I have already made my support for government recognition of same-sex unions known on many occasions, and my extended thoughts on this debate are available elsewhere on this blog. Re-hashing such commentary in detail will help no one; only a summary is necessary: in short, my belief that same sex couples have every right to marry is attenuated by my belief that sovereignty in the United States lies with the people – not the judiciary. As such, any efforts to extend legal recognition of marriage to same-sex couples must begin with an effort to convince the public that this historically essential institution will not be harmed by doing so.

One would think this would be easy given the injury 50% of once-married heterosexual couples, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Mickey Rooney, Britney Spears, and a substantial portion of the Las Vegas economy have done to it. Alas, it is not. But we must persevere. Until we succeed, activists in my camp will antagonize our opponents and enrage the general public by insisting that the matter be resolved by the judiciary. To make matters worse, they continually conflate lawmakers with those tasked with interpreting the law. It’s enough  to make a person write extended blog posts on a subject of relatively little global importance while drinking cheap gin and smoking cigars on a Saturday night.

But I digress.

What struck me by last week’s ruling is this: No matter how often the spectacle presents itself, I simply cannot become accustomed to the sight of hundreds or thousands of same-sex couples waiting with bated breath to hear the ruling of some judicial cog regarding the status of their nuptials. “Can we get married or not?” was the phrase apparently uttered by countless gay and lesbian individuals on the Left Coast.

I think it is a combination of both personal experience and an innate libertarian disposition which makes me so startled by this type of statement. I know a number of same-sex couples who have vowed to spend their lives together, and without a doubt, I consider them to be married. One couple in particular has been married nearly 20 years, and shows every sign of continuing for another 20. They are married. You don’t think so? God disagrees, you say? I respect your opinion. But no amount of direct democracy, legislative action, or judicial fiat will convince me otherwise. Whether or not same-sex marriage is recognized by the government is a practical matter that affects insurance status, hospital visits, and the like. These are certainly critical issues, but they do not address the key question of whether or not a same-sex couple is committed to one another until death.

Marriage is an intensely personal matter, made public by profession, and made spiritual by solemn vow. I am married to my wife because I made a vow to love, honor, and cherish her for the rest of my life, and my word is my bond. There are nearly 100 of our friends and family members who can attest to the fact that these vows were made. My now brother in law, a pastor, officiated, and in doing so provided continuity between the interpersonal, social, and – of primary importance – spiritual. Yes, at one point I did sign a marriage license, and it was registered with the appropriate government agency; the government recognizes our union. However, I regard this recognition as no more important than the lease on my apartment, an insurance policy, or countless other contractual relationships into which I have entered. What makes marriage different is its spiritual and social character.

Above all, what troubles me about the same-sex marriage debate today is the level of dependence on the state which it betrays. The government has become so pervasive and intrusive into all of our affairs that we now rely on it to define our interpersonal relationships.

I will rest for a few words and allow the absurd nature of this situation to sink in.

Now, I repeat: those of you who are ultimately waiting on a SCOTUS ruling to determine whether or not you can marry are relying on the state to determine the status of your personal relationships. To same-sex couples across the world who  wish to make a lifelong commitment to one another, I say you do yourself and our society a disservice by allowing such an intrusion into your personal lives. The government may fail to recognize your contractual obligations to one another – as well as the contractual obligations of insurance companies, hospitals, etc. – but this does nothing to define your relationship.

Get married. I and millions of other Americans will recognize and honor your union.

Then address the government’s shortcomings with respect to contractual enforcement.

If one listens to our policymakers, the Volt represents a gigantic leap forward in efficient, clean transportation. If one listens to the market, an alternative narrative is presented. “Anyone who has $41k+ to spend on a car is going to purchase a BMW” the market says. “The only people who think spending that kind of money on what essentially amounts to a $17k sedan are hippies. And hippies don’t have any money.”

Well duh.

It’s unclear exactly who will be driving the Volt, but I think I have an idea. As for me, I’m waiting for either (a) fuel-cell vehicles, or (b) an aftermarket Mr. Fusion I can attach to my fuel tank. Whichever comes first.

