a99kitten's Musings

I blog about a WHOLE LOT of stuff :)

This is BS. If an employee is loaded at work, they should be fired. You are NOT a protected class because you feel the need to be high. You are a loser. And I don’t want you answering customer service calls, working on our servers or even making my cheeseburger at the local fast food place for that matter. Let alone handling blood work at a doctor’s office, driving a school bus or working on a construction site.

Drugs and alcohol impair your ability to think clearly and make rational decisions. Rattle off all of your BS excuses as to why it’ s not bad, why it should be legal, blah, blah, blah. Doesn’t matter. Keep your impaired self at home.

You want to blaze up and kill your brain cells one by one, up to you. But stay at home.  You aren’t allowed to be doing shots at your desk or snorting coke off your cubicle and you sure as hell shouldn’t be allowed to get high on your smoke break.

California’s employee-centric, anti-business laws are already ridiculous. Let’s add another thing to make it harder for employers to get rid of non-performing employees and easier for them sue for violation of their “rights”.

California truly is the land of fruit and nuts.

“Commentary: Prop. 19 Jeopardizes Workplace Safety

(October 13, 2010) The marijuana initiative on the November ballot (Proposition 19) is more about making it illegal for employers to have a marijuana-free workplace than it is about removing criminal penalties for possession.
Allan Zaremberg

What is in the language of Proposition 19 that should cause concern for all employers? Proposition 19 creates a new protected class of workers and prohibits discrimination against marijuana users, just like age, gender and ethnicity.

Thus, even though pre-employment drug testing is not per se prohibited, an employer cannot use the results of a positive marijuana test as the reason not to hire an applicant.

Moreover, unless a local ordinance is subsequently passed in a community, it will be legal to smoke marijuana in the workplace. Employers will be prohibited from disciplining or terminating an employee who is “high” at work unless the employer can show that the use “actually impaired” the employee’s job performance.

‘Actual Impairment’ Undefined

Under current law, an employer does not need to prove actual impairment to discipline for alcohol or drug use in the workplace. If Proposition 19 passes, an employee could still be disciplined for alcohol use, but could not be disciplined for marijuana use unless the employer could prove “actual impairment.” This term is undefined and untested and an accident may have to happen first before an employer can prove actual impairment.

Other than public safety employees, Proposition 19 would apply to everyone, private or public sector jobs, such as fork lift drivers, nurses and school bus drivers.

In addition, any employer who relies on federal funds that require a drug-free workplace could have the receipt of those funds jeopardized by the passage of Proposition 19.

Most news stories discuss only whether marijuana should be decriminalized. It is important to get these workplace issues in front of the voters. I encourage California Chamber of Commerce members to spread the word about how Proposition 19 could jeopardize the safety of your workforce and lead to new employment law litigation, unless it is defeated in November.

Allan Zaremberg is president and chief executive officer of the California Chamber of Commerce.”

http://www.calchamber.com/Headlines/Pages/CommentaryProp19JeopardizesWorkplaceSafety.aspx?sp_rid=MzAyNTU2MzExOAS2&sp_mid=35878871

I just finished watching the (DVRed) MTV VMAs. Here is what I learned…

1. I like Justin Bieber. Is he Paul McCartney? No. But no one is. Can he actually sing unlike 99% of the shitbirds pumped out into pop music? Yes. His YouTube videos sound better than most of crap MTV “professionally” puts out (when they bother with music at all.) Might that change when he hits puberty and his voice changes? Sure. So you can’t really blame him (and Usher) for cashing in now. Plus he reminds me of my little brother. When my brother was actually little.

2. I like Taylor Swift. I’ve liked her since her first song was put out on the internet. I’ve seen her live and know she can sing live and sound good. Does she have the range of Carrie Underwood? No. Does she have the best voice in the whole wide world? No. So. She has a pretty voice for the songs she does. Did you hear Rihanna with Eminem? She sounded like the cat whose tail is slammed in the door. Actually almost all of the singers on the show sounded like that. Plus Taylor actually comes across sweet and nice. So weird in the music industry. And frankly, I think country artists are the only ones left with real voices. Well, them and gospel singers.

