The Fluctuating Boundary Between Freedom And Control

The Fluctuating Boundary Between Freedom And Control

The history of the United States, as well as the world, is replete with episodes of vigorous battles regarding the proper balance between individual freedoms and necessary government controls. The debates and deliberations at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 revolved primarily around the proper role of governments in the people's lives and how to properly regulate it.

The American Revolution was ignited in response to perceived British tyranny against the colonists. The Constitutional Convention was spawned in response to the anarchy that the weak Articles of Confederation had yielded following the war. These debates have raged throughout our history and are very much evident in our time.

The Libertarian movement in the United States has gained considerable strength in the last ten years by way of the Republican Presidential primary runs of Ron Paul and the ascendancy to the Senate of his son Rand Paul. This movement has found a home in a large part of the Republican party but not all of their views fit neatly within the GOP umbrella. Republicans tend towards freedom in economic areas but not nearly as much on social issues or in the foreign policy arena.

Democrats are generally socially libertarian, economically interventionist, and a mix in the foreign policy arena. The boundaries of where a person draws their line between freedom and control depends upon the issue as well as a person's experience and upbringing.

I will examine some prominent issues in three major public policy areas and show the freedom and control divides in each of them. These areas are foreign policy, economic policy, and social issues. I will portray the range of freedom and control in evidence today for all of these issues between absolute liberty and total government control.

Finally, I will reveal how I personally decide upon what the proper balance is between freedom and control regarding different issues and why. Hopefully you will have a much stronger sense of this debate at the end of this Hub. Maybe also a stronger sense of where you stand on this wider range of issues.

Foreign policy is an important area that elicits strong debate between those who advocate for freedom or control. This split is clear even within the Republican party. The neo-conservative wing argues for aggressive interventionism around the world to protect American interests and throw out tyrannical governments opposed to U.S. policies. The Libertarian wing argues that we should have no role regarding foreign intervention and that our attention should be concentrated on domestic policy.

Democrats are also split philosophically on foreign policy. Their humanitarian wing wants intervention overseas where human rights atrocities occur. The pacifist wing believe that wars of any sort, unless we are directly attacked, are wrong. More moderate establishment Democrats fluctuate in their tendencies depending upon the situation and whether it imposes a threat to our vital national interests.

The battle between national security defenders and non-interventionists is the classic divide within foreign policy. Where and why do you draw a line regarding intervening in a foreign conflict if ever? Much of this decision will come down to one's philosophical sensibilities.

Pacifists and libertarians tend towards allowing foreign countries to handle their own problems. Neo-conservatives and human rights activists prefer control and intervention. Of course, the world and these issues rarely present themselves to us in strict black and white terms making these decisions much more complex.

More traditional schisms can be seen in attitudes regarding the United Nations. Libertarians and neo-conservatives are strongly opposed to this institution. Both feel that the U.N. constrains American foreign policy. Libertarians are opposed simply because they believe in freedom of action. Neo-conservatives believe that close ties to the U.N. will often prevent any potential and real time United States actions around the world which they are strong advocates for.

Human rights activists and pacifists are both strongly in favor of participation in the United Nations. The U.N. is prominently involved with their main interests of peace and ensuring the safety of people all over the world.

The arguments involving free trade proponents and trade protection advocates also highlight severe freedom and control divides. Most liberal Democrats prefer trade protection for American industries because it protects current jobs. Therefore they are opposed to most trade treaties because they reduce tariffs. More moderate establishment Democrats are for free trade because they are in the long run economic interests of the country.

Most Republicans believe in free trade principles and oppose trade sanctions. They are also generally in favor of most trade treaties because they open up foreign markets to American companies. The only sanctions that they may agree upon are those that punish bad actors on the world stage. Even during these occasions they are reluctant supporters.

The classic area that depicts the freedom or control dilemma is by way of economic policy. Most conservatives are strong proponents of Adam Smith's theory of the "invisible hand". This economic theory states that a free economic market will always fall naturally into a certain equilibrium that will optimally satisfy the needs of all in the society. Most politicians use the term 'laissez faire" to describe this theory though Smith never did. Both terms basically state that a free market is the best option for maximizing the economic benefits to a society.

The problems raised by those who advocate for some government economic control deal basically with business greed and severe wealth displacement. The strict profit motive that drives capitalist businessmen dictates that they minimize labor and other costs, maximize resource potential, and eliminate competition. These goals have led to tremendous income gaps, exploitation of labor and natural resources, shoddy and dangerous products, and predatory pricing tactics designed to drive out smaller competitors.

Liberals who seek strong government control over business want to mitigate these excesses and ensure labor a fair share of the wealth. They also seek a clean environment and safe products. Government regulatory agencies inspect product quality in a wide array of industries ensuring public safety and keeping business from cutting corners.

Our social safety net consists of many programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps as well as many others. It is another example of government control being placed on the economy. Liberals and many moderates argue that these programs are needed to ameliorate the negative effects that strict capitalism imposes upon individuals in society. These programs give the citizenry a small cushion where they cannot fall any further and serves their basic needs.

Libertarians feel that this is not government's role and that it redirects enormous amounts of money that could serve the economy better if spent by the private sector. They are also opposed to employment mandates placed upon business. Examples of these are the minimum wage, laws that prohibit discriminatory hiring practices, and new healthcare insurance minimum mandates.

The bottom line is that libertarians believe that the private sector knows best as to how they conduct their business and government has no rightful role. Progressive liberals feel that government controls are necessary to protect workers and consumers from business excess and greed.

Social issues are another area where advocates for freedom or control split decisively though not uniformly. Marijuana legalization or decriminalization is an interesting and revealing issue.

Libertarians argue that marijuana use is one of personal choice so they are for legalization. Progressive liberals are surprisingly more split. Many argue that it is relatively harmless and a matter of freedom. Others fear that it is medically dangerous and a gateway drug to harder controlled substances. Law and order conservatives consider marijuana to be dangerous to society and thus want to control it by having it remain a criminal offense.

The issue of gay marriage has proven to be even more divisive. Liberals and moderates are generally in favor of it on freedom and fairness grounds. Most social conservatives are opposed and are oddly falling on the government control side of this issue. Libertarians are generally in favor of gay marriage because they feel that Gay Americans should be free to marry whomever they wish. Fundamentalist Christians as well as other religious groups are usually opposed on religious grounds and want it banned altogether.

Many libertarians and moderates seek a middle ground and want to recognize "civil unions" that have most of the same rights and benefits as marriage. This civil unions path has largely been discarded because gay rights advocates have successfully pursued the gay marriage issue as one of civil rights. Progressive liberals have always backed gay marriage for the same reason.

Abortion and contraceptive rights are another major social issue that shows the split between those who advocate for freedom or control. Social conservatives and some moderates feel that there should be a strict government ban against abortion. Most do so on religious or other moral grounds. Progressive liberals believe in allowing the woman to choose if she wishes to carry her fetus to term or instead choosing to have an abortion.

