Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) issued the following statement after President Obama’s Energy Adviser Carol Browner admitted on today’s Meet the Press that the Administration believes a lame duck session of Congress could be an opportunity to pass the Democrats’ national energy tax legislation. According to Roll Call, “Browner went on to say an energy proposal could ‘potentially’ come up in the lame-duck session.”
“The Administration and its allies on Capitol Hill ought to stop compounding the uncertainty in our economy by threatening to raise taxes on families and small businesses,” said Chairman Price. “This week the House of Representatives should consider a resolution I have authored calling on Congress to commit not to come back for a lame duck session of Congress to pursue further unpopular items from the Democrats’ big government agenda. This will be a vote for Democrats to say whether or not they will respect the wishes of the American people – whether they mean to join Republicans in listening to American families or whether they will continue to govern against the will of those who sent them to Washington.”
Putting a tax on Carbon would make the costs of driving, cooking dinner, turning on a light, mowing the lawn, turning on your computer, opening the refrigerator, turning on the stove, anything involving plastic, anything involving electricity, flying, anything involving gasoline all sky rocket, effectively killing any small business’s plan to hire more people or kill an families ability to save money.
Won’t this raise the price of absolutely everything? Raising electric bills will raise costs at every level of production, for our non-Amish brethren, anyway.
Polarization is a fact of life. On any subject you’ll find zealots on all sides. Some, such as the divisions over abortion and capital punishment, can’t really be avoided. You’re either allowed to kill people are you’re not. There’s not a lot of room for compromise.
But the polarization over the question of same-sex marriage can be easily avoided: the government should not recognize any marriages.
What is marriage, in the legal sense? It’s a standardized contract, recognized throughout the country, and in most of the world. For most contracts, the parties involved need only be of sound mind and body, not under duress, and of the age of consent. I can’t think of any other standardized contract that places restrictions on the physical characteristics of the parties involved.
But marriage is different right? Of course it is, in social and religious contexts. But to the government? You’re just two people who share stuff. There’s no legal reason that the government must only recognize heterosexual marriage. You may have social reasons, but in this country they run the gamut, and we can’t really codify them into law; and this way religious groups are free to do as they please.
The legal institution of marriage should be abolished, and replaced with another standardized contract – the civil union. Based on what’s gone on over the last few years, few people are opposed to homosexuals committing their lives to their partners and sharing their stuff and their rights, they just have a problem calling it “marriage.” Likewise, the advocates of same-sex marriage weren’t necessarily opposed to the concept of a civil union, just to the fact that it has a lower stature than “marriage.”
With a civil union, any two people can enter into a contractual agreement that’s recognized by the state. They can hold a ceremony wherever they please, officiated by whoever is available (no need to run around looking for a ship captain). They could also choose no ceremony. All of their vows could be made in legalese and initialed in triplicate. It’s up to them.
This leaves churches the freedom to support or oppose same-sex unions without having to resort to campaign sound-bites and picket signs. It frees people on both sides from the anger and zealotry that came out in the Prop 8 madness, while allowing them to be open and engaging. It would be a boon to all parties.
Civil unions just might save marriage from it’s strongest supporters. And it might save us from ourselves.
On nation-state marriage licensing monopolies and the history of law.
Reblogged from clintirwin:
I have already described the rights the law insures regardless of where a couple is. We know thousands of churches, backed by the people of many places do discriminate against gays. We may not be able to change their opinions but we can insure that the courts and the law respect their rights and put a check on the mob.
You’ve done it again. “Thousands of churches…discriminate against gays.” How? What are they doing? And what would change if those gay couples had marriage licenses?
Are you implicitly admitting that the government has the monopoly?
No, you are. We have discussed this already. You can choose not to get the government involved, but if you do, you receive equal protection under the law.
Do you know what “implicit” means?
I have been very specific about these rights in this response and every other. You even pointed them out yourself : “equal protection granted by the acknowledgement of same-sex unions would be limited to things like hospital visitation, inheritance, and tax filing.” I also added divorce (division of property, dispute resolution) and where concerns court testimony. Every straight couple is afforded these in every state. Not all of them can be given just by “putting it in writing.” Why should gay couples be denied these rights unless they draw up special agreements?
I have mentioned taxes, visitation, and inheritance. You have added divorce. Well done. (I’m not quite sure what “where concerns court testimony” means)
A marriage license is, basically, a standard contract that includes these “special agreements”. Married people have go to a local courthouse and sign them (in the presence of a notary, I’m pretty sure) to guarantee them.
What law? Defined by who? Enforced by who? In what particular locality?
