I've got a bit of an opportunity.
EDIT (06/29/06): I've decided which piece I wanted to use, but I'd still like to hear which one you like better or would choose in my situation.
David Boaz of The Cato Institute is inviting me to interview as well as offering to take me to a couple of other libertarian organizations that are looking for writers. While there are no guarantees, it is exciting being taken seriously as a writer.
I have been working on a portfolio with Jonathan (who's probably sorry he ever decided to help me, which is certainly understandable) for quite some time, in anticipation of a completely different position. I'm almost sure I have way too many pieces (twelve as it stands), but they're all different in one way or another, and I want to cover whatever situation I'm in.
The problem is that I am still short a current political commentary/essay piece and I want to include one of the following three.
The first I posted about a month ago was on the Federal Marriage Act.
Douglas W. Kmiec is a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine. So when Kmiec says that we should put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages out for debate, especially as he as an expert clearly believes the term "marriage" should be defined in the law of the land, who would dare to challenge that?
Well, I would. I may not be a constitutional scholar, but I see a number of clear flaws in Kmiec's commentary.
Kmiec's argument is largely based on the idea that homosexuality is immoral which is, for all intents and purposes, a religious argument. Religion, as the pious seem to need to be reminded all too often, is faith. Faith, by definition, is unprovable. To force people to follow a tenet from a belief system that cannot be proven to be true is unfair at best and oppressive at worst.
For this reason, the Boy Scouts of America should be denied access to taxpayer money, or, as Kmiec called it, "government benefits." When you discriminate against American taxpayers, you should not be allowed to use what their money provides. This does not mean that the Boy Scouts should accept gays; it simply means that as a private organization, the BSA does not have the right to ban certain segments of the population and expect to be funded by a public that includes those banned persons.
When Massachusetts decided to legalize (or rather, clearly allow) same-sex marriages, it did so as its right as a state. The Tenth Amendment is quite clear, and should be even more so to Kmiec: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Furthermore, marriage is not "a moral reality" as Kmiec says; it is a contract. If two people choose to lovingly link their lives to each other, it is not necessary for them to go to a priest, preacher, rabbi, imam or any other religious leader; they can simply visit a secular justice of the peace. Religious institutions can instruct their leadership to do whatever they see fit, but to ban justices of the peace from being able to bind people to a contract they willingly wish to enter is, well, unconstitutional. (And if churches fall apart because some choose not to accept certain beliefs, those churches have bigger problems than worrying about what two people do in the bedroom.)
So what should the Constitution say about marriages? Precisely what it says right now... nothing. It is not the purview of the United States Government to tell two of its citizens whether they can enter a peaceful contract or not, nor should it be in a country in which liberty and freedom are supposedly hallmarks. Likewise, the government should be just as silent if religious leaders refuse to perform or acknowledge same-sex marriages. The price of being free is that all your fellow citizens are also free. Perhaps this country will relearn that lesson someday.
The second is an alternate version of the one above.
President Bush has recently given his support to the Federal Marriage Amendment, much to the delight of (and most likely to rally) his Religious Right supporters. Not long before, I read a commentary by a constitutional law scholar named Douglas Kmiec stating that the marriage amendment should be put to debate by the states. The author was far from unbiased; on the contrary, it was quite clear Kmiec wanted the same-sex marriage ban to pass. In their own lives, Bush and Kmiec can believe whatever they wish, but from a legal and especially a constitutional perspective, both of them should know better.
The Constitution was created to establish the rights of the American citizenry. Almost every constitutional Amendment that mentions the American people was added to further extend or clarify our rights. Only two can be said to curtail our freedom and one of those - the Eighteenth Amendment - was repealed. By that history alone, adding an Amendment that is blatantly oppressive to anyone is shameful.
Marriage, to those who back the proposed amendment, is a religious tradition (some go as far as to say it's a gift from God) in need of saving. Legally, however, marriage is a contract. While you can go to a priest, preacher, rabbi, imam or another religious leader to be wed, your marriage is just as legitimate if you visit a secular justice of the peace. However, if it ever becomes necessary to dissolve the union, your only choice is going to court.
The arguably more contentious of the two terms, however, is same-sex. To be brief, there are only two reasons to object to the sexual attraction of another human being: personal opinion or the belief the action in question is somehow immoral.
To pass a law against a group simply because of one's personal disapproval or even the distaste of many is nothing short of prejudice. Moreover, it is flatly hypocritical to adopt a prejudicial and discriminatory law in a country that claims freedom and liberty as supposed hallmarks.
