Yes, Liberal Nostalgia

George Rebane

[This is the transcript of my bi-weekly KVMR commentary that aired on 24 June 2011.]

Many of us small time political philosophers have long maintained that progressives are really not all that progressive.  That most of their ideas are pretty moss-backed, have been around for more than a few centuries, and have been tried again and again since at least the French revolution in the late 18th century – all to no avail.

For such thoughts we backwoods conservetarians – yes, that’s a new feather in our political plumage describing a conservative with a dash or a dollop of libertarian thrown in – we backwoods conservetarians have been pilloried by collectivists of all hues.

This week Michael Barone, a big media gun and fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, wrote a piece entitled ‘The Surprising Roots of Liberal Nostalgia’.  In it he draws a taut line between the American ‘Midcentury Moment’ – the years from the late thirties to the early sixties – and the longings of today’s progressives working once more to fundamentally transform our country.

Barone argues that America emerged from the Depression into a mega-war which naturally fused us into a cohesive and coherent society, a society with a unified purpose to rid the world of its two conquest bent tyrannies.  (You history buffs know that the third one changed sides after the war started, and became our huggable ‘ally’.)  So there we were, all having to work together building and fighting, and taking part in the success of big government melded to big business and big unions – big things working well together was the watchword of midcentury America.

And we all complied by adopting a tight-knit culture, becoming “unusually conformist, content to be very small cogs in very large machines.”  We married early, had lots of kids, became organization men, and “flocked to mass-produced suburbs”.  We even “worshipped in seemingly interchangeable churches”, and “celebrated the average, the normal, the regular.”  Our cultural choices were few, and we seemed to like it that way.  Government and the other big institutions were making the right decisions, and we prospered.  We all believed that ‘what’s good for General Motors is good for the country.’

Along the way, the socialism of the Soviet and Chinese communists became an aberration – central planning gone amuck.  But the work of our own central planners of the notorious “military-industrial complex” was of the good kind.  And as we settled into the Cold War, we still believed that America retained FDR’s “righteous might”.  Things were then going so swimmingly that the Socialist Party of America closed its doors, claiming that their mission had been co-opted by the Democratic Party, and that duplication was no longer necessary.  Eventually, the age of “enormous cultural conformity” started unraveling in the mid-sixties, and “by the late 1970s the Midcentury Moment was long gone.”

In spite of this, liberals with long memories and an occasional peek into history books still see that as the golden age of big government done right.  Tax rates were high, goods were flowing out of factories, and debt was low.  From 50,000 feet or 50 years on, it looked as if the paradigm for American governance had finally been perfected.  And today’s progressive cannot do enough to point out to their “regressive right” that we could return to those halcyon days, if we would only bring government back into bed with big business, nurture the regrowth of unions with full employment at fair wages, and levy high taxes on the rich.  Happy days would indeed be here again.

But no one seems to have noticed that today government is already bigger than ever, and cohabitation with big business has become the necessary norm.  Only the private sector unions need to be pumped up to match their public sector brethren.   And government has not slacked off in the monies they take from us annually.  If anything, the fraction of GDP we pay has increased.

Today, our leftwing contingent is again enforcing their brand of cultural conformity through the forceful application of political correctness at all levels.  This conformity, of course, is hidden under a blanket of institutionalized diversity.  Nevertheless, we all sense that daily we are herded into tighter and tighter norms of correct behavior dispensed from above.  And so, the long march back to a new and nostalgic midcentury future is in full swing.

My name is Rebane, and I also expand on these and other themes in my Union columns, on NCTV, and on georgerebane.com where this transcript appears.  These opinions are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

Comments

[Paul Emery]

In a victory for Libertarians, and true Conservatives NY State just voted to support same sex marriage. Here's a good example of voting for less government intrusion in the lives and choices of individuals.

[George Rebane]

But is heterosexual (classical) marriage an important normative distinction in our society? If so, then it should have its own label, and so should homosexual marriage. But if it is the intent to confound and/or hide this important characteristic of a union, then by all means we should ascribe to both the same label. For example if we don't want to differentiate between cats and dogs, then we can call both of those furry critters dogs or some other common label.

