Reaching out on marriage

Maybe progressives should reach out to Mormons and propose a Religious Freedom in Marriage Act legalizing both same-sex and plural marriage. Would some of them get behind it? It seems they've largely distanced themselves from that part of their faith, in an effort to be more accepted by the rest of americans and the world, but I'm sure some number of them would love to be open about their families or expand the ones they have. And there are other faiths and sects that could get behind it as well.

Does anyone know of a list of faiths, sects, denominations, congregations, etc. that welcome same-sex and/or plural marriages? I think such a list could help make the case that this is in fact an issue of religious freedom.

In the case of plural marriage, I think it would be a reasonable restriction to require the consent of all current spouses for someone to marry another. Maybe require all current spouses to sign the license. (Would other witnesses be required? I'm inclined to say yes, but I suppose all the licensing details would be left to the states.)

Follow up: It would be tempting to try to get an endorsement for this from Clint Eastwood, since with his support for same-sex marriage and work in Paint Your Wagon he'd be a natural, but in light of recent events I think he's a bit too risky.

Birth Control Coverage - Missing The Point on Religious Freedom

There is a very important point about the controversial decision to require that employees, even working for religious organizations, receive coverage for birth control.

Many opponents criticize it as trampling on religious freedom, when it actually does nothing of the sort. What it does is prioritize the religious freedom of the individual over that of the organization. To do the opposite would actually endanger the freedom of religion we hold so dear in this country.

Voting & Legislative Reform Ideas: Weighted Ballots & Conditional Automatic Repeal

Weighted Ballots
First let me say this: this idea will never work.

Second let me say this: I'd like to be proven wrong.

Here's the idea...

1. Somehow track what and who a voter has voted for in the past.
2. Objectively measure how well the winners that voter has voted for have worked out.
3. Weight the value of that voter's current vote accordingly.

Ideally, the weighting would reflect the voter's votes on similar issues and in similar circumstances more than dissimilar.

The difficulties are fairly obvious. There's the privacy issue of tracking votes, and the big hairy problem of coming up with sufficient agreement on an objective measure of past winning votes' outcomes. Vote tracking is the big issue. It would be simple to do, but the secret ballot is an important institution, its primary and critical-to-freedom purpose being to prevent people from being coerced into voting one way or another. As for the performance measuring, I may have another idea that could maybe possibly serve as a partial/proxy measure well enough for some cases.

Anyway, if someone can solve the privacy issue, that would be swell.


Conditional Automatic Repeal
Okay, now this one may never happen, but it could maybe work.

Here's the idea...

Pass a constitutional amendment (it would have to be, I think) to the effect that...

1. Any act (or referendum, hereafter referred to as an "act") must include measurable intended goals for the act, to be reached within a stated time frame, possibly including negative effects to be avoided.
2. If the goals are not met or unwanted effects occur within the time given, the act is automatically repealed.
3. The legislative body may then override the automatic repeal as it might for an executive veto, with the same vote margin requirement.
4. The legislative body is, of course, free to repeal the act at any time as normal, so if it becomes obvious that an act is not working they don't have to wait for the auto-repeal.

I think this would maybe help reduce the hyperbole surrounding much of the big legislation that gets passed, by forcing a bill's proponents to make clear enforceable claims about what it will actually accomplish. If the act doesn't do what they say it will do, it's out, unless a supermajority then agrees that we're still better off with the legislation than without. I think it could help reduce bundling of unrelated issues in single bills. I think it could also give voters a tool for measuring the candidates in an election.

It could also serve as a measure for the weighted ballot scheme mentioned above. It would only apply to referendums and such, with the voter's weighting determined by the auto-repeal track record of their winning votes. (I suppose it could also serve as a measure for votes for office as well, with the weight flowing from the legislative votes of the people the voter has gotten into office.) That still leaves the vote-tracking privacy issue, of course.
Again, this one would be difficult to get passed. Too many legislators know too well that there are things they vote for that, while helping a few folks, don't otherwise work as advertised. I'd still like to see this debated.

