Just a Case of Traditional Discrimination

Prop 8 will be in the news again. (For those who don’t remember, Prop 8 is the constitutional amendment that Californians passed in November 2008 that says: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”) Why will it be in the news? Because tomorrow lawyers representing a gay couple will argue against the amendment in a federal courthouse in San Francisco. Arguing against the amendment (remember I said "against" the amendment) is a staunch conservative who is best known for doing a little handy work for Bush in a little court case called Bush v. Gore. Arguing for the amendment is another staunch conservative, and hearing the arguments is a judge who was nominated by Reagan and confirmed under Bush the Elder. Interesting. 

A constitutional ban on gay marriage would be a feather in the hat (or cap?) of most conservatives. Whether it is in a state constitution or the federal one, polls make Americans’ attitudes on same-sex marriage clear. 53% are against it, 46% are for it; although to be fair, in 1996, 68% of people were against it and 27% of people were for it. Just as a little point of comparison to show how enlightened these same people are, 54% of people think it is “morally acceptable” to have a baby outside of marriage. Keep that in mind when I talk about “traditional marriage” in a few moments.

Here is the interesting thing about a constitutional amendment on gay marriage: It would be one of two active amendments that withholds a particular right from one group of people that is given to the remaining people. Do you know what the other amendment is? It is the 26th Amendment, the amendment that prohibits the federal government or state governments from forbidding anyone over the age of 18 from voting. Bonus points if you can name the group of people whose right to vote is being withheld.

Oh and there was one amendment that we got rid of that doesn’t give a particular group of people their full rights. Does the phrase “three-fifths” bring anyone back to high school American history class?
As a conservative, I have heard all of the arguments against allowing gay marriage: “We need to support traditional marriage;" “marriage is a privilege, not a right;” and, perhaps the worst one, “The voters have spoken: No on gay marriage.”

The traditional marriage argument is the hardest to argue against. Who gets to define traditional marriage? Rush Limbaugh? Or, better yet, why don’t we take a page out of history and let actual traditions define what “traditional marriage” means. Should this include not allowing mixed race marriages...again? Perhaps chastity belts will come back into vogue?

Coming to a rack near you. (Courtesy Manya Scheps) 

I heard the worst argument against gay marriage come from the mouth of Newt Gingrich. He spoke at my university about one year ago, and a lesbian student asked about gay marriage. Newt Gingrich’s argument went something along the lines of “Americans have voted, and a majority of Americans can’t be wrong.” 

Kunta Kinte begs to differ

The fact is arguments against gay marriage inevitably stem from discomfort with gays, not with a willingness to defend traditional marriage. If the latter is truly the case, why have opponents of gay marriage been married so many times? Why not prosecute adulterers? And why won’t anyone do something about drive thru-marriages?

"We'll have two burgers, a large fry, and a lifetime of headaches."

One final problem is I believe that conservatives are infusing the debate with their own religious beliefs. What the Bible or Quran or Book of Mormon says regarding gays is unimportant. Having the federal government recognize marriage and the rights conferred by it does not mean a religion needs to recognize the marriage as well. Having your marriage recognized by the government is a right, but having that marriage recognized by your church is a privilege. And, as we should know by now, church and state do not mean the same thing.

In high school, when I was against the idea of gay marriage, a friend said to me, “Gay rights are the civil rights of our generation.” As the years go by and the debate becomes more heated, I could not agree more. The fact is opponents of gay marriage cannot get around that annoying little fact that a constitutional ban will withhold rights from a particular group of people. That is grossly un-American. Sadly, the current fight for gay (civil) rights is very, very American. 

 

Census 2010: Forcing You to Make Informed Decisions

I was in the news all day yesterday. Not me specifically, but me as a statistic. I am (was) one of the temporary census workers hired. I worked for a month. It was a job I actually enjoyed. The work was interesting; the people I had to talk to were a healthy mix of nice and borderline psychotic.