[Paul Emery]

You can label things any way you want but it's not the business of government to get involved. That's if you're for less government in our lives. The question is why is it important for government to get involved in the question of gender definitions of persons who chose to become married.

Can anyone show me where in the Constitution it states that it's a government function to define marriage?

[Mike Sherman]

Mr. Emery:

You should clarify your statement that “NY State just voted to support same sex marriage”. It was a legislative vote by politicians, not a vote of the public, or citizen-residents. For many this makes difference.

One can debate all they want on this subject, but consider this - gay marriage has been voted down in every single state in America when it is put to the voters. Even voters in very liberal states have voted thumbs down, given the choice. Those states enjoying the banner of ‘we are so correct on this matter’ claim the victory based on political activism, not a vote of the majority of citizens.

But the law is the law, and if the lawmakers say it’s so, then I guess we are to adhere to the law of the land.

So if a conservative attitude gets voted in, we all live with that too.

Great article George, spot on.

[George Rebane]

PaulE, you raise a strong point on government involvement which is worthy of broader pursuit. For example, can anyone show me where in the Constitution it states that it's a government function to define healthcare? And, of course, we need not stop there.

[Ben Emery]

George,
It is a little clause that your ideology likes to ignore in the US Constitution called general welfare.

Can you point to a piece of legislation or where in the US Constitution where corporations are given human rights?

[Greg Goodknight]

Ben, can you show me where in the constitution, or a piece of legislation, that suggests when two or more people incorporate they should lose their legal rights? Railing against the concept of corporations is the "don't fluoridate our water" or "Impeach Earl Warren" cry of the modern left.

"General welfare" can't be stretched to cover the central government forcing individuals to do business with an approved insurance company. Nor can the interstate commerce clause.

[Todd Juvinall]

I suggest BenE read Federalist 41 by Madison to get a clue. Madison explains that the term "general welfare" was not an enumerated term but one of generality, along with the "common defense". The term came from the Articles of Confederation. It is quite a stretch of logic to go from Madison;s definition to one of a welfare state of unlimited capital.

[Todd Juvinall]

Here is the link.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp

[Scott Obermuller]

The left has posted here once again with laughable non-logic. Paul is thrilled that there is now legal marriage in NY state between homosexuals. He bravely asks "Can anyone show me where in the Constitution it states that it's a government function to define marriage?"
Then why are you happy that they have? They simply changed the definition, Paul, they didn't stop defining it. What about 3 loving adults wanting to get married? What if a 50 year old man wants to marry a 10 year old? It does happen in other countries. But we can't here because the govt continues to do just what you claim it shouldn't. And Ben chimes in with selective (and wrong) reading of the Constitution. The general welfare clause was to bolster the responsibility of the fed govt to protect our rights. Health care is a good not a right. If you would bother to read the entire Constitution and the supporting essays and letters written by the folks that authored the Constitution, you would see that they were specifically against a govt that would confiscate wealth and redistribute it. Your reading of the general welfare clause turns the entire idea of our Constitution on it's head and would have the govt providing everything to us. Corporations are the property of humans, Ben - I don't see that humans give up rights because of the type of property that they own. Could you show me the document or decision that states that corporations have 'human rights'? I think you are referring to the idea that a corporation can give donations and speak freely about the govt that it interacts with. If they do not have that ability, then unions and other groups of people would have to be restricted in kind.

[Paul Emery]

Scott
All Conservatives and Libertarians should be thrilled by the NY Legislature's move. It's just another step in getting the government out of our personal lives.

Sherman
The latest poll on gay marriage in NY showed it with a 56% approval which was the main reason votes shifted from key Republicans. It would have easily won a popular vote just as it would in California today. Things do change and people are more keenly active in supporting personal liberty.

"Fifty-six percent of Empire State voters favor same-sex nuptials, up from the previous best of 51% in 2009, according to the Quinnipiac University survey."

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-01-27/local/27738121_1_gay-marriage-new-poll-new-york-voters

[George Rebane]

Well said Scott, and the more so by your arguments being ignored.

