Does Same-Sex Marriage Damage Culture?

Or, does it damage anyone else’s marriage? I’ve often heard that intelligent, liberal people do not think government should intervene to maintain any of the old norms of marriage—just let people marry as they see fit. If same-sex couples want to live together in a marriage relationship, what difference does that make to me?

But…government does claim to have an interest in defining (or un-defining) marriage.  Advocates for same-sex marriage use the 14^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the equal protection amendment) to justify a marriage redefinition. So, why, we must ask, does and should government take such an interest in defining the marriage relationship. There are several reasons. On the face of it, there seems to be some rationale for redefining the marriage relationship because of the 14^th Amendment; but we need to take a closer look at this social move.

Could it be that government is interested in who loves whom or to whom one person is attracted. That seems unlikely. After all, people can live together and cooperate in any way they wish in America. And…nobody goes around snooping into bedrooms to see what kind of sex is being practiced. I do not believe that government is interested in advocating any kind of romantic norm. The government’s job should be to assure everyone that under the 14^th Amendment that all MARRIED people have equal protection under the law.

The question under consideration is first of all, what is marriage? If the thing the courts are protecting is not marriage, at all, then it should not be calling it marriage and imposing some arbitrary privilege or obligation on that entity. I will argue that same-sex hook-ups are not marriages at all, regardless of the fact that the members of the dyads might love one another.

I must digress for a moment and talk about a closely related idea; below, I will get back to the central idea of this essay. For now, let us discuss the outcomes of single parent families. At one point in America, virtually every child was given the gift of a married mother and father. Today, 40 percent of all Americans, including 50 percent of Hispanics, and 70 percent of African Americans are born to single moms—and the consequences for those children are quite serious. Single parenting is dangerous to kids and it is damaging to society.  

President Obama has stated: “We know the statistics: that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.” As the marriage culture collapses, child poverty rises. Crime rises. Social mobility decreases. And welfare spending—which bankrupts so many states and the federal government—takes off. These are the reasons that governments should be interested in the state of marriage in America.

When a baby is born, the mother almost always remains nearby; but in present-day America, fathers are not nearly so much of a permanent fixture—they disappear from the scene. This leaves little boys bereft of a role model to show them how to constructively express their aggressive instincts while avoiding doing actual damage to others. Thus…boys grow up and perpetrate violence in society.

What government should be doing, it seems to me, is protecting our society from the malignant effects of the incomplete homes caused by single parenting situations.

So now…let’s look at what marriage is. Marriage has several characteristics: monogamy/exclusivity, permanency, male/female complementarity, and biological reproductivity. The last quality is obvious to all and needs no further discussion. Same sex couples cannot reproduce children.

Monogamy/exclusivity has been a front page quality of marriage since the beginning of mankind. Married people do not like to have their spouse philandering around with outside sex contacts. But studies in the Netherlands have shown that “committed” homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year. This is much more outside sex activity than is seen in heterosexual marriage relationships.

Likewise, same-sex marriages do not exhibit permanency of relationship. A high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer; many, for the rest of their lifetime. On the other hand, the above-mentioned study in the Netherlands showed that the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be 1½ years.

Complementarity in marriage between a man and a woman is obvious. However, in same-sex marriages, constructive fathers are often absent. Two mothers cannot show little boys how to grow up as constructive adult men.

There are social costs of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. This is like adjudicating fist fights in the street and calling them “discussions,” then justifying them by calling them “freedom of speech,” thus, protecting persons’ rights to fist fights under the 1^st Amendment—freedom of speech. Of course, they are not speech, at all—they are something entirely different. Likewise, same-sex marriage is not marriage, either. I don’t know exactly what to call same-sex marriage, but that entity does not manifest the essential characteristics of marriage outlined above. Same-sex marriage is not marriage, and government has no business calling it such.

Same-sex “marriages” cannot be considered to be normal marriages—no matter what our politically correct government says. True marriage has certain qualities outlined above; and anything less cannot be considered to be a true marriage. Calling something a marriage that is not a true marriage damages real marriages; and they fail to protect and nurture children.

Anyone wanting to learn more about the farce government is perpetrating on the American people with its defense of supposed “same-sex marriage” should read the book, What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense by Ryan T. Anderson.

Would Muslims in America Like to Be Treated Like This?

Christian leaders in the northern Syrian city of Raqqa, captured by an organization formerly affiliated with al-Qaeda, have signed a submission document this week banning them from practicing Christianity in public in return for protection by their Islamist rulers.

Christian community in the province of Raqqa, captured last March by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), was recently given three options: to convert to Islam; to remain Christian but pledge submission to Islam; or to "face the sword." They opted for the second of those choices, known as dhimmitude.

