The Filibuster Problem

The story with the filibuster is always the same: if you are in the minority party, you adore it and if you are in the majority party you despise it. And of course, senators tend to change their positions depending on which party is in power along the Beltway, throwing red meat to the packs of political commentators and lighting up CNN's news tickers. But one thing a surprising number of senators agree on is that, love it or hte it, the filibuster is broken. I happen to think that it's high time we start thinking about filibuster reform. One only has to look at the recent Jim Bunning debacle to wonder about the wisdom of giving one single person the power to cost thousands of people their unemploymet benefits and even thousands more their jobs.

First, some history. The filibuster is a power peculiar to the Senate, written into the Senate rules to protect minority rights. Simply put, it allows one person (or a group of people) to virtually kill a bill by refusing to stop talking about it. In more technical terms, it allows unlimited debate on a bill, which can only be ended by a cloture vote. With 60+ votes, the bill passes; any less, and it is officially dead. The filibuster is in essence a way to protect the rights of the minority and ensure that all sides are heard in a debate. But of course, if the party in power has a 60+ supermajority, a filibuster is ineffective even as a threat (unless senators in the majority party join in the filibuster).

Like many tool made with good intentions, the filibuster has changed -- for the worse. In the old days, a senator who wanted to filibuster a bill had to stand on the Senate floor, stare his or her colleagues and the American people in the face, and say exactly why he or she opposed the bill. Senators has to speak, nonstop, until a cloture vote was called. That happens no longer. The Senate has evolved a 2-track system for legislative business, so that one senator can simply declare that bill X -- say, on environmental regulation -- is being filibustered, while work on bill Y -- say, on equal pay laws -- continues. This removes a lot of the personal accountability from the senators launching a filibuster. And no matter how much Jim Bunning complains about missing basketball games in order to stop the COBRA extension bill, he has it much easier than the Strom Thurmonds and Henry Clays of days gone by.

With this change in how the filibuster is implemented has come a seeming change in its purpose. Not only is it being used as a way to protect the minority, extend debates, and kill potentially damaging bills, it is being used to bring the senate to a virtual halt. Now, Tom Coburn might love gridlock, but as a normal citizen, I despise it. The gridlock was so bad recently that the Senate was sitting on upwards of 200 bills that had passed the House but couldn't be acted on because of filibusters, real or threatened.

So I propose we reform the filibuster. Because it is impossible to get rid of it (at lease from a common-sense point of view, because the Republican "nuclear option" of a few years ago would have allowed a simple majority to override a Senate rule and stop a filibuster). The point is that the filibuster has a defined and useful purpose. It is the constant abuse of the filibuster that must stop. The following reforms would do much to move along the legislative process in the Senate while still allowing the filibuster to serve its original purpose.

1. A filibuster should only be brought by more than one person. This ensures that there is a real, reasoned-out opposition to a bill, rather than one person acting in their own interest, or that of special interest groups.
2. We must return to the one-track system. If some senators want to talk a bill to death, they darn well better be prepared to, well, talk . . . for as long as it takes. Not only will this make people think twice about filibustering, it will also re-instate the degree of responsibility and accountability that comes with bringing a legislative body to a complete halt for hours.
3. Filibusters should not be used on judicial or other presidential nominees. This not conflicts with the powers of the executive branch, it nearly brought the Senate down once, and could possibly do so again. That is one thing no one (except possibly Mr. Coburn) wants to see happen.
4. If senators choose to filibuster a bill, they should be required to speak on topics related to the bill. This one is common sense, guys. The purpose of a filibuster is unlimited debate over a bill. If you're reminiscing about Grandma's mint juleps, you're not debating a bill (at least, I hope you're not! That would be one strange piece of legislation). If a senator is that eager to delay a vote on a bill, he or she should put a hold on it. Not filibuster it.

The Healthcare Bill: What’s Going to Really Happen?

There has been so much confusion with this Healthcare Bill not only because the contents, like the abortion language, are not clear but also the way it was passed was “unconventional” to say the least. I will try to explain what I know and will give you my personal opinion about the bill and how it was passed.

