Issues #5 Marriage as a Right and Privilege...

Yes, the assumption would be right, this post is about, ultimately gay marriage, or Marriage Equality, if you prefer. This has been a hot topic for many years, and a favorite of Republicans as a wedge issue to use GLBT people as scapegoats to scare people into voting for them.

However, lately things have seemed to have come to a tipping point, with the narrow passage of Proposition 8, along with decisions in many other states, some postive for equality, other negative, it seems 2009 is going to be the year when equality will take center stage. 2008 was just run up to this.

I was frankly appalled at the passage of Proposition 8, I can never understand why people would vote to strip a basic civil right such as marriage from an entire segment of the population. I've heard the arguments, through the years, both for and against, and the ones that make the least amount of sense are the ones against Marriage Equality.

The religious arguments in particular make no sense to me, particularly when coming from Christians, for I read the Bible, and as far as I can tell, marriage in the Bible is not necessarily between one man and one woman. Indeed, in the Bible, it seems to be between one man, as many wives as he can afford, concubines, and if that isn't enough, if his wife or wives can't conceive, then any servants he can have sex with, for procreation purposes, of course. *sarcasm*

Even if Christians accept the concept that Gay sex is a sin, they must also think screwing the maid is also a sin, yet the bible condones one act, but not the other. Why is that?

Frankly, the above is a non-issue, in this country, we have separation of Church and State, and Marriage, for all the claims of it being sacred, or a sacrament, is not exclusively either. Marriage was, and always will be a property contract between people. The nature of said contract has changed throughout history, many times, in many different cultures, including our own.

Whether it was a contract where one family sold their daughter to the groom of another family, in a form of slavery, or it was two(or more) people "shacking up" by moving in together(common law marriage), and hell, even Same Sex Marriages have precedent in history within some Native American tribes and some ancient cultures in the Old World.

Ultimately the arguments against Same Sex marriage have been rife with logical inconsistencies, outright bigotry, and just plain old ignorance of history.

But, that's neither here nor there, the subject at hand is whether marriage is a civil right or not, and frankly it is, as the Supreme Court wrote in Loving v. Virginia in 1967: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."

So what does this mean exactly, well basically that entering into a marriage contract is a right, the contract itself comes with numerous benefits and privileges that the government bestows on couples who enter into this arrangement, benefits that unmarried couples do not have. At the same time, the contract also comes with contractual obligations that the couple must abide by, or else the marriage may be dissolved. What I'm talking about, of course, is divorce.

So, how would this apply to same sex couples? Well, it could be a matter of interpretation, however, a reading of the 14th amendment might help. Specifically Section 1:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Emphasis is entirely mine, but I think this is rather clear cut, once the courts get a hold of it. GLBT citizens of the United States are having their privileges abridged by the states through laws and amendments like Proposition 8. This, in addition to the courts precedence of declaring marriage a civil right seems to me that it will be inevitable that Marriage Equality will come before the Supreme Court, sooner or later, and they will have to, yet again, like in all civil rights cases, "legislate from the bench".

Until this time comes, however, people who are fair minded and fight for justice must not sit on our hands and wait for this time to come. Right now the battle is being fought state by state, in legislatures, courthouses, and the ballot box, and the pressure must not be let up. The only thing I can think of that truly positive about this, even with setbacks like Proposition 8 is that history is on the side of justice. Plessy v. Ferguson was a setback as well, so hope shouldn't be lost.

Issues #4 "Free" Trade and the worker

The first thing you will notice is that I put the word "free" in quotes when referring to "free" trade. This is done for a simple reason, most trade agreements that are BILLED as free trade aren't free trade. A classic example of this would be NAFTA, which, if you actually read it, has 22 different chapters to it. Much of it is dense, legalese, but basically it allows for freeing up capital, but not labor. This isn't free trade, this is an agreement to screw over the working poor in three nations, at the same time.

I'm against free trade as it is billed and implemented in the world today, the biggest problem is two-fold, lack of transparency in the process, like closed door WTO meetings, and the lack of international standards in labor rights, environmental protection, and respect for domestic laws. The biggest problem is that free trade is regulated from one end of the spectrum, the employers, rather than the workers.

Proponents of "Free" trade as it is implemented today refer to it as a tool for world peace and economic development. They are right insofar as "world peace" is concerned, but only partially, for while two nations that have such an agreement in place may not declare war on each other while the agreement is in force, this doesn't mean violence itself stops. What good is peace if you require paramilitary forces to break strikes, burn villages, and force people to work in Free Trade Zones?