Social conservatives are also opposed to women's health organizations such as Planned Parenthood who provide abortion services. Ironically abortion is only a small part of the services they offer to women. Contraception is a much larger component which lowers abortion rates to a great degree. Many Christian fundamentalists are opposed even to contraception. Moderates generally believe in a woman's choice in these matters with some restrictions especially regarding late term abortions.

The decisions on where and how to place controls on people are inherently difficult ones. Most people are generally inclined to provide everyone with as much freedom as possible. Our Founding Fathers certainly did. I do also. Life experiences and deeper examinations usually cause one's views and policies to change to some degree.

The need for the Constitutional Convention sprang from the anarchy that the relative freedom of the Articles of Confederation bestowed upon our nascent country. The questions that always arise and did so for them was at what point do you initiate some control on people and to what degree do you do so.

My view is that you institute governmental control when the overall welfare of the citizenry is being harmed in some vital way. You do so by effectively solving the problem involved but also to the most minimum degree needed to thoroughly solve that problem. This minimal approach leaves individuals with as much personal freedom possible without harming the public good.

Isolationism in foreign policy has traditionally been a strong draw in the United States. President George Washington warned against "foreign entanglements" in his farewell address.This freedom made much more sense at the end of the 18th century. Our present interconnected world combined with long range weapons of mass destruction beg for much more control over international affairs.

This also holds true in the world of international trade. Ironically freedom is much more beneficial than control within this sphere in my opinion. It is vital to the economic health of a nation to open up its markets to trade around the world. Protectionism by way of tariffs and other barriers closes markets and shrinks the economic pie of a nation. Free trade may hurt certain industries but it opens up a nation to expanded economic horizons.

Laissez faire economics with no government controls would be ideal if we lived in a perfect world. Unfortunately unfettered capitalism relies on business to control its insatiable appetite for profits and to look out for its employees and consumers. Unfortunately they regularly fail to do so.

Instead enormous gaps in wealth and income are created. The quality of our environment and our consumer products clearly suffer. This creates the necessity for government to control and regulate business practices to protect the public. The social safety net was created to minimize the effects of the cutthroat "winners and losers" mentality of business.

The recent trend regarding most social issues shows that freedom of action is winning out over government control much more often. Libertarians and progressive liberals are merging their views regarding what people should be allowed to do within their private lives. My view is the same as theirs. People should be allowed to do what they wish as long as they are not harming other citizens or society as a whole.

Marijuana research has shown that marijuana causes much less in the way of harmful side effects than alcohol which is legal. It also has several medical uses to curb some illness symptoms as well as being known as a strong painkiller. Therefore, in my view, marijuana legalization makes perfect sense and fits my parameters for freedom of action.

Gay marriage is an issue that is moving at a seemingly locomotive pace towards constitutionality. A significant and growing number of states as well as most younger citizens see this as a civil rights issue and thus a freedom of action issue. I was slow to get on board with this view but I now totally concur.

Abortion and contraceptive rights have a much more murky philosophical landscape due to religious beliefs. The bottom line for me is that I concur with the Roe v Wade 1973 Supreme Court decision. A woman has a right to privacy and thus freedom over her own reproductive process up until the viability of the fetus to live on its own outside of the woman's body. Social conservatives have been pushing back as to when this viability occurs leading to greater government control and increased court cases.

These examples are prominent issues but far from the only ones. The boundaries between freedom of action and government control come into play with almost all of them. Some control is necessary because totally unfettered freedom quickly turns into anarchy as people's freedoms collide with one another.

I have attempted to describe this conundrum within several policy arenas. It is important for a responsible citizen to understand this dynamic and to form their own standards regarding these ever changing boundaries between freedom and control. Where do you stand?

More by this Author


32 comments

B. Leekley profile image

B. Leekley 2 years ago from Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA

This is an interesting overview of different stances on issues.

I wonder if there is a correlation between class and opinions.

It makes sense to regulate booze, nicotine, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and so on, to a greater or lesser degree depending on proven factors (e.g., don't use any of them while driving a school bus; don't give any of them to children; don't drive impaired by drink), but it makes no sense to regard the mere swallowing or injecting of any of them to be a criminal act. Smokers (nicotine addicts) and alcoholics (booze addicts) are not regarded as criminals while drug addicts and potheads (and marijuana isn't even physically addictive) are, especially if African American or Latino. It's insane.

On free trade, just because the government puts a "free trade" label on a treaty doesn't mean that that is really the essence of it.


HSchneider 2 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

I agree with you, B. Leekley, that those controlled substances need to be regulated to varying degrees. There probably is a double standard regarding many of these issues especially drugs. We can see that in our excessive minority incarceration rates. There never really ever is completely free trade. I do believe we need to do all we can to aspire to it. Thank you for your comments.


Mark Monroe profile image

Mark Monroe 2 years ago from Dover De

A thoughtful Hub Thank you for sharing it


HSchneider 2 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

Thank you for your kind comments and compliments, Mark. This is especially gratifying coming from you. Your Hubs are always awe inspiring to me.


NewYorker11 profile image

NewYorker11 2 years ago from New York

I agree with your views. A great overview of the forces supporting freedom or control in America. Thank you for a good article.


HSchneider 2 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

Thank you very much for your comments, NewYorker11.


cecileportilla profile image

cecileportilla 2 years ago from West Orange, New Jersey

Well written piece. I concur regarding gay rights, marijuana, abortion. I totally agree that people people should be free to act as long as they are not hurting others or breaking laws. There are indeed a lot of double standards and we are not as free as we believe!


rebelogilbert profile image

rebelogilbert 2 years ago from Hacienda Heights, California

You reminded me about current issues we have constantly debated before Malaysian airline 37o disappeared. Eventually newscasters will exhaust themselves talking about it and many issues you outlined in your hub will continue to generate discussion in preparation for the next presidential election. Foreign policy wise, it seemed like Mitt Romney anticipated a crisis with Putin we weren't expecting.


HSchneider 2 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

There are really no reasons for limiting our freedom on many social issues except for the fact that some arrogant political leaders think that they know better as to what is good for us. Thank you for your comments, Cecileportilla.


HSchneider 2 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

The Malaysian plane disappearance has certainly taken most of the issues out of the news. Especially CNN. You are correct that they will soon be back and we will again see the "tug of war" being played about freedom and control in our personal lives, our economics, and foreign policy. Thank you for your comments, Rebelogilbert.


DaveOnline profile image

DaveOnline 2 years ago from Port Elizabeth, South Africa

An interesting hub, thanks for going into detail about this topic. Balance between individual freedom and control, I think is the key factor for stability to be maintained where human co-existence is concerned.