Some Facts: The bill passed 219-212, the magic number being 216, without any Republicans voting for it. What also passed was the compromises that will be added onto the Healthcare bill after they go to the Senate and are voted on, however if these “compromises” have to do with the budget in some way it falls under reconciliation and therefore senators can’t filibuster them. I believe we talked about the filibuster on this blog before, but I’ll refresh your memory: It’s when a senator decides to disrupt the Senate by declaring his filibuster and then talking at the Senate for hours (sometimes) until a vote for cloture is called for. They can end the filibuster with 60 votes and if they don’t have them that “kills the bill”. As was also mentioned before, Democrats don’t have 60 votes in the Senate anymore with Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, so they decided to go around this rule. How did they do that? The House passed the Senate’s healthcare bill instead of the two bills by the House and Senate being reconciled (which means almost “merged”; the House and Senate duke it out to see what goes into the final bill essentially). But, because the House doesn’t entirely like the Senate’s bill they want to make amendments to it which are the “compromises” I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph. This is part of the complication; it’s hard to understand why they passed a bill they didn’t like? Why are they allowed to circumvent the rules of the Senate or House? Why can they be sneaky and go around Democratic processes our Founders wanted, like debate? Why? Because they wanted the bill passed NOW. Time was a major constraint and the Republicans winning an extra seat in the Senate didn’t help much. To pass anything they already had was their option or to scrap the bill altogether and start over (which I would have liked) which would politically look bad for Obama.

What does the bill do: Well, that’s hard to ascertain because many things are “projected” and we won’t know what’s certain until many years in the future. According to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), this plan will cut deficits by 1 trillion dollars in the second decade. Personally, I don’t understand how that’s possible but I’ll address my qualms later. Remember this is projected not certain. It creates “health exchanges” which make it cheaper to buy insurance, Medicaid will be expanded, It creates new taxes for health insurers and higher income families, and you are required to buy health insurance. An important clarification is that of the abortion situation: NO GOVERNMENT MONEY WILL BE GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS. If people want abortion coverage they pay for it with their private funds and this was also clarified by an executive order issued by Obama.

My contentions with the Bill: First of all, I was unnerved with the way it was passed. No Republicans voted for the Senate Bill in the Senate and no Republicans voted for the Senate bill in the House. There is some talk of their proposed amendments making it into the bill, but as of now we don’t know that for sure. So, basically this bill had NO bipartisan support. In my opinion, on legislation this big and sweeping bipartisan support is needed to legitimize it and also just make it better and more likeable. I like using this example, in the Supreme Court for big cases they much rather have a 9-0 decision than a 5-4 decision because it shows the strength behind their argument. It’s the same with healthcare. I just feel throughout the process Republicans were being ignored because they (democrats) thought they could ignore them. When they had to deal with them, as in after Scott Brown was elected, they still went around them by passing law in an unconventional manner without the thought process that usually is present.

That brings me to my second point; they totally disregarded the rules and ideals of our country. Someone on C-SPAN made a really great point, he asked if they can pass bills like this why do we usually do it the longer way? I think the answer is the longer way makes the bill better in the long run. You are able to fit more ideas/opinions in and really compromise. The founders wanted bills to take a long time because they wanted us to think about what we’re doing. And I think knowingly going around this deliberate process is wrong and the end product turns out being mediocre at best. That’s what I think we have; a mediocre healthcare bill that doesn’t really address cost very well and that could have been worked on longer.

My third point is the contents of the bill don’t fully make sense to me. I think the cost issue is still a problem. I bet the government health insurance will cost more than private insurance because maybe they’ll have to pay doctors more or they have to pay for it because Medicare doesn't cover it, or something like that, so it has to cost more. This is just my opinion, but it seems plausible. Also, how exactly are we paying for this? They stipulate cutting Medicare will pay for a lot of it but they’re also using that money to expand Medicaid, subsidies, etc. so that doesn’t exactly makes sense. They’re obviously going to raise taxes which I think is unnecessary for a bill that doesn’t do much and in an economy that’s not too healthy right now. I believe TORT reform is in the amendments to the bill and should be (which would subjugate insurance companies to ant-trust law and therefore make competition). But, that would have helped in the first place and maybe we wouldn’t need this whole government run thing.