The only other reason to oppose same-sex marriages is on the grounds that it is immoral. But as homosexuality is far from unprecedented in nature, the only other possible sense it could be immoral is religious. Religion, as the pious seem to need to be reminded all too often, is faith. Faith, by definition, cannot be proved. Hence, creating an overarching law based on a religious - and again, unprovable - tenet is not just oppressive, but also violates the First Amendment clause of the free exercise of religion.
Religious institutions should have the ability to set boundaries as they see fit in their own religion, in the lives of their adherents and even in any faith-based organizations they sponsor, as long as they agree not to accept taxpayer funding. In other words, they cannot simultaneously ban certain segments of the population and also expect to be financially supported by a public that includes those banned persons.
The Constitution makes no mention of marriage, nor should it. It is not the place of the United States Government to prevent two peaceful and willing citizens from expressing their love in a peaceful contract. However, allowing the states to permit, deny or, best still, remain silent on same-sex marriages gives those who feel strongly on the issue the opportunity to move somewhere they feel their beliefs are valued. It may not be ideal for the most radical on either side of the issue, but it is the only choice for a country that purports to be "the land of the free".
The third is one I submitted to Libertarian Party News, but I have not heard if it will be printed or not. If it is, it most likely will become the default addition.
In Alex Pugliese's column in LP News last December, he mentioned a contention of Larry Elder’s, namely that Libertarians generally receive low vote percentages because "people fear freedom". Mr. Pugliese, if I read his commentary correctly, believes that the fear many Americans have is from a lack of familiarity with the ideals of freedom and liberty. While I appreciate what Mr. Pugliese said, I think the problem is slightly different. What many people have is not quite a fear of freedom, but rather a fear of the freedom of others.
My local newspaper runs a section in the Sunday edition called "Question of the Week" in which citizens are asked to give yes or no answers along with a short statement. While it is informative, "Question of the Week" doesn't make for a very scientific survey, and since the space designated for the section is limited, the answers can be skewed in a way the compiler agrees with.
Hence, when essentially the same question was asked two weeks in a row whether or not smoking should be banned in restaurants (once specifically in Indiana, the other in general), the fact that twelve of the seventeen featured respondents answered "yes" unconditionally wasn’t much of a cause of concern for me. What did capture my attention were the answers themselves. Here are five:
"Yes. It is nasty to smoke while you are eating, and it disturbs your meal."
"Yes, because I don't like smoke in my food, hair, and clothes."
"Yes. Smoking is very bad for you."
"Yes. People who don’t smoke shouldn't have to smell smoke."
Then there's the answer I feel epitomizes all the "yes" responses:
"Yes, because I don't smoke."
Ideally, diners can choose a restaurant that fits their desired environment; if they want to eat at an establishment that is smoke-free they can choose to do so, just as smokers choose to eat at places that allow them to light up. The non-smokers from the survey seem to believe smokers are incapable of making the "correct" decision about using tobacco, or their (non-smokers') ability to eat at the restaurant of their choosing trumps the smokers' right to eat at a place that allows them to light up while they dine, or both. (One could say that those people are not necessarily asking for a law to be passed banning smoking, but what other way is there to make all restaurants non-smoking beside legislative action?)
If you expand beyond the topic of smoking, similar things can be said of many other groups. They believe so strongly in their way of life, they feel the ability to choose otherwise - the ability for others to exercise their free will - is inconsequential, if not dangerous. For gun control supporters, there are the "gun nuts". For drug prohibitionists, there are the "druggies". For the Religious Right, there are the "sexual aberrants", "heathens" and the like. For the politically correct, there are the "racists", "sexists", "homophobes", and so on. Furthermore, those fears are harped on constantly by politicians and other civil leaders, in religious and educational institutions, on talk radio and the Op-Ed page, and even in everyday conversations.
For those who seek universal conformity to accept liberty and freedom, they have to understand human free will inevitably results in differences in opinion on everything. Just as conformists don't want to be forced into lifestyles they find objectionable, others feel just as strongly about being coerced into someone else's way of life.
Those conformists will also have to accept that it is much better to have people free to peacefully follow their own minds living side-by-side than to have open thought suppressed under one belief system, if for no other reason than the fact that oppression eventually begets violence.
Of course, the conformists also should realize that personal responsibility is the key to freedom; while they cannot interfere with the ability of others to live their lives, there can be no free society unless they have the right to live without infringement as well.
Hmm.
