Senator Hershman has reintroduced Joint Resolution 7 which would amend the Indiana Constitution to prohibit granting marriage rights or their equivalent to same sex couples. Senators Heinold, Bray, Jackman, Waterman, Kruse, Nugent, Dillon, (Mike) Young, Delph, Weatherwax, Riegsecker, and Drozda have joined Senator Hershman as co-authors. This provision has passed one General Assembly and has to pass this one as well, before it would go on the ballot in 2008 to be voted on by the public. It has been sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Bray, one of the co-authors, chairs that committee, so the resolution will have no problem getting a hearing.
The full text of the resolution states as follows:
(a) Marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
First, I don’t like monkeying with the Constitution unless it’s necessary. It is not necessary here. There is already a statute prohibiting same sex marriage. I don’t particularly like the statute. If I were a legislator, I wouldn’t have voted for it. But, because a) I’m not gay and it’s not my ox being gored; b) marriage is heavily intertwined with religious beliefs that are apparently opposed to same-sex marriages; and c) the door is open to conveying equal rights under a different label; I can live with it.
If that statute were struck down as being in violation of the Indiana Constitution because it violated an Indiana Constitutional provision, then, theoretically, a better argument could be made for amending the Constitution. However, part of that argument would have to involve making a case as to why denying rights to same sex couples ought to trump whatever part of the Indiana Constitution was being violated.
But, the proposed Constitutional amendment goes much, much further than the current Indiana statute by prohibiting any Indiana law from requiring a legal incident of marriage to be conferred upon an unmarried couple. In other words, as I read the proposed amendment, if there is a right that is an incident of marriage, Indiana law is not permitted to extend that right to same sex couples. Think of marriage as creating a bundle of rights. This amendment not only says that the bundle can’t be extended to same sex couples. It’s saying that if there is a stick in that marriage bundle, same sex couples cannot be given the same type of stick. In my mind, that is simply abusive.
Similar language in Ohio is causing significant problems, including arguments that laws against domestic violence cannot be enforced against unmarried couples. This sort of provision approved in Nebraska was struck down by a federal judge who wrote that the provision:
“goes far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman.†Its “broad proscriptions could also interfere with or prevent arrangements between potential adoptive or foster parents and children, related persons living together, and people sharing custody of children as well as gay individuals,†he noted.
(The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals apparently overturned the District Court.)
Section (b) of Indiana’s proposed amendment simply goes too far. I’m not precisely sure what evil proponents are trying to remedy with this amendment, but the cure is much worse than the disease. From the proponent’s rhetoric all I get is that gays somehow threaten heterosexual marriages. Which is obviously nonsense. If the government grants the same or similar rights to a same sex couple as I have by virtue of marriage to my wife, it has jack all to do with my marriage. My marriage rises or falls based on my relationship with my wife. Proponents of SJR 7 are using a Gatling Gun to shoot a fly. If they think that same sex couples ought not have a particular right or rights, it is incumbent on them to identify the right and tell the world why the same sex couple ought not have the right. If they merely think same sex couples ought not enjoy a status labeled “marriage,” then they ought to strike all of subsection (b) from the amendment (and make the case for why same sex couples ought not enjoy the “marriage” label.) And, if they have not thought through the particulars of their position, but merely have an inchoate sense that gay people are icky, then shame on them for messing with our Constitution based on emotion rather than reason.
[tags]SJR7-2007, culture wars[/tags]
For a legislature that claims it wants to stop the brain drain that has been an ongoing crisis in this state for decades, they sure seem to be expert shots at foot shooting. Its a very simple formula to stop the brain drain, but one that will never be used in Indiana.
Its really very simple. To keep educated, talented Hoosiers you have to diversify the culture and make life interesting in Indiana. In order to do that you must have a thriving cultural scene. In order to have a thriving cultural scene you must have creative people. And in order to have creative people you have to have gay people.
