Proposition 8 is Constitutional: Marriage is Not a "Fundamental Right"

In this article, I would simply like to point out the absurdity of the most publicized argument against Proposition 8 on the November 4, 2008 ballot. The main argument against Proposition 8 is that it "would eliminate fundamental rights for a group of Californians." The purpose of this article is to point out the fact that State-sanctioned marriage is not a "right" to be found in the U.S. or the California constitutions. The definition of it is only something that we agree upon as a society, not something that we have forced upon us by a noisy minority or a handful of judges. Either the opponents of Prop. 8 are naive enough to believe they have the power to bestow "fundamental rights" upon whomever they wish or they understand that the right to marriage does not exist and they're intentionally misleading voters. All I'm asking for is a little bit of intellectual honesty in our argument here. That's all.

So where do the opponents of Prop. 8 and the California Supreme Court think they see the right to state-sanctioned marriage in our constitution? Don't tell me that we all have the right to pursue "happiness". That argument is nonsense. It makes some people "happy" to have more than one wife at a time, yet we're perfectly happy to restrict marriage from that. We the people have the right to decide on the laws under which we chose to live and thus have the right to define marriage any way we want to define it.

The original protection of marriage act, Proposition 22, was passed by the voters of the state of California in the 2000 election. The language was exactly the same as the language used for Proposition 8, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The original Prop. 22, which was struck down by the California Supreme Court by a vote of 4-3 on May 14, 2008, was deemed unconstitutional - by FOUR people! - because these FOUR people think that the equal protection clause of the California Constitution was violated (I stress the language "four people" simply because, whether these people have a title or not, they're still simply people, citizens of the State of California, just like you and me, and many of us are equally capable of interpreting the language of a document). Let's examine:

Prop. 22: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Article 1, Section 3.4 CA State Constitution: "Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7."

I don't know how this can be interpreted any other way - unless your personal biases cause you to see what you want to see. Prop. 22 became California law in 2000 as a result of a legitimate vote by the citizens of the state. The US and CA constitutions simply state that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. Prop. 22 treats every citizen of California in exactly the same manner. Every man is treated equally and every woman is treated equally under this law. None of us is allowed to marry anyone else of the same sex. Every single citizen of the state must follow the same rule. Therefore, the law clearly does not discriminate against any person. A heterosexual man cannot marry another man any more than a homosexual man can and a heterosexual woman cannot marry another woman any more than a homosexual woman can.

Now, if the law's language was, for example, "Only marriage between two people who are in love with each other is valid or recognized in California, unless the people in question are homosexual.", then you could correctly argue that the statute is discriminatory. This law would be unconstitutional because it would not allow any homosexual person to be married to anyone else - not someone of the opposite sex and same sexual orientation, nor someone of the same sex and sexual orientation, nor opposite sex and opposite sexual orientation. This law would discriminate between a heterosexual and a homosexual and treat the two differently under the law. However, under the law established by Prop. 22 and Prop. 8 (if it passes) a hetero or homosexual man will be allowed to marry a hetero or homosexual woman and vice versa. So under the proposed law, the state does not make any differentiation between hetero and homosexual people and therefore cannot be accused of being discriminatory and/or unconstitutional.

If the majority of the citizens of California wants to change the definition of marriage in this election, then so be it. But don't tell me that if I vote 'yes' on Prop. 8 that I'm taking "fundamental rights" away from anybody. Rights that never existed in the first place cannot be taken away.

Stop Household Cleaners before They Stop You

Friday, April 20, 2007

I want to begin this article by saying that, of course, the events that unfolded at Virginia Tech this past Monday are horrifying and have touched the lives of every American, as well as people across the world. One can’t say enough about the strength of the VT community and the grief/shame of so many South Koreans, a very proud people who should not let one disturbed human being keep them from holding their heads high.

With that said, I think that it’s time to discuss (as Chris Matthews and Brain Williams felt it was appropriate to do the DAY AFTER on MSNBC – quite a tasteless move) the underlying issues behind this awful tragedy. If nothing more comes out of this massacre, we should make sure that we use it as leverage to ban all firearms. Yes, that’s right, what better event than a nationally televised mass murder, the worst in history, to catapult the anti-gun lobbyists to the forefront of national debate. Because, after all, it wasn’t a sick, uninstitutionalized, nut case who committed those 32 murders at Virginia Tech . . . it was those two handguns that did the killing!

