Abortion/Health care/Law/Politics/Religion

Freedom of Conscience

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 4 Comments

On his show Tuesday night, Glenn Beck talked about a plan by the Obama administration to repeal the "Freedom of Conscience Act", which gives health care workers the option of refusing to participate in medical care they find objectionable.

Known formally as the "Provider Refusal Rule", sometimes referred to improperly as the "abortion rule", it went into effect January 20, 2009, the day Obama was sworn in as President of the United States. Much of the focus on this rule is with abortion, but the rule goes much farther, and applies to everyone applicable in the delivery of health care by setting up a rule wherein the health care institution may not:

Require any individual to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity funded by the Department if such service or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.

— 45 CFR § 88.4(d)(1)

"Individual" is defined in 45 CFR §88.2 as "a member of the workforce of an entity/health care entity". Not just physicians and nurses. Any member of the workforce of the health care entity. And in case you’re wondering, "funded" includes reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid.

Congresswoman Diana DeGette [D-CO(1)], one of the more vocal opponents to this rule, said "That rule was so broad that even the cashier at Walgreens could refuse to provide medication for somebody if the cashier decided they have a religious objection." Whether that is true is, as far as I know, yet to be seen.

The press correctly called this rule "far reaching" because it allows health care workers to legally refuse to "perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity", including, but not limited to, abortion.

Many States already have laws providing that pharmacists don’t have to fill prescriptions ("scrips") that violate their moral conscience. The language of the law was specifically aimed at the "morning after pill" and hormonal contraceptives, but it can be far more reaching than that.

My fiancée, I will confess, is on hormonal birth control, and we obtain those pills through Planned Parenthood. Why? Because we know that we will have no problem or issue getting those pills at a Planned Parenthood clinic. We won’t have to worry about some pharmacist having a "morality moment" and saying to us "No, I won’t fill that prescription because it violates my conscience."

It’s already happened numerous times — Google it.

But why would a pharmacist refuse to fill a birth control prescription? Hormonal birth control works in two parts. First, it tricks the body into thinking it is already pregnant, thus preventing an ovum, or unfertilized egg, from being released into the fallopian tubes. If the pill fails to prevent this and an egg is fertilized, the pill’s secondary purpose is to prevent the egg from implanting into the uterine wall.

Some pro-life pharmacists and physicians refer to that also as an abortion because even that fertilized egg is a baby in their minds.

Pretty soon, family planning clinics will be the only place you can have access to any birth control method except "pulling out". Hell, Planned Parenthood provides condoms for free — take as many as you want. And they have a shelf life of 5 years, so no worries there if you take an entire jar full.

And this refusal to fill scrips goes further than birth control and Plan B. Got a scrip for Viagra or Cialis? Pray your pharmacist doesn’t have a "morality moment". ADHD medication? Yep, allegedly pharmacists have refused to fill those scrips as well.

Prescriptions are medical orders. As such, unless the pharmacist has a medical reason, the pharmacist should not have the legal ability to refuse to fill that scrip. Medical reason could include several things, such as a conflict with another medication currently on file for that patient. But moral objections are not medical reasons.

And now the Obama administration wants to scale down this rule, and pro-lifers are screaming. "How dare they force doctors to perform abortions?"

Better yet, the question should be: how dare the Bush administration allow so many people along the chain of care to refuse to provide their portion of the chain of care because of their "morality"? And I’m not talking about doctors and nurses, and not even just pharmacists (though they’ve gotten much of the press).

What about obstetricians refusing to perform pap smears on unmarried women? Catholic physicians refusing to correct an ectopic pregnancy, a medical emergency, since the only correction is to terminate it? Worse still, what if these doctors refuse to provide a referral or bring in another physician for fear of appearing complicit?

I’m not talking about patients refusing care or opting for "complementary or alternative medicine", but physicians or nurses refusing to provide care and pharmacists refusing to fill scrips purely based on "morals", and this is happening worldwide.

Does no one see the issue with this?

* * * * *

Links, References, and Resources

Life

Children of anonymous sperm donations

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 2 Comments

Men donate sperm for one of any number of reasons, and likely the top reason is simply money since sperm banks tend to pay their donors. A lot of the samples are likely to be discarded: they were either not viable to begin with, or they aren’t used within their viability period.

But for the comparatively few samples that are used and that do also actually result in a pregnancy that is carried to term, what of the children?

Most sperm donations are made anonymously. If the donation results in a child, the donor doesn’t want to know, nor does he wish to meet the child. There are also legal barriers in place protecting him from claims for child support, also courtesy of the wall of anonymity. The women who go into a sperm bank also go into it realizing that they may never know the identify on the other side of the semen sample, and I believe most are content never knowing.

But let’s fast-forward twenty years down the road.

Certainly all men who donate sperm know there is the possibility their donation could result in a baby. This is something to be kept in mind as part of the "donor decision", because once you hand the cup of sperm over to the attendant and accept the check for the donation, there is no going back. It’s certainly a mental anguish I could not see myself going through.

