And it’s not like I read a bunch of conservative blogs.  Okay, I still follow a few conservatives on twitter, but this is like in the mainstream news, so it’s virtually unavoidable.

No one is saying that we have a constitutional right to marriage.

What we have is a constitutional right to be treated equally by the law.

That means, you can’t give one group of people government recognized unions with lots of legal and financial benefits and deny it to another group of people just because what they do in the bedroom makes you feel icky (or secretly turned on).

This is very basic constitutional stuff.  Really.  Is it wrong for me to expect more from the people who claim to want to go back to the Constitution?

I guess it’s only wrong if I don’t want to keep getting disappointed.  Because that’s where expecting more seems to lead.

If you are a local reading this blog, chances are you found it via Philip’s blog, The Vermont Daily Briefing.  And if you’re a VDB reader, you probably know that Philip would make a great state senator.

This is your chance to meet Philip, or see him again.  Ask him some questions, or just say “hi.”  Either way, drop on by August First Bakery & Cafe at 149 S. Champlain Street in Burlington this coming Tuesday, August 10, from 4-6 PM.

The coffee and the conversation will be hot, the pastries will be free, and good times will be had by all.

You can RSVP to the event here or leave a comment on this post, or just drop on by.  We don’t mind.  Although, as the event planner, I have to admit I would prefer an RSVP.  We don’t want to run out of free pastries.  I’m told that they are the best around.

Hope to see you there!

And, if you haven’t seen it, here is a campaign video that was made by another blogger friend of mine, Bill Simmon.  If this doesn’t make you want to go out and vote for Philip, I am not sure what will.

It’s interesting to read the conservative opinions on this ruling, now that I am no longer a bible-believing Christian.

First, let’s have a She’s Right flashback.  I have always supported gay marriage, even though I believed that the Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

…my core beliefs, which are more libertarian conservative than traditionalist conservative, keep me from supporting laws that favor the moral values of one group over another, unless the law is needed to protect the rights of others.

…I realize that, even though I believe in the biblical definition of marriage, not everyone does, but everyone deserves the same legal protections.

But, I did believe that acting on homosexual feelings was a sin (though, weakly in my defense, I did not consider it the worst sin ever, as many evangelicals do.)

Obviously, my political position is the same libertarian position it was then: equal protection under the law and no preference given to Christianity.

Also probably obvious, I don’t think there is anything wrong with homosexuality, now that I don’t believe in the Bible as basis for morality.

I’m not sure if I have mentioned this before, but it bears repeating, even if I have.  One of the things that made me question Christianity was the fact that what I saw in my personal life, from the gay and lesbian people I know, did not fit with the belief that homosexuality is a sin.

These are good people, caring parents, loving couples.  How can that be sinful?

I think it’s a great day for liberty and humanity that we are a step closer to having laws that treat all people equally and away from having laws that dictate what is sexually moral for consenting adults.

It’s also yet another way in which I realize how free I am, now that I am no longer a Christian.

I don’t have to try to understand why my religion calls good people sinful.

I don’t have to reconcile my conflicting religious and political beliefs.

Finally, what I believe is right legally and what I know is right morally are in harmony – treat everyone with dignity, respect, and equality.

What better place to start than with my statement of political views from the about page on She’s Right?  All block quotes to follow are from that page.

I support limited government, as expressed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Let me start by saying that the Founding Fathers came up with an amazing form of government.  We could all use a reminder of why they set up the constitution to limit the power of the government.  The people in power will always try to take more power.  That’s just human nature.  We are so incredibly fortunate to live in a country where our basic rights are protected from the government.  We must always remain diligent in keeping them protected.

That said, the government does more than the enumerated powers in the Constitution.  That is just a reality.  We could sit around and debate about whether or not it should, or we could work within the framework of reality and figure out how best to solve our modern problems.

That does not mean that I think we should keep growing and growing the government.  It does mean that we’re not going to abolish the [insert federal agency here] and return to local control, so let’s stop talking about it.

I believe that the Second Amendment is not there by accident and that it is just as important as the First, and all the others.

Still true.

I am an avid supporter of free market capitalism, which I believe to be the most humane economic system.

I love capitalism.  I think it is great.  I just have to say that.  But, when I talk about loving capitalism, I am not thinking about large multi-national corporations that like to exploit people and destroy the environment.  So, let’s just get that out of the way right now.

What I love about capitalism is the ability of people to sell goods and services to others.