A few years ago an article was written about the “Rise of the Creative Class” in which this formula was laid out as an argument for how cities can use culture as a means for economic development. It cited the example of Austin, TX where an economic boom has been underway for over a decade despite all odds.
The reason for the boom it seems, is a thriving gay culture and rock music scene have attracted creative class members both gay and straight who have enhanced the local economic matrix and increased productivity in the region.
When Indiana finally “gets” this fact we can then begin to get excited about our economic prospects. For every SJR 7 that comes along though, we take ten steps backwards. I wish these insecure legislators would put their homphobia back in the closet they are hiding in.
Marriage, a religious institution?
Let me see if I can shoot a few holes in this very archaic argument that gays ought not marry. For one; why is it so difficult to follow our very simply and perfectly worded document called the Constitution of the United States of America; written 250 years ago? For another; we ought never put a basic human rights issue up to a vote according to a majority rule. If that were always the case, slavery would still likely be a part of that very dark period of American history. Persons of different races wouldn’t be allowed to marry, woman wouldn’t be allowed to vote nor would African Americans. As the government, it is supposed to defend basic human rights not take then away. These issues are obviously human rights issues. I know for some it is difficult to imagine that gays are fully human as are African Americans and woman. I know this radical idea that I put forth is difficult for some of you to swallow but it really is the truth. Are we back there again? Hasn’t our American conscience risen high enough that we would be far beyond this type of nonsense? I hear some say that they are against gay marriage for the concern that gay men will become just that much more sexually active therefore leading to more adulterous behavior? According to any statistics I have read on straight adulterous affairs, I don’t think even gays could compete with those stats. Adultery within the sanctity of heterosexual marriage is far more than half. Marriage hurts no one. It is a legal document agreed upon between two consenting adults.
I have difficulty trying to understand why allowing gays to use the term “marriage†rather than “unions†to be such a sticking point. I have heard it often said by people that are opposed to gay marriage that marriage is a religious institution. Or using the term marriage will somehow make a mockery of traditional marriages. If marriage were indeed a religious institution, why then are heterosexual couples afforded such a wide variety of ways of getting married that have no religious affiliation whatsoever? Heterosexual atheists are allowed to marry and they certainly don’t want any religious overtones to their marriages. Straight couples can get married by the justice of the piece, by a ship captain on a cruise ship, by going threw a driven marriage window in Las Vegas, they can even be married underwater or on a mountaintop, it seems to me that some people take it more seriously than others; it just doesn’t matter and there are virtually no restrictions other than being of the opposite sex. The list goes on and on therefore, making the argument of about marriage being a religious institution absolutely absurd.
I have also heard many opponents of gay marriage say that same sex marriage will make a mockery of traditional marriages, meaning I suppose between a man and a woman. I think that looking closely at all of the statistics about the success of traditional marriages and the many ways that they are permitted to marry seem to be doing a damn good job of their own, making a mockery of the institution of marriage. Then when one looks at the statistics of how many straight lay men and woman who have extramarital affairs doesn’t look so good either not to mention many couples of the clergy who seem also not to have the greatest track record. If you haven’t been living under a rock I think you can recall many of those scandals. So then, what do the opponents of gay marriage really mean by saying that same sex marriages would make a mockery of traditional marriage? One doesn’t have to be a sociologist or have a degree in statistics to understand that allowing gay marriage to exist would hurt no one. In fact gay marriage would likely cause gays to have longer lasting relationships. There has been a common complaint generally spouted out by the straight population, that gay relationships don’t seem to last very long. Statistics do however bear out one thing in regards to marriage verses just living together as a couple. Couples that are married verses couples just living together; couples that are married to tend to last longer than those that are not. On the other hand, not allowing gays to marry will not put a stop to homosexuality. It is as natural for gays as it is for straights. Some of you may not understand how one could be attracted to someone of the same gender. Many gays wonder how one could be attracted to the opposite gender. However they don’t want to take away your choices or that which come naturally for them. We’ve been around since the beginning of history and will surely be around till the end of our human presence on this planet. Perhaps this could be the answer in motivating gay couples to work harder at their relationships if they were given equal respect and legally bound by a legitimate contract; I believe it would encourage gay couples to work harder at their relationship difficulties when they do hit some rough waters as all relationships do. Up until now many gays, not all simply walk away from the discomfort rather than sticking around and learning something of value from the experience. If certain religious groups are not in favor of providing a religious sanctity for gay marriage that shouldn’t stop the government from doing the right thing. This ought to be considered a separation of church and state issue. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver; http://www.aaronjasonsilver.com Fennville Mi 49408
Aaron Silver,
Preach on, brother! (Take that for what it’s worth from this atheist. ;-) )
The problem is that granting the same rights under a different moniker than ‘marriage’ requires a listing of rights that both parties agree to,and hiring a lawyer.Heterosexual couples can get married in a civil ceremony and still have all marriage rights granted automatically. ‘Civil ceremonies’ for gays is no more than a charade.