3. I still like Eminem. I know he is very likely a freakazoid. But I don’t want to marry him, so I don’t care. He does have good stage presence.

4. No one cares, or will pay good money to see, “The Social Network” except desperate Justin Timberlake fans. Mark Zuckerburg simply doesn’t have that many groupies.

5. The majority of “pop” music created today is just that – created. Without the help of the studio most of these guys sound like crap. Pretty sure the Monkees could at least hit their notes.

6. I was really, really hoping a light fixture would have fallen in the hot tub set they had the Jersey Shore cast in…

All of this was learned while fast forwarding thru the 2+ hour show. It took 23 minutes from start to finish. Booyah.

p.s. I wish I could have 15 of those minutes back.

Just my personal opinion. Thankfully I am allowed that in this country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100424/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_enforcement

I haven’t read too much about this law other than a couple news articles, but this makes me go huh?:

“The legislation, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants; allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws; and makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.”

So, a bill needed to be enacted that makes it a crime to be in the country illegally. Umm…? Isn’t it already a crime when it’s illegal?

And there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with anything they are trying to do here. In my opinion.

The Federal government has long dragged its heels in doing anything about a real problem that exists. Is this the right answer? I don’t know. I don’t live on the border in Arizona and have it effect my life on a daily basis. But here in California, we do have plenty. And in SoCal it’s a lot bigger problem. And since a majority of the people that do live there (in AZ) and deal with it daily want something done, it’s the State’s right, and responsibility, to do something.

And this:

“It’s going to change our lives,” said Emilio Almodovar, a 13-year-old American citizen from Phoenix. “We can’t walk to school any more. We can’t be in the streets anymore without the pigs thinking we’re illegal immigrants.”

Guess what you little brat? Thinking like that causes huge problems too. I don’t think a majority of the people who complain about immigration complain about the nice, quiet family down the street who just don’t have green cards. They are complaining about thugs, hoodlums, welfare cases, etc.  So calling the police pigs leads me to believe you have done something illegal already – so you should just be sent to boot camp now. 

I have no idea what the intricacies of the law are. I have no idea if this will solve any problems. But something has to be done about the volume of illegal immigration. And it’s very easy to live up North or in the East where you don’t have to deal with this as much and say how it’s unfair, illegal, unconstitutional, hate-mongering, racial profiling, wrong, etc, etc, etc, when YOU don’t have to deal with it in your yard.

I’m very much for making this a priority. Something has to be done to control immigration and legal entry/stays in this country. That shouldn’t be a dirty word or unthinkable.  If you come enter this country illegally, you are committing a crime. That seems very black and white to me. Will it be easy to tackle and fix? I’m sure not by a long shot. And it will not please everyone. But nothing does.  But someone has to start.

Just sayin...

This was blogged by Robert A. Hall. A former Marine Vietnam Vet and 5-term Massachusetts State Senator. I am not 63 but I agree with his tiredness of what has been allowed in this country. Frankly, it’s sickening to me…

This blog post of his was posted in February 2009. You can find his blog at: http://tartanmarine.blogspot.com/ Do I agree with everything he says? No. But I don’t agree with everything anyone says (except maybe Chewbacca.) But this…this I agree with….

“I’ll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I’ve worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven’t called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn’t inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there’s no retirement in sight, and I’m tired. Very tired.

I’m tired of being told that I have to “spread the wealth around” to people who don’t have my work ethic. I’m tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy or stupid to earn it.

I’m tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to “keep people in their homes.” Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I’m willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the leftwing Congresscritters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them—with their own money.

I’m tired of being told how bad America is by leftwing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and women’s rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Gay people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela. Won’t multiculturalism be beautiful?

I’m tired of being told that Islam is a “Religion of Peace,” when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family “honor;” of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren’t “believers;” of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for “adultery;” of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur’an and Shari’a law tells them to.

