Well isn't that special.
74% of the voters in the Commonwealth of Kentucky say one thing; ONE Federal Judge says another. Guess who's opinion matters?
Why is that?
I have talked many times about gay marriage, most recently here. I have also said that a state or a community should be able to make its own laws on morality. Things such as drinking, gambling and prostitution should all be local decisions. If Ohio wants to get rich off of sin, so be it. If Kentucky chooses not to, so be that as well.
Basically, here is what this judge has decided; He has decided that the will of the judiciary in Massachusetts has more weight than then the will of 74% of the voters of Kentucky.
Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution; any marriage license issue in one state is valid in all fifty; just like a driver's license.
So; if a single judge in Rhode Island can determine that it is legal for two men to marry, Kentucky has to recognize that marriage, no matter how illegal it is in Kentucky.
Why do the same rules not apply to Concealed Carry? Why isn't my CC permit valid in Illinois?
Article IV, Section 1:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
If that can be construed to mean that something legal in one state must be recognized as legal in all states, then there should be no cherry-picking on what is allowed.
Smoking dope is now legal in Colorado and Washington; why isn't a citizen of Colorado allowed to light up in Kansas? Full Faith and Credit.
If where I come from has a speed limit of 80, how can another state say that is illegal? Liquor should be the same way; if the state I came from says an activity is legal, the state I go to shouldn't have any right to make that same activity illegal. Full Faith and Credit, right? Isn't that what this judge has said? The religion or morality of a given state can't control acts legal in another state?
Talk about the lowest common denominator; we are now stuck with, as a base, whatever state has the lowest laws in any given area. Prostitution is legal in Nevada. Full Faith and Credit now says NO state can outlaw Prostitution.
Florida and Texas, among other states, have made not paying an income tax legal. I guess that means I shouldn't have to pay one either; Full Faith and Credit, right?
What's that you say? It doesn't work like that? Only CERTAIN THINGS can be ruled as legal everywhere? Certain things that celebrate an aberrant minority and crucify the majority?
Yes; I said aberrant. The sexual acts of consenting adults has one purpose; procreation. So, by definition, any sexual act that cannot lead to procreation is aberrant; just like any child born out of wedlock is a bastard. Words have meanings. Sometimes cruel meanings,
And just because a behavior is aberrant doesn't mean it should be illegal or even immoral. Neither should it be celebrated.
All that aside, what happened to majority rule? More states have outlawed Gay marriage by popular vote than have approved it. More states have had gay marriage thrust upon them by judicial fiat than have voted it in by popular vote.
While I firmly believe in the rights of the minority to voice whatever opinion they hold, no minority has the right to enforce that opinion on the majority.
What's next? I do believe I will keep a copy of Bourke V. Beshear in my holster. The next time I get stopped concealed carrying in Illinois, guess what the officer gets, along with my CCW license?
Yep; Full and Credit Friend; live with it.
6 comments:
What is funny to me though is republicans love the idea of selling insurance across state lines but you get the same result. What one group of paid off politicians in a state like Delaware decide to allow insurance to cover will be what every state is stuck with for their coverage.
Sadly the answer to the above issue is one that state rights ppl don't want to hear. If there were more fed standards for gun control, gay marriage, etc this would be a moot point and what you do in one state would be good for all.
But you are missing the point entirely; what would that Federal standard be?
Have you forgotten that we did have a Federal Standard on Marriage? The Defense of Marriage Act. Some places didn't like the Federal standard; so it was repealed.
What makes you think any Federal law would fair better, irrespective of which side it supported?
On the insurance issue, the state line issue is this: Lets say a state requires all policies to include pregnancy care, a very expensive process and a huge cost to insurers. So that cost is built into the cost of the policy. As a single man, or an octogenarian, or a lesbian, I have no interest in this coverage. But because I live in State X, I have to pay for it.
State Z, a few miles away, does not require this coverage; it is an optional rider i can elect to take. Thus, the policy for our subject young man etc. is considerably cheaper.
This would also help companies that have employees who live in 2 or 3 or 4 states. They could purchase one policy that would cover everyone, instead of 3 or 4 policies.
Google "why are credit card companies located in Delaware" and you'll see what I mean about insurance across state lines. Humana, UHC, etc would all move to the state that has the least amount of coverage and offers them the best deals. The everyone would be left between choosing the big dog or a local guy that charges 3 x as much. Humana isn't going to do a KY plan and an Oh plan of they can just force ppl into the Delaware plan.
The problem with insurance is what are set as minimum policy limits and the cost of those limits, correlated with what the customer needs, and the ability to decide on those needs.
I don't remember seeing a doctor between the ages of 25 and 35; as far as insurance I could have gotten by with a plan that paid only for hospitalization. But today, I would not be allowed to purchase that base plan; I would be required to buy all sorts of insurance I didn't need and didn't want.
Your Credit Card analogy doesn't quite fit. Insurance would have base plans, upgrade plans and Cadillac plans still. The difference would not be a state friendly to insurance collecting all of the business, but a difference in the available base plan.
The insurance companies may have base plans and Cadillac plans but there is no telling what they would actually cover if much of anything. Look at your example above where there is a coverage mandated by a state for insurances to cover, if Humana can move their operations to a state that requires no minimum coverage mandates why wouldn't they make all their plans based on that state.
Then since they are in the profit business why would they add items they would lose money on? Nearly all the research I've done on across state insurance predicts a race to the bottom.
The credit card analogy is similar, all the credit card companies moved to Delaware because it gave them tax benefits and allowed them to charge a higher interest . Since they controlled 70% of the credit card market it leaves consumers with little choice but to buy a Delaware credit card
There are alternatives in the credit card market, such as local bank cards or (Perish the Thought!) no credit card at all.
which was always another option before Obamacare; no insurance.
And yes, for a certain percentage of people it was a very viable option.
In your scenario as well you are assuming there will be no choice above a plan that costs but covers nothing.
There will always be suppliers ready to meet a proven demand, especially if they can be national players, and not limited to a single state with their plan.
Post a Comment