In 2003, the National Safety Council published a statistical report entitled “What Are the Odds of Dying” in which they calculated the lifetime odds of an American citizen dying from a number of different causes [1]. Their study was based on data from National Center for Health Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau [2,3]. In 2003, 44,757 people perished in car accidents, 48,071 in all transportation accidents. 19,457 people died as a result of “accidental poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances” and 17,229 people died from falling, while only 11,920 people met their demise by being shot with a gun. In their study, the NSC found that the average American was over 4 times more likely to die in a transport accident than assault by firearm. The average American is about 63 % more likely to be accidentally poisoned to death and 44 % more likely to fall to their deaths than to be assaulted and killed with a firearm. Therefore, I propose that we put a ban on all automobiles, poisons (i.e. household cleaners – especially bleach, that one’s a doozy), and heights (i.e. stairs, tall buildings, cliffs – especially cliffs). I don’t like cleaning or heights much anyway. How does that sound?

I have yet to hear of a single case in which a gun jumped up off a table, pulled its own trigger, and killed somebody. For goodness sake, the problem is the people, not the guns.

[1] National Safety Council, NSC.com, “What Are the Odds of Dying”, http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm.

[2] National Center for Health Statistics, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/Default.htm.

[3] U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/.

Other websites of interest:

http://www.christianaction.org.za/firearmnews/2003-3_SelfDefenceMyths.htm

Insincere Politicians

I wrote the following article several months ago, but still believe that it holds true today:

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

President Bush addressed the nation today regarding the current situation in Iraq and the new strategy to be implemented in that troubled country. I am not a military expert. I don’t know if the proposed increase in troops and new plan will lead to success and thus allow the U.S. military to return home. As such I would never presume to know for certain what is best for our country in the long run when it comes to this scenario and I certainly did not sit down tonight to write an argument for the President’s decision nor for troop withdrawal. What I did sit down to discuss is the disillusionment I felt upon listening to the Democrat response to the President’s speech along with the consistent “it’s time to leave Iraq” mantra of the party leading up to and following the November 2006 elections.

I should be upfront and inform the reader as to my personal political persuasion. If it has not already been made obvious let me leave no doubt that I am a conservative mind. Consequently, I undoubtedly bring a bias to the discussion that is difficult for me to gauge, despite my human nature that insists I am capable of achieving an objective viewpoint. But upon watching the Democratic response to the President’s speech by Senator Dick Durbin I was not surprised to hear that the party’s position is still that it’s time for the Iraqi government to suck it up and for us to pack it up. This, I must admit, is quite an enticing position, not only for me, but for any American who hates to see American soldiers fall in the line of duty. As much as my moral compass insists that the lives and freedom of the Iraqi people are worth fighting and dying for, I am tempted to agree with the senator from Illinois and I must admit, part of me says they’re not. It is exactly this sentiment that won the Democrats control of both Houses of Congress and lost it for the Republicans last November – a position rarely disputed among political pundits – despite that fact that the party almost unanimously supported the war in its early stages (i.e. when it was popular). Upon agreeing with the President tonight on CNN Senator John McCain, Larry King asked McCain if he had considered the political implications of his position, especially considering the fact that many Republicans are now at odds with the President’s point of view. The Senator answered, “I would much rather loose and election than loose a war.” I was actually surprised to hear such strong words from a man who many consider to be the Republican frontrunner in the 2008 Presidential elections. McCain’s words sound to me to be absent of any political calculation. And therein lies my disillusionment with the Democratic Party. So I sincerely ask the reader, am I wrong to suspect that the current Democratic position on Iraq is not only the easy way out, but also the politically popular position that they believe will catapult their party to Presidential victory in 2008? I can’t really see it any other way – in which case it’s difficult to view the current democratic leaders as anything other than political opportunists, or in other words, insincere politicians.

AT&T Monthy Statement

I recently moved from one city to another in California and, until recently, I have found it utterly unnecessary to sign up for a "landline" if one owns a cell phone and can obtain an internet connection through cable or a school network -- that is if one gets clear cellular service in his home. And you guessed it! The cell service in my new apartment is terrible! I have subsequently been forced to sell my soul to the devil and end my streak of avoiding any dealings with landline telephone providers and the absolutely ridiculous "taxes, fees, and surcharges" they so delicately apply to the monthly bill. And while I realize that we do suffer from great injustices every month when we receive our cell phone bills, they are far outweighed by the debauchery that I have discovered on my new landline bill.

There are three key numbers that need to be considered in this discussion:

a) $10.69
b) $9.13
c) 85.4 %.

The number that is represented by the letter ‘a’ is the monthly phone charge that I agreed to pay AT&T in exchange for an almost useless and soon-to-be obsolete service. The number that is represented by the letter ‘b’ is the sum of the “taxes, fees, and surcharges” that warmed my heart upon opening my first bill. While I’m sure that the reader already realizes the significance of the third number, ‘c’, I would like to explicitly express my disgust with being charged over 85% in dubious “taxes, fees, and surcharges”. Below is a list of the questionable charges as they appeared on the bill.