By my thinking, if we are to have free trade agreements, they need to be equalized, if a World Trade Organization is to exist, there should be a World Labor Organization as well. A WLO would balance out the WTO in many aspects, because it would include a group of people in the regulation of trade that have been ignored up to this point, the workers themselves. This could include helping workers to establish unions that are independent of governments and allow unions from one nation to join the unions of other nations when their interests and concerns are similar enough. The composition of a WLO would be from the unions themselves, through democratic elections. In addition, to make sure it has teeth, no trade agreement or regulation can be agreed upon unless the WLO and WTO both agree to it, and the meetings and dealings of both organizations should be a matter of public record, including unfettered media access.

This is one of many reforms that can be instituted that are more closely related to what is called fair trade than "free" trade. We need institutions and policies in place that will allow us to protect domestic workers in all nations, and to allow for sustainable growth and poverty reduction, worldwide.

Issues #3 Congressional Reform

So what do I mean by Congressional Reform, well, let's narrow it down to the House of Representatives. The Senate, generally, is OK as it is, however, I have problems with the "People's House".

Two things strike out as problems to me, first is Public Law 62-5 which was passed in 1911 and limited the amount of Representatives to 435. The problem is that the House is supposed to represent the people of this country, yet, how effective is it when the country has tripled in population since this law was passed, and added 4 states? Given this limitation, the ratio of citizens to representatives is now almost 700,000:1.

The second problem is the districting system, which has been so pervasive in this country, that people think its actually part of the Constitution. To be frank, its not, in fact, the ONLY mention of how Representatives should be apportioned is in Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution, and it makes no mention of districts. Districts are the creation of states, nothing more, nothing less. As such, any reform to get rid of them is far less drastic than, let's say, the direct election of Senators, which required a Constitutional Amendment.

So why are these two issues problems? Well, Gerrymandering is a problem, its a fancy word for saying you can disenfranchise someone through creating district borders to create a political, or, in some cases, racial, minority, robbing them of Representation in the process. This is part of the reason why, if you ever seen Stephen Colbert's Better know a District, that the districts look so convoluted. This also leads to the incumbency problem, generally districts are either Democratic or Republican, hence, any Democratic or Republican Representative who wins in those districts can be guaranteed re-election till retirement. Its hard to dislodge an incumbent once they are elected, especially for the opposing party. Most districts are "safe" for one party or the other, very few, proportionally, are "in play", so to speak.

Having so few Representatives represent so many different people is also a problem and it will only be amplified as the population of the country grows. Many of us already have a huge disconnect between ourselves and our Representatives as is, imagine if the ratio grows to 1,000,000:1 or greater.

So, what are the solutions, it comes in two parts, one is that, through an act of Congress, they can repeal public law 62-5 and reapportion the House through a set ratio, like 600,000:1. The second part is harder, it involves getting rid of Districts, and will have to be done on a state by state basis. Basically allowing at-large elections within the States using Proportional Representation, which is basically just a fancy term for allowing everybody to vote for who they want based on politics and not strictly geography. In addition, this also simplifies the apportionment process in that politicians won't need to do horse trading to make sure they get the districts they want. In addition, we wouldn't lose representatives in one state due to another gaining more of a population than that other state, instead, both would gain representatives.

The fact of the matter is that, while this would be a change, it is actually less radical than other proposed changes to any level of government. This can also lead to a House that is less dependent on money and more dependent of keeping the people of the state they live in happy. They would also be more responsive, create less pork, due to the geography limitation being lifted, and third parties may actually have a chance at House representation.

Issues #2: The Right to Vote.

This may come as a surprise to many Americans, but we don't as Americans, have a right to vote. The Constitution of the United States has several Amendments that restricted how states can restrict the right to vote, but there is no explicit right that is stated anywhere in the Constitution. You can read the Constitution right here.

Voting is a right that the States give to their own citizens, rather than a federal right. To give a comparison, all American citizens have the right to free speech because of a combination of the First Amendment and because of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. In this case, the 14th Amendment restricted the power of states to limit free speech, the First Amendment, originally, only applied to the Federal Government, hence why Congress is mentioned by name.

Next let's look at the 15th Amendment, which says this:

Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Notice the wording of the first section, it doesn't give an explicit right to vote to citizens of the United States, rather it restricts the power of states from denying that right on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Now, there are two other Amendments we are going to look at, the 19th Amendment, and the 26th Amendment. Both of which share the same wording as the 15th Amendment, and therefore neither one guarantees a federal right to vote to anyone, but restricts states from denying the vote to women or those that are 18 years old or older.