But then there’s the child.

In virtually every sperm donation situation, the child will not have any right to seek the identity of their donor fathers until they are 18, the age of majority in the United States. Seeking out the donor father is needed if there are any special medical concerns, so obtaining the medical history of the donor is definitely warranted, something clinics twenty and thirty years ago may not have always obtained in advance of the donation.

But what if you just want to know who the donor father is?

According to a recent article published by the Associated Press, there is a push by sperm donor children to end the practice of anonymous sperm donation by outright banning it, thus bringing back into the forefront that if there is a practice occurring that you don’t like, push for legislation. Talk about another one-sided argument.

Okay let’s look at this from all angles.

There are actually four sides to all sperm donor stories: the sperm bank, the donor, the recipient or surrogate, and the child. Of this equation with four variables, only one is pushing for the end to the practice of anonymous sperm donation so they can learn the identities of their donor fathers.

I can certainly understand their concern. Many children, not just "cryokids", as some have called themselves, grow up not knowing their father, or possibly their mother or both parents, something that can occur for one of several reasons — the parent may have died, simply just walked out, or anything else.

But let’s look at the other three variables of this equation, and it’s really quite simple. Anonymous, paid sperm donation is what keeps the sperm banks in business. However every market has both a supply and demand: the paid donors are the supply, and single mothers and lesbian couples are much of the demand. End the practice of anonymous sperm donation and you’ll likely see that market dry up.

Plus there is the matter of respecting the privacy of the donor. Yes, every sperm donor knows there is the possibility their sperm will result in a baby. However in signing the paperwork handing over their sperm in exchange for the cash, they have opted to remain entirely anonymous, and the sperm bank has an obligation to protect that privacy. But as I said, the women go into it as well knowing the donation is anonymous.

In the AP article, a question was posed by Wendy Kramer, who runs the web-based Donor Sibling Registry:

It’s always the rights of the parents, the donor, the clinic. Why is it that the rights of donor-conceived people aren’t even considered in the equation?

This is certainly a reasonable question to ask, but it takes the definition of a right to a whole other level. Do the children of sperm donors have the right to learn the identify of their fathers? At the same time, do men have the right to donate sperm anonymously?

The answer is No on both counts.

Sperm donor children have no more of a right to learn the identity of their fathers than does a child who was conceived during a one-night stand where the woman cannot remember with whom she had sex. If both have equal right to learn the identity of their fathers, then the former can compel the sperm banks to hand over identifying information against the wishes of the donor, presuming their records are still accurate, and the latter can compel a court to DNA test an entire city.

Do children have any right to know the identities of their biological parents? No. The fact that most children do know this information does not equate it to being a right. The fact that some children go their entire lives not knowing this information shows it is not.

While it is unfortunate that most children of sperm donors may never know the identities of their biological fathers, they need to realize that if the donors wish to be discovered, they would make themselves available to be discovered. As such they also need to respect the desires of the sperm donors to remain anonymous.

Even if they are fortunate enough to learn the identity of their biological father, if that donor does not wish to know or become involved in the life of their donor child, that should also be respected. Again most children grow up not knowing the identity of one or both parents, which means that children of sperm donors are no more special and have no more or any special rights over any other child, something that also needs to be realized.

* * * * *

Article: "Sperm-donors’ kids seek more rights and respect", Associated Press

Movie: Made in America (1993), starring Whoopi Goldberg and Ted Danson

Cartoons/Censorship/Life

Tom & Jerry

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment
image.png

Censorship with the vintage Tom and Jerry cartoons is a horse beaten so far beyond death that flies are buzzing around horse pulp instead of a carcass. As such, I’m not going to discuss the censorship per se, but instead provide some information for collectors.

I have all three volumes of the Tom and Jerry Spotlight Collection plus the Chuck Jones collection. All told, of the vintage Tom and Jerry cartoons, I have all but two: “Casanova Cat” and “Mouse Cleaning”, released in 1951 and 1948 respectively. Why were these not included? Because their content was deemed to be “too offensive” to the black community.

In any detailed discussion of the history of race relations in the United States, that should be all the more reason to actually include those cartoons. If people today are offended by two cartoons made 60 years ago, have we truly progressed racially in this country? But I digress…

Now you can readily watch those cartoons on YouTube if you search around (I won’t link to them here). You might just find the uncensored releases as well. But what if you are a collector looking for a copy of these cartoons? Well you’re in luck, courtesy of some of my recent searching.

image.png

In 1990, Warner Bros released a 50th birthday collection of Tom and Jerry cartoons in 3 volumes. On Volume 3 of that release is “Mouse Cleaning”. In 1992 Warner Bros release another small collection of Tom and Jerry cartoons called “Tom and Jerry’s Cartoon Cavalcade“, on which you will find “Casanova Cat”. As of the time of this writing, you can find both on Amazon’s Marketplace. Be sure to buy them used as the “New” price is just… yikes!