We do not have a free market system, though.  And we will not have one any time in the near future.  So, our political discussions need to focus on where we’re at.

1. I think that environmental protection is the responsibility of the federal government, much the same way national defense is.

2. I think that people need to be assured that the products available in the US are reasonably safe.

3. I think that the way the government crafts regulations to favor big business (read: campaign contributors) at the expense of small businesses is bordering on criminal.

The law should have two (at least) classes of business, large and small, and regulate them accordingly.

4. I think the government should stay out of the way for businesses to prosper on their own, with only the minimum level of regulation necessary to protect the rights of others and the environment.

I believe that a compassionate society is judged by how we care for each other on a voluntary basis, not through government-forced benevolence.

Again, this is dealing outside of reality.  We have a government social safety net.  We do not have a large enough network of private charities to support all of the needs.

So, now we must decide what needs we want to meet as a society.  Where do we draw the line?  But, more importantly, how do we make the system better, so that people are given the resources they need to get back on their feet, because that should be the ultimate goal.  There is no dignity in a system that keeps people down.

As a society, we should want to help the poor and disabled.  We should want to help people who fall on hard times.  We should want to make sure children have food to eat and health care.

I believe that individuals know how to spend their own money better than the government does.

I think that people should be allowed to keep as much of their own money as possible.  But, I also realize that we need to pay for the functions our government performs.  There are certain things that the government needs to do and we need to pay for them.  At the same time, this should not be taken as license for politicians to just spend the people’s money on anything they want to.

I am fully pro-life, but I do not believe that our society would benefit from an all out ban on abortion at this time, given that it is so ingrained in our culture.

This is an interesting one because I never supported the government criminalizing abortion, so I really don’t need to address this.  But, it turns out, I am not exactly pro-life any more now that I am not a Christian.

My pro-life views pre-date my becoming a Christian.  But, I came to those views at the age of 14.  I realized that I needed to take another look since, you know, I grew up a bit the past 20 years.  I discovered that my opinion about abortion was based on emotions and I don’t think it is murder anymore.  There is nothing wrong with a woman choosing an abortion.

I think that young women should be educated about their options.  Right now, the information is almost always one-sided, depending on where she goes.  No one can make a good choice without all of the information.

I believe that a strong national defense is necessary to protect our people and our freedom.

I still agree with this, but when I say “national defense” I mean defense.  Not military aggression.

I firmly believe that the government must trust its citizens, that we are innocent until proven guilty, and that the law should err on the side of liberty, except in extreme cases of public safety or national security where there has been a demonstrated threat.

I still agree with this.  I think that the government needs to have the ability to deal with actual threats where there is probable cause based on good intelligence.

I also think that laws that assume guilt should be repealed.  There are many laws that assume the worst of people without any just cause and put an unnecessary burden on the people.  My favorite example is, of course, homeschooling laws that require a lot of paperwork from parents when there is no reason to think they are not taking care of their children.

So, there it is.  I know that this is very general, but it’s a start.

I also know that I will always have people bringing up what I said on She’s Right when they are in a debate with me.  (That happened the other day!)  I am not running from anything I have said in the past, which is why I left the site up.  But, my views have evolved and I hope that people can respect that.

I know people will read this with their own slant.  Words can be taken differently depending on where you are coming from.  So, let my just remind you that I am still in many ways a small government conservative.

About four years ago, I started making my own soap.  We switched all of our household products for cleaning and beauty to the natural variety.  Dish liquid and dish washer detergent, household cleaners, shampoo, deodorant, laundry soap, and bath soap.  The bath soap was so expensive, I started making it myself.  Soon after, I started making my own make-up.

As it turns out, there is a huge indie beauty industry out there.  Women (and men) like me who make homemade bath and body products that are safe and natural.  Do a search on the popular craft-selling website Etsy for soap and you will be blown away.

Well, it turns out that home soap makers are not the only folks who are concerned about the chemicals in cosmetics.  Congress also cares. So, they made a bill that would make products safer and require truthful labeling – H.R. 5786, the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010.

Side note: anyone who needs a law to make them tell the truth about what’s in their products needs to go back to kindergarten and learn the rules again.  Seriously.

The problem with Congress – wait, I mean one of the problems with Congress – is that it uses a one-size-fits-all approach that lumps small- and micro-businesses in the same category with multi-billion dollar, multi-national cosmetic companies.

