Category Archives: Privacy

Common Sense On Gays In The Military

Individual Rights, Military, Privacy, Sex

Alan Simpson, a former Senator from Wyoming who once was a strong advocate of the military’s Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell policy, has a great column in today’s Washington Post explaining why he’s changed his mind.

There is alot to like about the column, but here’s the money quote:

Since 1993, I have had the rich satisfaction of knowing and working with many openly gay and lesbian Americans, and I have come to realize that “gay” is an artificial category when it comes to measuring a man or woman’s on-the-job performance or commitment to shared goals. It says little about the person. Our differences and prejudices pale next to our historic challenge. Gen. Pace is entitled, like anyone, to his personal opinion, even if it is completely out of the mainstream of American thinking. But he should know better than to assert this opinion as the basis for policy of a military that represents and serves an entire nation. Let us end “don’t ask, don’t tell.” This policy has become a serious detriment to the readiness of America’s forces as they attempt to accomplish what is arguably the most challenging mission in our long and cherished history.

Good for you Senator. Except I’d disagree on one thing. General Pace is entitled to his own personal opinion about homosexuals, but he serves at the pleasure of the President and as he has already admitted, it was entirely inappropriate for him to voice his personal views on this issue while speaking as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The ban on homosexuals, or at least open homosexuals, in the military is as out-dated as segration was when Harry Truman ended that stupid policy in the 1950s. It’s time for it to come to an end.

Related Posts:

Dishonor And Dishonesty
Civil Unions And Multiple Wives

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

Civil Unions and Multiple Wives

Church and State, Individual Rights, Privacy

In the wake of the post Chris put up, which gathered a fair bit of attention, I felt that it might be a good time to re-post this, which I posted at my personal blog back in 2005.

—————————————————————

Jackie Passey posted yesterday about a topic I feel is pretty much unassailable, Civil Unions for Everybody. The idea, which I fully agree with, is that marriage is a religious concept, that happens to bear the same name as a legal concept. Most of the uproar over the gay marriage issue is based upon the contention that it will somehow damage the “sanctity of marriage”. This claim underscores the fact that church and state have become much more intertwined on the issue of marriage than is needed. We would be much better off if the government never broached the subject of marriage, and instead gave any consenting adults who wanted one a “civil union”.

Of course, that leads to the slippery slope argument. Many have claimed that if we allowed same-sex marriage, we would then have no moral argument against polygamy. In fact, in Utah, the legal abolition of polygamy has just been challenged in the courts, but remained illegal.

To them I say, what of it? A civil union, which the state calls “marriage”, is just a legal agreement on ways to divide property, provide “group” legal benefits based upon a mutual contract, and help to handle things such as next-of-kin issues. Who’s to say that this needs to be limited to two people? After all, how is it that much different from a legal partnership in a business? It is multiple people contractually binding themselves to one another for the perceived benefits of the arrangement. As long as all members bound by the agreement are consenting adults, I fail to see the problem.

I’ve said that people who scream about the “sanctity of marriage” don’t understand that the best way to preserve it is for the government to butt out of the deal. Marriage has become a legal arrangement, and as such, the government cannot discriminate as to who is acceptable to meet that legal arrangement. Marriage and religion will both be better served by extricating them from the government. If we then still allow the government to endorse and protect civil unions for anybody who wants one, all parties are better off.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

What Occurs If Roe v. Wade Is Overturned?

Constitution, Individual Rights, Politics, Privacy

Ahh, the abortion debate. Nothing raises peoples’ ire like Roe v. Wade. As I’ve stated before, the whole debate is a legal conundrum, where the Supreme Court has put up a nearly indefensible reasoning considering their other cases.

But what would happen if Roe were overturned? Well, most Republicans will tell you what will happen. It will go back to the states, and each state will have the ability to decide whether abortion is or is not illegal. The states which currently have laws creating huge barriers to abortion will outlaw it; the states which don’t will continue to have it legal and easily available.

But those Republicans are lying to you. They don’t want this to go to the states, they want abortion to be outlawed nationwide. And they’ve got a trump card which they haven’t let on to, which will do it. The 14th Amendment.

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.

You see, the people who are looking for the end of abortion aren’t looking to end the “right to privacy” and send this back to the states. They don’t want to allow individual states to decide this for themselves, which is likely the right way to handle the situation from a constitutional perspective. They want to see conservative judicial activists declare that the unborn is a person and thus deserves equal protection.

Now, you can debate whether this would be the right decision or the wrong decision. If you do so in the comments, I’m not going to participate, because it’s not a debate I care to engage in. But understand that this is what is desired by the conservative Republicans. It’s not to overturn Roe v. Wade, it’s to give 14th Amendment rights to the unborn, which would by definition declare that abortion is murder.

I’m a big fan of honesty in debates. When someone like McCain or Brownback suggests that Roe should be overturned to send the debate back to the states, remember what they mean. They don’t want the issue to go back to the states, they want to get another conservative activist (such as Alito or Roberts, unlike someone like Thomas) on the bench who will take the 14th Amendment approach I describe above. They don’t want to see it overturned, they want to find abortion blatantly unconstitutional.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

Idaho Joins The Revolt Against REAL ID

Individual Rights, Privacy

In addition to the proposal in Arizona that would forbid that state from participating in the REAL ID Act’s requirements, it looks like Idaho is joining the bandwagon as well:

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded Idaho for becoming the second state in the nation to reject participation in the Real ID Act. That law, enacted in 2005, lays the foundation for a national identity card.

“Idaho and Maine are just the beginnings of the pending tidal wave of rebellion against Real ID,” said Charlie Mitchell, Director of the ACLU State Legislative Department. “Across the nation, local lawmakers from both parties are rejecting the federal government’s demand to undermine their constituents’ privacy and civil liberties with a massive unfunded mandate. Congress must revisit the Real ID Act and fix this real mess.”

On a vote of 19 to 14, the State Senate today approved House Joint Memorial 3. The State House of Representatives had approved the bill unanimously on February 20. While the bill does not require the signature of Idaho Governor Butch Otter, he has also been a vocal critic of the Real ID Act.

The bill states in part that Idaho, “shall enact no legislation nor authorize an appropriation to implement the provisions of the Real ID Act in Idaho, unless such appropriation is used exclusively for the purpose of undertaking a comprehensive analysis of the costs of implementing the Real ID Act or to mount a constitutional challenge to the act by the state Attorney General.”

And it looks like opposition to the Act is building in state legislatures across the country:

In January, the Maine legislature passed a resolution rejecting participation in the ID scheme, and similar legislation has been passed by one chamber in the legislatures of Arizona, Georgia, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming. Bills rejecting Real ID have also been introduced in Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and West Virginia, with more expected in the coming weeks.

If you live in one of these states, contact your legislator and tell them you want them to reject REAL ID. If you don’t contact your legislator and ask them when they intend to introduce a bill to join this growing movement.

H/T: Cato@Liberty

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

Arizona Set To Torpedo REAL ID Act

Individual Rights, Privacy

It’s looking like Arizona is getting ready to join Washington and Maine and strike yet another blow against the ill-conceived REAL ID Act:

The state Senate is poised to approve a bill to bar Arizona from participating in a federal program that would create a standardized national identification card.

The move comes as the federal Real ID Act is getting strong resistance from states nationwide. Earlier this week, the Washington state Senate voted to delay participation in the program pending more-specific guidelines, and last week, the federal Homeland Security Department announced it would delay its effective date for two years, to the end of 2009.

In Arizona, Senate Bill 1152 would prevent the state from taking part in the national standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards.

Go Arizona !

H/T: David Weigel

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com
1 … 39 40 41 42 43 … 46