On second thought, perhaps Mr. Pugliese is right. More familiarity with the aspects of a free society is in order.
David Boaz of The Cato Institute is inviting me to interview as well as offering to take me to a couple of other libertarian organizations that are looking for writers. While there are no guarantees, it is exciting being taken seriously as a writer.
I have been working on a portfolio with Jonathan (who's probably sorry he ever decided to help me, which is certainly understandable) for quite some time, in anticipation of a completely different position. I'm almost sure I have way too many pieces (twelve as it stands), but they're all different in one way or another, and I want to cover whatever situation I'm in.
The problem is that I am still short a current political commentary/essay piece and I want to include one of the following three.
The first I posted about a month ago was on the Federal Marriage Act.
Douglas W. Kmiec is a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine. So when Kmiec says that we should put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages out for debate, especially as he as an expert clearly believes the term "marriage" should be defined in the law of the land, who would dare to challenge that?
Well, I would. I may not be a constitutional scholar, but I see a number of clear flaws in Kmiec's commentary.
Kmiec's argument is largely based on the idea that homosexuality is immoral which is, for all intents and purposes, a religious argument. Religion, as the pious seem to need to be reminded all too often, is faith. Faith, by definition, is unprovable. To force people to follow a tenet from a belief system that cannot be proven to be true is unfair at best and oppressive at worst.
For this reason, the Boy Scouts of America should be denied access to taxpayer money, or, as Kmiec called it, "government benefits." When you discriminate against American taxpayers, you should not be allowed to use what their money provides. This does not mean that the Boy Scouts should accept gays; it simply means that as a private organization, the BSA does not have the right to ban certain segments of the population and expect to be funded by a public that includes those banned persons.
When Massachusetts decided to legalize (or rather, clearly allow) same-sex marriages, it did so as its right as a state. The Tenth Amendment is quite clear, and should be even more so to Kmiec: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Furthermore, marriage is not "a moral reality" as Kmiec says; it is a contract. If two people choose to lovingly link their lives to each other, it is not necessary for them to go to a priest, preacher, rabbi, imam or any other religious leader; they can simply visit a secular justice of the peace. Religious institutions can instruct their leadership to do whatever they see fit, but to ban justices of the peace from being able to bind people to a contract they willingly wish to enter is, well, unconstitutional. (And if churches fall apart because some choose not to accept certain beliefs, those churches have bigger problems than worrying about what two people do in the bedroom.)
So what should the Constitution say about marriages? Precisely what it says right now... nothing. It is not the purview of the United States Government to tell two of its citizens whether they can enter a peaceful contract or not, nor should it be in a country in which liberty and freedom are supposedly hallmarks. Likewise, the government should be just as silent if religious leaders refuse to perform or acknowledge same-sex marriages. The price of being free is that all your fellow citizens are also free. Perhaps this country will relearn that lesson someday.
The second is an alternate version of the one above.
President Bush has recently given his support to the Federal Marriage Amendment, much to the delight of (and most likely to rally) his Religious Right supporters. Not long before, I read a commentary by a constitutional law scholar named Douglas Kmiec stating that the marriage amendment should be put to debate by the states. The author was far from unbiased; on the contrary, it was quite clear Kmiec wanted the same-sex marriage ban to pass. In their own lives, Bush and Kmiec can believe whatever they wish, but from a legal and especially a constitutional perspective, both of them should know better.
The Constitution was created to establish the rights of the American citizenry. Almost every constitutional Amendment that mentions the American people was added to further extend or clarify our rights. Only two can be said to curtail our freedom and one of those - the Eighteenth Amendment - was repealed. By that history alone, adding an Amendment that is blatantly oppressive to anyone is shameful.
Marriage, to those who back the proposed amendment, is a religious tradition (some go as far as to say it's a gift from God) in need of saving. Legally, however, marriage is a contract. While you can go to a priest, preacher, rabbi, imam or another religious leader to be wed, your marriage is just as legitimate if you visit a secular justice of the peace. However, if it ever becomes necessary to dissolve the union, your only choice is going to court.
The arguably more contentious of the two terms, however, is same-sex. To be brief, there are only two reasons to object to the sexual attraction of another human being: personal opinion or the belief the action in question is somehow immoral.
To pass a law against a group simply because of one's personal disapproval or even the distaste of many is nothing short of prejudice. Moreover, it is flatly hypocritical to adopt a prejudicial and discriminatory law in a country that claims freedom and liberty as supposed hallmarks.