Seth Godin's Got It Wrong About Secret Ballots

I subscribe to the RSS feed of Seth Godin's blog. He's a bright guy, but he doesn't always get things right.

He says in his blog entry (When technology and tradition diverge) today:

"When the secret ballot was introduced, it just wasn't possible to count the votes in less than a few days. So a tradition was established, driven by the technology, not because it was the best way. Now, of course, the technology doesn't need that tradition any longer, but it's still here."

He's totally wrong about the purpose of secret ballots.

The purpose of secret ballots is to ensure that voters can vote their conscience without fear of repercussions from those who would coerce them to vote one way or another. It has nothing to do with any inability to have a running count. (Godin may simply be confused about what "secret ballot" means.) Even small groups who could easily have a running total using nothing more than their fingers use secret ballots too when they feel the need. Other groups specifically avoid secret ballots, particularly when those who are voting are representing groups of constituents and need to be held accountable for their votes.

What's All The Hubbub, Bub?

I've been thinking about all the folks shouting other people down at the health care reform townhall meetings this summer, and the stink some people bizarrely raised about President Obama addressing school children to tell them to take responsibility for their education.

It got me wondering - where was the outrage from these people when AOL gave its users internet and newsgroup access?

Oh... wait... nevermind.

Tomorrow's The Election

I'm going to be voting for Barack Obama. Enough has been said in his favor so I won't go into that. Things have been said against him as well, but from what I've seen they have been mostly distortions at best, and random stuff from left field in the main. That's my very summary perspective on it.

Anyway, here are a few links that may help you if you are still undecided.

Obama on the issues - statements and details on his positions on various issues. If you've mostly heard about him via email forwards you may find things different from what you were told.
factcheck.org - check the claims and statements by the candidates and others, and seperate the noise from the real.
Political Compass - take a quiz and see how you fit in among the candidates and other figures.

We Almost Were There

We drove into Fredericksburg today figuring on attending the Obama/Biden rally. We had some work to do at Secret Headquarters first, though, so we were a but late arriving. By the time we got there the line to get in was stretching over half a mile around the perimeter of Mary Washington campus. We knew there would likely be rain and/or isolated thunderstorms so we decided to pass and head home to try and watch online. We weren't the only ones to not get in. The campus police reported that about 12,000 people got in, but about 14,000 more were not able to.

The Obama website has a live feed page for events and, except for a few drops, we were able to watch. It was pretty good, touching on McCain's flaws & shortcomings and Obama's plans. I'm definitely voting for Obama this year.

We watched the debate too, and felt that Obama did eke out a victory there on McCain's "home turf" of national defense. I think Obama sees a bigger picture than McCain and understands that it doesn't matter how well or poorly we are doing in Iraq. The big point about Iraq is that we shouldn't have started the war to begin with. It's a distraction and a drain on our resources and the lives of our soldiers. The real front is in Afghanistan where Al Qaida's stronghold & haven is.

We did find it amusing when the McCain campaign released a "McCain Wins Debate" ad on the web before the debate had even started. Oops! To commemorate the event I put together this little tribute to history.

My Latest Design - Senator Craig - Gone Pecan

Down in New Orleans, and likely the region surrounding it, we had an expression: gone pecan. It means someone or something is doomed, on the way out, destined for failure.

Senator Larry Craig is being forced to resign today by his fellow GOP homophobes. For his hypocrisy in opposing gay rights, Larry Craig deserves to be a Gone Pecan. If you share that view, have a look at my latest design on Cafepress: Larry Craig - Gone Pecan.

A Thought On Civilization

I realize it's simplistic, but it occurred to me that as our degree of civilization increases, we include more and more people in the group we consider to be "us". And as we include fewer and fewer people in that group, and exclude more and more, civilization breaks down.