The Debate Over Gay Marriage

Written between April and May 2^nd, 2004 as a High School Writing Workshop Piece

Edited on February 1^st, 2016

            Same-sex marriage is becoming a more and more important and widely debated issue, and is creating controversy and inspiring rallies across the country. Recently, the City of San Francisco, California legalized same-sex marriage, challenging the state’s constitution, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. In the first week beginning February 12^th, almost three thousand gay and lesbian couples were wed. The city’s decision, which was opposed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Bill Lockyer, was put into effect to purposely question whether California and the United States would allow same-sex marriages in the future. A proposition that was passed in California in 2000 states that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Illinois’s law states that any marriage between two people of the same sex is considered invalid.

            The proposition in California’s law – which states that gay marriages are invalid, and denies gays a right that all heterosexuals have – directly opposes the 14^th Amendment by denying homosexuals equal rights. According to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, any law against gay marriage is unconstitutional. Two states have officially legalized gay marriage; one being Massachusetts, where judges say laws prohibiting gays from marrying are forms of segregation that make homosexuals and heterosexuals unequal. The other state is Vermont, where the law technically provides for “civil unions”, but not “gay marriage”, the only basic difference being that in marriage, the couple receives a marriage license.

            The 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified after slavery was abolished, states “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This clearly includes any homosexual who is a legal citizen of the United States. In a literal interpretation of this amendment, marriage is a privilege to which every U.S. citizen is entitled. Therefore it is illegal to deny the right to marry to any citizen. However, the unconstitutional proposition passed in California, as well as 37 other states, still stands. Some people who oppose gay marriage, including President George W. Bush, say that it will require a new constitutional amendment to allow gays to marry. To do so would require approval from 67 senators, approximately 300 representatives (depending on when the law would be passed), and the legislatures of 38 states. If it were to be formally proposed and passed, all previous state laws forbidding same-sex marriage would be invalid.

            Prior to the date when Vermont became the first state to legalize homosexual civil unions, the law’s treatment of gays had been similar to the treatment of blacks between the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement one hundred years later. State laws segregated African-Americans and whites, forcing them to be apart from each other in public settings at all times. Many Southern states had laws that forbade whites from marrying any person who was less than 7/8 white, but non-whites, then categorized as “coloreds”, could marry those of their own race. These laws, which were called segregation laws or “Jim Crow” laws, also required blacks and whites to have separate bathroom facilities, separate buildings to buy alcohol, and separate movie theaters. Under these laws, blacks and whites were considered “separate but equal”, and therefore the laws were not considered unconstitutional.

            Today, many Christian groups are against any efforts to pass laws legalizing gay marriage. Some are seeking the White House’s support in opposing any propositions that “redefine” marriage. According to them, marriage between two men or two women, and any homosexual acts, are immoral. Some, like Kenneth Howell, the director of the Newman Institute of Catholic Thought, oppose gay marriage because he thinks laws should reflect morals. The Catholic Church does not condone it because homosexual marriage serves no purpose; specifically, to create children. Some say that allowing either civil unions, marriages, or domestic partnerships – which allow gays, and also heterosexual couples whom do not want to marry, to have benefits such as jail and hospital visitation and funeral arrangements, but not the right to be recognized as “married” – would undermine the religious values of Christians and Jews.

            If the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (Note: there are alternative legal options that could also be effective in prohibiting this across the country; an amendment is not necessary the only way to do it) were to be officially proposed, voted on, and passed, then it would be the first amendment in United States history to take rights away from people. If any state were to legalize gay marriage before the amendment, married gay couples would have to be broken up by law, and they would no longer be able to visit each other in hospitals or have power of attorney over them and the ability to decide what happens to them when they die. Homosexuals, a significant percent of the population, would have one of the most important freedoms taken away from them; the freedom to love, and the freedom to be considered a married couple by the law.

            Although in Illinois, marriage between two people of the same sex, performed in other states, is invalid, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley has expressed support for the possibility of Cook County legalizing gay marriage, along with the mayors of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Salt Lake City, Utah, as well as Gifford Miller, the Speaker of the New York City Council. SO far, the same number of states that would have to approve any constitutional amendment allowing gay marriages, has already passed laws against them. Still, with the changes made in the last few years advancing gay rights, such as San Francisco’s and Massachusetts’s gay marriage laws, Vermont’s civil unions law, and Cook County, Illinois and New York City’s domestic partnerships laws, the possibility remains that homosexuals will soon be entitled to get married and have the same rights as heterosexuals, and with the help of voters making the decision in favor of love and freedom, it could become a reality soon.

