Tag Archives: Bond

Commentary

Robert P. George explains why same-sex marriage is morally wrong

1 Comment

Famous Princeton University professor writing in the Wall Street Journal. (H/T ECM)

This is the best single article I’ve read on same-sex marriage.

Excerpt:

If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union—and thus to procreation—will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by mutually agreeable sexual play. But there is no reason that primarily emotional unions like friendships should be permanent, exclusive, limited to two, or legally regulated at all. Thus, there will remain no principled basis for upholding marital norms like monogamy.

A veneer of sentiment may prevent these norms from collapsing—but only temporarily. The marriage culture, already wounded by widespread divorce, nonmarital cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing will fare no better than it has in those European societies that were in the vanguard of sexual “enlightenment.” And the primary victims of a weakened marriage culture are always children and those in the poorest, most vulnerable sectors of society.

Candid and clear-thinking advocates of redefining marriage recognize that doing so entails abandoning norms such as monogamy. In a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers—including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and prominent Yale, Columbia and Georgetown professors—call for legally recognizing multiple sex partner (“polyamorous”) relationships. Their logic is unassailable once the historic definition of marriage is overthrown.

You know, there’s no law that says that we could not strengthen marriage if we wanted to. Just saying. Children do better when conceived and raised in stable environments with a strong exclusive bond between two opposite-sex parents. Do we care about children’s welfare? If so, then we need strong marriages.

News

How do Democrat policies stimulate the economy?

Leave a comment

Consider this Washington Times article to see how it works. (H/T Gateway Pundit)

Excerpt:

The Obama administration revealed last week that as much as $16.1 million from the stimulus program is going to save the San Francisco Bay Area habitat of, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.

That has revived Republican criticism that the pet project was an “invisible earmark” in the massive spending bill for Mrs. Pelosi, whose San Francisco district abuts the Bay, and epitomizes what Republicans say is the failure of stimulus spending so far to help an economy still shedding jobs.

“Lo and behold, the government has announced that the mouse is getting its money after all,” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said, standing beside a poster of the furry varmint. “Speaker Pelosi must be so proud.”

Mrs. Pelosi’s office was quick to dismiss the criticism.

My preferred stimulus was to spend under $400 billion and to temporarily suspend the employer portion of payroll taxes, so that American employees would go on sale. When people have jobs, then they are comfortable spending money. But Obama and Pelosi preferred to spend the money on mice. American workers or mice? Which one stimulates the economy?

Earlier this week I wrote about how well the first two stimulus bills worked, and how the Democrats would like to pass a third stimulus bill.

Raising taxes

Democrats also think that raising taxes on businesses and individuals will stimulate the economy. See, when the unemployment rate goes to 9.5%, and everyone has to pay more for electricity and gas, then Democrats believe that people will spend more.

Consider this article from Politico which lists some of the ideas they are considering. (H/T Michelle Malkin)

Excerpt:

— Broaden the 1.45-percent Medicare tax on earned income to “passive income,” which could include money from capital gains, rental properties and businesses that do not require direct participation. This could raise $100 billion.

— Levy a five-percent surtax on individuals who earn more than $500,000 and couples that make $1 million.

— Tax health benefits at a higher level than had been considered. Two scenarios are in play. Taxing plans worth more than $20,300 for a family and $8,300 for an individual could raise $240 billion. Increasing the cut-off to plans worth more than $25,000 would bring $90 billion.

— Capping the tax break on itemized deductions at 28 percent, as President Barack Obama had proposed, or freezing the top deduction rate at 35 percent when the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. The first scenario would raise $168 billion, while the second would collect $90 billion.

— Issue tax credit bonds to pay for the proposed Medicaid expansion, raising $75 billion.

— Charge fees to pharmaceutical manufacturers, bringing in as much as $20 billion, and insurance providers, raising $75 billion.

– Raise taxes on sodas and sugary drinks. A 3-cent hike could pick up $30 billion, and a 10-cent hike could make $100 billion. This one already appears out of favor: Many senators have specifically ruled out the sugar tax, and a Senate Democratic source said it was the one option that was clearly not gaining traction with committee members.

Try to think about what effect this will have on the person who rents you your apartment, who supplies your employer with capital, or who pays your salary. Try to think about whether you will pay more or less for the goods and services you need when the people who provide them are attacked by the government. Try to think about what effect increased borrowing will have on the prosperity of your children.