One thing I like about the bill is that it doesn’t let insurance companies drop you for pre-existing conditions. That’s just cruel and also that’s the reason people have health insurance in the first place. That should have been made a law much earlier. Another thing I find beneficial but have some dissonance with is that people must have health insurance. I like this idea because if everyone has to buy it the price goes down (supply and demand) however I also feel the government shouldn’t make you buy something you don’t want (for whatever reason). If it’s a “right”, then shouldn’t we be able to choose if we want it or not?

All in all, I was just disappointed and disheartened to see this bill get passed in this way and the quality of the content. I think there could have been more bipartisan support for the bill and they could have passed the bill in the intended way: with thoughtful debate. Also, I think the bill isn’t that great and doesn’t cover the main reasons why people wanted a healthcare bill in the first place. I suppose it’s fine for now, but once the taxes and costs and deficit’s rise I think we’ll be sorry we passed it. We’ll just have to see what happens.

Further reading:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/21/health.care.main/index.html?section=cnn_latest

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html?src=me&ref=general

http://documents.nytimes.com/health-care-reconciliation-bill#p=2

(text of the Healthcare Bill)

Healthcare Has Passed the House!

The House passed both the Senate bill and the Reconciliation bill (a package of changes to the Senate bill)

Anya is elated.

Ashley is disgruntled.

Both of us are disgusted that we've read more of the healthcare bill than the actual people who voted on it.

We were trying to call C-SPAN when they were taking callers on-air, but neither of us got through. Look for detailed responses from both of us tomorrow!

A Promise (Or Two)

The full text of the compromise healthcare bill is online at the New York Times's website (link: http://documents.nytimes.com/health-care-reconciliation-bill#p=1). So Ashley and Anya promise you, our loyal readers (if there are any . . .) that we will read the healthcare bill in its entirety. Yes, all 153 pages.

We also promise more posts to come soon.  Topics: the filibuster, healthcare, Bart Stupak, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Arguments Against a Multiparty System

So, I've decided to play devil's advocate here and give the arguments against a multi-party system because I believe every good argument has an equally excellent counter-argument.

While I agree with Anya that only having two parties makes it harder for everyone to get along, I suppose I don't see how a multi-party system does this either? People and parties have differences and that's just a fact. In a multiparty system (let's take Britain's main parties) it would just be the labour and liberal parties against the conservatives because they all lean a certain way (more liberal or more conservative). In fact, one could argue there would be more sniping within these groups because of the opposite ideologies they have (if it's a type of coalition government). Or, even if it's just a generally "liberal" coalition there are still differences between them (let's say the liberal and labour parties) because they obviously different parties for a reason. I hope this makes sense, but essentially I'm saying there might be more issues/tribulations to argue about in a multiparty system.

I also agree with Anya that candidates in America have become more centrist, however they have because we want them to be. Many (but not all) don't really want a "radical" president to shake America up and would prefer a President who was less ideological and looked at things from different perspectives. However, I'm generalizing. My question: wouldn't finding common ground between multiple parties make the government more centrist? It seems logical to me that the more parties involved, the more diverse ideas there are, the harder it is to find common ground, and the more centrist/to the middle policies are adopted. I will illustrate with an example. If you are out with one friend and are deciding between seeing a horror movie and a romantic comedy, eventually one of you will give in and decide to agree with the other person. This is a "stronger" stance because it's not diluted by too much compromise. However, if you're out with five friends and everyone wants to see something different it's a real problem, you become indecisive and say (at least in my group of friends), "whichever you guys like the best." In the end you all might give up on the movie all together (aka nothing getting done in the world of politics) or spend a lot of time crafting a compromise: "If we see Avatar this week then next week we have to see A Single Man"...and so forth until everyone is pleased (like how centrist policies please everyone). So, my point: Not only is it harder to reach a conclusion in a multi-party system, it also will result in a down-the-middle policy because too many people and ideas are involved and everyone has to be included and say their piece.