In Defense of Dr. David Duke

In Defense of Dr. David Duke

Originally Written on May 9^th, 2011

Edited on January 17^th, 2016

            I would like to go on-record and state that I do not have much of a problem with Dr. David Duke, the former Louisiana State Representative, the former National Director (a/k/a Grand Wizard) of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (K.K.K.K.), and the former unsuccessful candidate for Governor and State Senator of Louisiana.

            My personal religious and ethical views do not always line up with those of Dr. Duke; in fact, the vast majority of the time, they don’t. However, I am fully willing – at great personal risk to myself, and to my credibility – to publicly admit and defend my positions on him, and on his legal and political views.

            David Duke may be a white-separatist Christian, a pro-life homophobe, and a blatant anti-Semite, but in a free society, he has – and, rightfully, should continue to have – the legal right to hold, and to express, these non-violent views, without fear of either prosecution, persecution, or continued threats of violence against himself and his family. That is, unless and until he says something which poses a credible, specific, direct, clear, present, and immediate risk of danger and/or harm to someone’s safety.

            Regardless of his views, Dr. Duke is a principled individual whom has real intellectual integrity and courage which is unlike almost any other prominent person in the public spotlight today. Dr. Duke says what he believes, has consistently done so for the past thirty years, and is completely rational and reasonable on the vast majority of the legal and political issues about which he speaks.

            Although he has been accused of “inciting racial hatred”, Dr. Duke does not wish to change the law in order to impose his religious or ethical views upon anybody, and he has never encouraged nor condoned the use of violence against members of any racial and ethnic groups with whom he does not personally choose to associate.

            Dr. David Duke is willing to go to great lengths, as well as to put himself and his family at great personal risk, to expose the State of Israel’s practice of institutional racism and discrimination against Palestinians, which is a lot more than you can say about most politicians in America today. He also doesn’t buy into the sensationalist incitement of the American people against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

            Dr. Duke supports neither corporate welfare, nor the nationalization or bailouts of big banks on Wall Street. Like Ross Perot, Ron Paul, and myself, Dr. Duke opposes N.A.F.T.A. (the North Atlantic Free Trade Association)’s “free trade” agenda, which contributes to the outsourcing of American jobs, and which does nothing to combat the human rights abuses of laborers which are permitted and excused by foreign countries such as China. Duke cares about protecting American entrepreneurship and local and small businesses, and wants to impose modest and fair tariffs in order to promote American products.

            As I stated previously, I do not share Dr. Duke’s personal moral nor religious views, although our political and legal views are very much in-line with one another. I believe that he should continue to exercise his freedom to express his non-violent opinions, without fear of either being sued, being prohibited from speaking, or having violence threatened against him and his family.

            I would invite you to visit his YouTube channel “drdduke”, and to watch his videos, especially those on Zionism and Iran. I believe that you will find him to be an ardent opponent of institutional racism, of any and all forms of legal discrimination, the incitement of racial and ethnic violence, and the Israeli and Zionist domination of American foreign and military policy.

Civil Rights and Interstate Commerce

Originally Written on August 23^rd, 2015

Edited and Expanded between December 7^th and 12^th, 2015

      In September 2012, I called in to Sam Seder's show “The Majority Report”, a liberal talk radio broadcast. I was calling to take Seder up on his invitation for libertarians to debate him. Seder and I discussed taxation, private militaries, and public utilities such as phone and internet. The video of the conversation was later posted on YouTube as “Libertarian Oblivious to 'Who Built That'” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc9lEjbYiuU).

      Seder described what I wanted as “feudalism”, and told me that what I want sounded more like something out of the show Game of Thrones than something in the real world. I didn't know what Game of Thrones was at the time, but after having seen the show, I can say now that I would rather live under “feudalism” - if that is what the show depicts – than the system that we have now (which, arguably, is a form of feudalism).

      In the aftermath of the shooting in Charleston, South Carolina in August 2015, I planned on calling Seder's show in order to discuss civil rights, and address a conversation between Seder and a person who called his show in May 2014. That conversation involved discussions about currency, principles, property rights, and civil rights legislation. It was posted to YouTube as “Another Episode of Libertarians Gone Crazy! With Sam Seder” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmmcTzeOK1Q) and “Libertarian Caller: I Oppose the Civil Rights Act... on Principle” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ0syDgMJ7k).

      The following is an edited and expanded version of what I planned to discuss with Seder.

      In the aftermath of the shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, this is no time to stoke the flames of racial hatred. However, I oppose Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For those who don't know, that was the provision of the Civil Rights Act that prohibited discrimination and segregation in “places of public accommodation”. Unfortunately, nowhere in the legislation were the terms “public” nor “private” defined, nor differentiated.