The only other reason to oppose same-sex marriages is on the grounds that it is immoral. But as homosexuality is far from unprecedented in nature, the only other possible sense it could be immoral is religious. Religion, as the pious seem to need to be reminded all too often, is faith. Faith, by definition, cannot be proved. Hence, creating an overarching law based on a religious - and again, unprovable - tenet is not just oppressive, but also violates the First Amendment clause of the free exercise of religion.
Religious institutions should have the ability to set boundaries as they see fit in their own religion, in the lives of their adherents and even in any faith-based organizations they sponsor, as long as they agree not to accept taxpayer funding. In other words, they cannot simultaneously ban certain segments of the population and also expect to be financially supported by a public that includes those banned persons.
The Constitution makes no mention of marriage, nor should it. It is not the place of the United States Government to prevent two peaceful and willing citizens from expressing their love in a peaceful contract. However, allowing the states to permit, deny or, best still, remain silent on same-sex marriages gives those who feel strongly on the issue the opportunity to move somewhere they feel their beliefs are valued. It may not be ideal for the most radical on either side of the issue, but it is the only choice for a country that purports to be "the land of the free".
The third is one I submitted to Libertarian Party News, but I have not heard if it will be printed or not. If it is, it most likely will become the default addition.
In Alex Pugliese's column in LP News last December, he mentioned a contention of Larry Elder’s, namely that Libertarians generally receive low vote percentages because "people fear freedom". Mr. Pugliese, if I read his commentary correctly, believes that the fear many Americans have is from a lack of familiarity with the ideals of freedom and liberty. While I appreciate what Mr. Pugliese said, I think the problem is slightly different. What many people have is not quite a fear of freedom, but rather a fear of the freedom of others.
My local newspaper runs a section in the Sunday edition called "Question of the Week" in which citizens are asked to give yes or no answers along with a short statement. While it is informative, "Question of the Week" doesn't make for a very scientific survey, and since the space designated for the section is limited, the answers can be skewed in a way the compiler agrees with.
Hence, when essentially the same question was asked two weeks in a row whether or not smoking should be banned in restaurants (once specifically in Indiana, the other in general), the fact that twelve of the seventeen featured respondents answered "yes" unconditionally wasn’t much of a cause of concern for me. What did capture my attention were the answers themselves. Here are five:
"Yes. It is nasty to smoke while you are eating, and it disturbs your meal."
"Yes, because I don't like smoke in my food, hair, and clothes."
"Yes. Smoking is very bad for you."
"Yes. People who don’t smoke shouldn't have to smell smoke."
Then there's the answer I feel epitomizes all the "yes" responses:
"Yes, because I don't smoke."
Ideally, diners can choose a restaurant that fits their desired environment; if they want to eat at an establishment that is smoke-free they can choose to do so, just as smokers choose to eat at places that allow them to light up. The non-smokers from the survey seem to believe smokers are incapable of making the "correct" decision about using tobacco, or their (non-smokers') ability to eat at the restaurant of their choosing trumps the smokers' right to eat at a place that allows them to light up while they dine, or both. (One could say that those people are not necessarily asking for a law to be passed banning smoking, but what other way is there to make all restaurants non-smoking beside legislative action?)
If you expand beyond the topic of smoking, similar things can be said of many other groups. They believe so strongly in their way of life, they feel the ability to choose otherwise - the ability for others to exercise their free will - is inconsequential, if not dangerous. For gun control supporters, there are the "gun nuts". For drug prohibitionists, there are the "druggies". For the Religious Right, there are the "sexual aberrants", "heathens" and the like. For the politically correct, there are the "racists", "sexists", "homophobes", and so on. Furthermore, those fears are harped on constantly by politicians and other civil leaders, in religious and educational institutions, on talk radio and the Op-Ed page, and even in everyday conversations.
For those who seek universal conformity to accept liberty and freedom, they have to understand human free will inevitably results in differences in opinion on everything. Just as conformists don't want to be forced into lifestyles they find objectionable, others feel just as strongly about being coerced into someone else's way of life.
Those conformists will also have to accept that it is much better to have people free to peacefully follow their own minds living side-by-side than to have open thought suppressed under one belief system, if for no other reason than the fact that oppression eventually begets violence.
Of course, the conformists also should realize that personal responsibility is the key to freedom; while they cannot interfere with the ability of others to live their lives, there can be no free society unless they have the right to live without infringement as well.
Hmm.
On second thought, perhaps Mr. Pugliese is right. More familiarity with the aspects of a free society is in order.