Could the Legalization of Gay Marriage help the GOP?

This past week court rulings legalized same-sex marriage in both New Mexico and Utah. The ruling applied to Utah will almost certainly be appealed.

Support for same-sex marriage has been growing and I don't think the trend is likely to reverse. Will it keep growing to the point where it is generally accepted or will it plateau? I'm not sure. But I would estimate that support is somewhere from 53-54%. People who are in that groups will have one more reason to not vote for many republicans. Very few republicans can win the vote of people who identify themselves as gay.

But what if court rulings lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage in all 50 states then it might take the issue off of the table. Meaning that if Same-Sex Marriage was legal in the United States and there was nothing that a legislative acts could do about it than it may do away with a reason to vote against the GOP. A Republican candidate for President might get about 22% of the gay vote. But the common tendency of courts is to rule in favor of same-sex marriage. If there was a definitive court ruling legalizing gay marriage and it was believed that it wasn't going to go away than perhaps the GOP would do better with those who support the gay rights movement.

Just some thoughts.

Appendage to my thoughts on the nuclear option

This might sound a little goofy but I thought of an analogy relating to the nuclear deal.

Let's compare the Senate to a married couple. How many marriages are there were the two parties disagree on important sensitive topics. Quite a few. How many family counselors would suggest that one try to get around their partner rather than compromise. None. In fact people doing that is the reason that we have family counselors. In a successful marriage the two involved will discuss the issue in a civil manner and then meet somewhere in the middle. It appears to me that Harry Reid doesn't want to do that. In the week following Chris Christie's reelection he said that what happens in New Jersey is they discuss an issue, argue about it, come to an agreement, and then move on. The Senate democrats seem to have given up. And I don't anticipate that republican house majority is going to be easier to get along with as a result of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4e1-d_Pd3w

Thoughts on the Senate's Nuclear Option

 Harry Reid led the senate to invoking the nuclear option. From what I understand this means that they voted to give themselves more power. I'm not happy about this.

It seems that the democrats want to figure out how to get around the republicans rather than figure out how to get along with them. What else makes this case is the health care reform. They may have met in a room with republicans and opened their mouths and talked about health care but in my perception that was sort of fake. It seems that back then rather than figure out a way to get along with the republicans to pass health reform they wanted to figure out a way to get around them by passing the bill through the back door, namely reconciliation.

I think what the democrats are forgetting is that the republicans could very well come back into power in the next few years and that nuclear option will be just as readily available to them.

People are always frustrated that congress can't get much done. This sounds weird but I sort of think that that's kind of a good thing. There are 50 states in the USA and they are very different. I'm not sure that 51 senators is justification to pass federal legislation. I'm a believer in states' rights. People want to look to Washington to solve problems. I think people need to get into the habit of looking to places like Boston, Austin, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Bismark, Tallahassee, etc.

However, appointments of federal judges is by definition not a state issue. Democrats want people to think that republicans are too stubborn to get anyone appointed. Maybe the problem is that the democrats are too stubborn. Among Justices who are serving or recently have served on the Supreme Court there are some who received over 80 yea votes. These ones were appointed by Presidents Reagen and Clinton. Presidents Bush 43 and Obama have both appointed 2 justices that do not fit this description. But I think it's proven that the senate can get along on these things. But it seems that they don't want to.

New York City and the San Francisco bridge

Recently I saw the movie Man of Steel. Not my favorite superhero movie but I enjoyed it. Towards the end of the movie Superman and his Kripton rivals are duking in out in New York City. This is also quite similar to how The Avengers ended.

What occurred to me is that the fight scenes in both of these movies are similar to the September 11 terrorists attacks. Both destroyed a bunch of buildings, both were in New York City, and both could be considered Terrorist attacks from foreign enemies..

So why do we enjoy watching these movies. When the first tower was attacked on 9/11 if anyone felt anything other than sadness it was confusion. I've heard people tell stories hearing it on the radio and thinking "what, a plane flew into a building?" Others I heard saw it on the news and thought it was movie. After the second tower was attacked it was clear that it was a terrorist attack rather than an accident or hoax.

When watching superhero movies we see the villains attacking several building in NYC or the San Francisco and the movie never confirms that they're empty. When Superman's enemy kryoptonians knock over a building we don't normally think of think of any of the people inside, the people who just lost a spouse or parent, the damage to the environment, or economy.

I don't wish to condemn anyone who enjoyed these movies. But there seems to be an interesting paradox or fallacy at hand.

Ground Zero revisited

Well a few years ago I made a post about ground zero. Well the mosque or cultural center or whatever it was ended up not being built in that location. I feel I need to post about it because I've heard some stuff about it since then that I don't know if I can believe.

First of all. I'm not sure if it actually was a mosque or just a cultural or recreation center.

