Marriage and Civil Unions

'Marriage' by definition is a religiously sanctified union between a man and a woman. We should never have let it be usurped by the State. (I use the term 'State' with a capital 'S' to indicate "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government'" or in the case of federal systems, multiple governments.) And in fact, the current situation wherein the State has nearly complete control over marriage is ripe for a thoughtful application of Jefferson's separation of Church and State. Such a division would go a long way toward resolving our current social and legal conflicts over the issue.

The basic solution I envision would be as follows: remove the term and state of 'Marriage' completely from the government sphere, and replace it word for word in law with the term 'Civil Union.' Return 'Marriage' to its religious roots and control. Stated differently, all Marriages would be civil unions, but not all civil unions would be Marriages. In this way, the bundle of State assigned legal rights formerly associated only with Marriages would devolve seamlessly onto all civil unions, and the term Marriage would be assigned to the civil union via religious authority. Even the terminology could be differentiated in that the members of a simple civil union would be legally referred to as 'partners,' whereas in a Marriage they would be 'husband' and 'wife'.

To those of you who are religious, this would be a simple application of "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." while allowing other Americans the right to live a moral life as they see fit.

Sandy Springs, GA: Privatization of Government Services

A few days ago I posted a new Reason video on the city of Sandy Springs, GA. I have been following Sandy Springs since about 2008. If you don’t know the story, Sandy Springs was newly incorporated in 2005, and the committee chose to outsource the majority of services to private enterprises. If you know little about it, the video is here:



Long story, short: I posted the video on one of my County Commissioners FaceBook wall. Popular response was ok, mostly for the idea. One person, spoke out strongly against it, with a cautionary story about the potential problems implicit in outsourcing. A link which I hope will work to the whole thread is here: http://www.facebook.com/marksharpe/posts/208112665880192

The same individual posted an article that spoke of the theoretical flaws in ‘privatization’. See it here: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Privatization.htm

So, if you have watched the video, and read the above article, here is my response.

Chris,
Interesting article. I do have a couple of problems with some of the arguments, however. They just don't seem to hold up. For example, the author tries to show that government and business are
substitutes for one another. That makes no sense: From the consumer perspective, if business offers

The Politicization of Civility

In the immediate aftermath of the Representative Gabrielle Giffords' shooting in Tucson, Arizona, the left predictably began pointing fingers at their normal targets on the right—Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin—claiming that they inspired the primary suspect, Jared Loughner, to attempt to kill her. After the facts began to emerge and seemed to indicated that Loughner had no real political orientation, the left quickly began to obfuscate their error by transitioning to generalities decrying the rising tide of incivility in our public discourse. With calls that echoed GHW Bush’s call for a ‘kinder and gentler nation,’ the left derided the right for its ‘lock and load rhetoric’. The right responded with historical examples of how uncivil political discourse has often been in the past.

The one thing both sides seem to miss is that the growth of government, itself, will cause a systemic increase in incivility in our public discourse.

Updated: Justice Stephen Breyer's View of the 2nd Amendment

Here is a 13-minute, Fox News Sunday interview with US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. Justice Breyer is promoting his latest book. Such interviews are rare and Breyer discusses his view of the proper method of Constitution interpretation. Breyer's defense of his dissent from Heller is classic. He begins by claiming that Madison was compelled to included the 2nd Amendment in 1789--after the Constitution was already ratified--because his opponents would call up the state militias and nationalize them. Next he claims that the majority of historians support his view. The intellectual dishonesty of the man is chilling. This is a must see.







If you think his claims regarding Madison's objectives for the 2nd Amendment are accurate, please read 'Why DC's Gun Law is Unconstitutional'

02/24/2011 Update:  David Young’s outstanding rebuttal above provides a high level review of the critical events during the ratification of the Bill of Rights, but it is of necessity somewhat short on specific references. I therefore thought to do some of my own research into the specific issue of Madison’s intent when he introduced the Bill of Rights in the first Congress. Based on Young’s clues, I easily found a supporting source. In ‘The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History, Volume II’, (Bernard Schwartz, 1971, Chelsea House,) beginning on page 764, Schwartz writes that

[During the Virginia State Ratifying Convention, on June 25, 1788, after the Federalists had defeated Patrick Henry’s effort to require modifications and amendments before ratification, the delegates voted to ratify and recommend amendments after the fact.] The next day, a committee was appointed to prepare and report such amendments as by them shall be deemed necessary, to be recommended. Both [George] Mason and [Patrick] Henry were placed on the drafting committee (along with [James] Madison, [John] Marshall, and [George] Wythe) and were able to secure the origin Henry proposals, though only by way of recommendation for subsequent amendments. On June 27, the committee reported a proposed federal Declaration or Bill of Rights of 20 articles to be added to the Constitution, as well as 20 other amendments to the constitutional text. The Convention agreed to the committee report, and enjoined “it upon their representatives [Madison, of course, was one] in Congress to exert all their influence, and use all reasonable and legal methods, to obtain a ratification of the foregoing alterations and provisions.”

