Majority Rules: How Politicians Do Not Understand Democracy

Today's Kojo Nnamdi show on NPR debated three bills pending in Maryland that affect marriage. The show's title was "Government and the Meaning of Marriage."

What most struck me about the debate was Maryland State Senator Janet Greenip's incorrect definition of a democracy as she pushed her referendum bill. I have employed my best memory recall as I did not want to pay the $30 transcript bill to get the actual dialog but here is my best effort:

Kojo: Many people think that a simple majority vote results in the tyranny of the minority. How do you respond to that?

Greenip: Well, we live in a republic, and that means that the majority absolutely should make the decisions.

Actually, Ms Greenip, you have no understanding about either a republic or democracy. Neither is a simple majoritarian vote. We have first of all a Constitution, which gives every individual rights that cannot be negated on a majority vote. Next, we have the balance of powers that include the judiciary. No matter what anyone thinks about marriage this women ought to be thrown out of elected office.

Someone In Hollywood Takes Marriage Seriously

Natalie Portman says she may never get married. Why?

"I'm not convinced about marriage,” the beautiful "Star Wars" sensation recently told InStyle magazine. “Divorce is so easy, and that fact that gay people are not allowed to marry takes much of the meaning out of it. Committing yourself to one person is sacred."

Well that sounds downright reasonable. Then again, those celebrity marriages sure do bring home the publicity, even if they last less than two years and make people vomit.

Previous post on my doubts about legal marriage here.

Foxnews.com Finally Tackling the Important Issues

Which State Will Legalize Sex with Robots First?

"My forecast is that around 2050, the state of Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize marriages with robots," artificial intelligence researcher David Levy at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands told LiveScience.
[...]
At first, sex with robots might be considered geeky, "but once you have a story like 'I had sex with a robot, and it was great!' appear someplace like Cosmo magazine, I'd expect many people to jump on the bandwagon," Levy said.

[...]

In 2006, Henrik Christensen, founder of the European Robotics Research Network, predicted that people will be having sex with robots within five years, and Levy thinks that's quite likely.

There are companies that already sell realistic sex dolls, "and it's just a matter of adding some electronics to them to add some vibration," he said, or endowing the robots with a few audio responses. "That's fairly primitive in terms of robotics, but the technology is already there."

Is this a joke? No. In fact, there's 15 more paragraphs on the, uh, ins and outs of robot sex, man-and-robot marriages, and the ethical issues involved.

Discrimination, Because Of Discrimination, As A Result Of Discrimination

Since I'm on an overseas business trip for the first time, I have read my employer's relocation handbook almost cover to cover. The company allows you to bring your spouse and dependents, with certain restrictions.

My company also allows relocation benefits to a "Same gender domestic partner". Jesus, I'm out of breath after that. Anyway, to briefly paraphrase the qualifying criteria for SGDPartnership, the parties must: (I'm paraphrasing)

* live together and are "emotionally committed" (?), long term
* plan to remain partners in the long run
* be unrelated
* share joint financial responsibility

It goes on to state that the partnership is equal in substance to marriage.

Ok fine, I see where this is going. Said company notices that gays can't legally get married in most of the US, but it decides that this is unfair and extends a similar option to homosexuals. But what if a heterosexual has an opposite gender domestic partner to whom he or she wants to extend relocation benefits. No dice. Sorry, you have to be legally married.

This is discrimination #1. It boils down to this: An unmarried homosexual can relocate with his partner and the relocation benefits apply as though that partner was his legal spouse. A heterosexual cannot, at least not with equal benefits. However, I can hardly fault the company for this. It is a natural result of discrimination #2:

Heterosexuals can enter into legal marriage, but homosexuals cannot. Besides religious doctrine, which has no place in free government, there is really no reason for this. However, I'm going to step over this to shorten the post, since this discrimination has been discussed extensively by libertarian-folk and liberals.

However, if we can set gender aside for a minute, legal marriage itself is discriminatory (#3). I've never been married and am certainly no expert on marriage law. But what is it about two people being emotionally connected that makes them legally "one" in the realms of taxes and ownership?