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul why do the homosexual marriage proponents use the Constitution to defend their desires if the document is silent on it a you say? Also, the real poll is the people voting and it has been defeated in every state and would have been in New York if the chicken leftwing democrat politicians had allowed it to be placed on the ballot.

[Greg Goodknight]

The domestic partnerships in California does everything a marriage does, short of granting federal tax benefits, pensions or Social Security payments, or mandating private companies give gay couples the same benefits they provide marriages.

I worked for a company that granted domestic partners the same bennies as spouses. No problem. But it was their choice.

It isn't about respecting sexual orientations. It is about he money.

[Paul Emery]

All of you are missing the point. What business is it of government to be involved in the definition and legislation of marriage period and how is this defned in the constitution?. Mikey, my favorite fundamentalist Libertarian, where do you stand on this?

[Paul Emery]

Here is come clarification on the Libertarian view from noted writer Jon Henke.

"From a libertarian standpoint, the fact that civil and divine marriage share the same name is irrelevant. They are separate and distinguishable. No religious person is obligated to accept a Civil Union as a Holy Union, nor are the non-religious obligated to accept a strictly Holy Union as a Civil Union.

The ideal libertarian solution would be to have the government get out of the 'marriage' business altogether; to have government enforce civil contracts, and to have religions perform their religious ceremonies, if and how they choose to do so......

Until such a time as we could clearly distinguish the two in legal terms, however, the civil legal privileges of marriage should be extended to everybody."

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2008/05/the-libertarian-argument-for-gay-marriage/3550/

[George Rebane]

Mikey, OK dosido to the left with PaulE on the gay marriage dance, then see if he'll equally dosido to the right with you on healthcare and a million other things that government is now in the middle of (or will he just revert to that popular leftwing sidestep?).

I'll offer my obvious answer, government has ALWAYS had to be in the middle of ALL formal relationships between its citizens, because such relationships have enforceable terms, and government is the only reasonable party of appeal and enforcement when one party seeks redress. Else we revert to the cultures where such things are/were settled by personal and inter-family vendettas.

[Paul Emery]

George

It sounds like you agree with J Henke on the need for government to enforce civil contracts and to leave religion to do it's own paperwork within it's jurisdiction. George, let me ask you simply if you believe the codification and defination of marriage being between a man and a woman is a legitimate function of government?

[Scott Obermuller]

Would that I could be as limber physically as you are politically Paul. One post the roaring libertarian, the next a big govt socialist. The issue of who and what and how many that can be bound in a legal arrangement that is recognised by govt apart from other social interactions for special consideration of certain treatment regarding taxes and other legal matters used to be a non-issue. It was called a marriage and was between 1 man and 1 woman both of the age of consent. Now, it seems that if one does not agree with the arrangement du jour one is charged with hatred of the parties involved or govt intrusion or discrimination. You continue to ask for the govt to be out of the marriage business yet that has not occurred in any way, shape or form. The cause of your glee is that NY state has changed the way the govt in that state recognises marriage. So - is there any principle of yours involved here, or are you just happy because a vote went the way you want?

[George Rebane]

PaulE, yes I do believe that "the codification and definition of marriage being between a man and a woman is a legitimate function of government". ('marriage' being understood as a legal relationship with all the benefits and obligations that obtain thereto.) And I also believe that government can legitimately define an equivalent and distinguishable relationship between same sex couples, and sundry other formal relationships between untold combinations of critters that fall under its powers, that the citizens of the land deem important enough to involve a third party agency of appeal and redress.

However, what I want my government to involve itself in is definitely a quadriped of a different hue.

[Paul Emery]

Scott, George

Of course any individuals opinions will vary from issue to issue. When I label my self as a Green Libertarian I will assume the responsibilities for any contradictions that may occur. Just like the constitutionally pompous TP Patriots when asked about the constitutionally of the Iraq war and the war powers act or the Patriot Act. Not a peep of commitment either way. I sense that being Republitarian (sp ?) falls in the same category.

The strongest argument for gay marriage, aside from the fact that it's not the government's business, is here in this quote from a rather famous document.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

A significant number of our population is gay and would like the same recognition, happiness and social standing as heterosexual couples when it comes to marriage. I see no harm in this being recognized as such. For those with a religious objection take a deep breath. Sorry, this is not a theocracy.