In other words, the legislation before Congress now will put the same regulations on the mom making soap in her kitchen to sell on Etsy as it does on the world’s leading cosmetic manufacturers.

These regulations will require too much time and money to comply with for the small cosmetic maker, the one who started her business in order to get away from the products manufactured by the large cosmetic company.  She will no doubt have to shut down her business.

Worse still, so will many others.  That will lead to many of the supply companies for home soap and cosmetic making going out of business as well.

It might not even be possible to make your own products at home for your own home use after that.

I guess this legislation is a big win for big cosmetic, after all.  And a big loss for consumer choice and the freedom to build your own home beauty products business.

I can only hope that the people at the Indie Beauty Network and others can get through to Congress before it’s too late.

You can help.  Go here.  Sign the petition to stop the Safe Cosmetic Act of 2010 and encourage Congress to stop treating small, independent cosmetic businesses the same way they treat large manufacturers.

There is little practical use for a political ideology like that, which is why I often found myself disillusioned.

To sort of sum up, since many of you were not readers of “She’s Right,” and others of you had me all wrong anyway, I was (am) basically a libertarian – less government restrictions on personal and business choices, more freedom; what government we do have should be locally controlled to the greatest extent possible; and the primary function of the federal government should be limited to those things that the states can’t do (ie defense, disaster relief, infrastructure, printing money, etc.).

There’s nothing wrong with that political philosophy.  I still believe that we need to always come down on the side of more personal freedoms and less government.

However, we do have a big government.  That is just reality.  I am not saying that we should resign ourselves to that fact, but we do need to operate within that framework in a sensible way.

For example, if we are talking about what to do about, say, welfare, it makes no sense to debate whether or not the federal government has a constitutional right to even have social programs, or to suggest that we get rid of government social programs and care for the poor through a network of private charities, or philosophize about the evils of forced benevolence – all things I have done in the past.  It makes no sense because that is not where we are.  The government does have social programs and the Supreme Court has not ruled them unconstitutional.  A network of private charities large enough to take over the government’s role in caring for the poor does not presently exist.

I’m not saying that we should not work to make changes to our bloated government.  I am not saying that we should not push back against any further expansion of government.  I am not saying that we should not err on the side of freedom when considering new legislation.  And I am certainly not saying that other libertarians should shut up.

We need all voices and perspectives on the table.

I am just saying that for me personally, I have started to take a more pragmatic view of government.  I find it less maddening, for one thing, because I am not fighting against the currents of reality.  For another, I can actually find candidates I support, rather than holding a fringe view that leaves me with no good choices on the ballot.

I will talk more about my evolving political views in the context of current issues in the coming weeks and months, as we head toward the fall elections.  As always, I hope you will join me in the comments for discussion.

I have been meaning to post about it since the day I read it, but life has been hectic lately.  It takes some time to settle into the summer schedule.  Even though my kids are homeschooled, they are still very affected by the public school’s summer vacation, thereby dispelling the myths that homeschooled kids are not socialized enough, or so one can hope.

I found this article via an atheist blog (sorry, I forgot which one), but I found it fascinating for what Jillette says about politics.

Although, he did say this interesting thing about religion and stupid, crazy people:

I do believe that a belief in god is crazy, but that doesn’t mean that the people who believe in it are crazy. Those are two different things. Ideas can be stupid and crazy and the people who hold those ideas are not necessarily stupid and crazy.

I think that’s true.  I also think it is refreshing to hear someone who is as outspoken an atheist as Penn Jillette say so.

Now, on to the political.  First, you must know that Jillette is very liberal.  He is no friend of the Tea Party; he is no friend to the Republican Party or President Bush.

My only point was, when you’re arguing with someone, you shouldn’t pretend to know what’s going on in their heart. To say that the only reason the Tea Party is against the president is because they’re racist, I think that’s unfair. We know what racist people look like. They don’t deny it. They just don’t!

…

If the Tea Party isn’t publicly stating “We think people of other races should be treated differently,” then you don’t get to call them racist.

You just don’t hear people on the left making that statement.  I say this all of the time, but because I was an active member of the Republican Party and have libertarian tendencies, it is dismissed.  So, I thought it was great to hear that coming from someone on the left for a refreshing change.

When I disagree with Obama, people always say, “Well, you’re a big Bush guy then.” And I’m like no, I didn’t like Bush either. I disagree with Bush and Obama on all the stuff they agree on, which is pretty much everything. They both want to kill people, they both want the government to be bigger, and they both want less freedom for individuals.