HSchneider 2 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

I absolutely agree with you Dave. We all prefer to keep our freedom and government out of our lives. Government has a necessary role to regulate excesses and protect the populace. Thank you for your comments.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

HSchneider

You wrote

The decisions on where and how to place controls on people are inherently difficult ones. Most people are generally inclined to provide everyone with as much freedom as possible.

bm:

There is no reason to believe that, nor does everyone have the same definition of what is Freedom.

--------------------------------------------

You Wrote

The questions that always arise and did so for them was at what point do you initiate some control on people and to what degree do you do so.

My view is that you institute governmental control when the overall welfare of the citizenry is being harmed in some vital way. You do so by effectively solving the problem involved but also to the most minimum degree needed to thoroughly solve that problem. This minimal approach leaves individuals with as much personal freedom possible without harming the public good.

bm:

What are some examples of this?

================================

You Wrote

Isolationism in foreign policy has traditionally been a strong draw in the United States. President George Washington warned against "foreign entanglements" in his farewell address.This freedom made much more sense at the end of the 18th century. Our present interconnected world combined with long range weapons of mass destruction beg for much more control over international affairs.

bm:

Isn't that why we created the UN?

---------------------------

You Wrote

This also holds true in the world of international trade. Ironically freedom is much more beneficial than control within this sphere in my opinion. It is vital to the economic health of a nation to open up its markets to trade around the world. Protectionism by way of tariffs and other barriers closes markets and shrinks the economic pie of a nation. Free trade may hurt certain industries but it opens up a nation to expanded economic horizons.

bm:

The large import/export in San Pedro Ca has lots of car loads coming into the port, but only a fraction of the car loads are going out.

-----------------------------------

You Wrote

Laissez faire economics with no government controls would be ideal if we lived in a perfect world. Unfortunately unfettered capitalism relies on business to control its insatiable appetite for profits and to look out for its employees and consumers. Unfortunately they regularly fail to do so.

bm:

Today, we have a lot of governmental control and yet that doesn't help employees or consumers.

-----------------

You Wrote

Instead enormous gaps in wealth and income are created. The quality of our environment and our consumer products clearly suffer. This creates the necessity for government to control and regulate business practices to protect the public.

bm:

How did that work during the dot com bubble, and the government contributed sub prime bubble, where the only ones protected were the ones responsible for the economic meltdonw.

-----------------------

You Wrote

The social safety net was created to minimize the effects of the cutthroat "winners and losers" mentality of business.

bm:

Can you describe them?

-------------------

You Wrote

The recent trend regarding most social issues shows that freedom of action is winning out over government control much more often. Libertarians and progressive liberals are merging their views regarding what people should be allowed to do within their private lives. My view is the same as theirs. People should be allowed to do what they wish as long as they are not harming other citizens or society as a whole.

bm:

What are these allowances?

Isn't freedom also based on personal privacy, and your home is your castle?

----------------------------------

You wrote

Marijuana research has shown that marijuana causes much less in the way of harmful side effects than alcohol which is legal. It also has several medical uses to curb some illness symptoms as well as being known as a strong painkiller. Therefore, in my view, marijuana legalization makes perfect sense and fits my parameters for freedom of action.

bm:

As long as alcohol and tobacco are legal, then so should marijuana.

----------------------

Gay marriage is an issue that is moving at a seemingly locomotive pace towards constitutionality. A significant and growing number of states as well as most younger citizens see this as a civil rights issue

bm:

I have given you a detailed response to this in one of your other hubs.

------------------

You Wrote

and thus a freedom of action issue. I was slow to get on board with this view but I now totally concur.

bm:

There is no basis to call this freedom, it is more like girls trying to get into the boy's club.

To do either of these requires a redefinition that changes the reason for its being. There are no facts even being asserted in same sex marriages that shows the need to make two divergent life styles come under marriage. In which case, civil unions and marriages are the same thing, if CU were bestowed with the 1135 benefits given by the federal government to marriage.

--------------------------------------

You wrote

Abortion and contraceptive rights have a much more murky philosophical landscape due to religious beliefs. The bottom line for me is that I concur with the Roe v Wade 1973 Supreme Court decision. A woman has a right to privacy and thus freedom over her own reproductive process up until the viability of the fetus to live on its own outside of the woman's body. Social conservatives have been pushing back as to when this viability occurs leading to greater government control and increased court cases.

bm:

Roe v Wade uses the trimesters to determine the state's interest. While in conflicting criminal cases, the courts have found the murder of a fetus during a crime as homicide. This is in direct opposition to Roe v Wade.

The problem here is that the courts decline to even ask for judicial notice of when life begins. So all men are created equal has no meaning, if they are terminated by some artificial deadline, no pun.

It affirms my opinion that SCOTUS is not the proper venue for social issues.

-------------------------------

These examples are prominent issues but far from the only ones. The boundaries between freedom of action and government control come into play with almost all of them. Some control is necessary because totally unfettered freedom quickly turns into anarchy as people's freedoms collide with one another.

bm:

Do you have a list of these necessary controls, and ones that have a propensity to turn into anarchy?

-------------

As far as SS and Medicare the fifty years contributing to these taxes, won't help you when you need help before you are eligible to receive their benefits.

These programs have no defined benefits, and they only exist at the whim of congress. The only protection against these whims is the voting booth.

The IRAs and 401Ks should be enlarged to capture SS. Yes, there is no guarantee that by the time people retire, the economy will suck out a sizable bite from it, like it did in 2009. So, the solution is to allow cashing in these funds, after some time period, but way before retirement. The threat of running out of money at retirement, is not as great as running out of it today.

SS is set below the poverty level, and as you and others are fond of saying you have to factor in inflation. A dollar today, versus a dollar a long time from now.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