I believe “a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin.” I’m tired of being told that “race doesn’t matter” in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it’s all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of US Senators from Illinois. I think it’s very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government.

I’m tired of a news media that thinks Bush’s fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama’s, at triple the cost, were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress, that picked over every line of Bush’s military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin with two years as governor for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever.

Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.

I’m tired of being told that out of “tolerance for other cultures” we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I’m tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore’s, and if you’re greener than Gore, you’re green enough.

I’m tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don’t think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I’m tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

I’m tired of illegal aliens being called “undocumented workers,” especially the ones who aren’t working, but are living on welfare or crime. What’s next? Calling drug dealers, “Undocumented Pharmacists”? And, no, I’m not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic and it’s been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I’m willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person who can speak English, doesn’t have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military. Those are the citizens we need.

I’m tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people then themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years—and still are? Not even close. So here’s the deal. I’ll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we’ll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I’m tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers—bums are bi-partisan. And I’m tired of people telling me we need bi-partisanship. I live in Illinois, where the “Illinois Combine” of Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for years. And I notice that the tax cheats in Obama’s cabinet are bi-partisan as well.

I’m tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I’m tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

Speaking of poor, I’m tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn’t have that in 1970, but we didn’t know we were “poor.” The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I’m real tired of people who don’t take responsibility for their lives and actions. I’m tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I’m damn tired. But I’m also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I’m not going to get to see the world these people are making. I’m just sorry for my granddaughter.”

“The White House emphasized the human benefits over the technical details, returning repeatedly to a letter Obama received from an Ohio cancer patient who wrote that she gave up her health insurance after the cost rose to $8,500 a year.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100316/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
So wait a second…this woman, who has cancer, gave up her health insurance which undoubtedly paid tens of thousands (if not much, much more) of dollars in medical bills because her portion rose to $8500 a year? And this is viewed (by her and the White House apparently) as too high of a cost for a person to pay for their health care? No – it’s actually not.

And guess what – those “technical details” are billions and billions of dollars. What money tree has been found to pay for that? Who exactly will be covering her $8500 portion now? But no – people don’t want to think about that. They’ll think about that tomorrow…when it’s too late.

WTH is wrong with people? Why shouldn’t you have to pay a portion of your own health care costs?? It is ridiculous, and frankly disgusting, that the House is trying to sneak such a huge piece of legislation through. And the reason they want to sneak it through is because they know they can’t get it done any other way.

Disgusting. Worst Congress in recent history.

So the new Hate Crime provision (expanding the existing law) has been signed. Well…it was attached to a must-sign Defense bill so that it would have to be approved after it has not been approved when submitted on its own. Yeah…that’s how the government should work…

Now, I have no issue with people being punished for committing crimes against gays, lesbians (isn’t that the same thing?), bisexual, etc. But why is that crime any different than committing these crimes against me? Or a straight, white adult male.

Yes, I’ve read all of the arguments for the provision. And for the law in general (which I disagree with.) I understand them. But nowhere in any of them do I see something explaining to me why a crime against someone…anyone…shouldn’t be treated and punished equally.

You drag me out behind the bar and beat me up – should be a penalty for that. You rape me – should be a penalty for that. You burn my house down – should be a penalty for that. So why differentiate the victim? The victim is the victim. The perpetrator of the crime should be punished. Same penalty for the crime no matter who it was against. It shouldn’t matter what color, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. (crimes against children should have harsher penalties however.)

Yes, I get that if you take a gay man outside and beat him BECAUSE he is gay it is bad. Of course it is. But if someone drags me out and beats me up or kills me, it’s not because he (or she) loves me, that’s for sure. So why is that different? Why is that not a hate crime? Yes, gender is “protected” too. But then every rape is a federally prosecuted hate crime? No, I don’t think they are. If a bunch of black, hispanic, asian or martian men take aside a white kid and beat or kill him – are they charged with a hate crime? All of these acts would be done with malice. With hate. Because one thing is for damn sure, they weren’t done out of love.

