I Should Have Gone to Church This Morning

Jack Lew was on Meet the Press this morning and if I understood him correctly, the most important thing Congress can do to get the economy growing again is to extend the payroll tax cuts.  That's all he's got?  Putting a few extra dollars in workers paychecks each week is going to get us back on track?  If only.  

He also said that now is not the time for austerity.  Tell that to the millions of Americans who are forced into their own personal austerity measures because of the current economic conditions.  Apparently, it doesn't matter to the government that its tax dollars are drying up.  Trillion dollar deficit?  No problem?  It can always print more money.  What I didn't hear David Gregory ask is when the heck is the time for austerity?  When people are rioting in the streets like the Greeks?  

Now David Gregory is interviewing Rick Santorum and "wants to focus on social issues".  Of course, David Gregory wants to focus on social issues with Rick Santorum.  Thankfully, Santorum doesn't take the bait.  

In Which I Wade Into the Murky Waters of Gay Marriage

I don't believe I have ever shared my views on gay marriage, mainly because they seem to be ever in flux.  A federal appeals has now ruled that California's Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in that state through a referendum is unconstitutional.  

Here are my thoughts as they stand at this moment (subject to change, but I think I'm on to something):

I personally believe that marriage is a religious sacrament to be entered into by a man and a woman and performed by a minister/rabbi/priest/etc.  However, the government is also involved as there is paperwork to be filled out, names to be changed (if applicable), tax-filing status, etc.  I think the solution is to take government out of the "marriage" business entirely and turn all marital unions as far as government recognition goes into civil unions and afford gay people those same rights.  

I do not care if the government recognizes my marriage as such.  The only person I need to recognize my marriage as a "marriage" is my husband.  And the only entity that I need to recognize it as such is God.  I can sympathize with homosexual couples who wish to enter into some sort of official union, publicly proclaim their vows to each other and be accorded the same rights as their fellow heterosexual married citizens.  They should absolutely have those rights.  This country was founded on the principle that citizens can enter into contracts of their choosing and marriage as far as the government goes is a contract.  

However, I also sympathize with my fellow citizens who oppose gay marriage for certain reasons.  The argument has been made that if gay marriage is legally sanctioned, then churches and private companies who operate in the wedding industry can and will be sued for discrimination for declining to perform their services for gay couples if it goes against their beliefs.  We live in a litigious society and those concerns are real.  It's a specific concern and it surely seems trivial to those who feel that their civil rights are being denied by being unable to be "married" in the eyes of their government.  Beyond the legal and contractual rights that come with being officially recognized as a marital union, I don't understand the sense that I get that people want the government (and everyone else) to validate their relationships.  I'm not sure I'm being clear on this -- basically, if you're in a loving and committed relationship that you define as a marriage and you are afforded the same legal status (in the form of a civil union), what do you care if your government or your neighbor calls it a marriage or a civil union or a banana or a decision you'll come to regret in ten years?  In the same vein, for people who oppose gay marriage -- what do you care if a couple says they're married even if you don't consider it a marriage and what's the big deal if the government puts it on equal footing with your own marriage if your church/synagogue/whatever reserves the right the maintain the traditional definition of marriage?

I'll do the obligatory "I have gay friends" caveat.  Because I do.  And some of them are in loving and committed relationships and I think that some of those couples characterize their relationships as marriages.  This does not trouble or offend me even though my faith precludes me from defining it as such.  Just as I hope that my private (except for this blog post, of course) belief that their relationship is not a marriage in the same sense that mine is does not trouble or offend them (and if it does, then I'm sorry and you shouldn't care what I think anyway).  

So, here's to civil unions for everyone.  Me and mine included.

One Man's Pajamas ...

Oh, geez.  A Parish Commissioner in Louisiana is seeking a ban on pajama-wearing in public.  Wearing pajamas in public should not be a criminal offense.  This is the type of behavior that calls for societal shaming -- it is behavior to be frowned upon, not to be legislated or otherwise officially banned by government.  

When did the automatic response to anything and everything we personally don't like become "there oughta be a law ..."?  It is said that in a democracy, people get the government they deserve and that certainly seems to be what has happened to us.  We did this.  We invited the government into our homes and it has rendered us powerless just like when you invite a vampire into your home.  Government intrusion into our lives is now so pervasive that it feels futile to fight it and that the battle has already been lost.  And maybe it has been.

Back to the matter at hand -- I personally cannot stand seeing women wearing shirts that are too short and/or pants that ride too low and which therefore expose their undergarments (usually of a thong variety).  Do I want there to be a law against this, does that kind of solution even enter my mind?  No.  That's what dirty looks are for.  Same goes for pajamas (and Florida Gators t-shirts).

Libertarianism (With a Side of Dumb Young Voters)

I certainly hope this is true, but I wonder if people really understand what a truly libertarian government will require of us:  personal responsibility, personal charity and sacrifice to help people in need, real tolerance of  different views and lifestyles, and real participation in our governing bodies and democratic process.  If we as a country suddenly embraced libertarianism, we can't deny that there will be a very real and painful period of adjustment for our citizens most in need.  We can't ignore that fact even though, ultimately, (I believe) greater freedom means greater prosperity for all citizens.  I do think we need radical change, but it's not going to be all sunshine and roses.

I think young people think of libertarianism as freedom to smoke weed and allow gay marriage, but it's really about the freedom to live your life and succeed or fail on your own.  Our government has been in the "safety net" business for so long that too many people have grown accustomed to whatever safety net the government provides to them, be it specific tax credits/deductions or Social Security or goodness knows what else.

Where the author of this article totally loses me is in claiming that these young people are now all about libertarianism, but still want "universal" healthcare supposedly paid for by the federal government.  (His argument that a universal health care system is a "libertarian approach" is laughable.)  Do people really not understand that the federal government's money is the people's money?  The government sells no goods, it generates no income other than what it collects from taxes.  There is no such thing as "free health care".  "Universal" health care is also a myth -- the people who can afford better care (i.e. those nasty, evil rich people) will always get better care than the people who cannot afford it.  And why people can't understand and accept that is a complete mystery to me.