Now as you can tell by the release dates, both of these are on VHS, not DVD, but if you’re skilled enough with certain hardware and software, it should not be difficult for you to create a DVD from the VHS, something beyond the scope of this article.

And of course is the big question: why was I looking for those to begin with? The answer is simple and two-fold.

First, I wanted a complete collection of the vintage Tom and Jerry cartoons. Looking for any release, DVD or VHS, that had the remaining two cartoons was necessary to complete the collection.

Second, I want any children I have to grow up with Tom and Jerry. They are cartoons from a far gone era of our history, and in having my children grow up with Tom and Jerry, along with learning our history from the 1940s and 1950s, I hope they will gain a full understanding of where things were in our history compared to where we are today and tomorrow.

I feel it would actually be in Warner Bros. best interest to release a special DVD with just “Casanova Cat” and “Mouse Cleaning” with an insert or special feature on why those cartoons still do matter today from a race standpoint. Other censorship has taken place with Tom and Jerry — thankfully almost all of the Spotlight Collection is uncensored — but purposefully omitting two full cartoons to avoid offending people is nonsense, and that sentiment has been repeated at length by many of Tom and Jerry’s most ardent fans.

Update: It appears that in the new Tom & Jerry Spotlight Collection, “Mouse Cleaning” will be included on Volume 2. No word yet on whether “Casanova Cat” will be included, but if they’re including “Mouse Cleaning”, I think there is good reason to believe “Casanova Cat” will be included as well.

Correction to previous update: Volume 2 of the new Blu-Ray collection has been indefinitely suspended due to intense negative feedback (specifically the immense number of 1-star reviews on Amazon.com) about the decision to not include “Mouse Cleaning” and “Casanova Cat” in the collection.

Additional update: One part of the entire Tom and Jerry series I completely forgot were the episodes created by a production company in Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic). That became available last year on DVD as the Gene Deitch Collection.

So it’s possible to obtain everything but “Mouse Cleaning” and “Casanova Cat” on DVD, and you can get those remaining two episodes on the VHS collections provided above.

Final update: The Tom & Jerry: The Golden Era Anthology collection released in December 2025 includes both Mouse Cleaning and Casanova Cat along with all the other cartoons released in the 1940s and 1950s.

(Tom and Jerry title card created by “crolyss”)

Links and References

Libertarianism

Being Libertarian

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Earlier in my life, I knew my late grandfather was a libertarian. Back then, before I got my head on straight, I thought that libertarianism was on par with anarchism — completely anti-government, not just wanting the government to leave you alone.

Now I’m sure we’ve all taken those political alignment quizzes that try to determine if you are conservative or liberal. Every time I took one, no matter where I took one, I always came out dead-center, sometimes slightly liberal or slightly left of center. Never did I come out slightly right of center or slightly conservative.

It really wasn’t until last year or two years ago that I discovered the real meaning of libertarianism. And in discovering actual libertarianism, I’ve also discovered that I’ve pretty much always been libertarian and just didn’t know it.

Thomas Jefferson can probably be called the original libertarian, though he would easily compete with Thomas Paine on that title as well. Quoting Thomas Jefferson on government:1Jefferson, Thomas. (1787). Query XIV. In J.W. Randolph (1853), Notes on the State of Virginia (p 170).

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

In other words, where injury or harm to others can be shown, the power of government legitimately extends to that harm. Where no legitimate harm or injury can be shown is where no legitimate power of government exists. Glenn Beck recently quoted Thomas Jefferson’s words when asked by Bill O’Reilly why Beck doesn’t cover cultural issues on his show, "I believe what Thomas Jefferson said. If it neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?"

Libertarianism’s foundation is the word’s foundation: liberty. In the dictionary of the English language, 1797 edition, by Samuel Johnson, liberty is defined as2Johnson, Samuel. (1797). A dictionary of the english language. [Google Books] :

1. Freedom as opposed to slavery.
2. Freedom as opposed to necessity.
3. Privilege; exemption; immunity.
4. Relaxation of restraint; laxity.
5. Leave; permission.

Notice that the first two definitions refer directly to freedom, also defined in the dictionary as:

1. Liberty; exemption from servitude; independence
2. Privilege; franchises; immunities
3. Exemption from fate, necessity, or predetermination
4. Unrestraint
5. The state of being without any particular inconvenience
6. Ease or facility in doing or showing any particular thing

Many of these words should be familiar to you if you are at all familiar with the Constitution of the United States. Looking at these definitions, we clearly see around what the Constitution was designed: the very concept of liberty, the idea that the reach of government extends only to protect the rights of the people. Government cannot create rights, only protect the legitimate rights of the people who are or become subject to her jurisdiction, and in case you’re wondering, this means more than just citizens of the United States, but all people who are in this country, legally or not.

Where no legitimate harm has occurred, government is to be hands off. Where legitimate harm can be shown, government is to provide for a redress of grievances, civil or criminal, even when that harm has been caused by the very government that is to be protecting the rights of the people. Beyond this, the government, acting in its role as protector of rights, must defend those subject to her jurisdiction from the harm of foreign states and foreign nationals where possible.