You can argue all of the delicate sensibilities and PC crap you want. If a crime is committed, there should be a penalty. Adding on a HATE crime label is dumb. They are all hate crimes. If you commit violence against another living thing – it’s not because you have some great affinity for it/them.

Treating one bucket of victims differently from another is wrong. Period. The definition of discrimination is:

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

So another bill was signed into law (expanding the language of a current law really) doing just this exact thing. So yes, this bothers me. A lot.

This was originally published in the National Review on 9/25/01. It was written by Peter Ferrara, an associate professor of law at the George Mason University School of Law.

Seemed like a good thing to re-read today.

“You probably missed it in the rush of news last week, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper there an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American.

So I just thought I would write to let them know what an American is, so they would know when they found one.

An American is English…or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani, or Afghan.

An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them choose.

An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.

An American is from the most prosperous land in the history of the world. The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God-given right of each man and woman to the pursuit of happiness.

An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need. When Afghanistan was overrun by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country. As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan.

An American does not have to obey the mad ravings of ignorant, ungodly cruel, old men. American men will not be fooled into giving up their lives to kill innocent people, so that these foolish old men may hold on to power. American women are free to show their beautiful faces to the world, as each of them choose.

An American is free to criticize his government’s officials when they are wrong, in his or her own opinion. Then he is free to replace them, by majority vote.

Americans welcome people from all lands, all cultures, all religions, because they are not afraid. They are not afraid that their history, their religion, their beliefs, will be overrun, or forgotten. That is because they know they are free to hold to their religion, their beliefs, their history, as each of them choose.

And just as Americans welcome all, they enjoy the best that everyone has to bring, from all over the world. The best science, the best technology, the best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, the best athletes.

Americans welcome the best, but they also welcome the least. The nation symbol of America welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed.

These in fact are the people who built America. Many of them were working in the twin towers on the morning of September 11, earning a better life for their families.

So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo and Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung, and every bloodthirsty tyrant in the history of the world.

But in doing so you would just be killing yourself. Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

So look around you. You may find more Americans in your land than you thought were there. One day they will rise up and overthrow the old, ignorant, tired tyrants that trouble too many lands. Then those lands too will join the community of free and prosperous nations.

And America will welcome them.”

I received this joke via email. I have no idea if any of them are true but it actually wouldn’t surprise me as I have heard the kind of questions people ask and have less than zero faith that any of our politicians possess a working brain…

Plus they made me giggle :)


“A DC airport ticket agent offers some examples of ‘why’ our country is in trouble!

1.I had a New Hampshire Congresswoman (Carol Shea-Porter) ask for an aisle seat so that her hair wouldn’t get messed up by being near the window. (On an airplane!)

2.I got a call from a Kansas Congressman’s (Moore) staffer (Howard Bauleke), who wanted to go to Capetown. I started to explain the length of the flight and the passport information, and then he interrupted me with, ”I’m not trying to make you look stupid, but Capetown is in Massachusetts .”

Without trying to make him look stupid, I calmly explained, ”Cape Cod is in Massachusetts , Capetown is in Africa ”

his response — click.

3. A senior Vermont Congressman (Bernie Sanders) called, furious about a Florida package we did. I asked what was wrong with the vacation in Orlando. He said he was expecting an ocean-view room. I tried to explain that’s not possible, since Orlando is in the middle of the state.

He replied, ‘don’t lie to me, I looked on the map and Florida is a very thin state!” (OMG)

4. I got a call from a lawmaker’s wife (Landra Reid) who asked, ”Is it possible to see England from Canada ?”

I said, ”No.”

She said, ”But they look so close on the map.” (OMG, again!)