My contention with the last point made: multiparty systems may give more "variety" however that won't encourage people to vote if they're apathetic. In fact, if one is apathetic, one would like to vote in the easiest way possible, which would be with the two party system, because there are only so many ways you can go. You're either Republican or Democrat and then use the "straight ticket" voting approach (vote all for one party). However, this doesn't foster an informed society and electorate (things are never perfect)

Arguments Against a Two-Party System

If I didn't write these blog posts/do homework in Women's Studies, I would lose at least 500 brain cells per class, no lie.

I'm not entirely sure what prompted me to write this, maybe the fact that I laughingly described myself as an "Independent Socialist Green" to Ashley while we were talking the other day.  But here we go.

With only two parties in power at any one time, there are far more opportunities for partisan sniping, backbiting, stonewalling, ignoring of opinions, and generally not getting along.  The coalition governments that come with multiparty systems force parties to find common ground in order to govern effectively.  In a two party system, the party in the majority — especially if they hold a supermajority — is often less concerned with the minority party than with pushing forward their own agenda while they have a chance.  While this makes me happy when the Democrats are in power, it is important to note that the increased friction between the two parties ultimately does enough harm to outweigh the progressive legislation passed.  The childish behavior and horse race mentality on the part of the politicians and the media (the "permanent campaign" that the former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan talks about) usually impedes any real progress.

Our two major parties have to focus on broad platforms, taking definite but vague positions on every issue — very evident in the move to the center most presidential candidates go through after the primaries.  Unfortunately, this end up with almost no one liking the president!  For example, the liberal voters who swept Obama into office are now upset with him for not being liberal enough, while the Republicans are just ticked because someone from the other party is in the White House.  So, nearly the whole country is displeased with their president.  Multiparty systems allow for the clear voices of minor parties to be heard, and for the parties to actually participate in their government.  The minor parties areh able to concentrate their agendas on specific issues (for example, the Green party focuses on social justice and environmental responsibility), while the president, from one of the major parties, is often too wary of alienating people to act decisively on major controversial issues. This is especially true during times of split government (different parties hold the presidency and a majority in Congress).  In multiparty systems, interest parties, who would be minor parties in a 2 party system, have more freedom to push their legislation.

With only two parties, it can be hard for the uninterested public to tell the difference between the two.  Also, the winner take all system and the single representative districts discourage voters from the opposite party in "safe-seat" districts from voting.  A multiparty system would not solve the problems created by winner take all/single representative systems, but the other parties would offer more choices to appeal to a wider cross-section of voters.  The presence of multiple parties means that the people's voices are more accurately represented.  That feeling would give otherwise apathetic voters inspiration to go to the polls.

So there you have it! Ash might be writing a rebuttal, I'm not sure. Ash's rebuttal can be read here. But I hope this has given you food for thought :)

The Intrigue of Campaign Finance

A huge decision was made by the Supreme Court recently on the issue of Campaign Finance. The opinion basically states that banning campaign contributions for corporations is unconstitutional because that violates the first amendment (freedom of speech) and campaign contributions are a form of political speech. The case was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205 and was decided on a 5-4 vote. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. Justice Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor.

The other side to this argument is that corporate speech is not the same as individual speech. I don’t know about the strength of this argument because corporations are just made up of many people (the investors, the Board, etc.) and because of that they, generally, have more money than the individual. Should they not be allowed to practice their “free speech” and endorse whom they want because they have more money? The Supreme Court says not. And you may be thinking to yourself; how can they spend the money on campaigns? I don’t know all the logistics, but they have to get the shareholders approval for this because it is their money. So, that is a check on the CEO or the board so that they can’t spend money on campaigns without approval. Even if there isn’t an official “vote” before the money is spent, the shareholders can elect new board members and that is a huge power and check on this type of spending.