      The man who called in May 2014 said that he was opposed to that same provision, asserting that private businesses are, more or less, the same as regular people's private property, for example, their homes. He added that the freedom of association protects our right to keep people out of our homes and off of our business properties.

      I argue that, for the most part, this should stand regardless of whether such businesses supposedly serve “the public”, which is to say, individual members of the public who have the right to choose whether to attempt to become customers or patrons of such businesses. I and other opponents of Title II contend that the freedom of association includes the freedom from association; the right to be left alone.

      The Fifth Amendment protects our right to be free from unjust takings; it states that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.” Essentially, it states that none of our property, nor any of its use-value, shall be taken away, unless and until we are charged with, and convicted of, a crime. The use-value of a business property includes the “right to refuse service to anyone”, and as the man who called in to the Majority Report in May 2014 pointed out, signs bearing those words are hanging on the walls of businesses all over the country.

      Therefore, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 presents an encroachment upon the Fifth Amendment, but it also – through its omission of definitions and distinctions – blurs the line between what is public property and what is private property. Additionally, and most importantly, Title II presents a problem when it comes to the interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the federal government the authority “to regulate commerce … among the several states”.

      Suppose that I live in Montana, and I make and sell firearms. Suppose that the bullets come from one part of the state, and the shells come from another part of the state, and I manufacture the scopes in a factory that I own on my own private property. Since I only conduct commerce within the state of Montana, I am engaged in intrastate, or in-state, commerce, but not in interstate commerce. So only Montana state statutes and local ordinances apply to me, because, under the traditional interpretation of the Commerce Clause, this commercial activity would be none of the federal government's business.

      Assume that I own a restaurant, and that it only has one location, or that it has several locations, but they are all located in the same state. As with gun manufacturing, only state and local laws get to say whether I have the right to refuse service to anyone. It is only when I am engaged in interstate commerce – commercial activity that crosses state borders – that the federal government shall have constitutional authority to get involved.

      Returning to the topic of gun manufacturing in Montana, the state statute Montana Firearms Freedoms Act, according to Wikipedia, “sought to exempt firearms manufactured in Montana from federal regulation under the interstate commerce and supremacy clauses” of the Constitution. The law was challenged, and the plaintiffs in the case wanted gun manufacturers to comply with federal laws, but their suit was dismissed by the U.S. District Court in 2010 “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim”. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs in the case did have standing, but still dismissed the case due to the plaintiffs' failure to state a claim, concluding that the “creation and circulation of such firearms could reasonably be expected to impact the market for firearms nationally”.

      It is this “reasonable expectation” of intrastate commerce having an impact on the national market, which was the gist of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's standard – and the standard set by a subsequent lawsuit regarding the act - regarding when federal intervention is appropriate. In the case of Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court found that Heart of Atlanta Motel and Pickrick restaurant – the businesses owned by plaintiffs Moreton Rolleston and Georgia Governor Lester Maddox, respectively - substantially affected interstate commerce.

      The opinion of the court majority in that case was that, since the majority of Heart of Atlanta's clientele came from out-of-state, and since it was strategically located near two interstate highways and two state highways, the business clearly affected interstate commerce, and so, the federal government had the authority to intervene in order to regulate that commerce in a way that stopped or prevented the discrimination and segregation which was occurring there.

      The effect of the court's decision in Heart of Atlanta was that substantial effect on interstate commerce rests on the opinion of the courts, regardless of the fact that the hotel and restaurant had the freedom to choose to restrict their clientele to people from within the state, and regardless of the fact that those businesses had the freedom to restrict their other commercial activities aside from their service of clientele (i.e., the sourcing of their raw materials) to within the state.

      Back to Montana. Say I own a restaurant in Montana, and I want to expand my business. However, there aren't many people in Montana, so in order to get more customers, I plan to open a new location in a neighboring state; suppose it's Idaho. I might open up that new franchise in Idaho, and post a sign on the wall that reads “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”, however, the federal government would have the authority to intervene in order to stop me.

      This is because my restaurant would operate in two states; therefore, I'd be incontrovertibly involved in, and substantially affecting interstate commerce. Furthermore, I'd be actively discriminating against people who have the freedom to travel, and the freedom to acquire property through purchasing food, and other possessions (supposing that the business is a gas station or convenience store), and renting rooms (supposing that the business is a hotel or motel). But, of course, the freedom to buy and sell is conditional upon the permission of the other seller or buyer whom is party to the transaction.