Defined by the Constitution throughout the United States.
You answered your own question. I’m not sure why. Also, there are no laws in the Constitution, and marriage isn’t defined there.
Until you point out what particular protection the state will provide under the law (again, something more specific than “rights”) I’m going to leave the equal protection statement alone. “Individuals can define marriage anyway they want,” but if they want a marriage license, they have to meet government requirements.
So what? Expand the definition of marriage to include gays and all couples get access to the legal system which guarantees their equal protection under the law
I’m going to have to ask again, are you implicitly acknowledging that the government has a monopoly? (Just to be clear, I’m saying it explicitly)
Also, your separation of this statement from the statement below demonstrates that you don’t actually understand what I’m saying.
As whakahekeheke said originally, if the state didn’t have a monopoly, it would be a moot point. There would be no licenses, thus no requirements, thus nothing to change.
And everyone would be equal in having no protection under the law. Might makes right, discriminate as you like.
That’s exactly what I said, “Discriminate as you like.” I do it all the time personally…
Well, then there is no point going any further. You advocate a system where discrimination against gays will be de facto because you believe them to be sinners. So, I am talking to a religious bigot and will see no kind of reason from you on this. Cheers and good luck. I will waste my time no longer.
I think my favorite part of this one is how you not only completely ignored, but deleted the rest of my statement. It’s incredibly dishonest, and also demonstrates that you are unable to engage in a reasoned conversation with someone you disagree with. You took half of a sentence from 5 paragraphs, and are implying that you’ll see no reason from me?
I’ve given you reason and ideas, and you’ve repeated phrases like “equal protection under the law”, while suggesting that there are laws defined in the Constitution. You still haven’t explained how local churches are taking away peoples rights (you’ve just said that it’s happening), or how a marriage certificate will fix it.
You’ve maliciously distorted my position several times and, in this most recent case, exlcuded 90% of my final argument so you could suggest I hate homosexuals. That’s called “libel”. I wan’t going to respond again, but to see you trying to claim the high road was just too much to ignore.
This is ridiculous on its face. It would mean that you are an unreliable source, your agenda being anti-Libertarian, and I am the reliable one, because I haven’t stated any agenda. If anything, a spoken agenda makes a source more reliable, because the alternative is a hidden agenda. BTW, mine is a partial libertarianism—for less government than the average conservative, but far more than a pure libertarianism or emergence.
Well, no, if you are a communist and you argue your “facts” with “proof” from the Daily Worker, I have to dismiss it, just the way I would against a Chritian who tells me homosexuality is wrong because Leviticus says so.
By your own logic, “I have to dismiss” your statement, because of your anti-Libertarian agenda. I don’t think that’s true, I choose to dismiss it because it is ridiculous. The Daily Worker may be unreliable for any number of reasons, its political affiliation is not among them.
I don’t think you read what I actually wrote. I’ll try again: there are two ways in which this can be seen as or said to be a monopoly, which I’ve explained above. While individuals can define marriage personally or for business purposes, none have the right to define it officially. If they did, there would be no legal question, they would simply define it to include whatever types of marriage they want. As it is, they need state approval.
It is not approval but protection under the law. Without that, a couple of any sex driving across country must be subject to the the approval of the local church or local individuals as to whether they are married or not and treated as such. Gay couples simply want that protection.
I’m sorry, what? This has no connection to reality. Why would “a couple…driving across country” be subject to approval by a local church or anyone else? Are there parish checkpoints along the freeway where they stop every car and ask the sexual orientation and the nature of the relationship of the occupants? Are we driving in and out of East Berlin in the 70s?
You’re making the libertarian point. If the state didn’t have the monopoly on defining (official) marriage, then same-sex couples wouldn’t need to seek state sanction. You don’t need to seek legalization for something that isn’t illegal.
Government acknowledgement is not so much the point the protection of their rights from locality to locality. Otherwise, couples have to do research about the particular locality they want to go by personal choice and decide what rights they give up if they go there, or even drive through.
First, the equal protection granted by the acknowledgement of same-sex unions would be limited to things like hospital visitation, inheritance, and tax filing. It won’t prevent discrimination by private citizens. Couples will still “have to do research about the particular locality they want to go…and decide.” If the locals don’t like homosexuals, they won’t be any more welcome because the government says their married. I can tell you that straight interracial couples aren’t welcomed everywhere, and there’s nothing the state can do about it.
That the state shouldn’t be in the “marriage business” is a moral judgement. The idea you have is that discrimination is okay, as long as it is not a government doing it. The only way to uniformly end discrimination is equal protection under the law. This cannot be achieved in your stateless utopia of “personal choice.”