[Scott Obermuller]

So Paul, you admit to having no formal principles of governance beyond 'I want what I want'? And you defend that by claiming that somewhere, some one else might be hypocritical about something even though you can't offer any proof or names. Mighty sound doctrine, although I will tell you that you have a lot of company. This is certainly not a theocracy, who on this post was advocating that it should be? Although the greens are trying their darndest to make it into one. The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution don't seem to offer anyone the right to marriage, but I'm curious as to why you should try to quote such documents since you admit you just believe any old thing you want when ever you want. And again, I'll ask you why you want to have govt not involved in marriage, yet want the govt to control it and require certain social standing to come from it?

[Mikey McD]

Paul, I fail to see how the addition of another law should be supported by libertarians.

Why the hell should NY (or any other state for that matter) pass a law allowing personal freedom which does not affect the well being or liberty of another?!?!

The gay marriage debate is smoke-n-mirrors to take our eyes off of important matters (skyrocketing debt, evils of the Federal reserve, how many wars are we in?, etc).

[Mikey McD]

There is absolutely NOTHING keeping a homosexual couple from 'life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.'

[Paul Emery]

Scott

There are those that are opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds which in my opinion has no standing. That's what I was referring to when I used theocracy as an example of religious governance.

You and most of the writers on this blog like to flirt with being Libertarians but can't really stomach the commitment so how is that different from me? I honestly thought this NY decision would bring about a bit of consensus from odd bedfellows (no pun intended) but it's still the same old stuff.

I would rather government not be involved in marriage at all but since it is and since social standing and recognition is important to significant numbers of American citizens decisions like NY legislation do a lot to move things in the right direction.

[Paul Emery]

"There are those that are opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds which in my opinion has no standing."

Clarification. No standing in legislation decisions about the nature of marriage. It is the essence of freedom that religious freedom be respected as an American right.

[George Rebane]

PaulE, I made a very specific and reasonable case for government involvement in marriage which has been completely ignored in the sequel. Can I conclude that your conception of marriage is then a relationship with no enforceable codicils, that whatever grievances the parties to a marriage may subsequently have will be sorted out by parties (and their relatives)? The Constitution is silent on this, but clearly governments under that Constitution are not.

Without addressing the issues of appeal and redress, IMHO all of the above conversation has been primarily ideology baiting. No one wants to touch the substance.

[stevenfrisch]

"There is absolutely NOTHING keeping a homosexual couple from 'life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.'"

Then there is that pesky "equal protection" issue. One cannot just ignore parts of the constitution in favor of others right?

[Douglas Keachie]

"short of granting federal tax benefits, pensions or Social Security payments, or mandating private companies give gay couples the same benefits they provide marriages."

I see, these are just minor details. Since they all cost taxpayers money, why don't we do away with them for everybody?

[George Rebane]

Astute readers have not seen anyone here arguing against homosexuals entering the same contractual relationships as heterosexuals, including what for the latter has been called marriage.

The only contention that is (at least to me) worth considering is that the homosexuals and their progressive brethren want to represent homosexual unions akin to marriage as normative relationships between consenting adults. Since they are not normative in any sense of the word, the proponents want to camouflage the homosexual relationships with labels identical to the heterosexual ones, and when that is not possible (e.g. when a child's 'mother' and 'father' are required on documentation) then these same people want to outlaw the use of such revealing labels and substitute gender neutral ones ('parent1', 'parent2') so as to keep the nature of the child's guardians a secret.

IMHO there is nothing wrong with delineating an equivalent homosexual relationship with a lable other than 'marriage', and have documents show 'mother1' and 'mother2' (and 'mother3'??) for the child as appropriate. After all, our language is infinitely expandable, and doing so would increase its information carrying capacity.

And if such future relationships are deemed proper between humans and animals, then these should also have appropriately descriptive labels assigned. All the rights and privileges of traditional marriage and parenthood would apply in this brave new world. Let's just disclose the nature of such relationships as we have for thousands of years with the legal union between man and woman into which children are born/brought and then raised.