One thing that appears to have been lost, or conveniently overlooked, for some time, and it still occurs today, is the line that divides the government from the people. Government has become so ubiquitous in our lives, so interwoven with our daily affairs, that this line has been almost erased. Whether this is part of some grand plan by a particular political segment of our society, as some such as Glenn Beck have alleged, remains open for debate, but one thing is obvious: we are beyond the point where the people fear the government instead of the other way around.

When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.

— Attributed to Thomas Jefferson

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.

— Patrick Henry

Government is not there for the people or for the benefit of the people. And I’m referring not only to the Federal government, but also to State and local governments. If the government is here for the people and for their benefit, then the people can sway government to give them whatever benefit they desire — the very foundation of tyranny. This benefit can mean the suppression of rights for one class of people that gives you a tingly feeling between your legs, or exorbitant taxation that does little to boost the unfortunate and much to bring down the fortunate.

To borrow the words of Henry David Thoreau, "government is best which governs least."3Thoreau, Henry David. (1849) "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience". Quote: "I heartily accept the motto, ‘That government is best which governs least’; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically." If you want to see this particular idea in action, consider the local governments for most municipalities in the United States.

Being libertarian requires understanding the legitimate role of government, but it goes further than that and also requires understanding that while you might not like certain things that occur in society, unless you can demonstrate actual and legitimate harm, you have no right to call for government intervention, including legislation. Being libertarian requires you to ask one question with regard to each action the government aims to take: is it legitimate?

And the will of the people is not legitimate by default. Finishing with Thomas Jefferson again, from a letter written in 1819 to Isaac H. Tiffany:

…rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

That is libertarianism at its core.

References[+]

Marriage and Relationships

Rights of marriage

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Here’s an interesting question that no one seems to be asking in this enormous debate on gay marriage: do you have a right to get married?

Now if we were to go by the definition of a right that I have presented several times1"What are rights?" — March 4, 2010
"Do you have a right to healthcare?" — April 3, 2010
"Who grants rights?" — August 6, 2010, the answer is a definite No, you don’t have a right to get married at all because marriage is not really an individual right. Instead marriage is an extension of a right we all have: right of association — i.e. you have the right to pick your friends, lovers, acquaintances, and colleagues.

So how does marriage come into play?

Well marriage is a construct. It is not something that exists naturally; it is something that had to be created in order for it to exist. In modern society marriage is more a construct of law than a cultural tradition, and as such has the force of law backing it.

With that force of law come certain benefits to encourage individuals to seek out a partner and get married. These include:

  • Rights of survivorship — property rights in everything you own automatically transfer to your spouse upon your death, unless otherwise overridden by contract (including a will or trust) or lien
  • Power of attorney — if you are unable to make your own decisions regarding medical care, finances, and your estate, your spouse has automatic power of attorney, though this power must be exercised purely in and for your benefit, and this power can be overridden or stripped if not exercised appropriately
  • Insurance and other employment benefits — your spouse can be included in your benefits, if you so desire, and in many States your spouse can take advantage of your benefits automatically for a period of time after your marriage without any additional incurred cost to the owner of the benefits
  • Tax benefits — this is limited. If you file your taxes as the status "Married filing jointly", then you can take advantage of a higher standard deduction that could overall reduce your tax burden or increase your tax refund. This can be especially true if you or your spouse doesn’t work, or if there is otherwise a significant gap between incomes. But there comes a point with income where this benefit basically vanishes and the only benefit to filing jointly is reducing paperwork. I’ll explore this in a later article.

So as you can see there is a large legal framework surrounding marriage, providing many legal benefits to encourage others to get married. But it is still nothing more than a legal construct, a relationship status recognized by law instead of one that is readily recognized as a construct of nature such as the parent-child relationship. In creating this construct of law, certain "rights" were created as well.

However in the construct of law, it has been established to be immediately exclusive to only certain couples. Previously it used to be even more exclusive than it is today, not allowing for any non-white person to marry a white person, regardless of what the couple actually wanted, so-called anti-miscegeny laws. The one interesting thing about many anti-miscegeny laws is that non-whites could marry other non-whites, but whites could only marry other whites.

These laws were overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Loving v. Virginia2388 US 1 (1967). Today the exclusion rests only with couples of the same sex.

Albeit the exclusion is of couples recognized to be a minority, it is still exclusion, and this exclusion, in my opinion and recently the opinion of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

References[+]

Democrat platform/Health care/Politics/Republican platform

Independent health insurance

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

One thing in this health care debate that has frustrated me to no end is how both Republicans and Democrats make it seem like unless you have a job you cannot have health insurance at all. Well this is kind of true as without the job you can’t pay for insurance, but they make it seem like your only option of having health insurance is through your employer.

Quoting the Republican platform (page 38):

To empower families, we must make insurance more affordable and more secure, and give employees the option of owning coverage that is not tied to their job.