Either way, it will be a market-driven invention, and not the ideologically-based, taxpayer-funded imposition GM has produced.

It is a shame and a disgrace that we did not extend unemployment insurance. Every single member who voted no yesterday should be ashamed of themselves. People are suffering! They are hurting! They are in pain! They cannot make ends meet. And too many, just too many, on the other side of the aisle turn a deaf ear. I ask my Republican colleagues: Can’t you hear? Can’t you feel? Can’t you see? Where is your heart? Where is your compassion? Where is your concern? Extend unemployment benefit and extend it now!

There are two issues here: (1) the fact that Congress is in the habit of passing this type of legislation (i.e., extending unemployment benefits) without actually figuring out how to pay for it, and (2) the question of whether or not extending such benefits actually increases the duration of a recession – at least with respect to unemployment figures – since the unemployed have less incentive to find work while they are on the dole. Should Congress figure out exactly how to pay for an extension, the bill would almost certainly gain enough support from both parties and pass. My concern is with the second point.

There is some evidence (e.g., this report from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Fransisco) that extended unemployment benefits do have the effect of extending high levels of unemployment, albeit a marginal one – roughly 6% of the increased unemployment rate we’re currently experiencing. However, I think I’m starting to see a pattern which is cause for concern: Congress seems determined to extend such benefits with no end in sight. Unemployment is and always will be a fact of life, and legislators can always point to an unemployment rate, declare it to be too high (often with an emotional appeal about single mothers, starving babies, etc.), and demand yet another extension of unemployment benefits be passed. Since it’s difficult to pinpoint an exact date on which a recession comes to an end, it’s unclear when Congress would feel it is no longer necessary to extend unemployment benefits.

And therein lies my concern. An unending provision of unemployment insurance from the federal government would, in many respects, amount to a new welfare state. I am by no means suggesting that this development is a certainty – I’m simply suggesting that passing an extension of unemployment benefits is far from a no-brainer (unless, of course, you’re trying to buy votes).

John Lewis doesn’t see it that way, but – based on the above statement – this position is based almost exclusively on influences I deem suspect. He rails on about compassion, heart, pain, etc., yet he makes no rational argument whatsoever. I’ve heard the above quote repeated as a rallying cry by many on the left, and I consider this to be quite revealing. Do we really want our lawmakers crafting legislation based on their feelings?

Yes, Mr. Lewis, I do have a heart. It is guided by my values, which are a product of my mind. However, unlike you, my values extend beyond a basic emotive response to the suffering of others. They are informed by a wide range of scholarship, encompassing both empirical statements and normative assumptions.  This knowledge includes a basic understanding of human nature and motivations, economic theory, and post-WWII, European “middle-way” economies, many of which boast double-digit real unemployment rates during even the best of times. Of course, many of these same countries have large welfare states, which tend to compensate (in the mind of their respective body politics) for the fact that large portions of their populations are without work.

You ask us to consider – “with our hearts” – the impact a failure to extend unemployment benefits will have on the unemployed. I, however, ask you to consider the larger effect a perpetual provision of unemployment benefits will have on the larger U.S. (and by extension, global) economy. You can always make an emotional appeal to help the unemployed, and there will always be people who, for a variety of reasons, simply cannot find a job. Emotional appeals such as this – that is, those which lack a coherent philosophical grounding – can be made with great vigor and success, regarding virtually anything. It was this type of appeal to base emotion which built the Pruitt-Igoe housing project, spent billions of dollars on toxic foreign aid (in the form of central planning, no less) to developing nations dictatorships, and has somehow convinced a substantial portion of the American public that they have a “right” to the labor of others in the form of health care.