In short, I want to know if the man I'm contemplating a venture with sleeps with two other men and a sheep as a family unit. And I don't think that I am alone desiring such answers. (Drop the sheep if that is yet too avant garde.)

[Douglas Keachie]

How would being "sheeple people" affect job performance?

[D. King]

"In short, I want to know if the man I'm contemplating a venture with sleeps with two other men and a sheep as a family unit."

I'm in tears George. LOL!

The modern progressive family.

[Bonnie M]

It's interesting that in most states that allowed people to vote on same sex marriage, most states voted against it. People elect politicians to public office to represent them. If the people voted against same sex marriage, why do their reps make a law making same sex marriage legal?

[Greg Goodknight]

George, it's about the money. People can refer to themselves as married without being legally married, whether hetero or not. Hell, renegade Mormons and other fringe (and not so fringe) religious groups practicing plural marriage call themselves married without legal sanction.

The fight is for government mandated benefits and private benefits contractually instituted with the traditional definitions assumed, not for the right to make a life with someone not of the opposite sex.

[George Rebane]

GregG, accepting "it's about the money" within the spectrum of reasons for, shall we say, trans-heterosexual and monogamous unions, I'm sure that you'll get some pushback for such a crass disclosure.

[Scott Obermuller]

Paul, our govt is not a theocracy if some folks don't want two men to marry for religious reasons. We have laws against murder and for most folks it's a religious reason. That doesn't make our govt a theocracy. It's the greens that want a theocracy. You admit to having no set guiding political principles other than just wanting what you want. That is actually in line with most of the folks I talk to. You have a right to be that way, but please stop trying to quote some document to back up your views when you are against the same document on other issues. I'm for the idea laid down by the founders of this country as spelled out in the Constitution as to how we are to be governed. I have explained that I tend to be libertarian but I don't follow the party line. Libertarians often think the Constitution gives the govt too much power. I'm not always happy with the Constitution or how it is mis-applied or just ignored by those that have taken an oath to uphold it. But I will stick by it as the most perfect set of rules to be governed by. We have seriously departed from it and are paying the price because of that. There is plenty of gray area around the edges of anything as complicated as life, and there are certainly areas of disagreement even among those that say they support the Constitution. However, I would be interested in how you think I'm hypocritical or wishy washy on my views. Meanwhile, you still can't even make up your mind if you want to have the govt setting down laws concerning marriage or not. Yea or nay?

[RL Crabb]

There's a good deal of conservative nostalgia too, George. A longing for an imaginary world that never really existed. A world where blacks were consigned to the back of the bus, and horrible environmental damage that was swept under the rug for decades until it ate the rug and crawled up our legs. A world where alcoholic parents lectured us on the evils of drugs and the Fonz would beat the crap out of you for casting a shadow on his GTO. A world where we were drafted, not to protect our shores from invasion, but to protect corporate profits.

There was a reason why the revolution of the sixties happened. While I would agree that it has gone overboard, returning to "the good ol' days" of rampant unregulated growth is as much a fantasy.

[George Rebane]

Bob, there is no doubt conservative nostalgia, that is a given. The topic of my piece was notable only in the 'man bites dog' sense. However, I know of no conservatives who wish to return to the past you describe, which is the accepted progressive caricature.

Although I am sure that conservatives (and even we conservetarians) want to return to the pre-1965 era, an "imaginary world that never really existed" from which we cherry pick the good parts and omit the bad. And, yes the dream for us is "a fantasy" as, perhaps, are all dreams.

The only ones who should rejoice in having achieved their nostalgic goals are today's liberals. Now if they could only make it work.

[Paul Emery]

George, first of all I'm sorry I hijacked your blog with this sideways question of what does it mean in the real world to be a conservative or a Libertarian. I've reduced "conservative " to lower case because it does not appear to represent consistent attributes and is more a flavor of the week, clubhouse mentality. I may do the same for Libertarian because I also don't see a comprehensive value system expressed here but more of a wanna be but can't handle the heat mentality.

I've been away from the computer since yesterday afternoon, thank goodness, so it will take a little time to catch up to the conversation. First of all, I appreciate the respectful dialog on this topic.