The Christians of Raqqa chose to sign the dhimma treaty over war, the document stated, receiving a commitment by local ISIS commander Ibrahim Al-Badri, also known as Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, not to be subjected to physical harm or religious targeting.

In return, the Christians agreed to a list of conditions: to abstain from renovating churches or monasteries in Raqqa; not to display crosses or religious symbols in public or use loudspeakers in prayer; not to read scripture indoors loud enough for Muslims standing outside to hear; not to undertake subversive actions against Muslims; not to carry out any religious ceremonies outside the church; not to prevent any Christian wishing to convert to Islam from doing so; to respect Islam and Muslims and say nothing offensive about them; to pay the jizya tax worth four golden dinars for the rich, two for the average, and one for the poor, twice annually, for each adult Christian; to refrain from drinking alcohol in public; and to dress modestly.

(This article appeared in the Times of Israel 2-27-14.)

Socialism: Creeping or Sudden?

The showdown on socialism in Ukraine is showing the world just how popular socialism is among peoples who have actually experienced it. The Ukrainians are apparently sick and tired of a socialistic system, having recently experienced it in their dealings with the Soviet Union. Looking at that situation from the outside, we, as world citizens should take careful note. People in Ukraine are willing to fight and die, if necessary to deliver their country into a democratic regime where they have something practical to say about how they are managed by big government. For the time being, at least, the dissidents in Ukraine seem to be in control of Kiev—but…for how long, nobody knows. If the Russians move into Ukraine with their tanks as they did in Georgia several years ago, all could be lost for Ukraine and its freedom-loving people.

Ukraine is threatened by the prospect of having socialism imposed on them suddenly by outside military forces of the Russian Bear. This sudden imposition has motivated the Ukrainians to stand up and fight for their freedoms.

On the other hand, we, in America, are threatened by socialism coming to us in a creeping form—one government regulation after another. Of course, we are also experiencing a near-sudden attack on our free-enterprise system by soft socialists in government who would take over one sixth of our economy in a sudden power grab, Obamacare.

The question is: How will we respond to this socialistic system. Just to show how significant is this threat to American free enterprise, let me tell you about a friend of mine.

His fictional name is Donald. He was a successful and highly trained physician in the U.K. when that country enacted the laws enshrining a socialistic system, the National Health Service, in that country. Donald and many of his colleagues soon after fled the country for greener pastures where they could practice medicine without government instructions on how to do it. He went to Canada. But…after two years, he found the situation in Canada with its socialized medicine system little better than that in the U.K. He then came to Cleveland, OH, where he lives now. He began to work in the Cleveland Clinic; and he was happy there for 20 years. He found the medical practice situation in the United States much more congenial to his work routines than he had found them in either the U.K. or in Canada. Donald is now retired and lives in the same retirement center where Nancy and I live.

In discussing this situation with Donald, he said to me, “Where can doctors migrate to now? There is no other place on earth where we can go to practice unimpeded medicine for our patients, which we know is right for them?”

Is there is nothing wrong with the freewheeling system of entrepreneurial medical delivery we have known in America? Yes, there is certainly something wrong. There have obviously been abuses of our system that need fixing; and some government regulation seems necessary; but it should be coordinated with the basic American system of free enterprise. The system of individual “mandate,” employer “mandate,” and other types of “mandates” is not welcome or workable in America. It is very interesting to me to see that of the huge amount paper it takes just to print up the ObamaCare law, not one word was spent in modifying the money-gobbling system of tort law that funnels millions of dollars into the legal system. This is not surprising in view of the fact that this law was crafted by a bunch of lawyers, all eager to protect their fat fees for prosecuting lawsuits against doctors.

Anyone who thinks there is nothing wrong with this ObamaCare law should ask themselves, “Why are Congress and the Senate, and all the aides to lawmakers exempt from using the law? Why is Big Labor exempt from using the law?” There is something wrong with ObamaCare. It should be completely rescinded and Congress should start over, making a workable and acceptable law. Amateur politicians and bureaucrats such as President Obama should not be allowed to completely ignore the other side of the aisle in crafting a good health care law.

How Big Government Drives Inequality

It is commonly known that in America, median incomes have been dropping while high end incomes have been increasing during the recession. Although many are not aware of this fact, big government has concentrated income and wealth in fewer hands—many of these hands have actually been in the government, itself. It costs money to run big government agencies and their spin-off supporters.

During the Reagan administration, government regulations were minimized; and taxes were lowered. The economy grew faster than 7% in real terms for five quarters in a row starting in the second quarter of 1983. Gross domestic product grew on average 4.6% per year in real terms during the 1983-88 expansion while real median incomes grew 2.1%

Since the Reagan years, growth in the economy has faded while the government has increased its control over the economy and national income. Top federal income tax rates have risen to 44% today from 28% in 1988. The dollar has weakened and consumer prices have doubled in the past 25 years. Federal nondefense spending has nearly quadrupled to $2.8 trillion in 2013 from $750 billion in 1988. This has caused a huge increase in national debt, because the population is not paying its way in the economic world.