The type of decision making you advocate is lethal to the long-term success of a republic such as ours. It is reactionary, literally thoughtless, and accountable to no one. It enslaves us to the most persuasive, emotional rhetoric while freeing us from the responsibility to think through problems and formulate our opinions rationally. If religion is the opiate of the masses, emotional appeal is the methamphetamine of the policymaker. It allows politicians to advocate ill-conceived, yet popular positions, and demonize their opponents should they have the audacity to apply their minds to a given issue. Appeals to emotion masquerade as compassionate and progressive, when they are, in fact, a return to the human race in a lower form – one more closely related to our primate ancestors than the great thinkers of history.

You stand at your pulpit, full of righteous indignation towards the producers in our society, and proclaim that those who vote against yet another extension of unemployment benefits lack compassion. I say that anyone whose opinion is finalized by your remarks is an intellectual whore, and you their pimp. Even if there is a compelling, rational reason to extend such benefits (a possibility to which I am certainly open), you have thoroughly desecrated the affirmative position with your deviation in oratory.

You ask me, “where is your heart?”

I ask you, Mr. Lewis, “where is your mind?”

This is Sonia Sotomayor’s now well-known comment that appellate courts are “where policy is made:”

Apologists for the Honorable Justice insist that the full clip shows she was referring to the distinction between nonprecedental district court decisions and those of appellate courts (which do set precedent). I think that her slightly uncomfortable chuckling about the offhand remark is a tell – she clearly understands that this comment could be brought up again later in her career, and that this could be problematic, regardless of context. The tone of the statement seems remarkably akin to that assumed by most Americans when we assert our intention to voluntarily report all taxable income to the IRS.

Anyway, today’s sound byte is her statement that “the task of a judge is not to make law, it is to apply the law:”

Well, imagine my relief.

I’m of the opinnion that good judges who understand their role can be found in the favor of both parties, and am more than willing to give Sotomayor the benefit of the doubt. However, I can find no way to reconcile these two statements. I have only a limited knowledge of legal philosophy, but I think it is quite evident there is a conflict here. She needs to be grilled on this and forced to explain herself.

As a “wise Latina woman,” I’m sure this will be a piece of cake.

Nevertheless, New York Representative Peter King wants to know if I would let my (hypothetical) child spend time in a room alone with Jackson. The answer is certainly no, but that is due to a general policy I have about not allowing my future progeny to spend any time alone with any adult I don’t know very, very well (call me crazy).

The fact that Jackson might be more likely than other to extend such an invitation means he was a weird guy. I recognize that. However, I also recognize that a child’s testimony is – to put it mildly – of questionable veracity. The fact is that children lie, and for reasons failing to even approach the nobility of those offered by adults: “I would like to stop answering this stupid lawyer’s questions and go play Super Mario Kart” is just one example.

Children like to please adults, so when certain adults with Juris Doctorates pepper them with silly questions about who touched whom, when and where, etc., they tend toward answering in the affirmative, regardless of whether or not their answer is actually true. This seems silly and overly simplistic (and there is little doubt that, once their moral development has advanced significantly, an adolescent will begin lying with much more sophistication and advanced motivation), but it has been scientifically verified.

So chock one up for psychological science’s relevance to current events! You too may now mourn the death of the King of Pop without reservation.

May he rest in peace.

Actually, I would be even happier to see the government abandon recognition of marriage as a specific legal status, and simply recognize contractual obligations between individuals, regardless of their sex. But I’m a realist, and am not holding out for my libertarian utopia to come to fruition.

However, the tactics devised by advocates of same-sex marriage have been nothing short of deplorable, and occasionally brazenly self-serving at the expense of the same-sex couples. With this in mind, I have a few thoughts in the aftermath of the California Supreme Court’s decision regarding Proposition 8.

“Hate” is not the issue. Advocates of same-sex marriage are constantly referring to Prop.8 as an example of “hate”. They’re never specific as to exactly who is doing the hating, but they’re damn sure their use of the term is called for. The lack of specificity when the term is applied leads one to think that a vote for Prop. 8 can be, without further review, automatically attributed to “hate”.  Is it not possible that, in lieu of seething rage toward homosexuals, 52% of Californians are simply reluctant to redefine an institution almost as old as human history itself? Regardless of whether or not this fear enjoys empirical foundation (it does not), we should at least be willing to remove the horns from the heads of Californians who voted in the affirmative.