HSchneider 2 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

Thank you for your comments, Bradmaster. You are correct that people have different definitions of freedom but I am asserting that they wish to have the freedom to do whatever they wish. Government places limits in some areas generally for the society's protection. Traffic regulations are an example of minimal restrictions placed on individuals to ensure public safety. We do not allow drivers to drive 70MPH in a school zone and so on. Airport screenings are used to prevent hijackings and terrorist attacks. The UN was created because of this new increasingly connected and dangerous world and we are a prominent member. As far as international trade goes, we have higher costs than most developing countries. As a result, we are hurting with autos and other manufacturing industries. Some countries block our exports with high tariffs. These we must and should fight against. We need to remain on the cutting edge with our innovative technology to stay ahead. Here we are failing and education or lack thereof is to blame for much of this. We live in a very imperfect world. Government regulations are instituted to protect people. I believe that most work to some degree or another. None are perfect and some need to be scrapped. Without any, business would be left to their own devices and the public would surely suffer. Government does not always respond correctly in a crisis. I am not informed enough about the dotcom crisis but during the subprime meltdown, the government needed to take unprecedented and sweeping actions because the economy was circling down the drain. Yes, the culprits of this crisis went almost unscathed through this. I would have employed stronger penalties on them as well as criminal charges for those who fell under that purview. I would also have made sure some of them suffered haircuts on bad loans and investments but the Treasury failed to do so. This is true especially with the AIG derivatives. The bottom line is that government took strong action and we did not fall into a prolonged Depression. Unemployment mitigates the effect of layoffs by giving people a small cushion to survive until they find another job. The Affordable Healthcare Act allows people to still have low cost health insurance even when they lose a job. I am not sure about what you are asking me regarding libertarianism and freedom of action. I do agree with you that this does include personal privacy including in one's home. I also am in strong concurrence with you on marijuana. It is far less harmful than alcohol and should be legalized. I am not going to elucidate further my gay marriage views since we have both argued our views in another Hub. I believe we understand each others stances and where we disagree on that subject. Roe v Wade was argued that a woman has a right to privacy under the "due process" in the 14th amendment. Yes that post Civil War amendment has been used sweepingly in our times. Challenges to this ruling have led to many conflicting rulings on connected subjects that have created a jumble of conflicting rulings on abortion. The Court probably should have waited longer to rule on this subject so it could reach critical mass but they did not. I believe that some social issues need Court rulings due to privacy and other issues. I do not have a list of controls right now that can turn into anarchy but it sounds to me that you have a few ideas in this regard. Finally programs such as SS and Medicare were designed to give individuals a minimum protection for when they retire and can no longer work. People should be saving for stronger income levels or arranging stronger healthcare protections. Government is providing safety net floor and yes it certainly is a floor. Your inflation point is one well taken.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

HSchneider

You Wrote

You are correct that people have different definitions of freedom but I am asserting that they wish to have the freedom to do whatever they wish.

bm:

I still don't know what they want to do?

------------

You Wrote

Airport screenings are used to prevent hijackings and terrorist attacks.

bm:

Airport screenings are not that effective, it is a false sense of security that isn't warranted. There have been many breaches of that security, more often than not by airport personnel going through the back doors.

Airports themselves are poorly protected, and just last year we had a major breach here at LAX.

-------------------------

You wrote

The UN was created because of this new increasingly connected and dangerous world and we are a prominent member.

bm:

My comment was about how effective is it?

-------------------------------------------

You wrote

As far as international trade goes, we have higher costs than most developing countries. As a result, we are hurting with autos and other manufacturing industries. Some countries block our exports with high tariffs. These we must and should fight against. We need to remain on the cutting edge with our innovative technology to stay ahead.

bm:

The real answer to that question is we have lost most of our manufacturing to third world countries. Back in the 1980s you couldn't find an American made VCR, today you can't find an American made TV. And technology is one of our remaining fortes.

------------------------------------

You wrote

Here we are failing and education or lack thereof is to blame for much of this. We live in a very imperfect world. Government regulations are instituted to protect people. I believe that most work to some degree or another. None are perfect and some need to be scrapped. Without any, business would be left to their own devices and the public would surely suffer.

bm:

We already did and it was called the 2008 economic meltdown.

-------------------------

You Wrote

Government does not always respond correctly in a crisis. I am not informed enough about the dotcom crisis but during the subprime meltdown, the government needed to take unprecedented and sweeping actions because the economy was circling down the drain. Yes, the culprits of this crisis went almost unscathed through this. I would have employed stronger penalties on them as well as criminal charges for those who fell under that purview. I would also have made sure some of them suffered haircuts on bad loans and investments but the Treasury failed to do so. This is true especially with the AIG derivatives. The bottom line is that government took strong action and we did not fall into a prolonged Depression.

bm:

The government action was a Hail Mary Play, and not a well thought out plan. The Federal Reserve Board was neck deep in the subprime bubble, and it couldn't have happened without them.

There have been no restraints on the financial industry that will prevent them from doing the same thing, with a different newly created bubble.

Like Katrina, the government failed the people, and for them it was a depression, for the financial industry it was a glitch.

----------------------------------------------

You Wrote

Unemployment mitigates the effect of layoffs by giving people a small cushion to survive until they find another job.

bm:

Most of that cushion goes to continuing the health insurance, and the jobs are not to be found. That is why congress kept extending the unemployment benefits. And after six years, many people that still don't have jobs but ran out ouf UE benefits don't make it to the statistics. To the statistics it is like they are employed.

----------------------------------------

The Affordable Healthcare Act allows people to still have low cost health insurance even when they lose a job.

bm:

That is not the word, I have been hearing. Many people has lost their insurance because their plan didn't meet the Obamacare standard. Then like auto insurance they are offered another plan that is substantially higher, with less coverage than their previous plan.

Many people only carry catastrophic insurance with a large deductible.

----------------------------

You Wrote

I am not sure about what you are asking me regarding libertarianism and freedom of action. I do agree with you that this does include personal privacy including in one's home. I also am in strong concurrence with you on marijuana. It is far less harmful than alcohol and should be legalized.

bm:

OK

-------------

You Wrote

I am not going to elucidate further my gay marriage views since we have both argued our views in another Hub. I believe we understand each others stances and where we disagree on that subject.

bm:

I never agree to disagree about anything.

I only agree when there is a convincing argument that will change my view. That is what I was looking for in your hub comments.

I don't know what made you change your mind about gay marriages?

-----------------------

You Wrote

Roe v Wade was argued that a woman has a right to privacy under the "due process" in the 14th amendment. Yes that post Civil War amendment has been used sweepingly in our times. Challenges to this ruling have led to many conflicting rulings on connected subjects that have created a jumble of conflicting rulings on abortion. The Court probably should have waited longer to rule on this subject so it could reach critical mass but they did not. I believe that some social issues need Court rulings due to privacy and other issues.

bm:

The reason that Roe v Wade failed is because the right to privacy only works when it is your privacy. That is also why they refused to submit scientific evidence to determine when a life begins. Third trimester abortions actually killing a living baby before it can get out of the womb.

My opinion on abortion is that it should not be used as retroactive birth control. There are some women that have a succession of abortions. And the cases of rape and conception are only a fraction of the abortions.

If the government would set up a plan to have the women carry through the pregnancy, other than for medical emergencies, it would be a better solution. There are so many people, including your gays that want to adopt, but our adoption process in the US is very bad. So most people adopt from China, Russia or some other country. They spend tens of thousands of thousands but they adopt them.

-----------------------------

You Wrote

I do not have a list of controls right now that can turn into anarchy but it sounds to me that you have a few ideas in this regard. Finally programs such as SS and Medicare were designed to give individuals a minimum protection for when they retire and can no longer work. People should be saving for stronger income levels or arranging stronger healthcare protections. Government is providing safety net floor and yes it certainly is a floor.

bm:

My point is that today SS won't help the people that need their net way before they retire. And they need it, because the government was too busy in 2007 and 2008 running for reelection. During the presidential debates, the economy was the minor issue. But that minor issue became an economic disaster shortly before the election.