New businesses are not being created at the usual rate according to the Labor Department’s Employment Dynamics report. Real GDP growth has averaged a weak 2.3% over the past three years, while real median incomes have fallen 0.6% per year.

Government expansions have harmed individuals with modest incomes while exempting or benefiting people with higher incomes. These include federal takeover of the mortgage industry, siphoning the profit from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac directly to the government, because the government has purchased housing-related bonds from those entities. Money to run the government has also come from money printed by the Federal Reserve, presently in the amount of $85 billion/month. These money windfalls are promptly used to further accumulate wealth and income for those people hired directly or indirectly by the government. The money certainly does not come to people hiring and running small businesses!

The Affordable Care Act is the latest huge government insult. Of course, the government knows how patently unfair the ACA is. This can be seen, because it carefully insulates Congress, government corporations, and unions from having to buy into that big program.

The recent budget deal cooked up by Congress and the Administration has divided up $1.1 trillion, much of which will benefit those with high incomes while the extra debt falls on the middle class.

Personally speaking, Nancy and I have some of our money invested in the equity market; and, as a result, the recession has not hurt us much. We have seen our net worth remain steady. But…the net worth of others in the economy who have less capital has not fared so well. We greatly fear that our children and grandchildren are going to suffer from this “progressive,” liberal, economy. It will take more than good luck for this economic situation to turn in their favor!

(Redacted from the Wall Street Journal opinion pages 1/17/14.)

Impeach the President? Sounded Like Stupid-O-Babble at First, But now….

I frequently receive mailings that encourage me to help impeach the President. I have always thought these things were completely impractical, because there is no political momentum for such an action. Now…I am beginning to wonder. The President seems to be far on the overreach with the exercise of his power. The basis of impeachment of a President must be based on the Constitution’s stipulations, which read, “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” (Article II, Section 4) A “misdemeanor” is defined as “An instance of misbehavior or misdeed, less serious than a felony.”

The president’s overreach may be his legacy to the American people. He has done the following list of things that make one wonder if he thinks he is the executive, the congress, and the judiciary all packed into one office:

1)      Unilaterally raised the minimum wage for new federal contracts.

2)      Unilaterally refused to enforce ObamaCare’s employer mandate, its mandated caps on out-of pocket costs, aspects of its coverage mandates, and its individual mandate as it pertains to those with canceled plans.
3)      Funneling subsidies through federally run exchanges, in defiance of ObamaCare’s plain language (which allows such subsidies to flow only through state-based exchanges).
4)      Refusal to enforce federal marijuana laws.
5)      Refusal to deport illegal immigrants under the age of 30.
6)      Refusal to enforce key aspects of the mid-1990’s welfare-reform law.
7)      Refusal—in the wake of the revelation that his economic “stimulus” was costing taxpayers $275,000/job—to release timely reports as mandated by the text of his own “stimulus” legislation.
8)      Issued “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was in     session.
9)      Illicitly used the power of the IRS to target and cripple his political opponents.
10)  Failed to provide security from terrorists to overseas embassies.
11)  Nationalized health care, General Motors and Chrysler, the student loan program, and much of our banking system.
12)  Threatened to scuttle our gun rights under the 2^nd Amendment to the Constitution.
13)  Has been very secretive and utterly contemptuous of the American people’s right to know in withholding requests under the Freedom of Information Act by such watchdog groups as Judicial Watch.
14)  His Justice Department has unjustifiably sued the state of Arizona over its law empowering local law enforcement personnel to obey the federal immigration laws his administration has refused to enforce.
15)  Has openly opposed the passage of voter ID laws.
16)  Has invited the politically-driven ACORN organization to “partner” with the Census Bureau in administering the 2010 Census, even though ACORN was under investigation for voter registration fraud in the 2008 election cycle.
17)  Failed to support the embassy at Benghazi.
18)  Threatened to take “executive action” on clearly legislative prerogatives if Congress does not act in what he deems a “timely manner.”

It may well be argued that several of the items listed above are beneficial; but one thing that cannot be argued is that all of them are illegal according to the Constitution. They are certainly misdemeanors. The President’s job is to enforce the laws made by Congress and the Senate—he is not to MAKE the laws.  

In Federalist 51, James Madison pointed out that the separation of powers provides half of the “double security” to our rights (the other half is provided by federalism—the separation of powers between the states and the federal government). It seems to me that the President is pushing far into the powers of the Congress and the Senate for much of the above governmental activity; and he has long ago eroded into the power of the states, thus neutralizing the powers crafted for the American people in our system of federalism.