Quoting the Democratic platform (page 10):

Families and individuals should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan.

Employees already have the option of getting more affordable coverage not tied to their job without the need for a "public option". It’s called shopping around and doing the math. You are not required to go with whatever your employer provides. Most choose to do so simply because of the convenience of not having to shop around and also the convenient deduction from their paycheck.

I have my own health insurance plan through Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City instead of my employer. Why?

My employer is self-insured. This means there is an insurance division of the company itself, and part of my paycheck goes to fund the insurance I had. When I first started with the firm, I was coming off a lengthy unemployment, so I signed up with the company insurance plan just to get insurance right away. I even qualified for and received a $1,000 discount off my annual premium.

Later in the year, notices went out of upcoming changes to the insurance plan, changes I didn’t like. But I didn’t have to live with it. I had other options, and I exercised them by shopping around for something else to see if I could find something better.

And I did.

And in November of last year, I signed up with the policy I currently have. I have a lower deductible and better prescription drug coverage, plus I can walk into almost any doctor’s office or hospital in Kansas City, and pretty close to almost any doctor’s office and hospital anywhere else in the country, and be covered.

All of that for slightly higher than what was being deducted from my paycheck, even with the discount I was getting.

And my insurance is not tied to my job. So if I leave the company voluntarily or they lay me off, I still have my insurance for the same rate I pay now, and I don’t have to worry about trying to pay an astronomical amount through COBRA to keep the same coverage.

Now there is one caveat: I cannot deduct my health insurance premiums on my taxes unless I itemize, and even then my insurance premiums must exceed 7.5% of my adjusted gross income (that’s some expensive insurance, for me at least given my annual income). For lower income families, however, this might still be an option, and it’d be a consideration as part of doing the math.

So Republicans and Democrats, if you want the people exercising their options with health insurance, allow them to deduct independent health insurance premiums without having to meet a minimum threshold and without having to also itemize.

But then again, as we all know, the health care reform law has little to do with health care, and even less to do with reform. It’s all about seizing and consolidating power.

Life/Politics/Religion

Who grants rights?

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Who grants you your rights?

This is one question that is an argument of the pious. It’s similar to questions like "who created life". The idea behind the question is that without God you don’t have rights, kind of like without God you have no morality.

Not true.

Let me submit this question for your consideration: is it possible that your rights still exist even without a deity or god?

Many cannot seem to fathom the idea, yet if you read through this blog, it is one I readily defend. I am an agnostic atheist, yet I believe everyone has certain rights. Several months ago, I submitted this idea for your consideration about what constitutes a right:

A right is inherent and inalienable, something for which no action is required of anyone else for you to retain, but much action is required of you for you to protect.

In this I mean that whatever you can assert with your own strength is a right. This includes freedom of speech, as I discussed the right to bear arms, and certainly does not include the false right of health care. And when individuals acting together in concert to defend their individual rights against a collective seeking to oppress all, great things can and do happen.

So again, I submit for consideration the idea that you still have rights even if God is a figment of your imagination.

Law/Marriage and Relationships/Politics/Republican platform

Responding to the Republican platform – "Traditional" marriage

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Over a long series of blog posts, I’m going to pick apart the 2008 Republican Platform and respond to it, one or several sections at a time. I won’t be going in order, though, and some statements may be omitted from rebuttal if they are general or introductory statements. Some parts I know I will be stating agreement, while in others I will be stating opposition.

You can find a copy of the Republican platform at the RNC web site.

Now if you’re a Republican and you’re pissed that I’m going to be doing this, don’t worry, I’ll also go over the 2008 Democratic platform as well. To begin with the Republican platform, I’ll start with a topic I’ve yet to address on this blog: "traditional" marriage.

* * * * *

On page 53 of the Republican platform, you’ll find the Republican party’s idea of marriage. Now before I begin rebutting this, let me make this clear that I will not be openly discussing gay marriage or "marriage equality". I will only be responding to the statements made, and such will be the same in subsequent articles.

Amending the Constitution

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it.

One thing I find astonishing about this paragraph is how the Republicans have contended that Democrats want to stifle debate. There is no greater way to stifle debate on a topic than to ratify a strictly-worded Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Republicans don’t like the idea of homosexuals marrying, and they don’t like the idea of polygamy. Great, I understand that being their point of view.

However amending the Constitution is not the way to go on this. It stifles debate immediately and pretty much permanently, assuming of course that there is support not only in Congress but also in the state legislatures to ratify the amendment to begin with. I find the notion of pushing for a Constitutional amendment cowardly.

Plus they say that our children’s future is "best preserved" when there is a "traditional" family. Unfortunately there isn’t much counter-data that might shine light on the potential fallacy of this notion, but something tells me that if a general loving household, whether it be a traditional family or not, is deemed more important through actual research and data, the Republican party won’t waver from this belief.

* * * * *

Children in the household

Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character.

This statement is incomplete as it says nothing of the quality of the people raising the child. It doesn’t matter if the child is raised in a home with a married father and mother if the father and mother fight, yell, or are otherwise disrespectful toward each other. Tensions between parents do not reflect well on the child and may have adverse effects on the child’s physical and mental health.