------------------

You Wrote

Your inflation point is one well taken.

bm:

We do have some common points.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


HSchneider 2 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

I was simply trying to assert that people generally want to have freedom of action in all forms without government restrictions if possible. I do not have any particular actions in mind.

I agree that our airport security and restrictions are not that great. You asked for an example and I gave one. I wasn't commenting on its efficacy.

The U.N. has failed to stop many wars and atrocities. I still feel it is beneficial to have an official forum where countries may talk to one another and possibly avoid future conflicts. I believe it is entirely possible that we could have had another devastating World War without the U.N. as a buffer. Of course, NATO helped even more.

We are in agreement on our loss of manufacturing jobs, I stated we have higher costs and developing nations inherently have lower labor costs due to their poverty. This is the cycle of developmental trade. Japan used to have low labor costs but they are now fully developed.

I agree that the 2008 financial meltdown was a perfect example of little to no regulation causing a major debacle. I also agree that the Fed holds much culpability for the crisis but I would say that TARP and their subsequent QE moves may have been Hail Marys but they were calculated and educated ones. I believe that Ben Bernanke was the perfect man to be at the helm of the Fed when this occurred. He is an expert academic on the Great Depression and he knew from this education that pumping liquidity into this spiraling economy was key to its survival. Yes, the system is still very vulnerable. Financial institutions are now required to hold much larger loss reserves than they did in the past. Onerous trading rules have been placed on their trading desks and many have severely cut back. I wish we went back to Glass-Steagall because I do not understand why we allow them to gamble with their trades when they are holding the public's money in their trust. My bottom line on this subject is that regulations have improved the situation but they and we are still very vulnerable. Unfortunately I don't think that will ever change.

I also agree with you regarding the unemployment cushion. I worked for many years for Wall Street firms. 27 years to be exact as a middle office Manager. I was layed off at the end of 2007 by one of the major firms that went belly up in 2008. I was out of work almost 4 years and I only have a job now because I switched to the retail industry for much less money. Luckily I had a financial cushion though it almost disappeared. I understand your points on this subject all too well.

From what I have heard, the Healthcare coverages that some people have lost were basically worthless anyhow because they covered very little with high deductibles. One of the main reasons I like the new law refers back to my unemployment. I was paying through the nose for my healthcare insurance. I believe I would have gotten a lot of subsidies for it due to my unemployment with this new law. It is a crying shame for a layed off person to both lose his income and his or her healthcare insurance. It is inhumane in my opinion.

I simply believe that homosexuals deserve the same governmental benefit to be married as anyone else. It in no way hurts heterosexual marriages. This is basically the same argument that judges around the country have been using by way of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment.

I believe that Roe v Wade is the woman's privacy. The fetus or embryo is not yet viable. I do agree with you on 2 key points. I am extremely troubled with third trimester abortions. This is very far along and in many cases the fetus is viable. I do not understand why the woman cannot decide much earlier in the pregnancy. Further, I agree with you that we should not use abortion as a retroactive birth control method. I wish more young and poor women used associations such as Planned Parenthood to prevent pregnancies with true birth control. Yes, I know, Planned parenthood performs abortions but they are a small percentage of their procedures. They would much rather have the woman not get pregnant.I also agree that it would be wonderful if we had a national system that helped a woman with and after her pregnancy and would find adopted parents. That would be a wonderful solution but I suspect that most political leaders want to steer away from that hot potato.

We certainly also agree that anyone relying solely on SS for their retirement are in for a rude awakening. It was never meant as one's sole retirement income. Those who are relying on that will be working a very long time. Thank you again for the stimulation back and forth on these issues, Bradmaster.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

HSchneideer

You Wrote

I also agree that the Fed holds much culpability for the crisis but I would say that TARP and their subsequent QE moves may have been Hail Marys but they were calculated and educated ones. I believe that Ben Bernanke was the perfect man to be at the helm of the Fed when this occurred. He is an expert academic on the Great Depression and he knew from this education that pumping liquidity into this spiraling economy was key to its survival. Yes, the system is still very vulnerable. Financial institutions are now required to hold much larger loss reserves than they did in the past.

bm:

The FRB was the key ingredient that allowed the sub prime bubble to grow until it burst. Calculated and educated would have happened before the economic collapse. What happened after the collapse was panic motivated action. Then after TARP and the Stimulus, the FRB still invested hundreds of billions into the tainted bundled derivatives. The only reason to do this was to try and cover them up as the problem. These bundled derivatives were rotting from the bottom, so the FRB tried to put billions of dollars to stop the stench from coming up.

-----------------------

Onerous trading rules have been placed on their trading desks and many have severely cut back. I wish we went back to Glass-Steagall because I do not understand why we allow them to gamble with their trades when they are holding the public's money in their trust. My bottom line on this subject is that regulations have improved the situation but they and we are still very vulnerable. Unfortunately I don't think that will ever change.

bm:

I agree, and the reason is pure politics.

------------------------

You wrote

I also agree with you regarding the unemployment cushion. I worked for many years for Wall Street firms. 27 years to be exact as a middle office Manager. I was layed off at the end of 2007 by one of the major firms that went belly up in 2008. I was out of work almost 4 years and I only have a job now because I switched to the retail industry for much less money. Luckily I had a financial cushion though it almost disappeared. I understand your points on this subject all too well.

bm:

I have been between jobs many times. My brother went to work for King Kullen when he was in high school, and worked their until they went out of business. That is quite a string of years without being unemployed.

--------------------

You wrote

From what I have heard, the Healthcare coverages that some people have lost were basically worthless anyhow because they covered very little with high deductibles. One of the main reasons I like the new law refers back to my unemployment. I was paying through the nose for my healthcare insurance. I believe I would have gotten a lot of subsidies for it due to my unemployment with this new law. It is a crying shame for a layed off person to both lose his income and his or her healthcare insurance. It is inhumane in my opinion.

bm:

The stories that I heard were different in that they were getting good coverage, with good doctors, and they were being treated for cancer. When they lost their insurance because it wasn't up to Obamacare. They lost their treatments, and their doctors, and their coverage went down, and their costs went up. In the medical field, once you find a competent doctors, and hospital you stick with it. Medical treatment is not homogeneous, it is find a pig in a poke.

------------------------------------

You wrote

I simply believe that homosexuals deserve the same governmental benefit to be married as anyone else. It in no way hurts heterosexual marriages. This is basically the same argument that judges around the country have been using by way of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment.

bm:

It does hurt the heterosexual marriages, even more than the 50 percent divorce rate. It hurts it the same way the smoker's rights hurt non smokers, by usurping a fictitious right to get what they want at others expense. Sexual orientation like smoking is a choice, and that is not a right. Where does it stop, polygamy, incest, mental illness?

