Gays, God and Wedding cakes

I'm getting really tired of it...

Tired of fiction being held up as reality.  Tired of the assertion that the Almighty gives a crap about whose flag is flying overhead and most of all tired of bigotry hiding behind a facade of religion.  

Remember that Colorado baker last year who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple?  In the end the state's supreme court brought reason to the ridiculous by ruling that his actions were not an expression of free speech or religious freedom but rather an act of outright discrimination.

In short, he may not have to stick a rainbow flag in front of his shop and march in the parade but if he wants to conduct commerce he's got to sell to everybody.

This is where cold secular reason must prevail against theology if we wish to continue as a civilized society.  

Thoughtful consideration must weigh all points of view without the undue influence of any one belief system.  This is the very core of the separation of church and state. 

Whether you realize it or not, most of what we call civilization vanishes without secular commerce.  It provides the foundation for all those rights and privileges we've come to expect extending even to the expression of religious beliefs. 

Progressive idealists may chafe at the thought of commerce being so central to everyone getting along but until the world trades only on ideas instead of goods it's the best we can do. 

Face it, no matter what your political leanings, without commerce nothing happens.  It goes further than the stone canyons of Wall Street extending to halls of congress.  

I can tell you from experience just how much DOESN'T happen without commerce...

That means the primary function of government is really to protect the mechanisms of commerce above all else.  Don't let the speeches on C-Span fool you.  Everyone in those hallowed chambers is seeking to tilt the scales in their favor. 

So if you decide that your religious ideals should somehow impede the natural flow expect the state to get involved. Without exception, regulation of commerce falls under the secular and exclusive purview of the state.

How you choose to exercise your faith, however, does not so long as you stay off its turf.  Contrary to what you may have heard, the state has no interest in the value of your eternal soul. 

It's a reciprocal relationship by the way.   The state stays out of your religion and you keep your religion out of the state's business.

There's even support in the Bible if that's your ultimate authority.  In it we find examples where commerce and religion make no bedfellows  such as the well known tale of Jesus kicking the moneychangers off of the temple's steps.

“Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade.” 

That pretty much sums it up right there I think... 

The money in your pocket may say, "In God we trust" but rather than some admonition of piety for the nation, a little research finds that phrase came about during the civil war as little more than propaganda device for the Union.  Just as a championship football team may proclaim that "god was on their side" apparently the same went for the Union cause. 

Really now, who wouldn't want god on their side if there was at all the possibility?

The Founding Fathers knew all too well the dangers of concentrating too much power in any one entity, especially god, conspicuously avoiding anything that would even suggest the mix of church and state. 

That the country was founded as the very antithesis of monarchical or theocratic rule bears that out.  Pious or not European monarchy frequently claimed divine lineage to justify the affluence and the atrocities of a station provided by nothing more than a fortunate birth. 

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, just to name a few, would have none of it...

" The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

 John Adams

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State"

Thomas Jefferson

The founding fathers and apparently even god seem to understand the need to separate religion and state (commerce) but somehow people who want to justify discrimination and intolerance don't.

Let's get real here.  God doesn't have 32000 convenient ATM's or free checking so why involve him in the business of your...business?

What these zealots fail to see is that elevating religious belief to public policy invites the same jeopardy as printing, "In the President we Trust" on a greenback.

Take the more recent case of the court clerk in Kentucky, Kim Davis, who as of this writing still refuses to issue marriage licenses if she has to issue them to same-sex couples.  She bases her position on religious grounds even after the Supreme Court has already decided that it lacks any legal foundation.

" One couple, David Ermold and David Moore, tried to engage the county clerk, Kim Davis, in a debate before the cameras, but as she had before, she turned them away, saying repeatedly that she would not issue licenses to any couples, gay or straight.

“Under whose authority?” Mr. Ermold asked.

“Under God’s authority,” Ms. Davis replied." *

It's unlikely that God gives much thought to the Rowan County, Kentucky court house.  By extension, I'm fairly certain that should Davis relent it's doubtful the place will be descended upon by plagues of Locust or vengeful lightning bolts.

What God may notice, however, is the denial of 50 years of civil rights law.  If its not clear to you just substitute the word "black" for "same-sex."

