many of the Republican Party’s most vocal leaders are also backing the Conservative Party candidate, despite the fact that the G.O.P. already has a candidate in the race, Dede Scozzafava.

On Friday former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum became the latest in a growing list of G.O.P. leaders to endorse Hoffman. That list includes former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes.

To these conservatives Scozzafava has way too many strikes. A state assembly woman who supports gay marriage rights, abortion rights and is in close with labor?

Palin’s endorsement came on Thursday, and the former governor said that Hoffman “stands for the principles that all Republicans should share” in a statement about her decision. By the way, Hoffman’s campaign reported over $100,000 in campaign donations in the 24 hours following her endorsement.

Still, not all Republican Party leaders are convinced of Hoffman’s credentials, or that it’s a good idea for G.O.P. members to undercut one of their own. Newt Gingrich, who endorsed Scozzafava, offered these grim words of advice for conservatives — “if you seek to be a perfect minority, you’ll remain a minority.”

. . .

In keeping with the independent theme of the post, Mark Blumenthal of the National Journal had a very interesting article about New Jersey’s Independent gubernatorial candidate Chris Daggett. In his article Blumenthal alluded to a “perfect storm” of sorts that Daggett appears to have going for him.

From the article:

“Those who follow politics are familiar with a pattern, evident mostly in primary elections, in which two front-running candidates will battle for months, often with an acrimonious exchange of negative advertising, only to be overtaken by a little-known third candidate who surges from single digits in the campaign’s final weeks.

In almost every case, three dynamics facilitate the also-ran’s rise: Strong performances in campaign debates and endorsements from prominent newspapers boost their name recognition, while a last-minute surge in the polls helps convince voters that the long shot really can win.”

A closer look at New Jersey’s race reveals that Daggett’s campaign is following that pattern. Daggett has been the clear winner in both debates, he’s already won the endorsement of the Newark Star-Ledger and a Thursday Rutgers-Eagleton Poll showed 39% of voters going for Corzine, 36% for Christie and 20 percent for independent Chris Daggett.

All this being said, it’s undeniable that history is against him. Out of the 365 governors to take office since 1970, only five have claimed a political party affiliation other than Democrat or Republican.

Sources:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/yet_another_fight_over_party_i.php
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20091023_1421.php

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28671.html
http://daggettforgovernor.com/wordpress/

One issue that I think will define the next generation, much like the civil rights era did for the baby-boomers, is gay marriage. This is an issue that runs deep in a lot of places across the United States, and even the world.

Gay marriage has actually been around for a lot longer than most people think. The first recorded mention of same-sex marriage occurred during the early Roman Empire where it was practiced both openly and commonly.

In fact, it wasn’t until 342 AD when the Theodosian Code was issued by the Christian emperor Constantius II that gay marriage became outlawed in Rome. Same-sex marriage didn’t just disappear though, there’s actually evidence that gay marriages were performed in medieval Europe as long as 600 years ago.

In 1989 Denmark became the first country to recognize same-sex unions in the form of “registered partnerships”, and in 2001 the Netherlands became the first nation to grant same-sex marriages. Today, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, and Sweden are the only countries to date that give equal marriage status for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

In the United States gay marriages are not recognized federally, however, same-sex couples can currently marry in six states and receive state level benefits. Several states also offer civil unions or domestic partnerships.

President Barack Obama has repeatedly said he is opposed to same-sex marriage, but he does support “full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples”, and called Proposition 8 “unnecessary.”

If you asked 100 U.S. citizens if they supported the issue or not, you’d probably get about the same amount of people in support as you would people against it. If you asked me whether I’d support the issue, you’d get a resounding NO.

Now let me explain myself…

In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage solely as a union between a couple of the opposite sex for all federal purposes. This is often an argument you’ll hear from people who are against gay marriage, that marriage cannot be defined as anything but between a man and a woman.

This got me thinking… To me, that seems like something that individual churches could decide a lot better than the federal government. In fact it seems very out of place for our government to be as heavily involved in marriages as they are.

It was in thinking about this that I stumbled (somewhat accidentally) upon my position against gay marriage, or really against marriage itself. There is no reason why our government needs to be involved in the actual marriage process, that is a role much better suited for our church.

I believe the government should offer civil unions, civil partnerships, domestic partnerships, registered partnerships — whatever you want to call it — to anyone and everyone. These partnerships should have equal protection and rights, regardless of the couple’s sexual preference. That’s only fair, and what we have right now is far from being fair.

In fact, a 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office found 1,138 statutory provisions “in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving ‘benefits, rights, and privileges,’” including complete ineligibility for same-sex couples for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits.

Besides, the other positive about this kind of a solution is that the actual “marriage” issue (whether marriage is a term that applies only to a man and a woman) would be left up to individual churches, where it belongs. This way if a church did not want to recognize/perform gay marriages, then they would not be forced to.

Thoughts?

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/10/21/readers-respond-to-obamas-complex-stance-on-gay-unions-.html

Then he should find someone who is willing to do it. This is an amazing story to be reporting on, considering it’s 2009 and not 1959.

Meet Keith Bardwell. Bardwell has served as a Louisiana justice of the peace for over 34 years at Tangipahoa Parish. In his entire time of service Bardwell has refused to marry interracial couples.

“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. “I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”

Instead, Bardwell refuses to marry interracial couples because he reached the conclusion that both black and white society are reluctant to accept offspring of such relationships.

“There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage,” Bardwell said. “I think those children suffer and I won’t help put them through it.”

While this is a subject that could probably use a little more discussion and debate, the fact remains that Bardwell is breaking the law.

“He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it,” said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann.

I’m not trying to tell Bardwell that he needs to change his opinion, far from it. However, if marrying interracial couples is morally wrong to him then the Tangipahoa Parish needs to find someone who is ok with it. I’d like to think that our society has at least advanced that much in the past five decades.

“That was one thing that made this so unbelievable,” said Beth Humphrey, who was denied a marriage license by Bardwell. “It’s not something you expect in this day and age.”

Beth Humphrey and her partner Terence McKay said they are considering consulting the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.

The ACLU is already taking action. They recently sent a letter to the Louisiana Judiciary Committee, which oversees the state justices of the peace, demanding an investigation on Bardwell and recommending “the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice.”

Sources:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jy_z-Zo4fvJEf2TK1LCiiPIe9NDwD9BBRD8O0