A decision by a Federal judge in the California Proposition 8 (anti-gay marriage) aftermath is an ominous canary in the coal mine for free speech.
Our democracy depends on transparent, open speech. In the 15 years that I’ve been an active participant in Internet discussion groups, I have always signed my own name, because I believe that the First Amendment is meaningless, if citizens cannot openly express their ideas, without fear of reprisals. Only in totalitarian states must the citizenry resort to anonymous forms of communication.
I know that the vast majority of people who comment on the blogosphere do wish to maintain their anonymity. It’s not my intention in this post to debate whether or not this is good or bad for a democracy. But one of the most important areas of political speech is that of money donated to support candidates or ideas or ballot measures. The question is this: should people be allowed to contribute money anonymously, as they are allowed to state ideas anonymously?
The federal judge in the California Proposition 8 case has just ruled” title=”http://www.ktvu.com/news/18620369/detail.html\”>ruled” class=”autohyperlink” target=”_blank”>www.ktvu.com… that political donors have no right to privacy. Read the rest of this entry »
I’d like to explain how it is that a (mostly) liberal like me can be against same-sex “marriage.”
Right now, there is a raging protest going on over the passing of California’s Proposition 8, which was a California constitutional amendment to ban same sex “marriage.”
What is bothering me and what is motivating me to write this, is that I don’t think that anyone, on either side, is discussing what is really the most important point to this debate (to be described below). On one side, gay “marriage” proponents are trying to make this into a civil rights issue. Gays are being denied some sort of basic human right, in violation of all which is just and good. On the other side, there is too much of a religious connotation. The main people speaking up are religious people, who too often talk about the “sanctity” of marriage and otherwise discuss it in a religious context. It did not help that the major financial supporter of Prop 8 was the Mormon Church.
Here’s what I think are the most important issues. Marriage has endured as an institution for thousands of years for one main reason. The institution of marriage greatly improves the behavior of men, who would otherwise have a tendency to abandon women and children, who depend upon men for protection, shelter, and sustenance. This was always a societal responsibility. Fathers were responsible for the care of their daughters; the fathers paid a dowry to grooms as part of passing along the responsibility of caring for a woman from one man to another. The new husband accepted this dowry as part of a societal contract. Read the rest of this entry »