This case was so huge because it overturned two precedent cases (meaning these issues have already been ruled upon by the Court), which are Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. Austin was a decision that basically said corporate restrictions on political spending, more specifically on the support or opposition of a candidate, are okay. McConnell v. Federal Election Commission was the case that upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, generally known as the McCain-Feingold Act. McCain-Feingold “banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of ‘electioneering communications’ paid for by corporations or labor unions from their general funds in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections.” When the Court overturns precedents it’s admitting that they were “wrong” on the previous issues. Because of “stare decisis”, which is, “the legal principle by which judges are obliged to obey the precedents established by prior decisions” (more:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis), the Court really only does this rarely (like in the case of Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson).

The ramifications of this decision are wide-ranging. First of all, we must realize that there are things that may not seem “right” that are protected by the law and that is the problem I have with this case. I do believe there shouldn’t be censorship on free speech and concur with Justice Kennedy’s statement that “When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.” But I also agree with something Sandra Day O’Connor said: “Of course I’m worried about it” — ‘it’ being the potential of so much more political spending by corporations — “because so much money has been going into judicial campaign races in recent years. It has the effect of turning judges into these politically elected figures. And [what] the framers of our constitution tried to achieve…was an independent federal judiciary.” Now, she is only talking about the effect on the judiciary, but if that branch was somehow “compromised” by political spending which therefore turns judges into politicians with agendas, then that is most definitely unconstitutional because the judiciary established in the Constitution is supposed to be “independent” from politics and the bullying of politicians. Politicians seem to have views on this issue also. For example, Obama took a swipe at the Court in his State of the Union address when he said, “last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.” This decision also affects elections of politicians generally; money is power. And because it seems like the person who puts the most money up wins the nomination for their party…well, that is also interfering with democracy. We, the people, are supposed to decide who our candidates are, not some elitist CEO or corporation with their own agendas. So how do we bridge the gap between free political speech and the hindering of our democratic processes? It looks like we haven’t figured that out yet.

Further reading:

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html
2. http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/living/2010/01/28/tsr.wolf.oconner.interview.cnn.html: Interview with Sandra Day O'Connor
3. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205
4. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/01/28/2010-01-28_full_transcript_text_of_president_obamas_2010_state_of_the_union_address_with_vi.html?page=1: Obama's State of the Union speech

Oh Massachusetts!

Oh Massachusetts! The seemingly blue state! However, on Tuesday January 19, the people of Massachusetts decided to vote a different way; they decided to vote for change…again. So, the candidates were R-Scott Brown and D-Martha Coakley. I found it odd that the seat the late Edward Kennedy filled for almost half a century is now held by a Republican, however that’s how politics works. To quote a TV show, “no one owns a Senate seat.” If you want to keep it you have to work hard for it and the political winds have to be just right (however the incumbent does have an advantage, usually).

Anyway, what does this signify? Well, if you’re a Republican it means your party is doing something right, it’s coming back, and finally Democrats will have to listen and take into consideration your ideas. You also will take any chance you get to say it has to do with Obama and shows his political future. For a Republican, this is game changing. If you’re a Democrat you’re trying to keep it from touching on the President, meaning it doesn’t foreshadow anything for Obama in the future. Also, you might feel some of your agenda will be centralized and you are definitely feeling wan from a fall from power. I suppose your front is it’s no big deal, but you might be panicking a bit on the inside?

The facts: Democrats don’t have that 60, that impenetrable number, to override filibusters (a filibuster is when a member talks, reads, etc. for a certain amount of time in order to “back up” the Senate and then a cloture vote is called for, where 60 votes ends it. More details:http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm. Republicans have been very much on the defensive this past year about Healthcare reform, etc. and this was mainly because the Democrats had the 60 votes and they didn’t need Republicans for anything, so excluding them was best. Now, Harry Reid WILL have to change his strategy. He didn’t really try to reach out to any of the Republicans in the end, even Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins who were open to working with him and were very much centrist on the ideas proposed. Gosh, now he’ll have to deal with the very conservative Republicans as well. I’m sorry Mr. Reid but the way you’ve been doing things is going to have to change it will be a very bumpy ride. Republican ideas will have to be present in the bill to get some votes. And there are just some Republicans who won’t be won over. I either foresee some Republicans really being listened to and trying to work with the Democrats or I see stubbornness on both sides, which will make it impossible to accomplish anything. I am planning for the latter and hoping for the former.