That discrimination is not okay is a “moral judgment.” Are you suggesting we exclude all moral reasoning from political discourse?
Okay, then I say it is immoral to say that certain people, when in certain places, should be denied their rights because they are in the wrong place where the local community has decided they have no rights.
So moral judgment was bad, but now it’s okay? I’m having trouble keeping up with your constantly shifting position.
What rights are you imagining will be denied? I’m unable to call to mind anything that would fit into your scenarios—particularly the idea that somehow a local church is going to oppress some poor couple who’s just driving through town.
What it means is that the government in most states has, at this point, chosen to define marriage one way. For all government purposes—including taxes—anything outside of that definition is not marriage. Whether a family or community or church wants to define same-sex unions as marriage is not at issue.
Or we use the law to broaden what a couple is so that more people are insured of equal protection under the law.
Are you implicitly admitting that the government has the monopoly?
The question at issue isn’t broadening what a “couple” is, but broadening what a “marriage” is. And I ask again, protection from what? Please don’t say something about “rights”…be specific. Name one thing (other than joint tax filing, I got that one already) that would become available to same-sex couples that isn’t available already (visitation rights and survivor benefits are available to anyone, it just has to be in writing).
If I’m understanding, libertarians would rather heterosexuals lose the recognition from the state. Then every union is considered equal, and the state loses a teensy bit of power. And no more Prop 8 shenanigans.
Equal protection under the law makes more sense than “you can discriminate against whoever you want because it is your personal choice.”
What I described is “equal protection under the law”.
What law? Defined by who? Enforced by who? In what particular locality?
Equal protection isn’t about the presence of an ordinance on the books, but about a particular law applying to everyone equally. You can’t let every white or straight or male jaywalker off the hook while fining every asian or gay or hermaphrodite. That means that, if the government chooses not to license marriage at all, then everyone is treated equally under the law. There’s no need for definition or enforcement; once you’ve chosen not to define, there’s nothing to enforce.
Uh, I was referring to your “seat at the lunch counter” metaphor.
A gay couple goes into a diner. The owner doesn’t like them “looking like fags,” asks them to leave. Saying it is different makes no sense.
You’re response has nothing to do with the marriage issue. Aside from that, not all gay couples “look like fags”, as you so eloquently put it. All black people look like black people. Except for Anatole Broyard, I guess. Also, if it was one homosexual, would it apply? What if it was two gay men, but not a couple? What if it was seven gay men, and one straight couple? Is there a sign out front telling gay customers to pick up their food at the back door? Finally, if the state said the couple was married, do you think it would make a difference to this bigoted owner?
You’re also not being coherent. You say the government doesn’t have sole power to define marriage, but then you acknowledge that they do, by persisting in your argument for sanction. If they didn’t have a monopoly (within each state), there would be no reason to pursue inclusion in the official definition; there wouldn’t even be an “official” definition. Its existence demonstrates the existence of monopoly control.
I am being coherent. Individuals can define marriage anyway they want but if they want equal protection under the law everywhere they go in this country, they can choose to go and get that protection from the state. Gays should be able to do that.
Until you point out what particular protection the state will provide under the law (again, something more specific than “rights”) I’m going to leave the equal protection statement alone. “Individuals can define marriage anyway they want,” but if they want a marriage license, they have to meet government requirements. That means, among other things, they can’t be married to anyone else, they have to be over 17, and they have to be opposing genders. That’s the law. A law that no individual can circumvent, meaning that if two men want a marriage license, they have to convince the state to change the requirements. As whakahekeheke said originally, if the state didn’t have a monopoly, it would be a moot point. There would be no licenses, thus no requirements, thus nothing to change. But they do have a monopoly, which means that even though Gavin Newsome married some couple on the steps of San Fran City Hall, they aren’t “legally married”.
One thing you have never defined is exactly how marriage would work under your system. You’ve never even defined it and how it would even work, just criticized what we already have.
Did you mean to write two consecutive clauses that said almost exactly the same thing? The escalation at the end was interesting. In Hebrew poetry (Psalms, in particular) it’s called “climactic parallelism”. If it was intentional, it was nice. I’m assuming it was not.
What marriage would look like has been suggested several times: anyone could define it however they choose, and the state would recognize nothing officially. There would be no legal definition of marriage, because there would be no legal concept of marriage. The state would be out of it entirely. And by “state” I mean any government entity, down to the municipal officers in Wink, Texas.