I would guess that the first time rights and obligation of marriage become known for many is when they appear in divorce court.
It’s just a simple matter of civil rights and equal treatment under the law. Gay marriage is not a gay issue any more than interracial marriage was ever a Black issue.
A common retort is that marriage isn’t a civil right and is not in the Constitution.But it surely is an assumed civil right,and the question is then, on what constitutional grounds may some people be excluded? At least, let’s phrase the argument against gay marriage in those terms.
Doug– I want to thank you for taking on this one. Frankly the language in the second part of this amendment is so broad and ill-defined (find the phrase “legal incidents of marriage” in a law textbook please…) that it will do harm way beyond the same-sex community.
As you alluded, it is already being used in neighboring states to overturn any and all protections granted to ANY unmarried couple. In fact, it was the senior community in Arizona which rightly defeated a similar amendment there, because it would undo their own benefits.
The irony here is that the legislature is claiming to want to take this issue away from the courts (thereby the need to abrogate the equal protection clause of the Indiana Constitution), but in essence they are creating the “lawyer’s full employment” act. There will be untold number of cases of family members trying to undo wills, domestic violence criminals seeking to undo restraining orders, etc…..disrupting people’s lives and families for months and years.
If they really wanted to make it a legislative fief, they would change the language to “only the legislature may determine the definition of marriage.”
Of course, this is NOT about protecting marriage. It’s about ram-rodding shoddy language into the Indiana Constitution, so that a particular political party can benefit at the 2008 polls.. when.. HMM.. the governorship and control of the General Assembly will be up for grabs again. Watch both sides play a cynical political game with people’s — read family’s real lives. I admire the few who can stand up and see through this smoke screen.
If you want to know how to fight against this injustice, check out the Indiana Equality website. http://www.indianaequality.org
Hard to top what Aaron Silver said, but to me, the key is to get the state out of the business of marriage altogher and leave it to the churches. As we have seen, there are plenty of churches that will marry gay couples, and plenty of others that won’t. People who feel strongly enough to make that a determining factor in the selection of their church can do so. All are happy.
Truly, Britney Spears is the greatest threat to the institution of marriage today, not a gay couple in a committed relationship.
Churches have no juridiction to grant rights just because they choose to marry someone.Marriage is meaningless unless everyone married is offered the same standing in society with equal rights. In God’s eye, just loving each other is surely enough,but the state needs legal documentation to protect the status of the institution of marriage
People ought to be able to enter into whatever kinds of contracts they want, so long as it doesn’t victimize some third party. If I want to enter into a contract where I receive lifelong sex, companionship, and care for our children in exchange for sharing the fruits of my labors, so be it. If someone wants to trade 30 minutes of sex and companionship for some mutually agreeable amount of money, that should be legal, too. If the bible believers truly think there will be an accounting for our misbehaviors in the afterlife, they why must they jump the gun and nag me to death in this life, too?
Lou, when you are dependent upon the state to grant rights (aren’t they inalienable?), you are at the mercy of the prevailing political attitudes. As we all know, the prevailing attitudes in this, and most other states, are decidedly not inclusive.