Other possible effects: We can only guess at what this means for the President. Some say it’s an indicator of where people think his government is going and they don’t like it, and other’s think you can’t really apply what’s happening in one state to the whole of the Presidency. I think it may be both. I feel like people turned up to vote and wanted this change because they didn’t like where the Healthcare Bill was going (especially the December vote) and were scared of what cap and trade would do to their small businesses, and maybe didn’t want new taxes. All of this is controlled by who wins that Senate seat, and that’s now Scott Brown. Also, we can’t look at this and say Obama is finished. Not everyone feels the same way about him like the people in Massachusetts do. Some people love what he’s doing and some people hate it so it’s hard to get an accurate read on where he’s going.

How did this happen? It looks like a combination of a lot of things. Coakley had one thing going for her; it was Ted Kennedy’s seat and therefore people might think it just “belongs” to a Democrat. However, that may have also hurt her because if people think that and don’t want the seat to go to a Democrat then they will have even more incentive to go to the polls and vote. I think the “60 vote” mentality of the Senate contributed to Coakley’s downfall because people felt ignored, excluded, horrified, etc. at what was getting passed and wanted to put a stop to it. Part of this comes from Republicans not being listened to because not one Republican voted for the Healthcare Bill in December and that looks bad and I think people were turned off by it. Also, having Obama endorse her (Coakley) might have backfired just a bit. She thought he would change people’s minds and he didn’t; so basically she counted on him changing people’s minds too much.

I just think it was a time for change. I feel that maybe the Democrats were getting too lax on the Healthcare Bill by not trying to appeal to both sides of the aisle. I think this challenge will produce a better and more accepted Healthcare Bill, if one gets passed. It all depends on how well the Republicans and Democrats can work with each other for a common goal. This should be interesting.

My sources:

1. http://www.npr.org/watchingwashington/2010/01/seven_things_at_stake_in_brown.html
2. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_massachusetts_senate
3. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aatuzIwL.TBs

Anya is horrified, but morbidly intrigued to see how this plays out. I do know it will mean a very centrist healthcare bill, far less liberal than I would have liked. Hopefully more bills will have bipartisan support now while still making the sweeping reforms we need. Congrats to Ashley on a very well written post :)

"Only Loyal Love Can Bring You Happiness"

Translation: Why on Earth do we need a federal court to tell us that denying two mature, consenting adults who are in a committed, monogamous relationship a marriage license is unconstitutional?  Or, at the very least, against traditional American values such as liberty & justice for all (Pledge of Allegiance) and equality of opportunity.
Perry v. Schwarzeneggerbegan in federal court today, launching what is sure to be one of the most high-profile cases of the year, if not forever (okay, maybe that's an exaggeration.  But still).  No matter what, this is going to be a fascinating case, for several reasons.

First, neither of the defendants in the case actually wants to defend Proposition 8.  Attorney General Jerry Brown is a vocal opposer of Prop 8.  Even Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger supports the lawsuit!  Which leaves the plaintiffs fighting against . . . the original proponents of Prop 8, Dennis Hollingsworth et al.

Second, even pro-gay-marriage groups are uncertain if this case is the best way to proceed.  Many think it's too soon, that risking defeat now risks making defeat permanent.  I disagree.  I think there couldn't be a better time.  This is such a prevalent issue in society right now, and especially after the recent defeats in New Jersey and New York, we need this case more than ever.

But on to the issue itself.  Was prop 8 legal?  Welllllllll legal in the sense that its supporters went about putting it on the ballot properly.  Legal in the sense that it denies marriage to a segment of the population?  I say no.  Besides my own personal beliefs, I believe there's plenty of precedent to back me up here.