Surcharges and Other Fees
Federal Subscriber Line Charge $4.65
Rate Surcharge $1.39
State Regulatory Fee $0.06
Federal Universal Service Fee $0.42
Total Surcharges and Other Fees $6.52

Government Fees and Taxes
CA High Cost Fund Surcharge – A: $0.10
CA High Cost Fund Surcharge – B: $0.99
California Teleconnect Fund Surcharge $0.06
Universal Lifeline Telephone Service Surcharge $0.64
CA Relay Service and Communications Devices Fund $0.03
9-1-1 Emergency System $0.10
Federal** $0.69
Total Government Fees and Taxes $2.61

**Could it get any more vague!?!

The above absurdity speaks for itself. While all of these charges (with the exception of the 9-1-1 Emergency System charge, which I’ll gladly pay) should warrant further investigation, most are too petty and ridiculous to justify consuming any amount of my time. But this is a problem in and of itself because the morons who invent these charges count on this kind of a response from the complacent masses. They know full well that most people will bend over and take it every month without giving a $0.03 charge a second thought. And even if we do give it a second thought, what the hell are we going to do about it? And therein lies the injustice. Is stealing any less stealing if the amount is three cents instead of three million dollars? No, three cents is simply less noticeable! But three cents a couple million times is quite a nice sum of money for a bunch of bureaucrats to spend on whatever wasteful expense they can conjure up.

The one charge that especially caught my attention was the $4.65 Federal Subscriber Line Charge, which apparently is technically not a tax. The Federal Subscriber Line Charge simply “allows local telephone companies to cover some of the costs of providing telecommunications services to individual locations . . . the maximum charge is $5 per line per month”[1]. But since when do for-profit companies need government permission to charge the consumer enough to cover the cost of doing business? Sounds like Business 101 to me! So really this “surcharge” translates into the phone companies being allowed to sell the consumer an initial price, when they’re trying to obtain their business, and then tack on another $5.00 later when the customer has little to no recourse . . . and all of this is done with government approval.

What a bunch of bullshit.

1. http://www.state.sd.us/puc/2001/Publications01/newcharg.pdf#search='Federal%20Subscriber%20Line%20Charge'

Illegal Immigration: California is really Aztlan!?!

For my first post I would like to address the subject of illegal immigration and illuminate the deprivation of thought that occurs on college campuses today.

I received this email from a fellow student at my university on March 31, 2006. You may remember that it came at a time when the U.S. Senate would soon debate a bill to make illegal immigration to the U.S. a felony. My opponent showed his true allegiance in his reply to my first email and I proceeded to pick his argument to pieces in my final letter. The following is a copy of the correspondence between the two of us (his punctuation and spelling has not been altered in any way). Enjoy:

To: Campus Community
From: Office of Diversity Affairs
Date: March 31, 2006
Subject: Candlelight Vigil

We extend an invitation to you to join us at the Labyrinth (behind Memorial Chapel) this Sunday at 9pm for a Candlelight Vigil to raises awareness about immigration and equity as the Senate continues to debate an issue fundamental to the future of the human justice. We, as a campus community, must unite in support of human rights.
After the vigil, student organizers will be making t-shirts that can be worn to encourage debate about the issue of immigration. We ask that you provide your own white shirt but we will provide the materials.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Koby.

The Dude replied:

Koby,

I want to start by saying that I have the utmost respect for the many people who dream to come to this great country of ours to work hard and build a new life for themselves and their families. It is an honorable and very noble cause.

About your candle light vigil on Sunday night:

I was just wondering, Koby, if you are going to be honest about what HR 4377 will actually do, which is modify the laws already on the books about ILLEGAL immigration. You know full well that the bill has NOTHING to do with legal immigration. In fact, as it currently stands, it will allow people who are here ILLEGALLY (who broke the law to come here) to apply for U.S. citizenship without ever having to leave the country. They'll have to pay a fine, but that's not a very big price to pay to be allowed to stay in this great country where they have more opportunity than they could ever dream about back home.

I want to make it plainly clear that I DO NOT want to deport anyone who has been a hard-working, upstanding citizen since they first broke the law by crossing the boarder (and neither does the U.S. Senate). This would be a disaster for millions of families and is frankly unrealistic. All I ask is that you be HONEST about the situation. I think that your side of the argument would go a lot further with the people on the fence on this issue if you would just acknowledge that the only immigration that ANYONE wants to curb is the illegal kind. Is it unreasonable for a democratically elected legislative body to make laws that are in the best interest of the safety of its citizens? Is it unreasonable for an executive branch of government to try to enforce its laws? If you say it is, then I must ask, why do we even bother with governments? And you can't really be against a more organized, more efficient immigration system that facilitates the citizenship process and saves thousands of lives by preventing people from trying to swim across rivers and hike through deserts led by unscrupulous Coyotes.