One thing I also heard that I think is false is that Obama wanted to build it. I've heard this a few times and I don't think that it's true. If I remember Obama is on the record as saying that Muslims have the right to build their building. The response from some was that he wanted to build the project. (This is where some ignorant conservatives must have stopped paying attention) The next response was, "no, he didn't say that he supported it, he just said that they have the right to build it." (This is where some not so ignorant people kept paying attention) And then the president real feelings about the project were left ambiguous. Even Sarah Palin acknowledged the right of the Muslim community to build the building but nobody said she was supporting the project.

I imagine what happened was Obama was in the white house discussing the issue with a few of his staff members and he didn't support the project but also didn't want to offend the Muslim population. And I think the decision they arrived at was for him to make some simple commentary on the first amendment but not express his real feelings but to give the impression that he did. Thus leaving the issue ambiguous.

I've also heard that Obama wants a universal coinage for North America. I've heard that he wants to change the constitution for a third term. And I think I've heard some other stuff that is just false but some people will believe. And that's how the world is.

Female Suspect

These are the words that I saw on a few news articles relating to this weeks's shooting by the United States capital this week. What comes across to me as interesting is that the articles felt that sense the suspect is female, it must be clarified that she is female. So apparently our society feels that the word suspect is more masculine than feminine. Which is probably because big crimes such as this are committed more frequently by men.

Also consider this. Is it as common to hear someone revering somebody else as being a good woman.  I feel that it is a sort of a noble honor to be referred to a good man but there doesn't seem to be an equivalent honor for women. It seems to me that being good is more common or impressive or unusual for men than it is for women. Which very well could be true.

That's me thoughts of today

One more thing.

I saw something on the news about Congress applauding the police officer who was injured in capturing the suspect. I am glad that the District of Columbia has brave police officers who will do their duty at large sacrifice. I am sad that that is one of the only things congress can agree on. The government has been shutdown for four days and my life has been essentially the same. All though that is not the case for Federal government employees who have a hard time making ends meet. Likewise for anyone who needs to get a social security card or passport for any number of important reasons.

My letter to Senator Lee regarding the defunding of Obamacare

Dear Senator Lee.

I am a college student from Provo Utah studying Actuarial Science. For years I've taken interest in political and economic issues. I'm registered to vote as independent but I'm generally conservative and I voted for you and Congressmen Chaffetz in the 2010 midterms. I was little hesitant to do so however because both of you are considered members of the TEA Party movement which at the time I wasn't sure I could embrace.

This past week Senator Cruz of Texas made the news with a 21 hour speech fighting Obamacare. From what I've read in the news you supported him in his speech. I read an article in the Huffington Post (which admittedly might lean left) describing you two as the odd men out in the senate. Even among the Republicans.

To see the news headlines this week saying such things as "Ted Cruz gives marathon speech against Obamacare," or "house republicans move towards shutdown," make me think of two words, "Partisan gridlock."

The Affordable Care Act is often referred to as "Obamacare." For this reason everyone connects it President Obama and the Democrats. When I see the republicans trying to attack Obamacare it comes across of very partisan. The point of my letter is not that the GOP should accept defeat on Obamacare or that some parts of the law may be beneficial. Instead I'm writing to tell you that I believe that the GOP needs to be the party of financial responsibility rather than the party of reduce funding for everything with Obama's name on it.

I truthfully don't believe that Obamacare is the enemy. I think the enemy is anything financially irresponsible. In the past few years since the GOP became the house majority they have tried to slow down the growth of the debt ceiling. I believe that this was partially out of a desire to but heads with the democrats or brand them as financially irresponsible but I also believe that it was the result of politicians deciding that the national debt was way too large and that we simply just can't let it grow without trying to slow it down. I think that was a few steps in the right direction but now I'm not sure if the republicans are still walking that path.

For example. If the republicans want to lower funding for 10 different provisions of Obamacare that makes them come across to me as very partisan and poor political sportsmanship. (By that I mean not willing to accept defeat) If the republicans want to attack 30 different provisions of irresponsible spending and 7 or 8 of them just so happen to be in Obamacare then I would feel that they are more concerned about America then about the status of their party or of the other party. 

My mom recently attended the Utah County GOP convention. She said she wasn't won over so much by what you said about gun rights but she thought it was interesting that congressmen Chaffetz said that he was investigating why the government had large surplus of ammunition when at the same the border patrol doesn't have enough ammo to practice with. During one of the Presidential debates Governor Romney said that his rule of thumb would be that for every spending question he would ask himself, "is this so important that we need to borrow money from China to pay for it?" I'm sure you agree with that Obamacare doesn't make the mark and you may even be able to prove that it is hurting the economy but I believe that what's in America's interests is to look at the larger picture and not just one law.