(page 842) The 17th item of Virginia’s  proposed ‘federal Declaration of Bill of Rights’  is

17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper , natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

 It clearly indicates an individual right. In addition, it is highly unlikely to me that Madison—who sat on the drafting committee—would allow such a clear declaration to be included in the committee report if he was against it. It is also inconceivable to me that Madison’s sole concern in proposing the Bill of Rights was in regard to threats of militia nationalization, given that he had specific guidance from the convention  ‘to exert all [his] influence, and use all reasonable and legal methods, to obtain a ratification of the foregoing alterations and provisions’ which included a clear individual right to keep and bear arms.

Who Governs in America?

After watching the State of the Union and all the responses, I find that I am sick and tired of hearing about 'governing'. Every News show, every soundbite in the media talks about 'We were elected, and now we just have to govern.' Or some such nonsense. When exactly did this change occur in all the capitals around this nation that our representatives now think of themselves as our governors?
Yes, back during the Constitutional Convention one can read of some using the term--usually the Federalists like Hamilton I have to point out--but not nearly to the extent that one hears it today. When I hear the term 'govern', I think of kings, dictators, despots, commissars, czars (is there something to this, given our current penchant to dubbing un-elected bureaucrats with this title?), and totalitarians in general. Not my congressman 

The Road Less Traveled: H.R. 3343

Politicians and the media have molded the national conversation on health care into a discussion about a choice between our current free-market system and a government funded, universal health care system. As prices continue to spiral out of control, it seems everyone is calling for the government to 'do something'. The approach most favored by the media is to label out of control health care costs as a 'market failure'. They quote statistics indicating that health care costs are increasing year after year at rates far beyond the annual inflation rate, and call it proof of a classic failure of the free-market. The fundamental 'ruthlessness' of the free-market is likewise to blame for the millions of Americans without access to medical care. Only more government controls will get prices under control and provide coverage for all Americans.
We are never told that the government already controls health care spending in the US. In fact, government provided health care (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP. etc) and regulation determines approximately 80% of all health care prices in the US. In reality, then, the spiraling costs are not a free-market failure; they are a government failure. All truly unregulated, free-market health care cost trends are exactly opposite the current cost trends of government regulated medical services. According to a 2006 survey of studies by the National Center for Policy Analysis the costs of medical services not regulated or covered by government or insurance, have either fallen or not increased as much as either prices in general or covered medical services. Cosmetic surgery fared the worst of the services studied and LASIK surgery the best:

From 1992 to 2005, a price index of common cosmetic surgery procedures rose only 22 percent while the average increase for medical services was 77 percent; overall, prices for all goods increased 39 percent.
The cost per eye of conventional vision correction laser surgery (LASIK) averaged about $2,100 between 1999 and 2005. By 2005 the price had fallen to just over $1,600.

As these cases show, the plain fact is that the evidence we have for the operation of a free-market in medical services shows that it works. Our daily experience of sustained and substantial rising prices indicates that our current government-managed medical care does not work. Yet all the health care proposals of the major Presidential candidates ignore this fact, and at best they promise us more of the same. Only one candidate--Congressman Ron Paul--seems to have a solution; and it is already a bill in Congress. Dr. Paul's 'Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act' (H.R. 3343) according to DownsizeDC would:

• Give you a 100% refund from your taxes of every dollar you spend on medical care, including insurance premiums.
• Make it easier for your employer to deposit the money it now gives to the health insurance companies into a Health Saving Account that would belong to you
• This money would come to you tax free--you could use it to fund your health care and your insurance premiums This means your health insurance would belong to you, not your employer
• You would have the money to pay small medical expenses with your Health Savings Account, which would allow you to reduce your insurance premiums by buying a Major Medical Plan, instead of a Cadillac Plan
• You would also earn interest on the money in your Health Savings Account, tax free--you would get this interest instead of the insurance companies getting it (collecting interest on premiums is how the insurance companies make their money--these profits could be yours instead)
• Plus, you would become your doctor's customer, instead of the government or your insurance company being your doctor's customer
• This would place the consumer in charge, creating competition that would lower prices and improve quality

Simple and straightforward, the bill applies proven, free-market principles. It would bring down prices using competition, applied technology and increases in efficiency. As prices come down, more and more Americans would have access to affordable health care. Free market competition forces increasing availability. The history of decreasing prices over time in long distance calls, the automobile, and HDTV should make this point crystal clear.
The real national conversation needs to be about how best to de-regulate medical care, and what can be done to speed the transition to a system that works, not who will march the fastest down the road toward government mismanaged Universal Health Care.
(This article was published by The Conservative Voice on March 16, 2008.)