As I also said, marriage should be eliminated from the income tax status. It should be replaced by a personal partnership that has no bearing to marriage. People shouldn't have to get married to get a tax benefit. A marriage contract really doesn't exist, as there are no specific terms in it, that can be used to dissolve the relationship. The Family Courts have struggled with this since 1970 when no fault divorce was enacted.

A personal partnership would help those couples that don't want to get married, but want some control over their partners, as well as a tax benefit.

The marriage status is yet another government application that is unequal.

------------------------------

You wrote

I believe that Roe v Wade is the woman's privacy. The fetus or embryo is not yet viable. I do agree with you on 2 key points. I am extremely troubled with third trimester abortions. This is very far along and in many cases the fetus is viable. I do not understand why the woman cannot decide much earlier in the pregnancy. Further, I agree with you that we should not use abortion as a retroactive birth control method. I wish more young and poor women used associations such as Planned Parenthood to prevent pregnancies with true birth control. Yes, I know, Planned parenthood performs abortions but they are a small percentage of their procedures. They would much rather have the woman not get pregnant.I also agree that it would be wonderful if we had a national system that helped a woman with and after her pregnancy and would find adopted parents. That would be a wonderful solution but I suspect that most political leaders want to steer away from that hot potato.

bm:

That would be a good compromise.

-----------------------

You wrote

We certainly also agree that anyone relying solely on SS for their retirement are in for a rude awakening. It was never meant as one's sole retirement income. Those who are relying on that will be working a very long time. Thank you again for the stimulation back and forth on these issues, Bradmaster.

bm:

It is mutual.

------------------------


HSchneider 2 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

The Fed under Alan Greenspan certainly played a huge role in giving the housing bubble the fuel to grown with rock bottom interest rates for far too long. Ben Bernanke needed to pump liquidity into the dried up markets to keep them from total collapse.

I still do not understand how same sex marriage hurts heterosexual marriage. LGBT advocates are arguing their case not simply for tax and other benefits, though this is certainly important, they are arguing that their marriage status should be recognized as the same as others. Once again they are using the "equal protection clause" of the 14th amendment and are currently winning their arguments. We shall see how it goes. Thank you again for your comments, Bradmaster.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

HSchneider

It was a mistake to allow the FRB to make so many of these decisions, especially when in recent times they were responsible in whole or in part for the failure, and retardation of the recovering the economy.

The FRB artificially kept the interest rates down during the sub prime bubble. Had they raised the interest rates, the very fragile, but highly creative loans would have burst within a few interest ticks up.

This action by the FRB was a de facto regulation on the economy, that couldn't be stopped because we have no means to control the actions of the FRB.What they were doing was solely for the purpose of implementing the anyone can own a home program. This was not based on improving or protecting the economy which is their prime directive.

The great recession could have been averted very early, if the FRB didn't create the artificial impetus to reasonable interest rates, then the great recession would have been averted, because the shaky loans would have failed before they started or a short time after.

---------------------------------

Why should a mere choice for sexual partners be the basis for any rights.

The Mormons preferred to have multiple spouses, but they are refused by the courts. In fact, they are blocked by the polygamy laws.

And where in the constitutional does it describe marriage, it doesn't.

So the Mormons can use the same argument as the gays. The gays do it by redefining marriage to fit there lifestyle.

So, why shouldn't the Mormons be able to have the polygamy laws repealed, as was the sodomy laws?

And how do we handle bisexuals? Clearly they are making a choice, so how do they fit into marriage. Can they argue they need one of each gender.

The point is that when you redefine something like marriage, then when does it stop.

Miscegenation laws didn't have to redefine traditional marriage, as race was not the issue in it. The race issue was from state laws, in the south mainly that made interracial marriages illegal.

This result clearly falls into the 14th amendment because it discriminated against the blacks. Sexual orientation doesn't fit under the 14th amendment because it is simply a choice. And there is no judicial notice to apply irresistible impulse to the entire class of the LGBT.

Adding a totally deviant and foreign lifestyle to the traditional marriage impacts the intended users of the marriage. The high divorce rate was the consequence by the courts when they cleared the obstacles from dissolving the marriage.

This is another reason why the law and the courts should not get involved in social issues. The traditional marriage contract has no real specifics to make dissolving it as simple as if it was a written contract that contained the specific terms for the marriage, and the specific remedies to end the marriage contract.

Originally, divorce courts were courts of equity that allowed them to circumvent the law to allow fairness to prevail. Today that concept is there in name only. The states make presumptions about the terms of the dissolution of a marriage. These assumption were built around centuries of heterosexual marriage.

Now, you want to apply these strictly heterosexual remedies to the LGBT. The LGBT has no common denominator among its four groups much less with heterosexuals.

The divorce laws and courts of this country are floundering just dealing with the known heterosexuals, and no you want them to include a major deviant group to these poorly adjudicated concepts.

Marriage of the LGBT members will never validate their lifestyle to be equal to traditional marriages.

The American Legal System is so manipulated by special interest groups, and bad laws that it doesn't accomplish its intended goal.

There is no real equality under the legal system of today for the average citizen.

The jury system is not stocked with members of your peers.

The decline of the media from reporting news to delivering editorials and opinions has infected most of the TV viewing population, This tied to all the crime, and legal shows on TV has corrupted the concept of the jury system, as the trier of fact.

So what is the basis of applying the 14th amendment to allow gay marriages? Keeping in mind, that it is probably the same reason why the Mormons want multiple spouses.

The third parties like the LGBT are mutating the original concept of equality, in much the same way that the government mutated the Interstate Commerce Clause.

This was a perversion to the constitution. It was never intended to be expanded in that manner, and scope. The same is true of the 14th amendment.

If you want constitutional grounds to allow gay marriages, then the only real solution is via the constitutional amendment process. That is what it took to allow black men, and all women the right to vote.

Voting is clearly a right, as it is the basis for the operation of our government. Marriage and especially gay marriages not at all.

The legal system is a mess and by adding gay marriages to that system is unnecessary and when the gay marriages started to dissolve, the legal system will reel from it.

It is the politically militant legal and psychological tactics that put me off on the gay marriage. It is so reminiscent of the tactics used by smoker's with their alleged smoker's rights.

You don't have a problem with unequal protection under tax laws, but advocate for an ambiguous right for equal marriage. Using the mathematical concept of equality, how do you see that equation?

Consider the starting premises that normal DNA is based on the X and Y chromosomes. With the Y chromosome for the male gender. There are only two genders, X-female and Y=male. These two genders as a result of the DNA are complimentary for the single purpose of sex, and procreation. Sex being the stimulus to induce procreation.

Contrast that with homosexuality where this concept of a complimentary DNA is replaced with a concept that is totally deviant, in the scientific sense, from its intended function.

Yet, there is no scientific approved reason that mandates changing our culture to accommodate a minority groups simple desire.

My point is that we can't just allow any unsubstantiated alleged rights of minorities to become the new norm.