Now one could say that it is implied that the child be raised in a loving household with two parents who are respectful toward each other and are committed parents, but if their opinion is for the child to be raised in a household with two parents who are loving and respectful toward each other, they should say it plainly.

When it comes to the "protection of marriage", the focus seems to always be about children. Why is there this presumption that married couples have children? Yes, okay, most marriages do result in, or result from, children, but not all do. Many couples do remain childless by choice, and that number is rising. To borrow a question asked during the "Prop 8 trial", should we nullify childless marriages? Should couples be given a certain period of time after their wedding day to have or adopt a child or risk nullification? It wouldn’t surprise me if there are people who do believe this.

While a focus on children is understandable, it shouldn’t be central to "preserving traditional marriage". The focus should always first be on the couple getting married. Only if children actually come into the picture should they gain focus, but no sooner.

* * * * *

Defense of Marriage Act

A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex "marriages" licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter.

Believably the Democratic Party does oppose the Defense of Marriage Act, as it so plainly states in their 2008 platform (page 52). And this law didn’t "affirm" a right of the states to not recognize these marriages, it created that right. And as same-sex marriage laws loosen overseas, this law also tells potential immigrant same-sex couples to not bother coming to the United States.

The Defense of Marriage Act made default the status of same-sex marriage recognition between States as not recognized. While the Act doesn’t stifle a State’s ability to say "we’ll recognize same-sex marriages", as some have, the default should not be "not honored". Instead, absent a State’s laws to the contrary, the default should have been recognition of the marriage with the ability for the State to voluntarily say "No".

* * * * *

Restricting appellate review

We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California.

Again, this is about stifling debate in the Courts. Basically, it says that they want their way, and they don’t want the question of whether laws like Proposition 8 violate the Constitution to be heard by Federal courts. Again, this is also a cowardly tactic.

This also presumes that the judge or court who hears the case will be "activist", which basically means the judge will rule against what they want, and so to prevent the "damage" from going any further than it already has, they want to stifle debate on the topic and prevent any appellate judicial review. Wow.

The Republican party has campaigned themselves to be about personal and individual freedom, and what is freedom without the ability to decide for yourself who you will marry? Further what is freedom without the ability to petition a court for a review of a ruling against you?

Is this really a party that is about freedom? Doesn’t sound like it.

* * * * *

Marriage and Divorce laws

We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.

Strengthen marriage or stifle divorce? Wait, stifling divorce will strengthen marriage? I really hope you don’t actually believe that.

In virtually every State it is relatively easy to get married. Pay a fee to get a license, find someone to officiate, find witnesses if required, get married, then file the license and certificate with the proper authority. Some States also require a blood test of some kind (to what end I have no clue).

Divorce is relatively easy as well, that is where there is mutual amicable consent to the divorce, and we all know how common that is. But a couple that is not amicable, loving and respectful should not be married, and attempts to make divorce more difficult ignore this reality. Yes divorce is on the rise, but that doesn’t mean we should make it more difficult, nor does it mean we should make getting married more difficult. Restricting marriage and divorce is restricting freedom of association.

On the contrary, we need to look at why people are getting married and divorced. Did the couple conceive a child and feel obligated, either by society, family, or a "sense of duty" to get married? Were they a young couple in love and got married "on a whim" without fully evaluating what it really means to be married? Did planning the wedding seem to set a bad precedent for the marriage itself — i.e. was one party so overly concerned with the perfection level of the wedding that it bordered on psychosis?

With marriage and divorce, the law isn’t the problem. The problem lies with the people who get married and divorced, and that is where questions regarding the two will be answered and solutions discovered. If you ignore the people and go straight to the law, you’ve not solved the problem, and probably have only made it worse.

* * * * *

Parental rights

As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights.

I’m unsure of what, if anything, this has to do with traditional marriage. Any adult (or teenager) can be a parent, married or not. But I’ll humor the statement, vague as it is.

First, it is actually the individual that is the basic unit of society, not the family. After all we don’t count the population by households or families, but by individuals.

But the big question that needs to be asked is how parental rights are being "eroded". Some cases I’ve read about are just plain stupid. For example in 2006 in Cabell County, West Virginia, a married couple who babysat a child named Senturi sued the child’s mother, Misty, for custody on the grounds that they were "psychological co-parents of the child". The family court agreed, handing down an order for temporary, but full, custody of the child to be transferred to the babysitters.

On eventual appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, the order was overturned and Misty’s parental rights were restored.1In Re: Visitation and Custody of Senturi N.S.V., 221 W.Va. 159, 652 S.E. 2d 490 (2007). [Full text of opinion]. During oral arguments, Chief Justice Robin Davis allegedly commented that if they affirmed the family court order, the babysitter of her child could sue and seek custody.2Korris, Steve. (2007, October 19). "Justices defend motherhood in Cabell case". The West Virginia Record. Definitely a dangerous idea.