Taking things in order from 2:30 yesterday afternoon

Mikey

"Why the hell should NY (or any other state for that matter) pass a law allowing personal freedom which does not affect the well being or liberty of another?!?!"

I take it you don't support the Civil Rights Act or the Emancipation Proclamation. You need to talk with gay couples about their feelings about marriage before you generalize on the "happiness" factor.

Scott

You can generalize all you want about my philosophical diversity. Apparently you feel more comfortable with everyone belong to a club (pick one) with pre-ordained values and beliefs. Sorry, that's pretty boring. It's the old "with us or against us" mindset. Where did I hear that recently?

George the "substance" of this conversation can easily be diverted if multi species marriage questions, which has no value other than for barroom debating blather, are included. The reality is that this is a real and present question that people of good intentions want to sort out. You prefer the codification of traditional values in this situation which is a respectable position that I personally disagree with. Racism was a traditional value in many places in the south as well but opinion changed with time (for most) and the Civil Rights Act became the accepted law of the land to act as a standard for behavior. Certainly being married in the traditional manner does not provide a certificate of traditional values as a glance at any days news will show. Pretty silly George, you can do better.

Bonnie

Public opinion s shifting on this issue. That's why votes shifted in NY. George and many others, myself included don't adhere top the "popular vote-proposition" way of legislation. I don't have time to document the public shift but it's obvious in NY as I documented earlier.

Greg

You are expanding your prejudice about mandated benefits etc into this conversation which you have equal aversion for in same sex marriages so that argument has no unique value to this conversation.

Greg

I have to remind you that in our not so distant past we had laws outlawing interracial marriage in many states . I'm sure you appreciate our evolution on that matter. To use a religious argument to outlaw gay marriage is in my opinion a dark path that could lead to a theocracy much like Sharia law in some Islamic nations.

I've stated before that I agree with this from Jon Henke about the government's role in defining marriage.

"The ideal libertarian solution would be to have the government get out of the 'marriage' business altogether; to have government enforce civil contracts, and to have religions perform their religious ceremonies, if and how they choose to do so......

Until such a time as we could clearly distinguish the two in legal terms, however, the civil legal privileges of marriage should be extended to everybody."

Bob Remember the Chad Mitchel Trio song "Barry's Boys"

"Let's go back to the time when men were men and fight the first world war all over again cause we're Barry's Boys."

All I have time for. Please excuse typos. Gotta run

[Mikey McD]

Paul, it sucks that you assume that I don't associate with gay couples. I do. They strongly agree that it makes no sense for government to be in our bedrooms. They agree that 'we' all have given far more power to our government than was ever intended by the writers/debaters/signers of the constitution. I hope you see the irony in labeling the gay among us as un-happy.

The marriage debate is as important as the globull warming debate- goal is to take our focus off of the impending bankruptcy (financial and moral) of the USA.

[George Rebane]

PaulE, my three men plus sheep example used what currently may be considered hyperbole and humor to highlight the topic of gay marriage. You appear not to aknowledge the gradualism in the breakdown of traditional civil unions. Thirty years ago no homosexuals were demonstrating to be permitted to enter into civil unions equivalent to heterosexual marriage. Furthermore, it appears that you strongly believe that once 'gay marriage' becomes accepted, if not normative, then that will set a firm boundary on the types of sexual congress humans will want to have legitimized in future civil actions.

I believe exactly the opposite. And raising this obvious extension of the topic is anything but a diversion, as you claim.

And it is again noted that you chose not to respond to the 'equivalence' points that I made, and that are germain to the way homosexuals and their progressive allies want their new 'marriages' to be legally camouflaged.

[Paul Emery]

George

You are baiting me with the leading assumption that the future will have creeping sexual expansion issues to deal with. I am not prepared to give that any thought at the moment and it's entirely irrelevant to me with the question at hand.

You are hung up on the necessity of the word "marriage" being used exclusively as a noun to define a male female relationship and having that codified into law. I look it more as a verb to describe the action of a lifetime commitment of two persons of any sexual gender. Further uses of the word is to describe blending of ideas or services such as "It was a marriage of the best plans from both the City Council and the Board of Supervisors."

George, may I indulge you restate the 'equivalence' points so I can give it another try. It seems I missed the point in my responses.