1. The Constitution.  The Holy Grail of American politics, written by the founders to protect everyone from the tyranny of the majority.  Back then, "majority" meant "uneducated, rabble-rousing farmers", and "tyranny" was "acting like George III of England, or really just any dictator in general".  'Course, this is different.  But I see a majority (the people who voted 'yes' on Prop 8) and I see tyranny (denying couples the right to marry).  Am I missing something here?  Or is Prop 8 very contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution?
2. 14th Amendment, Part 1.  I know that only a ridiculously small percentage of Americans have even a passing knowledge of the Constitution, so let us help you out here.  The 14th Amendment states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".  There's more, but this is the part I want to talk about here.   Privileges and immunities is a very broad term. What these really are have not been specifically enumerated in the Constitution, however the Supreme Court can rule if a certain right or privilege falls under this clause. The Court has done this for the right to acquire and retain property, the right of assembly, and habeus corpus. So, why not marriage?  And if marriage, why not gay marriage?  The anti-Prop 8 lawyers might hesitate to use this clause to support their arguments, because they would first have to prove that it applied to marriage.  But in my view, anyone with a grain of sense understands that marriage -- in any form -- is a fundamental right.  Even if you want to get technical an say that a marriage licence, like, say, a driver's licence is a privilege and not a right . . . guess what!  Privileges are still protected by this clause!
3. 14th Amendment, Part 2.  Moving on through section 1 of the 14th amendment, we find that "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".  Well, the California Supreme Court has decided that Prop 8 had enough "due process" behind it to deny people liberty (freedom to marry).  But I believe that what they did not take into account is that Prop 8 is denying equal protection to gay couples . . . and equal protection cannot be taken away, even by due process.  Domestic partnerships are not the same as marriages, they are only "almost equivalent" to them (from wikipedia).  Yet they are the only option available to gay couples in some states; in others, they are denied even that.
4. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.  The historic Supreme Court ruling that contended that the "separate but equal" doctrine established by Plessy v. Ferguson was unconstitutional.  Civil unions give same-sex couples some (or all) of the benefits that opposite-sex couples have.  While that is progress . . . separate but equal is not equal.  Remember those restrooms that said "whites only" and "blacks only"?   Well, it's like marriage has a big sign hanging off it that says "opposite sex couples only" and civil unions have a big sign that says "same sex couples only".  While thats not technically true, because some civil unions are open to heterosexual couples, I think you get my point.
5. Separation of Church and State.  The supporters of Prop 8 have made no secret that their religion is one of the main reasons they oppose gay marriage.  News flash, guys: no one's trying to tell you you have to like gay marriage.  No one's trying to tell you that gay marriage "must" be taught in schools.  No one is trying to tell priests that they have to marry gay couples, if they don't want to.  Marriage is a civil institution, as well as a religious one.  Open your eyes, open your minds, stop spreading lies.
6. The Futility of the "Tradition" Argument.  Right, so this one isn't a strictly legal argument.  But let me tell you some other things that have been justified by their being "tradition".  Slavery.  Denying women the right to vote.  Heck, denying women any rights.  The ban on interracial marriages.  To some extent, the ban on abortions.  And now, the ban on gay marriages. Tradition has been used to justify denying so many people civil rights that it shouldn't really come as a surprise that gay couples are next on the list.  But look around you.  Slavery is gone, women have equal rights, no one is allowed to deny a mixed-race couple a marriage licence, and abortion is legal.  Precedent?  I think so.  I hope so.
7. And in the end, shouldn't the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution have made gay marriage legal everywhere after Massachusetts legalized it in 2004?  I admit that mine and Ashley's understanding of that particular clause is less than perfect, so if anyone has any better idea, please share!

Maybe I'm wishfully oversimplifying everything.  Maybe I still have those stars in my eyes that I thought the 2008 election and the healthcare debate had cured me of.  I vividly remember the day when I learned the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.  I was swimming in my neighbor's pool, my mom was reading the newspaper.  When she told me, my response was "well, duh."  But when I look at the history of our country, I just find it ridiculous, and totally counter to our most cherished ideals that something as fundamental as two people's right to get married is being put to a majority vote.