Rights of individuals should never be left up to the masses to vote on. They should simply exist. It is the attitude that rights flow from governments, rather than automatically being protected by governments, that has hurt the LGBT community more than anything.
Mike Kole,
Er, well, no, I’d say LGBT individuals such as Matthew Shepard and Teena Brandon have been hurt more by homophobic mini-pogroms — fueled by fundamentalist Christian “values” — than they have by the indifference or even hostility of government policy in the U.S., which has limited itself to restricting their economic opportunities.
Mike cole,
I don’t have a legal background which is probably obvious when I write about legal matters,but rights are ‘granted’by the state only in the sense they are ‘interpreted’ from the Constitution and that depends on the judiciary.The judiciary relies on already decided cases,and presentations from differing points of view. In general isnt it true that conservatives seek to protect our institutions and liberals seek to find individual rights in the Constitution? This is why I personally so deeply mistrust today’s conservatives,but at the same time I realize our institutions must also be protected.It’s a balance.The power more easily gravitates to the institution, not to the indiviudal. This is the argument in a nutshell about liberal vs conservative judges.Here is my interpretation of what ‘inalienable rights’ means. It means simply that each human being is a ‘free agent’ but he still needs a gaggle of lawyers and like -thinking citizens to make sure his inalienable rights are recognized in society.Private power is clanish,and only federal democratic perspective can look over state and economic boundaries of self-interest.We assume the federal government( Im assuming we’re still a democratic republic) is more democratic than the private sector and I think mostly it is.There’s no profit in democratic ‘divying-up’. No system ever works perfectly and when we have ‘people of faith’ voting on individual civil rights,we have cultural biais determining everyones worth.If you are in the wrong clan,woe be onto you!You can call it ‘moral’and can say the people should decide community standards,but it’s the clan in charge!
Many people will disagree with me,but what I think is important is to be able to explain what you believe and that will help us avoid a lot of extreme thinking.That was my goal as a high school teacher.Not to teach values so much but to help think about what their values were..and to do it through academic achievement.
Right, and the point of the Constitution was to restrict government, not to restrict individuals. And you are further correct that when civil rights are subject to a vote, woe to the individual in the minority. This is the danger in rights flowing from a government that is democratically built. The majority can gang up on the minority legally any time it wishes. It just takes a vote!
Branden, once again, I think you and I are talking past each other. Great for grabbing the semantic carelessness in my phrasing. Read into it a Freudian Slip if you like, though I assure you it’s not there. Watch! I can do it too! Consider that mini-pogroms can and do take place all over. Civil Rights law is supposed to make racial equality a reality, but the fact is that incidents continue based on race. Law that grants rights never ensures a lack of transgression. It only frames a means for recourse. But, not matter the state of racial or sexual orientation law out there, murder for any reason is still illegal.
Mike Cole wrote:
This is the danger in rights flowing from a government that is democratically built…
If rights are coming from plebecites yes,there is danger. If rights are coming from 200+ years of legislated constitutional law, maybe there might still be a problem, but it’s the best we got.If not that, what?
Mike Kole,
You wrote:
Your argument seems internally inconsistent to me. Yes, laws against burglary and murder don’t ensure a lack of trangression. Similarly, laws against irrational discrimination don’t eliminate all prejudice. Consequently, less-than-perfect efficacy seems no more a reason to repeal anti-discrimination laws than it does to repeal murder laws.
Mike Kole,
If we shouldn’t build our government democratically, what alternative do you propose?
Jumping in in the middle here, so I’ll probably miss some nuances, but:
That’s why we went with the Constitutional Republic. The rights of the minority are thus theoretically protected from the tyranny of the majority. Which rights are those? Good question. The enumerated ones, to be certain. But, enumeration of some is not to be taken as an exclusion of others. That men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights is self-evident, I’ve read. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness being only a few of these unalienable, self-evident rights.