So what does this mean? The question can be complicated, first we have to examine Citizenship within the United States, first, there are two basic levels of citizenship, Federal and State, all citizens of the States are citizens of the Federal government, but not all State Citizens are Citizens of all States, does that make sense? Let's put it this way, I'm a Citizens of Missouri and a Citizen of the United States, however, I am NOT a citizen of let's say Illinois, I don't live there, and therefore the rights that may be extended to citizens of Illinois do not extend to me.

The Federal Constitution is not a restrictive document, the 10th amendment states that any power NOT mentioned in the Constitution or its Amendments are instead enumerated in the states. When the country was founded, after the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution, less than half of white males could vote, the reason was that most did not own property, and hence didn't qualify. This was, and still is, Constitutional, however, over time, the states themselves extended the franchise to include, at least, all white males over 21 years old.

Over the years, as the country expanded, laws in various states have expanded the franchise to other people, for example, before the 19th Amendment was passed, many western states extended the franchise to women, and many other states lowered the voting age before the passage of the 26th Amendment.

States have this power, but, at the same time, just because one state gave its citizens these types of rights, before the passage of these Amendments, doesn't mean that when a citizens moves away from that state, they retain that right. A modern day example would be with convicted felons, many states take away the right to vote, permanently, from convicted felons, while others do not. A felon in states that don't restrict the right to vote in this way may lose that right if they move to a state with these laws.

Now here is something that's somewhat of a gray area, Federal law. There are many Federal laws that further restrict how the states can restrict the right to vote, mostly as a response to the Civil Rights Movement. They include not having unreasonable tests to restrict the right to vote, like literacy tests, counting beans in a jar, and other Jim Crow type of laws. They also extend the non-discrimination started by the 15th Amendment by including National Origin in as a protected class of citizens.

These laws are enforced onto the states basically by saying the Federal Government will restrict funding for certain projects, like Highways, if the laws aren't enforced by the states. The states themselves will then enact the laws as state laws, to keep the funding. This isn't Unconstitutional because the States aren't guaranteed help by the Federal Government in the Constitution except for defense.

So what does this mean for the average citizen? Well, its perfectly Constitutional for states to restrict voting rights to only landowners, like many used to do in the past, or they could restrict it based on annual income, height, weight, criminal record, and pretty much any other reason OTHER than Race, Color, National Origin, Sex, or Age. Will any state actually do this? I doubt it, but that isn't the point, the point is that they could do this, not that they actually will.

In any case, this is a problem that should be resolved because of the potential for future abuse, and to alleviate concerns of botched elections. A simple solution was proposed by the Honorable Congressman from Illinois' Second District, Jesse L. Jackson Jr. A Constitutional Amendment giving an explicit right to vote for all citizens of the United States. He has a website up that illustrates this further, you can find it here. He also illustrates many of the problems of NOT having the right to vote in the United States, much better than I.

Issues #1: Energy Reform, Solutions

As stated in my previous post, we would need to cut oil consumption to about one quarter what it is today. So, what are the solutions?

What we need is a comprehensive approach to the problem, and recognize that there is no single solution that will solve the problem for us. I don't care who is an advocate for Hydrogen cars, biofuels, electric, etc. All those are solutions that will have only a limited impact over the total consumption of oil in this country. They involve tradeoffs, such as having less arable land in the nation, due to using some for making fuel, or they have low energy density, and therefore limited range, or are expensive to mass produce, or involves toxic, difficult to recycle materials, etc.

The most obvious way to create oil independence in this country is to actually free us from the need for automobiles for most of our transportation needs. This will involve something akin to a whole new reindustrialization of the nation. In some cases it will require slight modifications of existing systems, in many other cases, it will require a total revamp of the design and layout of cities and towns.

One of the first things we could do is restore and expand our current railroad system, and limit diesel locomotives for freight, and have separate, expanded, electric high speed rail for long distance passenger travel. This would cut down on "gas guzzling" air travel, which has its own problems, like long waits, low turnover, and if you don't live near a major hub, quite a few switchovers. We need to divide the nation up into railroad regions, with some crossover for cross country travel, and quite a few regional, high speed, rail systems, that could cut down on travel times by an order of magnitude compared to car travel.

In addition to this, our cities and towns will need to be remade with an emphasis on pedestrian traffic and public transportation. Cities with existing light rail systems could greatly expand these systems, and use them to service as many areas as possible. Bus systems could be expanded, and the buses themselves converted to some renewable source of energy, whatever is economical for the particular city or town they service.