Your greatest fears would be realized, though. Those local churches would be free to tell gay couples that they weren’t really married. Of course, they’d also be free to perform and sanction the ceremonies and call them Mrs. and Mrs. if they want. It would be their call.
Personally, I believe homosexuality to be a sin, and don’t support the idea of calling same-sex unions “marriages”. At the same time, if the Episcopal Church of the Christ-Sophia wants to perform ceremonies and call them marriages, whatever. I’d be against it if asked, but it really has nothing to do with me. It certainly has nothing to do with the law.
But let’s be honest, none of what we’ve discussed is what the fuss is all about. It has nothing to do with “rights” or “privileges.” It’s about the word. When offered an option identical in rights and privileges, but called “civil union” instead of “marriage”, it gets rejected. It’s about the word.
On nation-state marriage licensing monopolies and the history of law.
Reblogged from clintirwin:
A source with a spoken agenda (Libertarian in this case) is not a useful or reliable source.
This is ridiculous on its face. It would mean that you are an unreliable source, your agenda being anti-Libertarian, and I am the reliable one, because I haven’t stated any agenda. If anything, a spoken agenda makes a source more reliable, because the alternative is a hidden agenda. BTW, mine is a partial libertarianism—for less government than the average conservative, but far more than a pure libertarianism or emergence.
There are two ways to look at it as a monopoly: 1) Within any state they have sole authority to define marriage for the purpose of license and automatic benefits; 2) Wherever you are in the country, the government has that authority. The Fed has given it to the states, but you can’t put together a group of concerned citizens, call two people married, and get a license. The government has control, and they aren’t sharing. That’s a monopoly.
So we have to look at it “correctly” for your idea to be true? Within any state, individually people have the right to define marriage either officially, personally or as business. Monopoly means one, this is many.
I don’t think you read what I actually wrote. I’ll try again: there are two ways in which this can be seen as or said to be a monopoly, which I’ve explained above. While individuals can define marriage personally or for business purposes, none have the right to define it officially. If they did, there would be no legal question, they would simply define it to include whatever types of marriage they want. As it is, they need state approval.
You don’t have to see it this way, but if someone describes it as a monopoly, it is a legitimate description.
It’s not illegal, but that’s not the point, is it? The problem is that the government is in the “marriage business” in the first place. The state shouldn’t be declaring anyone married, or licensing anything. Then there would be no debate over legalization.
Yes, it is the point. If the state had a monopoly on defining marriage, then the state would ban all non-sanctioned marriage. They do not. Hetero couples may choose official marriage or not. Gays want the same right.
You’re making the libertarian point. If the state didn’t have the monopoly on defining (official) marriage, then same-sex couples wouldn’t need to seek state sanction. You don’t need to seek legalization for something that isn’t illegal.
That the state shouldn’t be in the “marriage business” is a moral judgement. The idea you have is that discrimination is okay, as long as it is not a government doing it. The only way to uniformly end discrimination is equal protection under the law. This cannot be achieved in your stateless utopia of “personal choice.”
That discrimination is not okay is a “moral judgment.” Are you suggesting we exclude all moral reasoning from political discourse?
By licensing heterosexual unions as marriages they are making a positive claim; calling one thing marriage means that other things are not.
Just because one entity calls something marriage, does not mean what an individual calls marriage is not. Gays simply want equal protection under the law.
What it means is that the government in most states has, at this point, chosen to define marriage one way. For all government purposes—including taxes—anything outside of that definition is not marriage. Whether a family or community or church wants to define same-sex unions as marriage is not at issue.
If I’m understanding, libertarians would rather heterosexuals lose the recognition from the state. Then every union is considered equal, and the state loses a teensy bit of power. And no more Prop 8 shenanigans.
Equal protection under the law makes more sense than “you can discriminate against whoever you want because it is your personal choice.”
What I described is “equal protection under the law”.
Stop comparing this to racism. It’s untenable, and it’s insulting.
Yes, only certain kinds of discrimination are okay. Only certain people “own” discrimination as a word, have a monopoly on it.
Uh, I was referring to your “seat at the lunch counter” metaphor. You’ve repeatedly demonstrated either a total refusal or inability to respond to the arguments presented to you, this being a clear example. At no point did I suggest that discrimination is okay, yet you attacked that straw man several times.
You’re also not being coherent. You say the government doesn’t have sole power to define marriage, but then you acknowledge that they do, by persisting in your argument for sanction. If they didn’t have a monopoly (within each state), there would be no reason to pursue inclusion in the official definition; there wouldn’t even be an “official” definition. Its existence demonstrates the existence of monopoly control.