Lets go back to the chicken and the egg. If there isn’t exclusion, then we dont need a law for inclusion.Social conservatives often scurilously argue that making a law of inclusion mentioning sexual orientation or race or gender,or ethic origin is wrong because race and sexual orientation,etc. shouldnt be taken into consideration.This is the argument against Affirmative Action or ‘reverse discrimination’.It may be broken,but leave it that way. Murder is murder etc. If there are no Blacks in the entering freshman class, they must be lazy and didnt study,and we start to see the characterizations of whole groupings of people. Everything must be painstakingly surveyed and documented. .This is what I call the ‘the legacy of social conservatives’
If we do indeed have ‘unalienable rights’,then they must be secured by whatever means the Constitution affords us.Exclusion should have to justified constitutionally: inclusion should be assumed.This is what constitutional democracy is.
Doug,
That answer’s a bit facile for me. :) I’ve run into too many conservatives who can say the words but don’t seem to be able to hear the music. My post was an effort to get Mike Kole to articulate an alternative to a democratically-built government. Representative democracy is still democratic.
One more thought…. The best way to avoid Constitutional democracy is to privatize. Americans have long believed that government should stay out of private lives and the Bush administration has been exploiting that belief. Where is our public money going?..faith-based…Halliburton…etc.
Branden- This isn’t one of these questions that gets answered so easily in a blog post, you know. This is a thesis, or a book of many years’ thought and research.
Suffice it to say that I believe there are severe limitations within democratic governments. Put Jim Crow up to a vote- a nice, clean, democratic vote- and it will carry the day in many places, I assure you.
Laws are written all the time by our representatives in government that run roughshod over minorities. Look at smokers, the oppressable minority d’jour.
I am a constitutionalist, but yet I have to concede it was never perfect, and still isn’t. That’s human limitation for you. Democratic process is the best chance for fairness and inclusion, and yet, it’s deeply flawed.
So, I don’t have an easy response for you. What we have is the best we can cook up, and yet knowing this I’m dissatisfied with the result, because at the core of it, aside from the structure, human beings have not learned to accept and tolerate one another, so they too often use this process to oppress. Again, the history of the licensing of marriage was to restrict mixed-race marriage, as it is now to restrict same-sex marriage. Put it to a vote, and you’ll see widespread support, sadly.
Put another way, and not to suggest any oppression here, but as a Libertarian and as a conservative (old school meaning relative to change, not current politcal usage), politically I am rather the same as the husband I am. My wife likes to spend money freely just as lawmakers like to grow government. I act as a slowing agent. I don’t like the spending, but I consider it a small victory over what might have been when I contain a potential major expense. In the same way, Libertarians and traditional conservatives who wish to hold the line against the expansion of government, know that we are fighting a losing battle against the natural impetus to try to do more, but are working to contain the expanse and the intrusion. The Founding Fathers knew that in all likelihood their government would grow to become some monster they couldn’t recognize. Some might have been surprised it took so long to get here.
Given the chance to magically go back in time, I wouldn’t do it much different than the Founders… except to end slavery, at the expense of including the southern states. I would just have been much more aggressive about fighting the expanse of government post-ratification.
So, Branden, I thank you for looking for my response. I do appreciate it! I would suggest to you as I have many times that there are as many on the left who see the trees but not the forest as there are on the right. To me, the one who sees it lopsided one way or the other is engaging in a willfully partisan viewing.
Your turn, Branden:
How do you reconcile one’s right to choose who they associate against prohibitions against discrimination?
Remember that a right cannot negate a right and have both survive.
Mike Kole: I’m late to the argument rights. Few, if any rights, are absolute, including the right to choose with whom we associate. If someone chooses not to associate with people of another race, ethnicity, etc., that is not necessarily discrimination. Only when one is in violation of the the law does it become discrimination.