Ultimately, Jerry Brown has said it best: "Proposition 8 violates constitutionally protected liberties. There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights.  If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty."

Further reading:

• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122447805&ft=1&f=1001
• http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/us/12prop8.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes
• http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-prop-8-12-2010jan12,0,7701011.story
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._schwarzenegger

And yes, I have (rather) shamelessly cribbed the title quote from Sinead O'Connor's song "What Doesn't Belong to Me".  Credit where credit is due . . . it's a great song!

Some People Shouldn't be Allowed to Talk

Well, that's not true.  Everyone should be allowed to talk, we have a right to freedom of speech, and I cherish that right.  It applies to everyone, no questions.

On the other hand, just because you can talk, it doesn't mean you should.  And it for sure doesn't mean you should be allowed to broadcast your opinions to the world.

Take Pat Robertson.  He says that the earthquake in Haiti was caused by the Haitians themselves, because they made a pact with the devil to throw out the French.  That is so disgusting on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.  He's dismissing the Haitian's religion, promoting colonization, ignoring the fact that things called natural disasters exist, and are called natural disasters for a reason, and he's implying that 50,000 people deserved to die.  Excuse me.  I take issue with that.  You should be praying for those people, donating money to help them, promoting relief efforts.  I didn't think it was possible for Robertson to offend me any more . . . he did.  I am glad, at least, to see that the White House is responding to this, with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs calling his remarks "utterly stupid".  Because, guess what, they are!

Or Rush Limbaugh.  He, at least, is not blaming the Haitians for their tragedy.  But he's matching Robertson in stupidity, by saying that Obama is using US relief efforts as a way to boost his credibility with the black community in the US.  'Scuse me?  What happened to caring for your neighbor, and, um, the obligation to help people?  I mean, Limbaugh is very Christian, right?  Doesn't the Bible have very specific things to say about loving your neighbor?  And doesn't "helping your poverty-stricken neighbors recover from a devastating earthquake" qualify as "loving"?

And then, when somebody actually points out what a hypocritical, lying, jerk he's being, he responds with . . . well, some unrepeatable sentiments.  Watch here: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001140046.  I got exactly 1 minute and 30 seconds into the video before wanting to strangle him, and about 2 and a half minutes before I nearly cried at how simply horrific, disgusting, and completely un-defendable his statements are.  Really.  I don't care if you don't like the president, no one in their right mind would turn a humanitarian tragedy into a political game.  Except, apparently, Rush Limbaugh.  Way to make the world hate you.

By the way, it's also a good idea to check out some of the other videos on that page.  And I know that Media Matters is a very liberal website, but keep in mind that there is no commentary on these videos.  It's simply exactly what Limbaugh/Robertson said: their words from their mouths.

By the way, it's also a good idea to check out some of the other videos on that page.  And I know that Media Matters is a very liberal website, but keep in mind that there is no commentary on these videos.  It's simply exactly what Limbaugh/Robertson said: their words from their mouths.

Links:

• http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001130018.  Rush Limbaugh's original comments.
• http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001140046.  Limbaugh's disgusting, pathetic, and exceedingly childish attempt to defend his comments.
• http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001130024. Pat Robertson's "pact with the devil" comments.
• http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001140036. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responds to Limbaugh's remarks.
• http://mediamatters.org/columns/201001140050.  If you really do want commentary, although this is more of a summary of what I've said.

I'm sorely tempted to say that these two men are aliens, because I find it hard to believe that any human being could be so devoid of compassion, kindness, and pure common sense. But I'm not going to, because I've seen enough science fiction to know that offending the aliens is generally a pretty bad idea.

Kudos to Senator Claire McCaskill for posting this on her Twitter, that's where I found it :)
This is copy/pasted verbatim from my personal blog, In Stars and Swirls, with Ashely's approval and total agreement. :)