Maybe soon to include Maryland, with a Democratic governor and legislature. First of all, I have no problems with gays exercising their right to pursue happiness and legal rights for committed couples (e.g., hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.) However, I'm flatly opposed to activist judges imposing their personal policy preferences and an unconventional use of the term "marriage". Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, the foundation of a family and procreation.
The cases of Vermont and California are somewhat different in the sense they had already legalized civil unions or domestic partnerships, with functionally equivalent legal protections, for years before deciding to appropriate the term "marriage" for nontraditional relationships. But I don't recognize the right or power of any elitist court or legislature to arbitrarily redefine an integral institution
The Binghamton NY Tragedy
One of the tough things in the current economic environment is seeing immigrants and others serve as scapegoats (e.g., being accused of taking jobs from American-born citizens). We are a nation built by immigrants. The fatal shooting of 13 at a New York immigration center is tragic; my prayers are for the victims and their families, and I applaud all groups helping immigrant Americans get settled.
If You Like How the Government Regulates Toys...
The Wall Street Journal had an interesting editorial last Friday, noting the aftermath of a regulation bill in response to the Chinese toy lead poisoning scandal. According to the American Toy Association, the bill will cost about $2B and has resulted in several unintended consequences, including in some cases taking books off the shelves. A particularly notable example is how the market for smaller-sized motorized bikes has been decimated, leaving adventurous youth with heavier, adult-sized bikes, which are more difficult to control and raise the risk of injury. All towards what end? The incidences of children dying from lead poisoning (although tragic) have been extremely low. The point is, are the regulations balancing risk with costs? Regulations are essentially a tax on businesses and ultimately consumers. With Obama and his cronies scapegoating the alleged lack of regulation to blame the recent economic crisis, which is nonsense, of course, and at the same time insisting they want to create jobs, you don't get there with policies that raise taxes or unduly increase regulations and reporting requiremets on businesses and their stakeholders (managers, owners, etc.)