Thus, employers, businesses, government agencies and government-run entities (such as public schools) cannot discriminate based upon race, ethnicity, sex, religion, etc. If you send your children to a public school, they may have to associate with people you would rather not have them be around. (I don’t mean you, personally.) If someone is a racist, he may have to work with people of different races, like it or not. However, such a person is perfectly free to not have friendships with people of different races, to attend a church where everyone is the same race, to live in a neighborhood where everyone is the same race, etc. If a local bank, however, refuses to lend money to a qualified minority to buy a home in such a neighborhood, then the bank would be violation of fair lending laws. Thus, the bank would have to lend to the minority, but that doesn’t mean that the offended neighbors have to stay put. Racism and prejudice are not illegal. Discrimination is illegal, and even then, not in all circumstances.
Mike Kole,
I haven’t forgotten you. ;-)
Let me say first that I am in sympathy with much of your second-to-last response to me. I share your belief that a government has to preserve the rights of minority populations (be they ethnic, (ir)religious, cultural, or otherwise) from the tyranny of the majority, while still honoring the democratic will where it isn’t tyrannical.
I don’t agree that smokers are the oppressed minority du jour. They contaminate the air that I breathe, and as an asthmatic for about 27 years now, that pollution matters to me. Private homes and private membership clubs are welcome to indulge smoking if they please, but the managers of any public space — and that includes privately-owned business that cater to a public clientele — have a responsibility to not expose people to pollutants. Should we tolerate puddles of dioxin in Applebee’s if a signficiant number of people obtain physiological stress relief from spilling the stuff on the floor[*]?
I do agree that the Founders made an unethical decision when they elected to permit slavery to continue. I cannot say that we would have the same United States today if they had taken the morally correct path — maybe we’d be a Commonwealth country and have the Queen on our currency; maybe the divided colonies would have fought each other, weakening them relative to the European powers and we’d have many more rich white people speaking French and/or Spanish in North America than we do today. I don’t know, and I don’t think it much matters. Given a God-like power to rewrite history, I doubt I would decide that the 50 states just like we have them now were worth the enslavement of a significant portion of the population. What scares me about the U.S. today is that I cannot help but feel there are people who feel so attached to the “accidental” characteristics of the U.S. (where the state and national borders are, what’s on the state and national flags, what the demographics are, etc.) that they would not correct that terrible mistake of history.
For me, what’s essential about America are those values the Founders argued for, not the consequences of our collective erratic fidelity to the values.
And, finally, I agree with you that there are strident ideologues on the Left just as there are on the Right. Just about anything can be turned into an ideology. An example that is at once amusing and tragic is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, which championed the rational judgment of the individual and yet developed a hidebound and rigid an orthodoxy that any cult leader would admire.
[*] Bad example, I know, as one may reasonably prefer a nice bowl of dioxin to the stuff they serve at Applebee’s…
Mike Kole,
The subject no doubt demands an essay or more to elucidate fully, but in the interest of brevity (a mistress I serve mercurually at best), let me offer you the guiding principles I’d apply:
* There is such a thing as a public space. Unlike radical propertarians, I do not reject the notion of a commons (in the physical or abstract senses), and do not insist that every square inch of land on this planet be the property of some individual, with right of exclusion to everyone else.
* On the other hand, I do believe each individual does have a right to some area of exclusive use, to which they can retreat when stressed, invite friends and confidantes, and otherwise assert control over an intimate space.
* I find exclusive use to be fundamentally incompatible with operating a retail enterprise wherein one seeks the custom of strangers.
* Economic theory illustrates that markets operate most efficiently when market actors are rational and well-informed.
* Actual market actors, whether as individuals or as organizations, are frequently anything but rational and well-informed.
* Efficient markets are desirable because they ultimately empower individuals to do more with the resources they have.
* It is therefore a societal good to increase the amount of rationality and information in the marketplace.
* You can’t force people to learn or be rational.
* You can, however, through legal prescriptions and proscriptions, encourage (or compel) them to behave as if they were rational and/or informed.
* Such compulsion should only be undertaken where the benefit is worth the infringement on individual liberty.
* There is no easy formula for making such evaluations. The popular will, as well as fundamental individual rights, must be seriously weighed.