I believe this President should be replaced. If you agree, contact Judicial Watch, 425 Third Street SW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20024; Phone 202-646-5172; email: info@judicialwatch.org

The Best Remedy for Income Inequality: Get Married

The most significant difference between the rich and the poor in America is that the rich mostly come from intact families and the poor come from single parent families. Census Bureau data indicated that in 2012, in families headed by two married parents, just 7.5% lived in poverty. By contrast, when families are headed by a single mother the poverty level jumps to 33.9%.

Unfortunately, the number of children raised in female-headed families is growing in America. A 2012 study by the Heritage Foundation found that 28.6% of children born to a white mother were out of wedlock. For Hispanics, the figure was 52.5%, and for African-Americans 72.3%. In 1964 when the war on poverty began, almost everyone was born in a family with two married parents: only 7% were not. These figures explain why our problems with poverty are so prevalent: Children born in intact families have an easier time becoming educated, wealthy, and successful than children reared by one parent.

The Heritage Foundation has reported that among white married couples, the poverty rate in 2009 was 3.2%; for white non-married families the rate was 22%. Among black married couples, the poverty rate was only 7%, but the rate for non-married black families was 35.6%.

Redistributing money will not solve the problem of poverty in America. If it would, then we would have seen poverty disappear from our country since the war on poverty began in 1964. Welfare/redistribution policies in the United States have spent $20.7 trillion in 2011 dollars since 1964. As can be seen above, the results have been abysmal.

Politicians such as President Obama, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and New York City’s new mayor, Bill de Blasio believe that the income gap can be closed by increasing taxes on wealthy Americans and transferring the money to the poor. America already has an extremely progressive income tax situation (That means that as one’s income increases, the percentage of money going to taxes increases, too.). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 40% of wage earners, those who make more than $51,100/year paid 86.4% of all federal taxes in 2010. The bottom 40% of earners paid only 4.2% of taxes. Many people in the bottom 40% of earners even received money back from the government by “refunds” for money they had never paid in the first place. This happens because of the earned income tax credit and other public assistance programs.

What United States citizens need to do in order to remedy the poverty problem in our country is the stay in school and get married—after that, they should have children. Our national problem is the breakdown of the family, not money-grabbing rich people.

(This blog post was redacted from the Wall Street Journal of 1/13/14, page A15.)

The Politics of “Income Inequality.”

We hear a lot, these days, about income inequality. That is the mantra of the liberal who seeks equal outcome for everyone. But…I wonder how sincere this wish really is.

Let’s look at the different types of governments and different models of society throughout history. There can be little doubt that the more leftward a society leans, the more the poor suffer. Is there any doubt that even if you are poor, it is far better to be poor in a free market democracy like the US instead of the old Soviet Union, Cuba, or Vietnam? Isn’t it interesting to see how, in more modern times, places like China experience tremendous economic growth through the embrace of capitalistic policies (the same that made America a superpower)? At the same time, we are seeing liberal Democrats in America embrace some of the same policies that led to hundreds of millions of Chinese, Cubans, and Vietnamese living in huts on less than a dollar a day!

I wonder, would today’s liberals claim that those with special skills should not be paid more than those without those skills. Take for an example, would liberals like President Obama or Al Gore or Bill Clinton give their millions of dollars to the poor or would they refuse to work for a low salary or income level in order to equalize their money resources with a day laborer. This is a nonsense question. Nobody thinks that income equalization at that level would be a good idea. It is necessary for those with special skills and abilities to be paid more than others.

But, a not-so-nonsensical question is this. If these wealthy liberals do not wish to give away their wealth, why should Joe Middleclass be asked to give his income away in a governmental redistribution scheme?

In order to assess the needs of the poor in America, we need to look at their economic situation straight in the eye. Being a “poor” American is not nearly as bad as you might think. More than 80 percent of poor Americans have cell phones, televisions, and refrigerators. Most also own a motor vehicle and have more living space than the average European. On top of all this, immigrants from all over the world still want to come here for a chance at a better life. This would not be happening if “poor” Americans were living in squalor.

One wonders if liberals and their obsessions about income inequality are really only making themselves feel good. Or…are they appealing to low information voters who think that these policies will have some real effects. I suspect that the liberal cry for income equality is an appeal for votes to those on government welfare who may not be particularly interested in bettering themselves.

I think a much better way to address the problem of income inequality is to stimulate business by eliminating today’s onerous regulations and tax burdens. Let business go—it has been an efficient engine for job creation in the past; and it can produce the jobs needed to equalize income better than government redistribution programs.

(This blog post was redacted from downtrend.com 1/5/14.)