Doing so would allow marijuana smokers to combine with tobacco smokers based solely on the unequal protection clause of the 14th amendment. We know that this concept has not been applied, so why should we allow gay marriages, based on the same concept?

----------------------


HSchneider 2 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

The FRB has a rightful and legal role in controlling the money supply and attempting to maintain a smooth business cycle in our economy. They clearly failed to do so in the years leading up to the financial meltdown. I do not believe that means that you simply throw them out from this role due to this error. Yes, it was a major one but all organizations make them. Hopefully lessons were learned. Removing the FRB from this role would send us back to the bad old days when the markets and economy were left to themselves. That would be total chaos and unacceptable in modern times. All developed countries have a central bank and rightfully so. Blaming the Fed is fine. Jumping to the conclusion of getting rid of them is draconian and dangerous. This Fed control is necessary and total freedom from it in this case would mean economic and financial chaos and would be a foolish change. Both liberals and conservatives rail against the Fed but I still believe their role is vital and should not be changed.

Once again I will try to state my view as well as the view of the Courts simply. They are not stating that marriage of any kind is a right. They and I are simply stating that it is part of the "equal protection clause" of the 14th amendment. You argue that the use of this clause and the Amendment itself has been mutated by the LGBT community. I argue that the Courts are the ones that have mutated it and rightfully so. Yes, it was written as a response to the slavery era. That does not mean that it could never be applied to other groups. Equal protection should be used for all. If you wish to use the argument for our progressive tax system, go at it. Wealthy taxpayers have it so bad. That would be an interesting and ludicrous argument in court. The wealthy have so many other advantages in our system that this would be an interesting argument. The bottom line for me is that our laws, including state laws regarding marriage must deal with all groups equally. Therefore same sex marriage should have equal status to heterosexual marriage. If other groups want to challenge or assert the same rights, so be it.

Finally, your example of tobacco and marijuana smokers combining to assert their rights under the equal protection clause would lose. Same sex marriage does not hurt heterosexual marriage. Smokers of all stripes are restricted to smoking in areas where they cannot harm non-smokers with their second hand smoke. Research has shown that this is a clear danger and these laws are in place to protect the health of non-smokers. I am not denying either tobacco or marijuana smokers their rights to use these products. They simply should be regulated to protect the health of others. Same sex marriage hurts no one else. Thank you for your further comments, Bradmaster.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

HSchneider

1. How can we have done any worse without the FRB. They intentionally created a fraud that contributed to the economic meltdown.

2. I gave you examples supporting my position on why marriage shouldn't be redefined, in my last comment, and they remain unchallenged here. You have failed to provide any legal basis to apply the 14th amendment to force a redefinition of marriage for the LGBT. Choice is not a right, it is a choice. Redefining marriage does adversely affect all of us, as the court system can't handle what it has on its plate now. In any case, gay marriages won't validate their different lifestyle. And that is what they want, as they can easily get equal benefits for CU. using their same political clout.

3. Up until recent times smoker' like the LGBT have alleged a right. Smoker's were proven to be wrong, and eventually so will the LGBT.

4. You can't exclude any groups under your broad brush of the unequal protection. The government is intentionally targeting groups of taxpayers. That means that they are not being treated equally. The middle class is not capable of using the IRC, because it does not provide much for wage earners.

5. It seems that my very detailed comments are getting ignored. I made them specific so that the response would be specific. Instead, the response is without the context and the examples that I provided in my comments.

-----

You see the glass half full, but all I see is polluted water.


HSchneider 2 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

The FRB under Greenspan did not intentionally create the meltdown but they were a major factor behind it by keeping rates low for far too long. It was not intentional. Bernanke then kept the economy afloat and gave it time to recover with Quantitative Easing.

Legal basis for same sex marriage is the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment. The courts accept it, I accept it, you don't. That is your prerogative. Smokers have lost due to the public health factor. All groups have the right to attempt to use this clause but most will lose. Only time will tell how same sex marriage will ultimately be ruled.

I have attempted to answer all of your points in detail. I am sorry that you feel I have not. I believe I have. In many cases repeatedly. I believe you simply do not accept my answers. So be it. Thank you for your comments as always, Bradmaster.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

HSchneider

You wrote

The FRB under Greenspan did not intentionally create the meltdown but they were a major factor behind it by keeping rates low for far too long. It was not intentional. Bernanke then kept the economy afloat and gave it time to recover with Quantitative Easing.

bm:

Had they raised the rates, the bubble would have collapsed before it went critical. So whether it was intentional or incompetence the economy wouldn't have failed. What the FRB did by investing hundreds of billions into the tainted bundled derivatives was more an act of hiding the catalyst of the meltdown.

-----------------

You wrote

Legal basis for same sex marriage is the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment. The courts accept it, I accept it, you don't.

bm:

You didn't get my point. How does the 14th Amendment apply to a sexual choice?

------

I have attempted to answer all of your points in detail. I am sorry that you feel I have not.

bm:

I believe that I have not made my points, and the reason that I keep asking for answers is that the wrong interpretations have been answered.

------

You wrote

I believe I have. In many cases repeatedly. I believe you simply do not accept my answers. So be it. Thank you for your comments as always, Bradmaster.

bm:

Here is my question from my last comment, and compare it with your response. My question was specifically what is the basis of applying the 14th amendment to gay marriages.

0000000

2. I gave you examples supporting my position on why marriage shouldn't be redefined, in my last comment, and they remain unchallenged here. You have failed to provide any legal basis to apply the 14th amendment to force a redefinition of marriage for the LGBT. Choice is not a right, it is a choice. Redefining marriage does adversely affect all of us, as the court system can't handle what it has on its plate now. In any case, gay marriages won't validate their different lifestyle. And that is what they want, as they can easily get equal benefits for CU. using their same political clout.

000000000

If I had a basis for the attribute, for gay marriages, and it is different from polygamy, or bigamy then we could discuss how they are different.

My additional point is that if the 14th Amendment didn't give protection to black men being able to vote, as it required the 15th Amendment to accomplish that. And it took, over fifty years for women to get the right to vote, and only through the 20th Amendment.

It should then require another constitutional amendment to redefine marriage to allow an in-congruent diametrically opposed relationship to be considered equal to a normal bisexual relationship.

Banning gay marriage doesn't ban the deviant relationships of gays, it just doesn't consider them equal in any way to redefine itself for this alien inclusion.


HSchneider 2 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

I simply wrote that the FRB did not do anything intentionally to tank the economy. You wrote that in earlier comments. They certainly were very culpable in causing the meltdown. I still feel they have been instrumental in propping up the economy early on and keeping the growth going albeit slowly.