5.An aide for a cabinet member (Janet Napolitano) once called and asked if he could rent a car in Dallas . I pulled up the reservation and noticed he had only a 1-hour layover in Dallas . When I asked him why he wanted to rent a car, he said, ”I heard Dallas was a big airport, and we will need a car to drive between gates to save time.” (Aghhhh)

6.An Illinois Congresswoman (Jan Schakowsky) called last week. She needed to know how it was possible that her flight from Detroit left at 8:30 a.m., and got to Chicago at 8:33 a.m.

I explained that Michigan was an hour ahead of Illinois , but she couldn’t understand the concept of time zones. Finally, I told her the plane went fast, and she bought that.

7. A New York lawmaker, (Jerrold Nadler) called and asked, ”Do airlines put your physical description on your bag so they know whose luggage belongs to whom?” I said, ‘No, why do you ask?’

he replied, ”Well, when I checked in with the airline, they put a tag on my luggage that said (FAT), and I’m overweight. I think that’s very rude!”

After putting him on hold for a minute, while I looked into it. (I was dying laughing). I came back and explained the city code for Fresno , Ca. is (FAT – Fresno Air Terminal), and the airline was just putting a destination tag on his luggage.

8. A Senator John Kerry aide (Lindsay Ross) called to inquire about a trip package to Hawaii . After going over all the cost info, she asked, ”Would it be cheaper to fly to California and then take the train to Hawaii ?”

9. I just got off the phone with a freshman Congressman, Bobby Bright (D) from Ala who asked, ”How do I know which plane to get on?”

I asked him what exactly he meant, to which he replied, ”I was told my flight number is 823, but none of these planes have numbers on them.”

10. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) called and said, ”I need to fly to Pepsi-Cola , Florida . Do I have to get on one of those little computer planes?”

I asked if she meant fly to Pensacola , FL on a commuter plane.

She said, ”Yeah, whatever, smarty!”

11. Mary Landrieu (D) La. Senator called and had a question about the documents she needed in order to fly to China . After a lengthy discussion about passports, I reminded her that she needed a visa. ‘Oh, no I don’t. I’ve been to China many times and never had to have one of those.”

I double checked and sure enough, her stay required a visa. When I told her this she said, ”Look, I’ve been to China four times and every time they have accepted my American Express!”

12. A New Jersey Congressman (John Adler) called to make reservations, ”I want to go from Chicago to Rhino, New York .”

I was at a loss for words. Finally, I said, ”Are you sure that’s the name of the town?”

‘Yes, what flights do you have?” replied the man.

After some searching, I came back with, ”I’m sorry, sir, I’ve looked up every airport code in the country and can’t find a rhino anywhere.”

”The man retorted, ”Oh, don’t be silly! Everyone knows where it is. Check your map!”

So I scoured a map of the state of New York and finally offered, ”You don’t mean Buffalo , do you?”

The reply? ”Whatever! I knew it was a big animal.”

Now you know why the Government is in the shape that it’s in! Could anyone be this DUMB? YES, THEY WALK AMONG US, ARE IN POLITICS, AND THEY CONTINUE TO BREED.

I don’t write it, I just offer it for your consideration. Like manure, you just gotta spread it around. “

This op-ed is an example of why this issue is not a simple one. This was in today’s Wall Street Journal 8/3/09.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322084279548434.html

Gay Marriage, Democracy, and the Courts

The culture war will never end if judges invalidate the choices of voters.

We are in the midst of a showdown over the legal definition of marriage. Though some state courts have interfered, the battle is mainly being fought in referenda around the country, where “same-sex marriage” has uniformly been rejected, and in legislatures, where some states have adopted it. It’s a raucous battle, but democracy is working.

Now the fight may head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Following California’s Proposition 8, which restored the historic definition of marriage in that state as the union of husband and wife, a federal lawsuit has been filed to invalidate traditional marriage laws.

It would be disastrous for the justices to do so. They would repeat the error in Roe v. Wade: namely, trying to remove a morally charged policy issue from the forums of democratic deliberation and resolve it according to their personal lights.