Emphasis, mine.

We’re killing more people under Obama than we did under Bush, and where the fuck is the anti-war movement?

The only difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama is killing more people. He’s about double the numbers now. Can you imagine if McCain had won and did precisely what Obama has done, with every speech and every political maneuver overseas? There’d be riots in the streets about the people we’re killing. And yet because it’s Obama, and he’s better looking and better at reading the teleprompter, we let him get away with it.

Again, emphasis mine because I have said that a million times.  In private, not in blog, but still.  It is so true and, again, refreshing to hear it being said.

Head on over and read the whole thing.  I highlighted the parts I most wanted to bring attention to, but really the entire interview is worth reading.

And if you like what he had to say, be sure to check out Penn Point, his vlog.

Come on by to meet Philip (blogger at Vermont Daily Briefing), hang out with other internet-type people, and enjoy the best coffee drinks in Burlington. (Seriously, they have the best mocha.)

Here’s the tweetup information page for more info. You can RSVP there, but you don’t have to.

Hope to see you there! (So much so that we are willing to bribe you with free pastry.)

I think my core beliefs about government are still the same libertarian-ish (libertarian-lite?) views I have pretty much always had, but I’ve definitely come to look at many things differently.

It’s been hard for me to get back into the political discussions, though.  It was bad enough during the Bush years that the left was so angry, fed up, and helpless that their side of the discussion – especially on the internet – turned pretty nasty.  Now the right side is acting just as bad, if not worse, and yet the left is still pretty much the same, even though they “won.”  (I put that in quotes because the left doesn’t feel like they really won; that’s why there is still so much anger.)

The result is a political climate that is entirely toxic.  I have no desire to get into that.  I just went through a rough 6 months of watching my entire world view fall apart before my eyes.  No one has any idea how difficult it was for me, and that it was felt in every part of my life, every relationship I have.

Things are really, really good for me right now and I feel like I can get back into writing with regularity, but the last thing I want to do is get caught up in the political fire fight.

This is mostly just a venting post, not some sort of announcement.  I am still moving forward with this page.  I want to work through my changing views on here.  And I think I have something to add to the discussion.

I probably won’t change any minds, but I think it helps to have as many people as possible committed to doing things a different way, avoiding the gotchas and the zingers, and trying to find some common ground.

So, that’s what I want to do here.  I hope you will remind me of that if you ever see me stray off course.  I should say, when, because we all stray off course.  It’s part of what makes us human.  It’s why we need to stick together.

“Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma, they end up taking up a hospital bed, it costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave them treatment early and they got some treatment, and a, a breathalyzer, or inhalator, not a breathalyzer. (crowd laughing) I haven’t had much sleep in the last 48 hours.”

I, in my own sleep-deprived state, found that ironically humorous.  See, my son has insurance.  He has regular visits to the pediatrician.  He’s never missed a check-up.  He’s up-to-date on all of his shots.  He even gets yearly flu vaccines, due to his cold-induced asthma.  He has an asthma action plan.  He has an inhaler.

The thing about asthma is that it is, well, unpredictable.  Especially cold-induced asthma that can be worse with a really bad chest cold.  And sometimes the inhaler doesn’t work, even though it did every single time over the past year and a half, since he started having asthma attacks.

The other thing is that sometimes that happens at 10 o’clock at night, when the ER is the only option.

Believe me, both of us would have preferred to be home in bed.

The point of this tale is simple: politicians are not doctors.  Even a politician as intelligent and well-educated as Barak Obama doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about when it comes to why kids with asthma end up in the ER.

Politicians are not doctors.

The decisions about health care policy should not be left to politicians, who, in addition to not being doctors, inevitably end up loading the bills up with a bunch of non-health-related goodies intended to solicit votes.

I’m not afraid of “socialized medicine.”  I’m not afraid of waiting lists.  I don’t think the world is going to end tomorrow if we have a public option.

But, I don’t want politicians – any politicians – deciding whether or not a woman can get an abortion or the morning after pill, or whether some old guy can get Viagra, or whether my son needs to go to the ER for his “treatable illness, like asthma.”

Politicians are not doctors.

That is why I think we should leave health care out of politicians’ hands.

And, by the way, his doctor told us to go to the ER, Mr. President.  I’m sorry if it cost too much.