It’s not a “human rights” issue. Let’s put things in perspective: the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, female genital mutilation, and Nazi gas chambers are human rights issues. The lack of state recognition of same-sex unions is a tragedy which will be rectified by the gradual evolution of human society. Referring to the latter as a “human rights issue” degrades and defames the victims of true human rights abuses. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – which reads more like a letter to Santa Claus than a legal and philosophical declaration – fails to address the issue of same-sex marriage, probably because its authors could not fathom a world in which such an issue would receive widespread public attention. Obviously, they were wrong (knock-me-over-with-a-feather-and-spill-my-gin).

Equality is the problem, not the solution. Advocates of same-sex marriage are constantly employing “equality” as their rallying cry. This is, I feel, mostly due to the fact that using the term is politically expedient, as it appeals to the left’s growing neurotic obsession with equality as a concept (they’re rarely able to specify exactly what should be equal – only that equality is good and that they’re in favor of it). The irony here is that equality is the problem: the law treats every adult as if they want to marry a member of the opposite sex. That is, it treats everyone equally. Historically, arguments in favor of equality under the law have addressed legally prescribed practices based on a particular attribute (for example, “if you are black, you may not vote”). The exact opposite is the case with same-sex marriage, as all homosexual individuals are afforded the exact same opportunity that is afforded to their heterosexual counterparts: the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex. The problem, of course, is that gays and lesbians don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex. As such, the problem is that the law does not serve all segments of the population well. Moreover, while Jim Crow laws were deliberately constructed in an effort to specifically address a group (or groups) of people, the opposite-sex definition of marriage is simply an artifact of history. When laws regarding legal recognition of marriage – I assume this can be traced back to English Common Law, but have not done enough research to be sure – the notion of same-sex unions was simply not entertained. It was not until advocates of same-sex marriage sought to strong-arm the American populace into legally redefining what constitutes marriage that idiotic constitutional amendments such as Prop 8 were seen as necessary.

It’s not a matter for the courts. I am trying to post to this blog with greater regularity. As such, I have to resist the temptation to meticulously document every point I make, and will avoid enumerating the countless examples of commentators, journalists, and (dare I say it) academics who have indiscriminately applied the term “lawmakers” to the California Supreme Court, which has received much undue criticism from gay rights activists who were apparently absent from their high school civics class the day the separation of powers was discussed. Had these critics gone to the trouble of actually reading the opinion in question, they would have seen that the court was unhappy with the consequences of its ruling, and did so only out of an obligation to… well… do it’s damn job. The court’s job is to interpret the law, not make it.

Perhaps this is the best lesson for individuals who favor same-sex marriage, myself included: after duking it out in the courts for years, we must ask ourselves, “what hath it profiteth us?” With constitutional and/or statutory bans on recognition of same-sex unions in place in 38 U.S. states, are gays and lesbians better off today than they were before this idiotic crusade began? Would we not have been better off to seek public support first, then a change in the law?

This leads me to a final point about left-wing movements: the moral superiority factor. I have often mentioned my disgust with religiously-motivated, right-wing professions of moral certitude. But those emanating from the left are even more odious. At least Christian conservatives have the decency to base their moralizing on the injunctions of no lesser an entity than God Himself. Those on the left who consider themselves to be morally superior have the audacity to claim that they just know – either that, or they just don’t feel it necessary to explain themselves.

Sorry, friends, but your shit stinks too. It’s high time you wake up and smell it.

Then, get to the task of changing American minds on the subject of same-sex unions.

I’m pretty sure my father has already made this point, but I’ll reiterate: if you don’t know who you’re going to vote for by now, you don’t possess enough philosophical sophistication to justify participation in the democratic process.

I cite Family Guy to make my point:

[9:43] Watching the debate now… Watching a sarcastic, irritated Tom Brokaw deal with long-winded politicians is the best part.