Regarding Redefining Marriage


Below is a recycled, yet relevant essay, originally penned in 2009:

I’ve noticed a number of stories recently about . . . “the latest state to legalize gay marriage.” They seem to be lining up. Personally, I do not have a problem with gay people getting married to one another. It seems obvious to me that marriage only strengthens the bond between loving, gay couples who want to devote their lives to one another. However, one must distinguish between personal preference and public policy. The issue of whether or not to legally recognize gay marriage is essentially political and should be determined via open and public debate, in the marketplace of ideas, by society at large.

However we get there, it may be only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal in all of the United States. And would that really be so bad – two people who love each other getting married, sharing a life together, and perhaps raising a family? What about three people who love each other? Four? More? After all, polygamy has been around for centuries, in cultures that have survived longer than the United States of America. Is polygamy any more or less objectionable than gay marriage?

An argument long advanced is that a percentage of the population is biologically predisposed to being gay, that it is not a choice, and that denying this reality forces some members of society to live counter to what the laws of nature have determined for them. This is the foundation for gay marriage advocates exiting the political square and seeking the purview of the courts.

So long as we’re on the subject of biological predisposition, here’s a news flash, though it shouldn’t be. A sizeable portion of the entire population is, in fact, biologically predisposed to desire multiple sex partners; finding numerous women (or men, as the case may be) attractive as potential mates is not a matter of choice; and denying this reality in pursuit of monogamous lifestyles requires some people to live counter to what nature has determined for them. This, of course, circles back to polygamy and to personal preferences vis-a-vis the importance of quality child-rearing and the interests of society at large.

Our society needs honest, open discussion and sound, collective judgment regarding an institution so fundamental to its existence as marriage. And however the decision-making process occurs – private reflection, prayer, public debate, ballot box – it doesn’t have to happen overnight. Taking our time and exercising well-reasoned limits is simply prudent. Otherwise, we may find ourselves upon a slippery, increasingly secularist slope, as the institution of marriage grows ever less significant, and may eventually become meaningless. By then, we could well be mistaken for communists.


SCOTUS Does It Again


ObamaCare remains a train wreck, and the U.S. Supreme Court has once again kept it hoisted atop the flimsiest of rails.

Chief Justice John Roberts penned today’s six-justice majority opinion, in King v. Burwell, upholding the Obama Administration’s provision of health insurance subsidies via federally established health care exchanges. The court did so despite the fact that the language of the ObamaCare statute provides no such federal authority, and only authorizes subsidies via exchanges established by the states.

In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged the problematic nature of ObamaCare’s statutory language, but he went on to state, “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

One could also argue in the converse, that a hyper-partisan, Democrat-controlled Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, without a single Republican vote, in order to weaken America’s health care system, not to improve it; and that they intended to pave the way for the eventual reconstitution of health care in America under a socialist model.

Chief Justice Roberts chose to embrace the former argument, and ignore the latter. He and five other Justices have based their interpretation of Congressional intent not on the language Congressional Democrats employed when drafting ObamaCare in 2010, but rather on the rhetoric they now employ in defense of their ill-conceived, ill-gotten health care scheme.

The Roberts rationale aims toward a political end. Dressing it up in a legal opinion does not change that sad reality.

Democrats Begin To Worry


Hillary Clinton, along with her husband Bill and despite Barack Obama’s presidency, has lorded over much of the Democrats’ political machinery since the early nineteen-nineties. More recently, Hillary has been the inevitable 2016 Democrat nominee for the presidency, since well before she actually announced that she was once again running.

What few Democrats are willing to acknowledge is that her purported inevitability has already hurt their party. Having positioned themselves with no other viable option for a national candidate, they are only as strong or as weak as Hillary herself. And when her vulnerabilities manifest themselves – recent polling shows her weakening support – Democrats get nervous.

They are so concerned, in fact, that their political operatives at the New York Times run weak-minded hit pieces about Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a serious contender for the Republican nomination. Rubio is a self-made American success story, a Hispanic, the son of working class Cuban immigrants. Liberal translation … a threat.

Any Republican candidate who looks to captivate large numbers of voters, especially one such as Sen. Rubio, who so radically contradicts the liberal narrative of minorities beholden to the Democrat party, is a target for the liberal media establishment (a.k.a. the ‘mainstream media’). Democrats know the drill. Attack. Smear. Bring your opponent down. Especially when your own candidate is beyond lifting up. And candidate Hillary, mired in corruption and hypocrisy, has all the buoyancy of a beached elephant seal.

This will get ugly.