A lot of cases that are cited as erosions on parental rights aren’t so cut and dry. For example there is a case cited by the web site ParentalRights.org regarding a thirteen year-old boy who was removed from his parents’ custody after he complained to school counselors that he was being taken to church too often. There are so many holes in this story it’s difficult to figure out whether this is a legitimate infringement on parental rights, especially since, as their web site points out, their description of the case is merely hearsay from a named attorney.

And then we have legitimate affronts to parental rights, cases where the child is actually taken from parental custody for no legitimate reason at all. One case in point has already been cited above, the case involving Senturi and her mother, Misty.

But I’m also talking about children stolen from lesbian and gay parents with full cooperation and sanction of the court. In September 1993, Henrico County, Virginia, Circuit Court Judge Buford Parsons, Jr, declared as an "unfit parent" Sharon Bottoms, lesbian mother of her son Tyler, stripping custody of Tyler from her and awarding it to Sharon’s mother, Pamela Kay Bottoms, who had sued her own daughter for custody of her grandson.3Henry, William A., III; Cole, Wendy; McDowell, Jeanne. (1993, September 20). "Gay Parents: Under Fire and on the Rise". Time. The sole reason for removing Tyler from his mother’s home and care is that Sharon is a lesbian.

The case would eventually make it to the Virginia Supreme Court4Bottoms v. Bottoms, 249 Va. 410, 457 S.E.2d 102 (1995), who would rule 4 to 3 against Sharon Bottoms, in what is described as a bitterly divided ruling. The Virginia Supreme Court would invoke Virginia’s sodomy laws against the mother, stating that "conduct inherent in lesbianism is a class 6 felony in the Commonwealth; thus, that conduct is another important consideration in determining custody." Those laws would eventually be nullified by the United States Supreme Court.5Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003)

I know a lesbian couple living in Virginia raising a girl who, at the time of this writing, either is or will be turning thirteen years of age. I hope what happened to the Sharon Bottoms never happens to her.

Here’s my question: why are Republicans not standing up for the parental rights of gays and lesbians? Conservatives supported the decisions by the Circuit and Supreme Courts as vindicating crusades against legitimizing homosexuality. Are they only concerned with the parental rights of heterosexual couples? I think that question is already answered, and it’s in the second quote I rebutted (emphasis added):

Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character.

When you get down to the fundamental issue at hand, the issue isn’t whether the child is being cared for by a mother and father. If that were the fundamental issue or standard on which decisions of custody and parentage were to be decided, Senturi would not have been returned to her mother. What is at issue is whether the child’s needs are being met and whether the child is being raised absent neglect and abuse.

And to anyone reading this, yes, I know I skirted around much of the issue regarding the erosion of parental rights. I don’t feel like writing a book right now, as getting a full idea of how and whether parental rights are being eroded would require scouring every court docket for available opinions, documents, and orders regarding parents.

* * * * *

Final thoughts

Since the defense of "traditional marriage" is about opposing gay marriage, if not homosexuality in general, I will provide a statement here.

Disallowing homosexuals to marry is a violation of their right of association. They have a right to marry whomever they please. It is the law that is stifling this right, and the law is illegitimate on its face for this reason.

Those who oppose homosexual marriage and seek the passage of laws and amendments to constitutions, whether a state constitution or the Constitution of the United States, must, in advance of seeking such a measure, answer several questions fundamental to their effort, and any answers provided must be secular in nature — i.e. not deferring to religious beliefs or quotes from "holy" books.

First and foremost is how the concept of traditional marriage is, itself, impacted by allowing homosexuals to marry. This is one question that opposing forces have yet to adequately and effectively answer. Allowing homosexuals to marry is not the same as excluding heterosexuals from marrying. The power to marry must include everyone.

Second, how is society harmed by allowing homosexuals to marry? Society certainly is harmed by not allowing homosexuals to marry, just as society was harmed by not allowing interracial heterosexual couples to marry for one simple reason: it was an affront to freedom. Riddle me this: how has Massachusetts been harmed since their Supreme Court vacated the laws prohibiting homosexual marriage?

For there to be a law, you must demonstrate how society is harmed absent that law. In other words, just because you don’t like something does not mean it should be illegal.

Feel free to comment below on this article and offer your opinion.

References[+]

Term limits

"Citizen Congress"

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

In response to my last article regarding a near-continuous attempt by Rep. Serrano to repeal the 22nd Amendment, I received a rather interesting comment that I ultimately decided to not approve because it was not relevant to the topic at hand:

Here’s a practical Tea Party type strategy to create a “Citizen Congress”

A Congress of career politicians will never represent “We the People”, because their highest priority is getting reelected with the help of Big Money.

But “We the People” have more votes than “Big Money” has, and thus can end Congress as a career for professional politicians by never reelecting incumbents.

We can impose single terms every two years, by never reelecting Congress.

Always vote, but only for challengers. Never reelect incumbents.

Keep this up until Congress is mostly “one-termers”, a citizen Congress.