No one is challenging Kim Davis' right to her beliefs even if obsolete or prejudiced.  However, when those beliefs interfere with her job as a clerk in a public court house there is only one solution.  She needs to go...

For one simple reason.  She obviously doesn't understand the context of the job she's doing.  A Marriage License is nothing more than a statement of intention to co-mingle assets and the power of attorney.  That's it.  That's all.  No proclamations from the divine or admonitions from scripture.  About as exciting as renewing your license plates.  If ol' Kim wants to execute her interpretation of scripture she's free to do so.  Where it matters...church.

Faith in your chosen deity should have no bearing on your public policy views.   Save perhaps for those tenets that eschew discrimination, intolerance and ignorance.  

Even an Atheist can get behind that!

To do any less does a disservice to your faith and an injustice to your fellow man.

What a Supreme Court victory says about us.

This week's Supreme court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a victory.  That said, it's sad commentary on the state of humanity.

That societal norms in the United States are so backward as to allow a  government to tell a woman what she can do with her body while in the same breath proclaiming individual liberty is laughable.  That we have legislative debate on the proper parties to a committed relationship is embarrassing. 

That it's official state policy to condemn other cultures for similar beliefs is nothing short of hypocritical.  Is it any wonder then that the United States is so hated.  "Do as I say not as I do" has never been good policy.  We need to lead more by example than sound bite.

I've had a sort of epiphany lately or perhaps just more able to express what I see.

I've always been very open minded but admit that when it comes to topics dear to the Rainbow coalition I've been a bit annoyed by their medium. 

I find it distasteful for an entire community to define itself by whom it chooses to share their intimate moments with.  I could care less what gender you find arousing to be honest.  As a straight man I've resigned myself to additional criteria before approaching an interesting member of the opposite sex.  That being, "You like guys, right?"

I'm the first to admit that I wouldn't be caught dead marching in a parade with a banner reading, "We're here, we're NOT queer, get used to it."  

So much for the "You don't see me marching in any heterosexual parades" argument.

But I get it now...

Polite society is so caught up in advancing its imperfect vision of normality that you literally have to be outrageous just to be heard. 

It's not just the concerns of the LGBT community either, it's a concern for the rest of us too.  To disenfranchise anyone contrary to our better selves diminishes us all.

Look, if you believe that a loving couple of the same sex is going to bring down civilization any more than the sexual escapades of your favorite televangelist you're just not being honest with yourself.

Please don't hold up biblical references as proof either.  The text has been corrupted by human ambition for eons and if we really chose to take it as literally as some would have you believe, we'd all be hanging from crosses on some Roman hill.

Our greatest cultural influences, providing us with the foundations for our literature, government and conduct didn't concern themselves with the specifics of our most carnal nature.  Shakespeare's most impassioned sonnets were focused on a young man.  Roman culture didn't even bother to subdivide acceptable physical relationships based on gender but rather on acceptable conduct.

It's not that I advocate anarchy or debauchery, I'm just tired of humanity spending more time on their genitalia than advancing the species.  By the way, the act of procreation isn't enough to advance the species.  If it were cats and rabbits would be ruling the world from their flying cities.

Even as a straight man, the fact that I choose not to prioritize procreation above all other pursuits can have a debilitating effect on my societal position.  I've never been an advocate for doing anything for its own sake and the traditional family construct is one of those tenets for me. 

The concept is simple if not self-evident.  If you don't endeavor to improve the world you walk through then what chance can your offspring have?

The simple state of being is not enough to correct the inadequacies of a narrow minded progenitor.  I see far too many lost souls imprisoned by the limitations of their procreators.   For the few that escape,  freedom comes only after unbearable pain and isolation.

For the others, the "normal" ones, the same disdain and disrespect handed down from parent to child  only advances an imperfect world view through yet another generation . 

And humanity stands still.

Until we can rise above concerns of our lowest desires humanity will never reach its full promise.  Love, sex and relationships regardless of the participant's gender should be as accepted as breathing but they're not. 

That's why this week's legal victory is so critical yet so reflective of our own immaturity.

The Supreme court rules on the Affordable Care Act

Article first published as The Supreme court rules on the Affordable Care Act on Technorati.

In a 5 to 4 ruling with Chief Justice Roberts being the deciding vote, most of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was upheld. The court ruled that the act's individual mandate was constitutional under congressional tax powers. The ruling largely ignores the argument that the individual mandate is a violation of the commerce clause.