In America, a form of the census has been around since the 1600s when the (then) British Colonies conducted head counts. The idea of the American Census was actually introduced in 1775 as a “basis of taxation, and to replenish the armies, from time to time.” In typical American fashion, it took a casual 15 years to implement the idea. The idea of counting the population is not a new one. A form of the census has existed in most (if not all) advanced civilizations. If you’ve ever sat through an Old Testament class you might not have been spared your teacher's wrath and been forced to read Numbers. That was an enumeration. With that knowledge alone, you might think that the people whose doors I knock on would not be able to use the, “This is one giant government conspiracy” excuse to shut the door in my face.

Nope.

I can easily divide the people I talk to into simple categories, in no particular order:

1. Young adults, between the ages of 18 and 25, who simply did not turn in the Census form. These people have yet to be disenchanted with life and would give you their social security number if you asked for it.
2. Canadians on vacation. Always super nice. These are the people who ask how you are; invite you in to enjoy air conditioning and probably a cup of water. I love Canadians (blog goal #3=fail).
3. Old people who were too senile to turn in a Census form. “What? I didn’t understand you” is a common phrase.
4. Lonely people who didn’t turn the form in so as to get an enumerator to knock on their door. These people are usually ready with their life story, a glass of tea, and a few photo albums out on the table so that they can show you pictures of cakes that they’ve taken over the years.
5. And finally, there are the right-wingers. The people who hate the government, think I am stealing their information for the sole purpose of selling it on the black market of information, who don’t trust Obama, and whose time I am wasting even though the conversation is happening at 3 pm on a weekday. These are the people I’m concerned with, because they are most likely the people who would vote the same way as me in any national election.

I obviously cannot give any particular examples of group number five. Doing so would essentially ruin my life since the government could (and probably would) throw me into jail for a few years and fine me $250,000. 

"No Touching!"

Hence I opted for the grouping. But these people are more often than not those lovely Tea Party and Birther people. Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity can usually be heard in the background. They tell me they don’t trust Obama, that Obama is spitting on the Constitution, that Obama will use the Census information to come after them, and that the government is constantly invading their privacy.

The irony of their complaints is lost on them. The people so concerned with “individual rights” and “Obama’s trampling of the Constitution” are refusing to participate in the one Constitutional duty that they have (if you think that voting is a duty mandated by the Constitution you would be incorrect, participating in the Census is your only duty).  Article I Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that a headcount be made every ten years, and, believe it or not, there is a penalty for refusing to answer the Census. 

And the people so worried about their information being stolen seem ignorant of the fact that all of the information they give is confidential (and that I could get more information on the internet about them than I could by asking). 

"Could you give me your debit card pin again?"

Despite what people might think, the IRS cannot get its hands on their census information. Granted that doesn't mean government agencies haven't tried. There is a famous 1980 case of FBI agents showing up to a Census office to seize Census documents. The Census workers refused, and a court upheld the workers’ refusal.  In 1950 President Truman had to move out of the White House while it was being remodeled. The Secret Service tried to obtain Census data to determine a safe place to live. The Census Bureau refused to give the information. 

My only wish was that the power heads (Beck, Rush, Hannity, Levin) would have been a bit more helpful in rounding up their followers to answer the Census. Perhaps by giving them a few facts every now and again?

Intro to Banality

I figured it’s time for me to put my thoughts into cyber space. Part of it has to do with what my girlfriend said the other day: “I think you like to hear yourself talk.” I gave her a five-minute point-by-point run down of why her statement was more or less incorrect. So this blog is an attempt to talk myself out before I see (annoy) her.

Why a political blog, then? Part of it stems from the lack of anything interesting about my daily life. Part of it stems from a long-standing interest in politics. A lot of it stems from the fact that I am really sick of conservatives spouting nonsense, giving other conservatives a bad name.

 (That having been said, I think that is true of both parties.)

I read the first post on a number of other blogs to get an idea of what I should be doing here. Each had at least an introduction, and some listed a number of goals the authors hoped to accomplish. With that template in mind, I will do the same:

Goal 1: Avoid a lawsuit 

Goal 2: Continue the blog past five days

Goal 3: Make at least one disparaging remark about Canada

I would never go so far as to say I am writing for a particular demographic. The reason is not because I don’t know what demographic I would write for, but rather because I am realistic enough to know that it will be hard to find any demographic within my anticipated readership (my estimate—somewhere in the area of 6, but that’s just a ballpark figure).

That is all I have to say for the moment.