Mikey

Have you ever asked your gay friends about whether they would like to be married under the law in the same way as straight couples? I didn't mean to make an assumption as to your personal contacts. I have gay friends who were married in the short time it was OK in California and it gave them tremendous happiness and fulfillment and I have others that have no interest in being married just like straight couples who prefer to be unmarried.

That's why I say get the government out of the process. Unfortunately, we have to pass a law to do so which is a government action, so I'm not sure what the answer is. It's defiantly a catch 22 situation.

[Mikey McD]

Paul, I 'got married' in church as a religious ceremony. I would have never gotten married just to 'be married' in the eyes of The State. It saddens me that anyone gives that much intangible power to The State. It saddens me that anyone's happiness would be contingent on how they are recognized by The State. BTW, I agree with you and Jon Henke.

[I also happen to know that most financial 'issues' are already accounted for via contracts/paperwork. Pensions, retirement accounts, health benefits etc already have boxes available to check for homosexual unions.]

[George Rebane]

PaulE, re 'equivalency', please see my 552pm comment, especially the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.

BTW, IMHO John Henke also misses the import of 'equivalency' as it will be mandated on legal documents specifying civil unions.

[Paul Emery]

Okay George let me give this a shot
First question
"The only contention that is (at least to me) worth considering is that the homosexuals and their progressive brethren want to represent homosexual unions akin to marriage as normative relationships between consenting adults. Since they are not normative in any sense of the word, the proponents want to camouflage the homosexual relationships with labels identical to the heterosexual ones, and when that is not possible (e.g. when a child's 'mother' and 'father' are required on documentation) then these same people want to outlaw the use of such revealing labels and substitute gender neutral ones ('parent1', 'parent2') so as to keep the nature of the child's guardians a secret."

George, you are speaking here in detail as if there's a general acceptance that this question is already being answered by those trying to "camouflage the homosexual relationships" for whatever reasons you describe. You are essentially answering your own question with an answer that may not be generally true although I'm sure you can find individual examples. The question, without your prejudices and presumed motives, then becomes something like this, using your words.

Do proponents want to camouflage their homosexual relationships with labels identical to the heterosexual ones?

If we ask that question then how do we find an answer? Just stating there is a motive that these same people want to "outlaw the use of such revealing labels" without some kind of documentation or examples makes it only your opinion that the question is even being asked let alone answered. Without researching the question I'm sure the NY Legislation has some standard procedures for all marriages that may well ask for the sex of each partner. I don't know at this time.

Question 2
"IMHO there is nothing wrong with delineating an equivalent homosexual relationship with a label other than 'marriage', and have documents show 'mother1' and 'mother2' (and 'mother3'??) for the child as appropriate. After all, our language is infinitely expandable, and doing so would increase its information carrying capacity."

Again you are asking and answering a question that you want me to encompass as being important. A good percentage of marriages noways have nothing to do with procreating or raising children. In fact it can probably be stated accurately that any couple over 40 that gets married do not have children in mind as a reason to marry. Gay couples do successfully raise children, either their own through previous marriages, or sometimes through adoption with notable success and failure rates not much different than straight couples. I have lots of experience seeing this being partnered with a Charter School Administrator for 14 years. I have no idea what modern marriage certificates look like and there's certainly nothing dramatically wrong with your answer to your question except that I don't think it's important. To make it simple my answer is-

Who cares and why is it anyones business?

Thanks for the challenging questions.

[Paul Emery]

George and all conservatives.
Obviously you must have opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, a Clinton era preemption of States rights. I'm sure repeal of DOMA will be high on your agenda with an administration that you favor.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 defined a marriage in federal law as a union of one man and one woman.
Prior to 1996, the federal government did not define marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967.an.

[Todd Juvinall]

Another liberal ropa a dope defense. Sorry but if you can find abortions rights in the Constitution Paul, we can find defense of marriage.

[George Rebane]

DOMA and its follow-ons have a functional role at the federal level as long as they dispense transfer payments since 'marriage' is a conditional in such dispensations. As soon as the feds get out of the transfer payment business, I want them to get out of defining marriage and other relationships that they will then no longer need.