These types of reforms wouldn't eliminate automobiles entirely, however they would greatly limit the need to even have an automobile just to get to work or to the local grocery store. What could next be done is to expand tax credits for those who buy hybrids and, eventually, renewable or electric vehicles. This can include public financing for lower income working families, and also do the same for more energy efficient homes.

When I refer to reforming the cities and towns of this country, basically I'm talking about the death of suburbia. Unfortunately, suburbia is car centric, and has been marketed as such for years. The problem is that its simply unsustainable, if we wish to attain energy independence in any lasting form, we will need to rid ourselves of suburbs and exurbs.

There are many ways in which to accomplish this, and one of the ways to do this is through, oddly enough, marketing. What we need is a "new urbanization" where we revitalize existing neighborhoods, and build new neighborhoods. Include public financing for new and existing neighborhoods, tax credits, etc. to encourage middle class and working families to move into these neighborhoods. Just because we may have to sacrifice a little convenience just to make ourselves energy independent doesn't mean we have to make it entirely unpleasant.

This would create a building boom that would be unprecedented since the 1950s, and we can also plan ahead for future challenges as well. This building boom will help many cities rebuild their economies, open up new businesses and new investments, and put a lot of people to work. The cost can be great, but also manageable, and we shouldn't think of it as a burden, but rather an investment in the future, and we should tie in renewable ways to produce electricity, making "greener" neighborhoods and cities, and also help spread and eliminate some of the costs associated with pollution now.

Diversification of our energy sources is key to this, I believe, some areas of the country would be able to utilize the power of the Earth, through geothermic plants, others can utilize wind power, solar power, hydroelectric, whatever is practical for an area. I think this will go a long way towards complete independence from oil, even domestic oil.

Issues #1: Energy Reform, Oil problems

This is the first of my Issue series, these are issues of either domestic or international interest that I will tackle, stating both current problems, challenges, and then solutions. This may be divided into several different parts, depending on length of each post.

This first issue is a doozy, to put it mildly, Energy Reform is a term I sort of came up with to encompass energy independence challenges, new technologies in renewable energy, and the needed economic or structural reforms that need to take place for these issues to work as policy. This isn't a simple issue, and there are so many different approaches to take, it may seem overwhelming to the average person.

My focus on this issue will not be limited to just transportation energy, though that is a large part of the problem, but also "fixed" energy sources, in power plants, etc. In addition, the economy will need to transition from our current "fossil fuel" phase to a sustainable economy using renewable sources for energy.

The first source I'm going to talk about is Petroleum, and the current realities related to oil production and consumption. The United States, today, consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day. Unlike many other natural resources, we don't hoard oil, not a lot of it, at least, so the product supplied, as shown in the table in the link, is product consumed. Contrast this with with the total amount of proved reserves within the United States, which is a little over 20 billion barrels of oil. Sounds like a lot of oil, doesn't it? However, do the math, 20 billion divided by 20 million equals 1000, which means a total of 1000 days worth of oil is present within the nation. That's a little under 3 years worth of oil, at current consumption rates. Now it doesn't seem like a lot, doesn't it?

Of course, this is assuming that all that oil can be extracted immediately after discovery, which isn't the case. Pipes can only be so large, and the oil is deep underground, so you have to drill. The total domestic production of oil is about 5 million barrels per day, so we have to make up the shortfall with imports. Now, before you ask, yes ANWR does exist, and production estimates say that it will be able to produce anywhere from .6 to 1.6 million barrels of oil a day, so it wouldn't be able to reduce imports by no more than a few percentage points. It should be noted that access to this oil isn't guaranteed until 2013 at the earliest, and given current trends, oil consumption is on the increase. Even worse, the total proven reserves in the United States peaked in the 1970 at 39 billion barrels and has been decreasing ever since.

Given these facts, in order to attain energy independence in this country we will have to reduce oil consumption by 15 million barrels a day, only using a quarter of the oil that we use now. Imagine the highway only have one quarter of the cars it has now, or just simply reducing our commutes to only one quarter what we use now. To be honest, this is possible for some people, however, for the large majority of us, this is impossible.

The problem is that this nation is car centric, and to be blunt about it, this leads to a large amount of wasted energy. No one can claim that traveling in a 2000 pound vehicle is the most efficient way to travel. Our towns and cities are designed around the automobile, and regardless of how many new technologies allow us to replace oil as the primary fuel in cars, none have as much energy per gallon as gasoline. This means some tradeoffs are in order.