samuraipanda.com

[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.

I think this is one of the most important parts of the California Supreme Court (CSC) decision in regards to gay marriage (aside from actually allowing it). It establishes a clear boundary between marriage as an institution recognized by a government and one recognized by a religion. Many religions refuse to recognize marriages not performed in the context of their religion. Those religions also often require that both people be part of that religion before the marriage is allowed. That is the religions right, just as any individual can refuse to recognize a couples marriage. The government, on the other hand, can’t set boundaries on marriage unless the laws allow it. The CSC clearly stuck to this line, requiring that the government recognize civil unions as marriages because the state constitution trumps any laws passed.

That said, if the people of California decide that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that similar same-sex institutions should be called “civil unions” (a rose by any other name…), then they will have to do so in their constitution. It will be interesting to see if the people of California will follow in the footsteps of their parents and grandparents, who recognized inter-racial marriages, or if they will follow in the steps of the other states and constitutionally enact a one man/one womand definition of marriage.

FreeMoneyFinance.com is one of my favorite blogs, financially speaking. But each Sunday it has it’s “The Bible and Money” piece, some I enjoy others just annoy me, such as this weeks. This weeks has to do with how the “Lord’s Way” for charity is better then the “Governments Way”. While it has some good points, I had to post a comment, which is reproduced below.

Being at the tail end of the Primary season, my state doesn’t often hold sway over who gets to be a Presidential contender.  That’s changed with the turn of the primary wheel.  This time my state might actually get to vote between two contenders for the Democratic ticket.  Then again, Clinton may drop out after tonight’s close race in Indiana and massive loss in North Carolina.  But if she doesn’t, then Oregon will actually be watched by the politics junkies.

But all this got me thinking about the primary process.  Is it really a fair system for both the states and the candidates?  As it stands now, Iowa clears out a lot of the no-names that are in the game.  Then the other early states finish off the rest.  At most it’s gone to Super Tuesday and from that point on it’s all pretense for the remaining states.  We know who is going to be the nominee and those states left just go through the motions of holding a primary.

Is that fair to the candidates?  Why should Iowa be the first state to vote?  Why not let Guam vote first or Florida?  Or why not let every state vote on the same day.  Give every candidate a chance and every state a voice?

Lars Larson, who I’m not a big fan of, proposed a 24-hour period in which every state, starting at 6am EST, votes.  At 6am the following day, the polls close.  One day to make a decision, to be heard, to be nominated.  It seems perfectly reasonable.  I’d vote for it if given the chance.

I’d also vote for a random system.  After each primary season the Democratic and Republican parties get together and draw states from the proverbial hat to establish the order in which the next primary season is done.  Dates of the actual primaries could be evenly distributed (2 or 3 a week maybe).  Each Tuesday would be another set of states voting.  Then everything becomes equal.  Oregon could still end up on the tail end or it could be among the first.  Iowa could be in the middle or at the end, sitting there with California.

Then again, this all seems to reasonable, to tradition breaking.  And politicians love their traditions.  I makes things predictable.