The primary argument for opponents of the ACA focused on the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. They held that congress had overstepped its authority by requiring instead of regulating commerce. Opponents also argued that the purchase of health insurance was a personal choice.

Proponents of the ACA pointed to the right of congress to levy taxes and enforce commerce. Examples of which varied from the individual income tax to the EPA.

However, It did curtail a provision to sanction states that did not expand their Medicaid programs to include the poor under the ACA. In effect creating a toothless mandate since the federal government is prohibited from taking punitive measures against states who refuse to comply.

With this ruling, individuals without medical coverage, (beginning in 2014) can be assessed a tax that begins at $95 and increases every year until 2016 where a formula indexed to inflation is used.

What isn't addressed in the court's ruling were core structural issues with the ACA. Specifically, the Medicaid expansion provisions of the act now effectively void and the vague language concerning required coverage features.

Core to the argument of opponents of the ACA is the government requirement of an individual to be compelled to engage in commerce with a private commercial entity. Today's ruling ignores that argument in favor of the stronger argument of congress' right to tax. The language of the ACA mandate does treat the penalty as a tax and not a transaction.

Even proponents of the ACA admit the program is flawed but like the Medicare part D prescription program from a decade ago they claim it's better than the alternative.

It's not inconceivable that the future may hold low cost minimum coverage health plans with few if any benefits under the current ACA language. Such plans would not be unlike the minimum coverage auto insurance policies commonly seen in states that require auto insurance to register a vehicle.

Little attention has been given to what constitutes the minimum coverage outside of actuarial values concerning deductible and out of pocket expenses based on income. While pre-existing conditions are largely curtailed specifics of what constitutes the features of an effective health plan are vague at best. Likely part of the compromise made to garner insurance industry support, such concerns appear to be left to the insurer.

Proponents of the ACA have called today's ruling a victory for the President while the opposition has vowed to defeat it using legislative measures.

Obamacare as the ACA is commonly referred to by detractors will continue to be hotly debated in the coming months and is likely to be the major political issue of the coming Presidential election.

Supreme Court Hears First Arguments on the Affordable Care Act

Article first published as Supreme Court Hears First Arguments on the Affordable Care Act on Technorati.

The United States Supreme Court began hearing arguments today concerning the constitutionality of the Affordable Care act.  This is the beginning of a 3 day process where the 9 justices will hear arguments related to whether the act violates constitutional protections. 

Today's 90 minute oral arguments  concerned whether or not the Supreme Court could even hear the case.

At the center of the arguments was the definition of a tax as it pertained to Supreme Court jurisdiction  and whether the penalty for non-compliance constitutes one .  If the court finds it is and agrees with the 4th circuit court's lower ruling that the penalty is a tax based on using the IRS as a collection mechanism then all further arguments could cease.

That end would come about because under the Tax Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 or AIA, a challenge to taxation can't be heard until the tax has actually been levied.  Since the Affordable Care Act's mandatory compliance provisions don't come into play till 2014, the challenge would have to wait till the 2015 tax filing season when the first penalties had been assessed.

Arguing that the AIA was applicable to the case were Gregory Katsas  Former Bush Administration justice department official and Robert A. Long former assistant to the United States Solicitor General .  Arguing the federal Government's position that the penalty is not a tax was U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

The Tax Anti-Injunction Act came about to prevent plaintiffs in a federal tax case from receiving benefits derived from not paying the assessment while the case was ongoing.  Instead the tax is expected to be collected when assessed with plaintiffs then filing for refund.  Suit can then be filed if the IRS denies the refund which would provide the necessary foundation to bring a challenge to the tax law itself.

Tuesday's scheduled oral arguments will consider the constitutionality of the individual mandate itself.  Wednesday morning's oral arguments are centered around whether the rest of the Affordable Care Act is legally viable if the mandate is stuck down. 

The final arguments are scheduled to be heard on Wednesday afternoon and concern the challenge made by 26 states to the act's Medicaid provision.  This part of the Affordable Care Act would force expansion of the state run Medicaid programs to individuals not currently covered by the program.  The state's argument claims the provision would negatively impact budgets and amount to an debilitating federal mandate.