My first priorities, however, are to do away with Depts of Education, Commerce, and Energy. The few needed functions thereunder can be reorganized into other departments.

[Paul Emery]

Todd

Whether you like it or not Abortion Rights were found to be Constitutional by the Supreme Court (Rove v Wade).

George
That's the perfect answer to avoid responsibility for the question of states rights in defining marriage. We need federal law because we have federal law. I have no idea what you're idea of being a conservative is if you don't stand up to states rights in these obvious examples. This is much like your avoidance of the issue when we discussed prop 19. By the way Barney Frank and Ron Paul are introducing a bill to legalize marijuana to the extent of getting out of the way of states that go their own direction. I assume you'll through your weight behind that effort to be consistent with your earlier statement.

"And I believe that government should follow the ‘public mind’ of the governed as it did when it repealed prohibition. So therefore, should Prop19 fail, I will work with you to put a better version of it in front of the voters."
01 November 2010 at 02:57 PM

[Paul Emery]

Here's more on the Paul-Frank bill

http://axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/21732

[George Rebane]

PaulE, I'm sorry that my comprehensive prescription for getting the feds out the complete enterprise of transfer payments to individuals AND making prescriptive national laws for individuals is seen as "avoiding responsibility for the question" of states' rights. By any logical measure, it is not.

However, your interpretation is consistent with your ideology, as I have covered in the discussion of linkages contained in 'The Liberal Mind - Tax Rates Don't Affect Earnings'. Indeed, your arguments constitute Exhibit A to the point I was making there. You can't do just one thing like repeal DOMA and leave the federal requirements for, say, entitlements untouched - they're inextricably linked.

But in minds of the collective bent such links are invisible until after the laws and regulations are written and enforcement begins. Then the now-infamous Pelosi Prescription is recalled, and everyone goes 'Oh shit, we didn't expect that!'

In the interval Paul, I'll be happy to work with you to promote a workable approach to legalizing drugs that does not have the stupid, expensive, and unworkable provisions of Prop19 that I so vigorously avoided.

[Paul Emery]

Just for clarification, the elimination of requirements for entitlements would involve the elimination of Social Security Medicare and Medicaid as Federal programs and leave them up to the discretion of the individual States. Would this would be essential, under your prescription, before DOMA could be repealed?

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul, you need to read the memoirs of Blackmun.

Here is a bit of info to destroy your opinion of it's Constitutionality.

"Regarding the "right of privacy" issue, the court found that although the Constitution (text) "does not explicitly mention any right of privacy," the court ruled that there was a "constitutional right of privacy in the 1st, 4th, 227:5th], 9th, and 14th amendments." The right to privacy was broad enough to "encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

So as you can see they made the "right" up from whole cloth. Good luck. So, where is the enumerated power?

[Paul Emery]

That doesn't matter Todd. According to the law of the land a woman's right to choose is Constitutional. There are lots of Supreme court decisions that I disagree with but that's the way our system works. Abortion is constitutional no matter what you think about the decision.

[George Rebane]

PaulE, re your 1130am comment. Yes, absolutely. States can and should allowed to put together their equivalents of SS and the other entitlements, making them as uniform or as disparate with those of the other states as they deem fit. Ideally the matter would never reach the federal level.

And re repeal of DOMA, now that six states have already abrogated the provisions of DOMA, assuming that federal entitlements are not denied those newly 'married', has it not already been existentially repealed?

[Paul Emery]

I can imagine the technical difficulties of administering a SS style of retirement with different states involved. When someone retires they may have worked in 20 states in their work career. It doesn't matter too much because I doubt if it will ever happen. The Repubs are getting spanked for the Ryan budget and are planning a graceful retreat. SS is a sacred cow that the Feds will never get rid of.

I don't think that Federal jurisdictions adhere to same sex marriage services because of DOMA which was passed to keep the feds from having to deal with the issue. I'll check up on it.

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul, can you count o five?

[Todd Juvinall]

to

[Paul Emery]

Todd

Are you trying to say something?

[Todd Juvinall]

Ya, the Supremes of the past will be overturned about abortion and the Constitution will once again prevail.