Even many supporters of legal abortion now consider Roe a mistake. Lacking any basis in the text, logic or original understanding of the Constitution, the decision became a symbol of the judicial usurpation of authority vested in the people and their representatives. It sent the message that judges need not be impartial umpires—as both John Roberts and Sonia Sotomayor say they should be—but that judges can impose their policy preferences under the pretext of enforcing constitutional guarantees.

By short-circuiting the democratic process, Roe inflamed the culture war that has divided our nation and polarized our politics. Abortion, which the Court purported to settle in 1973, remains the most unsettled issue in American politics—and the most unsettling. Another Roe would deepen the culture war and prolong it indefinitely.

Some insist that the Supreme Court must invalidate traditional marriage laws because “rights” are at stake. But as in Roe, they are forced to peddle a strained and contentious reading of the Constitution—one whose dubiousness would undermine any ruling’s legitimacy.

Lawyers challenging traditional marriage laws liken their cause to Loving v. Virginia (which invalidated laws against interracial marriages), insinuating that conjugal-marriage supporters are bigots. This is ludicrous and offensive, and no one should hesitate to say so.

The definition of marriage was not at stake in Loving. Everyone agreed that interracial marriages were marriages. Racists just wanted to ban them as part of the evil regime of white supremacy that the equal protection clause was designed to destroy.

Opponents of racist laws in Loving did not question the idea, deeply embodied in our law and its shaping philosophical tradition, of marriage as a union that takes its distinctive character from being founded, unlike other friendships, on bodily unity of the kind that sometimes generates new life. This unity is why marriage, in our legal tradition, is consummated only by acts that are generative in kind. Such acts unite husband and wife at the most fundamental level and thus legally consummate marriage whether or not they are generative in effect, and even when conception is not sought.

Of course, marital intercourse often does produce babies, and marriage is the form of relationship that is uniquely apt for childrearing (which is why, unlike baptisms and bar mitzvahs, it is a matter of vital public concern). But as a comprehensive sharing of life—an emotional and biological union—marriage has value in itself and not merely as a means to procreation. This explains why our law has historically permitted annulment of marriage for non-consummation, but not for infertility; and why acts of sodomy, even between legally wed spouses, have never been recognized as consummating marriages.

Only this understanding makes sense of all the norms—annulability for non-consummation, the pledge of permanence, monogamy, sexual exclusivity—that shape marriage as we know it and that our law reflects. And only this view can explain why the state should regulate marriage (as opposed to ordinary friendships) at all—to make it more likely that, wherever possible, children are reared in the context of the bond between the parents whose sexual union gave them life.

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.

Is this a red herring? This week’s Newsweek reports more than 500,000 polyamorous households in the U.S.

So, before judging whether traditional marriage laws should be junked, we must decide what marriage is. It is this crucial and logically prior question that some want to shuffle off stage.

Because marriage has already been deeply wounded, some say that redefining it will do no additional harm. I disagree. We should strengthen, not redefine, marriage. But whatever one’s view, surely it is the people, not the courts, who should debate and decide. For reasons of both principle and prudence, the issue should be settled by democratic means, not by what Justice Byron White, in his dissent in Roe, called an “act of raw judicial power.”

Author:

Mr. George is professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and founder of the American Principles Project (www.americanprinciplesproject.org).Robert P. George, J.D., D.Phil. is one of America’s foremost scholars in the fields of constitutional law, ethics, and political philosophy.

Dr. George has won numerous awards for his academic and civic work, including the Presidential Citizens Medal.

He has served on the President’s Council on Bioethics and as a presidential appointee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He is a former Judicial Fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States, where he received the Justice Tom C. Clark Award.

Robert P. George, J.D., D.Phil. is one of America’s foremost scholars in the fields of constitutional law, ethics, and political philosophy.

Dr. George has won numerous awards for his academic and civic work, including the Presidential Citizens Medal.

He has served on the President’s Council on Bioethics and as a presidential appointee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He is a former Judicial Fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States, where he received the Justice Tom C. Clark Award.