Then keep it up every election, to make a citizen Congress a permanent reality.

Every American’s only intelligent choice is to never reelect anyone in Congress!

The only infallible, unstoppable, guaranteed way to get a truly new Congress, and a cleaned up new politics is

NEVER REELECT ANY INCUMBENT! AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION

Now while this idea sounds intriguing, it is rather unfeasible and could actually do more harm to this country than good, and in my opinion, suggesting it shows a lack of understanding of how the government not only actually works but is supposed to work.

I know some will disagree with me on this, but some incumbencies are necessary for sustaining this country. We, however, as responsible citizens, need to be considerate of who will be or continue to remain an incumbent and who will not.

If incumbencies were not intended by our Founders, they would not have written into the framework of our government open-ended terms. The reason is because known lame-duck terms in office can, as the argument goes for lame-duck presidents, render a politician politically weak than he or she otherwise would be had the end of term been unpredictable, as it currently is with Senators and Representatives.

Constantly voting in the opposition has the potential to mitigate risks by incumbent politicians, but if it were to become the norm, it would end up being an implied term limit, rendering our elected officials politically weak. While to some this may sound like a good thing, it is, in actuality, not.

Our Federal government is supposed to be, by design of the Constitution, subordinate to the States and, ultimately, the People. Just as your employer approves of your work by allowing you to remain employed, and firing you if your performance isn’t up to par, so too we show approval or lack thereof for our elected officials by voting.

If we were to continue to vote out our elected officials at the end of their term, they will either take great political risks, thus posing a greater political danger to the United States than a long-serving incumbent, or they won’t accomplish anything at all. Both must be avoided, but it is a delicate balance that is maintained by choosing our incumbents wisely and properly vetting each candidate.

The only time where the States have spoken and said that an open-ended term is not good is with the office of the President of the United States. The Executive Branch carries with it much authority, and with the wrong person sitting there, the President has the opportunity to wield a lot of power in inappropriate directions. However this change in point of view came as a result of the Seventeenth Amendment, which took the choosing of Senators away from the States and placed it with the People.

If you were to read the Constitution, thoroughly, you would discover two things: open-ended terms for both Houses of Congress are intentional, and an open-ended terms for the Presidency is also intentional.

The reason for the open-ended terms is because, originally, only one section of our government was directly popularly elected: the House of Representatives. State legislatures chose the Senators, and that process should be restored. And by appointing Electors, the state legislatures also chose the President of the United States, and may appoint said Electors absent a popular vote.

The Founders never intended the President to be popularly elected, rendering arguments about disparities between the popular vote and the Electoral College moot when properly thought out.

The President of the United States answers to Congress, namely the Senate, and the States, not the People. The Senators answer to the States, not the People. Only the House of Representatives answers to the People, and it is time that balance be restored.

But not permitting any incumbencies is not the way to go. Instead we need to undo the damage that has been done by restoring through the Amendment process the way the Founders initially intended our government to work.

Term limits

Repealing the 22nd Amendment

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 1 Comment

The Twenty-second Amendment to the Constitution is one part of the Constitution that should never be touched. Never. A limit on the presidential term is necessary. I warned on Facebook months ago to be immediately alarmed when someone aims to remove this limit.

Well unbeknownst to me at the time I made that statement, a Congressman has been trying for over 13 years to do just that.

Serrano.jpg

At the start of every congressional term since 1997, most recently introduced in 2009, Congressman Jose Serrano [D-NY(16)] has introduced a joint resolution calling for the repeal of the 22nd Amendment. It has never made it out of committee.

Now the big question that needs to be asked is why Serrano wants to see that Amendment repealed.

Bear in mind that he has been trying this since 1997, through Clinton’s second term in office, Bush’s two terms in office, and now in Obama’s first term, so this is not an attempt specifically aimed at eliminating the term limit such that Obama could run indefinitely (assuming he remains popular after this year), as some bloggers have alleged, but it is definitely something of which to be concerned.

Now there are some valid arguments for repealing the presidential term limit. One analogy I saw on a blog is similar to a company telling you that you’ll have your job for another year, but then you’re fired. The “lame duck” term of the President, many have argued, weakens the President politically, or drives him to take greater political risks because another term is no longer a prospect, so long as he doesn’t do something to get impeached.

But while there are good political arguments for the repeal of the 22nd Amendment, there is always that one overwhelming argument: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his four elected terms in office, though he would die in office shortly into his fourth term. Congress did not want that ever to happen again, and the States agreed.

Now term limits were not instituted in the Constitution by the Founders because they thought that the people would be able to determine for themselves when the time was right to replace whoever was in office. However they also intended for the President to be subordinate and answerable to Congress and the States. The proposal and subsequent ratification of the Twenty-Second Amendment confirmed that in a most beautiful manner, and for that reason it should never be repealed.

Update: Please read my follow-up to this topic if you are someone who is concerned about Serrano’s recent re-introduction of his proposal to repeal the 22nd Amendment.