It seems as though this unnecessarily complicates an emotional relationship between two individuals. Couples break up. Not always, no, but it happens. And it just doesn't seem right that when it happens, it has to end with a long, ugly court battle in which the two parties fight each other over someone else's (government's) rules. If they choose to live together and share their possessions, fine. They have every right. But they need to set their own conditions. If a private bank or broker wants to offer a joint account or investment to a domestic couple, and the couple agrees to it by contract, I have no problem with that. I just don't see the need for a legal "template".

I'll concede that I'm probably oversimplifying this. But in principle, I don't see how any unmarried individual can be justly treated differently under the law than a married individual.

Taxes = Marriage Inequality

I have always contended that 90% of the gay marriage issue arises from the tax code. Get rid of the IRS, and its picking of winners and losers, and the issue goes away. It is mostly about social security benefits, the tax treatment of health insurance and inheritance benefits.

This week I got my social security statement and it hammered into me the insane preference the system has toward "married" people and how if you are not married you get screwed.

From the statement: If I did not work another day, at 62, my monthly payment would be $858.

Yet, if I died today, my spouse would receive $1,492 per month and my child another $1,492 per month. How on Earth my spouse would receive today twice what I would receive in 22 years I have no idea. The system is obviously rigged to reward marriage in exponential terms.

This is very unfair, as a taxpayer. The demise of the IRS is the best way toward equality.

Progressives, Only Slightly Softer and Gentler Than Islamo-Fascists

Given that progressives have turned many American cities into Soviet-style informant states where the government diverts resources from investigating crimes to investigating whether or not bars are allowing smoking and citizens are encouraged to report their fellow citizens to the authorities, it's hard for me to criticize Malaysia for doing the same thing except substituting unmarried sex for smoking. There I said it, the U.S. is not that much different from Malaysia.

A Malaysian state plans to recruit "spies" from the public to snoop on unmarried lovers and report them to Islamic religious authorities, a newspaper said Tuesday.

The Terengganu state government plans to enlist the part-time spies to look out for un-Islamic behavior, such as unmarried couples kissing or holding hands, the Star daily said.

"Some of these 'spies' could be waitresses or even janitors at hotels acting as auxiliary undercover agents for our religious department," the head of the state government's Islamic and welfare committee, Rosol Wahid, was quoted as saying.

"Accurate details are required for the enforcement officers to act, otherwise they could be pouncing on married couples."

Last October, religious police in another part of this mainly Muslim country caused an outcry when they mistakenly raided the rented holiday apartment of a Christian American couple on suspicion that they were unmarried Muslims in "close proximity."

Maryland Legislator Seeks to Amend Judaism

Are you a Catholic priest who wants to marry? A Seventh-Day Adventist who's sick of that weekly, um, adventing. How about a Muslim who wants to feel good about eating pork? An agnostic seeking a definitive pre-death "yea" or "nay" on that whole afterlife thing? Don't prefer some other facets of your religion? No worries. Maryland legislators can try to change it so it's more to your liking.

Some Maryland legislators have revived the fight for a bill that would place Orthodox Jewish women on an equal footing with their husbands in divorce proceedings.

Under Jewish law, a man must grant his wife a divorce degree, or get, to end a marriage. Without it, a Jewish woman is unable to remarry within the faith, and she becomes known as an agunah, or "chained woman."

Advocates of the bill say husbands use this power to demand favorable custody or visitation schedules - or money from their wife's family - during divorce negotiations.

"We have to persuade people that the rabbis cannot address this problem on their own, that they cannot undo what the Torah commands," said Del. Samuel I. Rosenberg, a Baltimore Democrat and the main sponsor of the House version of the bill.

[Ellipsis]

Maryland's attorney general's office issued an opinion in January that "although the proposed legislation presents a substantial issue under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment," the law would likely be upheld if challenged in court.

But Marc D. Stern, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, an advocacy group, said the bill breaks down the separation of church and state.

"The problem is a real one and needs to be addressed within the Orthodox community urgently," Stern said. However, "they've chosen a means that's fundamentally inconsistent with our constitutional system."

You'd think (or maybe not) that the bill's sponsor, a lawyer, might be able to figure this out.

Full story here in the Baltimore Sun.