* Discrimination against gays and racial minorities is irrational (and frequently ill-informed, grounded on stereotypes or myths, including religious myths).
* Discrimination against gays and racial minorities makes the market less efficient.
* An individual has a fundamental right to exclude whomever he/she chooses from his or her private exlcusionary zone.
* A private exlcusionary zone does not include, e.g., a retail business, as covered above.
* Individuals have a right to transact commerce in public spaces.
* It is acceptable for the society (acting through persuasion, protests, picketing, or petition of their elected representatives) to discourage this form of irrational market behavior, on behalf of the individuals being irrationally discriminated against.
That’s longer than I had hoped, but I hope it is useful to you to illuminate my values and my approach.
Branden, you and I will probably never reconcile this between us. I’m not sure if it has to do with your asthmatic condition, for which I have great sympathy, but:
I have had a great problem with one half of the smoking bans written. On the one hand, I support and encourage the smoking bans on truly public property- city hall, government buildings, parks even. (I think there is a great enforcement problem with such laws in outdoor spaces, and moreover an enforcement prioritization issue with it, but I don’t object all the same.)
I do have a problem with the bans applied to the Appleby’s and the mon & pop taverns and restaurants. Mainly, a smoking ban as applied, negates the rights of the property owner to set the policy as regards the use of a legal product as they see fit. In fact, it gives the customer greater rights than the property owner.
Mechanically, that is a real problem, especially as ever more such laws are written. It will, if continued unabated, get to the point where the business property owner has no rights whatsoever. I’m not sure what kind of incentive there would remain for business owners to keep establishments going, the joy of operation being much of the impetus beyond mere money-making.
But beyond that, where is the justice? Why does one have the right to free association in his home, but not in his business? Why may one set her policies in her residence but not her business? How does the right of ownership somehow become not worthy of protection inside the doors of a place of commerce?
You’ve told me that you believe this is right and proper, but you haven’t said *why*. What moral distinction is there between the two?
*That* is what interests *me*.
Brandon and Mike: great posts! :)
Mike, I happen to agree with Brandon about the smoking bans, however. Sometimes property owners must do what is good for the public and their customers. The public/private distinction in ownership doesn’t really matter if the property owner wants business from as many customers as possible, and if failure to adhere to basic safety and health standards could endanger the public. Water systems (e.g. wells) that are on private property (such as restaurants and churches) are considered “public water systems” if they serve the public. Thus the owners must comply with certain regulations for testing of potential contaminants. That is not exactly analogous to smoking bans, but it is similar.
Also, are you saying that private held businesses shoudl be able to opt out of government regulations? (Sorry if I’m oversimplifying.) If the manager of Appleby’s says, “I don’t want to serve blacks, Jews, Hispanics, etc.” would that be okay, since Appleby’s is a private business? Would the same apply if a private business owner doesn’t want to hire minorities? (Obviously, it is not okay under U.S. law, but you seem to imply that it *should* be.) Somehow, I don’t think you really mean that. If you do, then I guess you mean that minorities should have to suffer from the bigotries and whims of private business owners who may have problems associating with people who are not like themselves. Or maybe it would be okay for a restaurant that uses well water to not have it tested and then allow their customers to become sick. Mike, surely you don’t really believe that. If you do, I don’t know what else to say.
Sorry. Was I veering off topic?
Pila,
I don’t think you were getting too far off-topic, given that Daylight Saving Time is considered on-topic in seemingly every thread. ;-)
Not sure what those 2 posts before your most recent one are about, though. Trackbacks *from* Doug’s post *to* Doug’s post? I’m confused.
Branden –
Daylight Savings Time, sex, and smoking – always on-topic, and probably connected in an insidious way we have yet to understand.
As for “Trackbacks *from* Doug’s post *to* Doug’s post” – this is part of the automation process, whereby the blog will be able to comment on itself without needing our input.
Only about Daylight Savings Time, sex, and smoking, though…
Branden and Parker: Okay. I’m still confused, though. :)