On nation-state marriage licensing monopolies and the history of law.
1) The troll posted the Wiki link, not me.
2) The attack on the source, Wiki, is a common red herring in Libertarian and right wing circles…
It’s interesting that you mention the ad hominem fallacy (“attacking the source”), yet are unaware of your repeated rejection of source material and opinion because it came from some nefarious libertarian. Also, it’s common for every group engaging in debate.
3) It remains, there is no monopoly on marriage. Utah is not a Nation-state. Further, the Federal government (according to your own sources) decided that the states individually may decide on the issue of polygamy. A monopoly is one, not 50.
There are two ways to look at it as a monopoly: 1) Within any state they have sole authority to define marriage for the purpose of license and automatic benefits; 2) Wherever you are in the country, the government has that authority. The Fed has given it to the states, but you can’t put together a group of concerned citizens, call two people married, and get a license. The government has control, and they aren’t sharing. That’s a monopoly.
4) You did not follow the original argument. Do you make the case that it is illegal for two men to co-habitate, to have a marriage ceremony, to wear rings and call themselves married? Do you make the case that it is illegal for a business to recognize such a partnership? Do you make the case that if a will is signed, then a partner cannot inherit by law?
It’s not illegal, but that’s not the point, is it? The problem is that the government is in the “marriage business” in the first place. The state shouldn’t be declaring anyone married, or licensing anything. Then there would be no debate over legalization.
Individuals in individual states are already allowed to recognize gay marriage as little or much as they want to. Institutions can discriminate as much or as little as they want to. The State makes no claim over these marriages one way or the other, therefore, no monopoly.
By calling licensing heterosexual unions as marriages they are making a positive claim; calling one thing marriage means that other things are not.
So Libertarians already have their ideal. Gay couples, however, WANT the recognition of the state, so that they will NOT be subject to the discrimination that comes with individual choice of libertarianism.
If I’m understanding, libertarians would rather heterosexuals lose the recognition from the state. Then every union is considered equal, and the state loses a teensy bit of power. And no more Prop 8 shenanigans.
They want to be able to take a seat and be served at the diner, if you will, not have to depend on the arbitrary prejudices of the diner owner.
Stop comparing this to racism. It’s untenable, and it’s insulting.
Fannie Mae, the mortgage-finance company operating under federal conservatorship, is seeking $1.5 billion in aid from the U.S. Treasury Department after a 12th straight quarterly loss.
Fannie Mae had a loss of $1.2 billion in the second quarter, compared with a loss of $14.8 billion in the same period a year earlier, it said today in a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Washington-based company posted more than $147 billion in losses in the preceding 11 quarters, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
How does anyone think it’s a good idea to continue propping up a company that’s lost $150 billion in three years?
In the debate over steamships, Folsom noted, the latter argument won the day. In 1847 a man named Edward Collins persuaded Congress to grant him more than three million dollars to build a fleet of steamships, plus hundreds of thousand of dollars a year in subsidies.
As his steamship service grew, Collins discovered that his costs were greater, and revenues less, than expected. But rather than streamlining his business, the well-connected businessman persuaded Congress to grant him a larger subsidy, Folsom said. Each year, Collins would ask for just a bit more money to help him get on his feet, and Congress would comply.
Then, in 1855, an entrepreneur named Cornelius Vanderbilt went to Congress with an offer to run a steamship line for half of what Collins was receiving in subsidies, Folsom said. Having already so invested so much in Collins, and skeptical of Vanderbilt’s ability to do the job, Congress declined his offer.
Vanderbilt, nonetheless, decided to challenge Collins even without a subsidy and began operating his own steamship service. Since the cost of each voyage was largely fixed, Vanderbilt reasoned that he could offer lower fares if he made full use of his ships’ capacity. Thanks to this and other innovative strategies, Folsom noted, Vanderbilt’s service surpassed Collins’ in popularity and soon began to turn a profit.
Collins, rather than cut costs, told Congress that he would need an even larger subsidy—because he was losing business to Vanderbilt! Amazingly, Congress complied, Folsom reported. But even with the increased subsidies—including $1 million to build a new ship—Collins’ line faltered. One of his ships crashed into an iceberg, killing 450 passengers, and another one set sail and never returned.
After spending several years and millions of tax dollars on Collins, Congress eventually voted to cut the subsidies, Folsom said, and Collins’ line soon went bankrupt while Vanderbilt’s prospered.
Mary Frances Berry, former U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Chairman and current professor of American Social Thought and History at the University of Pennsylvania:
Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.
