Same-Sex Marriage – Cluttering Up Our Constitution

The war of words is underway in Minnesota (and many other states across the country) as ballots will soon give voters the choice on whether to establish a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. Most ballot initiatives go something like this: “Do you favor a constitutional amendment that will ban same-sex marriage?” Unfortunately, very few voters recognize this question as a false dichotomy. In other words, it's a question that has at least three valid answers but only allows two options for answering. My wife and I used to give our children false dichotomies all the time. We'd ask, “Do you want to go to bed by yourself, or do you want me to carry you to bed?” That worked really well until they were about ten, when they first recognized there was a third option we weren’t giving them – not going to bed at all.

So what are the three valid answers to the same-sex marriage amendment?

1.) Yes, I favor same-sex marriage and vote against the amendment.

2.) No, I oppose same-sex marriage and vote in favor of the amendment.

3.) I oppose same-sex marriage, but I also oppose changing the constitution.

This third group is in an unusual position of having to choose which is worse, allowing same sex marriage or changing the constitution.

Welfare Spending: Are State Restrictions Really the Answer?

USA Today recently carried an article detailing many states’ efforts to curtail how welfare recipients spend their welfare payments. In many states, welfare recipients will no longer be allowed to use their stipends on liquor, gambling, cigarettes, strip clubs, and guns. Apparently it's been decided that these listed indiscretions should only be allowed to those few people who can truly afford to waste their money doing them. (Although it comes as no surprise that those who can afford to do so generally do not). This is the case despite the fact that the same legislators, who are now creating an economic bar to certain specified sins, have long ago declared all these sins to be perfectly legal. Indeed, I presume that many, perhaps most, of the members of the enabling legislatures probably engage in many of these activities themselves. So I guess it’s ok to sin, as long as you do it with money you have earned.

But who gets to choose which uses of welfare benefits are acceptable and which must be outlawed?