Gay Marriage - NOTA

As in "none of the above." I shy away from the social issues on the theory that the tea party's focus on the ballooning fiscal calamities in all levels of government, federal, state, local and federal reserve is a greater threat to our republic. I making an exception today, because the issue calls for clarity of thought about the role of government.

The issue of gay marriage is framed as a yes or no proposition. But I question why. The answer is that we have ceded to government the role of defining this social relationship. It was not always so. Marriage was once the sole province of the individuals involved or the church. The French Revolution and the German chancellor Bismarck are cited as key influences in the transition of marriage to government regulation; hardly worthy lineage, in my opinion. We would not have this issue if the state was not involved; my none of the above solution. What I resent about the gay marriage movement is the attempt to use the force of government to impose on me a definition of marriage with which I disagree. If the definition is not up to the government, we are free to come to consensus as a society with freedom to disagree. This is the foundation of intellectual pluralism, about which I might blog some other day.

This begs some serious questions about what would society look like without government sanctioned marriage.

• What about income taxes, how will we determine who is in a household? Whoever self declares to be part of the household. Why not? Why don't we abolish income taxes?
• What about divorce? If there is not marriage, what happens when people split up? Ultimately, marriage is a civil contract. We will have to establish a body of contract law for various forms of civil unions. Perhaps, some protections for children need to be established. Certainly the concept of guardianship might still require state sanction, but that is separate from marriage. I think the bigger problem is that we will have common law situations, with no contract at all. But isn't "palimony" an old issue for the courts?
  
• What about incest, like brothers and sisters marrying? Isn't there compelling state interest to prevent such relationships? My answer is that it is not compelling enough. Government doesn't need to solve every problem. Is this a big rampant problem? Not to my knowledge.
• What about polygamy? My answer is that individuals should be allowed to make this choice for themselves. I don't think it is a successful social model, so it isn't going to catch on.
  

This doesn't solve every societal problem with regards to marriage, none are. Better to leave these questions to be resolved by citizens and our chosen institutions outside of government control.

For the record, I believe that gay people (defined as those with a sexual attraction to the same gender) are not inherently evil, nor even sinful. I believe the correct interpretation of the Bible is that gays should live celibate lives. But I strongly desire a government that does not interfere in these personal matters, because a government with the power to investigate our personal lives is one that can invade our privacy for all sorts of ill ends.

Big Brother In Motion - The Highway Bill

The transportation bill working its way through the Senate is a hodge-podge of pork barrelism and big brother intrusiveness that really ought to be defeated. Smooth sailing through the House is predicted. Of course it has the Orwellian name Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) aka SB 1813. If by progress you mean the IRS having the power to keep you from traveling, new black boxes for your car and rules to prevent a car from being built with a tv screen in the driver's view. (I guess they haven't heard of 4G and smart phones.)

It has an awesome purpose of course: To reauthorize Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes. Of course, some of those other purposes leave us gasping. It gives me serious pause about my 2008 switch to the GOP.

Mandatory Event Recorders
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require, beginning with model year 2015, that new passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an event data recorder that meets the requirements under that part.

Of course there are all sorts of privacy protections for the data, which could be later repealed.

Revocation or Denial of Passport in Case of Certain Tax Delinquencies
If the Secretary receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that any individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport pursuant to section 4 of the Act. . .

So the IRS can deny you a passport on their say-so. We have seen politicization of the IRS for other purposes, even a "mix up" could be used to seriously impact someone with plans to travel abroad. How does this pass the due process clause restrictions in the constitution?

Here are some other gems.

Jason's Law.
It is the sense of Congress that it is a national priority to address projects under this section for the shortage of long-term parking for commercial motor vehicles on the National Highway System to improve the safety of motorized and nonmotorized users and for commercial motor vehicle operators.
Another national crisis brought under control by our ever vigilant Congress critters.

Striking a blow for federalism.

Open Container Law.
. . .if a State has not enacted or is not enforcing an open container law described in subsection (b), the Secretary shall reserve an amount equal to 2.5 percent of the funds to be apportioned to the State on that date under each of paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 104(b) until the State certifies to the Secretary the means by which the State will use those reserved funds in accordance with subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) and paragraph (3).

But we will mandate efficiencies by gum, here is the section on efficiencies in the bill.

Program Efficiencies
The first sentence of section 102(b) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘made available for such engineering’ and inserting ‘reimbursed for the preliminary engineering’.

Yep, that's it, that's all the efficiencies we could get . We are awesome.

And because we have so many Chevy Volts on the road, there is this clause.

Electric Vehicle Charging Station
The addition of electric vehicle charging stations to new or previously funded parking facilities shall be eligible for funding under this section.

And while were moving forward for progress, let's not score the cost.

Budgetary Effect
PAYGO Scorecard- The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.

Reading legislation is dang close to watching sausage being made.