I refuse to go any further with the same sex marriage question. Yes, marriage is an institution governed by the states and localities. Homosexuals have created a growing movement that over time has reached critical mass and public support. Not overwhelming support but a majority. Therefore they have brought their case to the Courts and time after time have won by way of the "equal protection clause" n the 14th amendment. Whether you like it or not, this clause has been used increasingly over the years and certainly not just for Blacks. Other groups may try to use it but they had better get the public behind them. I have no other answer to you but this is now law that has impact with our highest courts and I agree with it. You are very passionate about this so please join HubPages and write a detailed Hub about it and I will be happy to comment on it. I have nothing further to offer you but I will be glad to read a Hub from you about it. I wrote one on it.

Polygamists or any other group have the right to create a movement for their cause and start the ball rolling. I doubt they will gain the critical mass for it but it is their right to try. The polygamist reality shows on cable have good ratings. Maybe they can gather mass support. I doubt it. Everyone knows one or many gay people. They are often our friends or relatives. Polygamy is only a very tiny portion of our population. I know this answer is unsatisfactory to you but this is how our judicial system has historically worked over the past 60 or 70 years. Thank you for your comments, Bradmaster.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

HSchneider

All I have asked you to do is provide the basic right that is being violated banning gay marriages.

My point is there is not any right that can trigger the 14th or any other constitutional avenue to allow the redefinition of marriage.

Miscegenation bans of interracial couples didn't redefine marriage basics. The 14th Amendment clearly was meant to deal with this type of issue.

But, gays don't have any such basis to trigger constitutional protection to REDEFINE marriage.

I can understand your reluctance to avoid these questions, frankly because there are no real supporting answers.

A choice is simply not a guaranteed constitutional right, and to change that because of the political bullying by a deviant group is misusing the constitution.

Fat people, old people and women have not been effectively protected by the constitution, and the laws created by government to protect them.

So why would the gays be a more privileged class of people to demand their deviant unprotected rights to be a reason to contort the constitution in their favor.

If you answer is they have a powerful, well funded, and politically connected organization, then that means people that have rights but don't have the organization to present their case, must not be able to be protected by the constitution.

Additionally, if gay marriages allow men to take the place of a women in gay marriages, and women to take the place of men in lesbian marriages, then why do we still have gender separated public restrooms?

Because of the current issue of women in the workplace not getting as much money as the men, would you also support the female counterpart of a male to male marriage as being supported as a women in the workplace?

The practice of Family Law traditionally favors the mother, and women in divorce and support issues. How will they treat homosexuals when both parties are the same gender?

Like voting rights for black men, and voting for all women, the only solution for gay marriage is via a constitutional amendment.

Why should gays have more privileges with their perceived or alleged rights, compared to real basic rights such as black men, and women.?

Thanks

bradmasterOC


HSchneider 2 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

The Courts, up to this point, are going along with redefining marriage to be between 2 people instead of between a man and a woman. They apparently feel that giving homosexuals equal protection and thus allowing them to marry trumps allowing states to define marriage strictly as between a man and a woman. I agree with that view. You do not see this as proper justification and many people share your view. It appears judicial history is running against your view. We will see.

I trust we still have gender separated bathrooms because our population is still largely heterosexual and because biological men and women have different restroom needs.

I support all men or women being treated equally in the workplace and this includes compensation.

As far as the support issues in Family Court, I have no idea. I am sure this will be settled down the line by the various courts.

I believe that Gays should have the same rights as African Americans, Women, and any other group. The question is simply how to successfully attain them if possible. It appears that Gays will get it through the courts. African Americans and women needed Constitutional Amendments for it. African Americans also received it through legislation via the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thank you for your additional comments, Bradmaster.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

HSchneider

I have totally failed in getting my point across to you.

The lower courts are not the Supreme Court, and that court has declined to make a decision.

Most probably, because they would undermine the decisions of the lower courts, otherwise they would have affirmed the direction of the lower courts.

I gave specific examples on why the 14th shouldn't be applied, but you didn't address them. The courts unfortunately have become bias ans susceptible to political pressure.

You missed my points on the other protected classes, because they are only protected in name but not be actions.

The purpose of heterosexuals having segregated public rest rooms is to diminish the sexual attraction in such places. Yet, where does that put gays, when the same sex is what attracts them?

The courts haven't sorted out heterosexual divorce, and you believe that they will figure out gay divorces. Not a chance.

Unfortunately, I looked back at all of our comments, and I cannot see any reason why the 14th amendment should be applied to undermine the voters of a state that voted for no gay marriages.

It is a sad country that will allow a politically militant deviant minority to bully their way to redefine marriage.

Besides the gender, they have to change the way for consummation to prevent annulment.

bye


HSchneider 2 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

The Supreme Court will probably eventually take up this case and I suspect that Justice Anthony Kennedy is leaning in the direction of accepting the 14th amendment argument. I have nothing further to offer except to state that your categorizing homosexuals as a "militant deviant minority" means that you have a cemented and negative view of this group in which nothing I or anyone says will convince you otherwise. Thank you for your comments, Bradmaster.


bm 2 years ago

There is no way the Supreme Court will ever decide the gay marriage.

There is also no way that anything will ever validate the gays in marriage.

Yes, the LGBT is militant as they have attacked heterosexuality.

The are deviant to the norm and that is an indisputable fact.

They are also a minority and that is also an indisputable fact.

So, everything that I said is an indisputable fact.

No one including you has given me any reasonable reason to change my view. I have asked you repeatedly to give me something that will change my mind, but you came up short.

For the last time, what is the legal basis for the application of the 14th amendment to allow gays to redefine normal marriage?

The courts don't have the answer, they illogically, and very politically in their usual no confidence 5-4 decisions held the ACA as constitutional as a TAX.

Only, a constitutional amendment like the 15th, and the 20th can resolve the constitutionality of gay marriages redefining normal marriage.


HSchneider 2 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

Time will tell if the Supreme Court will take up Gay Marriage. They probably will when one of the lower courts upholds a gay marriage ban thus creating a conflict among the lower courts. I also guess that the conservatives on the Court will leap at a case if they ever get 1 more member appointed who takes their side.

Gays have never been militant against heterosexuality. They have been tough and persistent in their fight for their rights.

I will not attempt any longer to convince you about the constitutionality of allowing gay marriage since I have repeated it to you several times and you have disagreed each time. I do not understand yours or anyone's vehemence against same sex marriage or homosexuals in general. I am a heterosexual and, yes, I do not have any understanding about this attraction but gays pose no threat to me nor does gay marriage. In regards to the Court's decision on ACA, who knows why they rule on some things. This is our American system. We agree on some and disagree with others. I viscerally detest the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions but Democrats and liberals have to double down and fight the conservative onslaught of money against all of our candidates. For now, I have to live with those decisions and work around them. Thank you for your comments, Bradmaster.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

HSchneider

You can't convince anyone when you can't answer a simple question.


HSchneider 2 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey Author

I cannot convince you because you will not accept my simple answer.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working