      To put things rather bluntly, my interpretation of the interstate Commerce Clause does not prohibit black people from eating chicken and waffles. Waffle House has branches in twenty-five states, so clearly, it is involved in interstate commerce, which means that the commerce in which it is engaged is subject to regulation by the federal government. This stands even under the interpretation of the word “regulate” which holds the word to mean “keep regular”, i.e., free from undue inhibitions, including the kind of inhibitions imposed through keeping minorities off of the premises.

      Now, suppose that Barry Goldwater, who criticized the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for Title II and Title VII (the title which prohibits discrimination in employment), had defeated Lyndon B. Johnson to become president in 1964. Or simply suppose that Title II had been removed, amended, or clarified, to fit the Commerce Clause's original purpose (i.e., to keep the federal government out of the states' internal business affairs, and to prevent states from passing laws to favor their own commerce over that of other states), or suppose that the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in Heart of Atlanta, to find portions or the whole of the 1964 C.R.A. unconstitutional.

      Also, suppose that I own a convenience store in Indiana, near the border with Illinois. Suppose that I segregate or discriminate, that I refuse to allow black people to become patrons and/or employees. Suppose I segregate and discriminate against atheists, or communists. Suppose the target of my discrimination is not a minority, suppose I want to keep Christian gun owners out of my store. Suppose I don't want police officers, or veterans, or British royalty, or the Pope, or Rahm Emanuel, coming in, taking my snacks, and trying to draft me into their army.

      Suppose I don't want to let federal agents onto my property, because they're trying to ensure that I am compliant with the Real I.D. Act.; trying to force me to make sure that my employees are in the country legally, and trying to make me card undocumented workers for trying to buy a six-pack of beer after a hard shift of day-labor. Say I don't care whether they're here legally, and they and I are both just trying to pay our bills and get money to our families.

      Say I'm this business owner in Indiana. Everybody hates Indiana, right? They sure do! (Note: I choose Indiana because liberals recently considered boycotting the state over its opposition to gay marriage.) I own this gas station, or convenience store. Say I don't want to allow Democrats inside, because I think they're lazy and shiftless.

      Anyway, long story short, say I want to open up another store and start expanding across the nearby border into Illinois, and I want to retain my legal right to discriminate against anyone, for any reason, without being obligated to give a reason. Here's where things get absurd.

      Then you would see half of the country getting up in arms against me – not because I'm discriminating – but in order to demand that the federal government allow me to expand into Illinois. The initial left-liberal reaction to this would be something like “Why do you want this racist business owner to expand? So he can discriminate in Illinois, in addition to Indiana!?”

      And those who support my expansion would respond, “No, we want him to expand into Illinois so that his business would be unquestionably engaged in interstate commerce, putting the business under federal jurisdiction, enabling the federal government to regulate the business, in order to stop the discrimination or segregation!”

      Then, business owners who want to segregate and/or discriminate would be faced with a difficult choice: keep their business in one state, risking that it stay small, but retain their rights to discriminate, or expand their business into other states, in order to expand their market reaches, but, in so doing, lose their right to discriminate.

      Then, business owners might finally capitulate to what the federal government intended to accomplish in crafting Title II; they might simply reason that they can expand their businesses by resolving to stop segregating and/or discriminating – that is, to agree to serve anyone and everyone who comes onto their property with the intent of patronizing their businesses – instead of trying to grow their clientele by expanding into other states, and having to comply with additional federal regulations in the process.

      Finally, suppose that the U.S. Supreme Court had found Title II, or the entire Civil Rights Act of 1964, unconstitutional. Then, it would be up to each state, and each community, whether to allow discrimination and segregation on private commercial property. Then, it would be clearly and widely known which businesses, and which state and local governments, allow or support discrimination and segregation.

      In such a situation, people would be free to boycott such businesses - depriving them of the money they would earn through transactions – and also free to boycott, and stay clear of, entire states and communities (however, they would not be able to boycott the federal government).

      But now, the opposite is the case; business owners who want to discriminate and segregate are required to serve anyone and everyone who comes onto their property. So now, people can freely wander onto commercial properties, and become their patrons, without having any clue as to whether its employees and/or owners are dangerous racists, sexists, xenophobes, or political extremists, who may want to see those patrons fall victim of violence.

      Even if we could tell which business owners are racists (et cetera) and which are not, and wanted to boycott them, we would still have to fight the Internal Revenue Service and the state and local tax agencies, and the various departments and chambers of commerce, in order to stop our tax money from being spent in order to subsidize, and bail-out, and grant limited liability and intellectual property protections to, such discriminatory businesses.