There is room for debate here, but only if we all remain candid and truthful about the real situation. We must have clarity if this issue is ever to be resolved, to the benefit of all parties. I appreciate your time and I thank you for hearing my point of view.

Best Regards,

The Dude

P.S. Of course, I encourage you to reply to this email. You have my email address.

Koby wrote:

I thank you for expressing your interest and your concerns about Sunday night's vigil. I would like to start off by acknowledging the fact that no where in the Candlelight Vigil email did it mention HR4437. The vigil is not directly focusing on HR4437, but I'm sure it will come up. As a Race and Ethnic Studies major, nonetheless, a concerned citizen, I am fully aware of what this bill could do. I do realize that it has the potential to make 12 million undocumented workers, citizens. Yet, there are still consequences such as fines of $2,000 (which is nearly impossible to pay for these low-wage workers), backed taxes, a background check, and having to learnEnglishh. That would be kind of odd for a country that doesn't really have an "official" language.I support undocumented workers becoming citizens, but I do not support some of the other implementations. First of all, this bill would create 700 miles of extra fence on the U.S. Mexican border. This would then be the third wall that the United States has put up. Since the the last wall was put up through Operation Gatekeeper, over 500 undocumented workers have died. This system is NOT working.Lastly, this bill would cause for a guest worker program. Which is like teasing a baby with candy. You can touch it, feel it, see it, but you can't have it. This would make guest workers second class citizens. Racism would rise like no other.In your email you capitalized ILLEGAL. I would just like to acknowledge that this country was built off of immigration. Immigration runs this country. On top of all of this, this land was stolen. East coast was stolen from Native Americans and the west coast stolen from the Mexicans. So what most mexican immigrants are coming back to, is their own land of Aztlan.Maybe the Native Americans should have had such a strict policy in 1492...Koby

I wrote back:

Koby,

Most Mexican immigrants save much more than $2,000, while they are still in Mexico, to pay the coyotes who bring them here. From what I read, it is usually around $5,000 US dollars. It cannot be that difficult to raise $2,000 once they are in the U.S. making more money than they ever made in Mexico. And why should there be no consequences? Do we live in a country of laws or not? If we do, then how can we say that certain laws be broken while others cannot? And you can't really think that a background check is unreasonable. Do you? And learning English is not punishment. Can you really say that immigrants would be damaged by becoming bilingual? Learning English is a positive thing! Just like it is a positive thing for any person to learn any language different from his native tongue. Learning new languages stimulates the brain, which every college student, by definition, should support.

On the issue of legal and illegal:

First you wrote, "Immigration runs this country", and you're right! But every immigrant who came here after the establishment of the federal and state governments was required to register and assimilate. That is what my great grandparents did (from Italy and Ireland) and that is what immigrants should still do.

Then you wrote, "On top of all of this, this land was stolen." Yes, this country was established through force. No one can deny that this is the case, but so what? Nearly every civilization in the history of mankind has been established by force, including Mexico. The Native American tribes fought amongst themselves for control over the land for years before Europeans ever got here. War is what shapes a nation's boarders, whether you like it or not. That's reality. War is how the U.S. gained independence from England and war is how Mexico gained its independence from Spain. The following excerpt is taken from the History channel website at

http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/mexico/?page=independence
"Under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on Feb. 2, 1848, the Rio Grande was fixed as the boundary of Texas and the territory now forming the states of California and New Mexico became part of the U.S. The Gadsden Purchase in 1853 clarified the New Mexico boundary and gave an additional strip of territory (now southern Arizona and a slice of southwestern New Mexico) to the U.S."

Some of the territory was won in war and the rest was purchased. Whether you agree with how it was established or not you must acknowledge the 150 year old agreements made between the U.S. and Mexico. The U.S. recognizes the legitimacy of the Mexican government. Why should Mexico not recognize the U.S.? So when you say, "what most Mexican immigrants are coming back to is their own land of Aztlan", you're wrong. The land does not belong to Mexico and hasn't for the last 150 years. And in that case, no living U.S. citizen stole anything from any Mexican and no living Mexican was robbed of any land.

I will just say one last thing. People immigrate to the U.S. because it is a nice place to live. We have a strong economy and are the wealthiest and most prosperous nation on earth. This is largely because of the freedom we enjoy and the form of government under which we live. This didn't happen overnight, it wasn't an accident, and it didn't have anything to do with the land that was "stolen" from Mexico. "Aztlan" is the way it is today because of the fact that it is part of the United State of America. If it weren't, it would be under the control of the undeniably corrupt Mexican government and would no doubt resemble Tijuana more than any city in the U.S. Mexicans have not been victimized by the U.S., they have been victimized by their own government. If it weren't true, they wouldn't be leaving the country of their birth in droves as they are.