The Freedom Bulletin

After the Obama love-fest that overtook much of the Internet and the general public this past week after he announced his support for gay marriage, I figured I would be remiss if I did not at least give it a mention on the Freedom Bulletin.

Obama’s endorsement wasn’t exactly surprising, especially after Vice President Biden kind of spilled the beans by saying he was “comfortable” with the idea of gay marriage.

And, despite all the gushing about how courageous Obama is, in my opinion, it wasn’t any more courageous of him to support gay marriage than not to support it. Yes, Obama took a political risk, but he would also have been taking a risk by sticking to his previous position of only supporting civil unions. Most of Obama’s base supports gay marriage, and he decided to gamble that energizing his base would outweigh any objections from his religious supporters and more conservative Democrats. If you look at the myriad polls that have been done, it seems like the American people are, overall, divided pretty evenly on gay marriage, so it’s not as if Obama went out on a limb and took an unpopular position for the principle of it.

Unlike what many newspaper columnists, activists, and online commentators seem to think, gay marriage does not equal “marriage equality” or “equal rights.” As long as our society treats it as better to be in a couple relationship than to be single, there will not be true equality. As I explained before, the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether and allow people and religious institutions to categorize relationships as they see fit. The only way to truly have equality and justice is for the law to treat people equally, regardless of their romantic relationship status. For a politician to stand up for single people, now that would be courageous.

As Congress is debating CISPA – the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act – the Obama administration has, surprisingly, come out strongly against the bill. Although not (yet) as high-profile or as widely opposed as SOPA or PIPA, CISPA poses similar threats to privacy. According to Tech Dirt and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, it would allow companies to collect and monitor basically any of your communications and share them freely with the government or with other companies, as long as they meet the very vague definition of “cybersecurity threats.”

From a statement (PDF) by the Office of Management and Budget:

“The American people expect their Government to enhance security without undermining their privacy and civil liberties. Without clear legal protections and independent oversight, information sharing legislation will undermine the public’s trust in the Government as well as in the Internet by undermining fundamental privacy, confidentiality, civil liberties, and consumer protections.”

I was pretty surprised that the Obama administration opposed SOPA and PIPA, and I’m glad that they have the same opinion of CISPA. It is a pleasant surprise that the White House values privacy and civil liberties when it comes to Internet security. If only they could have the same values about airport security, jail security, and health care…

If a military board gets its way, Sgt. Gary Stein will receive an “other-than-honorable” discharge from the Marine Corps just months before his enlistment is set to end. He will lose all of his military benefits, will be banned from re-enlisting or even entering a military base, and his reputation will be forever tainted. What did he do to deserve this? He criticized President Obama on Facebook. According to the New American:

Stein attracted the scrutiny of his superiors after he created an “Armed Forces Tea Party” group on Facebook in 2010. According to prosecutors, he used the group to post “contemptuous” comments and images of Obama — including a picture of the President superimposed on the “Jackass” movie poster…

Stein also used his Facebook account to blast Obama as a “coward” and an “economic and religious enemy” of America, according to the prosecutor. He allegedly sold “Nobama” bumper stickers from a personal website, too.

Military policy bans soldiers from publicly making partisan political comments or expressing contempt for the Commander-in-Chief. But Sgt. Stein’s lawyers argued that his comments were protected by the First Amendment because they were made in his personal capacity as opposed to him speaking on behalf of the military. He posted while off duty, and the Facebook page contained a disclaimer stating that the Armed Forces Tea Party is not affiliated with the military.

“Think about how dangerous this could be if the U.S. government can prosecute you for something you say on your private Facebook page,” said his lawyer, Capt. James Baehr. “How can we expect Marines to participate in citizenship if they cannot join political discussions?”

He makes a good point. I believe that people should be able to work at the job that they choose without having to sacrifice their First Amendment rights. Of course there can be some limits to what employers allow their employees to post via social media. It is justifiable for an employee to be fired for divulging confidential information or publicly criticizing their co-workers or bosses. If Sgt. Stein had used Facebook to criticize the soldiers he worked with, then it would make sense for him to be dishonorably discharged. Similarly, it would make sense for him to be fired if he was working as a personal advisor to Obama, or for his re-election campaign, and made the anti-Obama comments that he made. But with the exception of people who work in an explicitly political job, everyone should be able to express their political views without retribution from their employer. What a person does on their own personal time is not their employer’s business. This definitely includes the soldiers who help to defend the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

It seems like President Obama is not going to release any photo or video evidence of Osama bin Laden’s death.

Obama said on 60 Minutes today, “It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of someone who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence, or as a propaganda tool.”

While it makes sense to withhold gruesome photos out of respect for the dead (even bin Laden deserves respect in death), I don’t believe in keeping information secret merely because it could be incendiary.

I think that the best solution would be for the government to make the photo and/or video available to people who want to find it, without any fanfare, without any gloating or editorial comments, and without displaying it prominently. The photo shouldn’t end up being plastered on the front page of the White House website or all over newspapers or television. It is dishonorable and classless to plaster pictures of someone’s dead body anywhere, or for that matter, to celebrate someone’s death. But the government shouldn’t expect people to blindly trust them, nor should they censor information out of fear of how people will react to it. In my opinion, Obama should release the photo in a tactful, neutral way and allow people to form their own opinions.

Late Friday night, barely averting a government shutdown, President Barack Obama, Speaker John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reached a compromise budget deal which included $38.5 million in cuts. While this is not as much as the $62 million that Tea Party members pushed for, or the $100 billion that Speaker Boehner mentioned after the 2010 election, it is a victory for small government.

The good things about the budget:

• The $32 billion in cuts that Boehner originally proposed were called “extreme” and “draconian,” yet Democrats ended up agreeing to even more
• The budget bill requires audits of many of Obama’s programs, denies additional spending on the IRS, and cuts $2 billion from the Department of Defense
• It is the largest spending cut in American history

The bad things about the budget:

• It does not cut Pell Grants, medical research, the Race to the Top initiative, PBS, or NPR
• It only slightly cuts foreign aid
• $18 billion of the cuts come from programs whose budgets “run largely on autopilot” and might not actually be spent anyway
• The debate about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood still has to be resolved

Considering our national debt of $14 trillion, the budget deal might be a baby step toward solving America’s money woes and restoring freedom and justice, but baby steps are better than nothing. Instead of our leaders arguing about how much additional spending to add, they are arguing about how much to cut. Now that is an encouraging change.

I’m still trying to decide what my opinion is about the U.S. intervention in Libya…but Ron Paul certainly opposes it. Dennis Kucinich does too, and this odd pair are both saying that President Obama could be impeached for it:

Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul will be co-sponsoring an amendment announced Tuesday by Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich that would defund the American military intervention in Libya.

Kucinich suggested during a Saturday conference call with fellow anti-war Democrats that he thought impeachment could also be considered for Obama’s “unconstitutional” actions in Libya.

Read the rest at the Daily Caller.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, have both been in the news recently – DOMA because the Obama administration announced on Thursday that they would no longer defend it against lawsuits, and the ACA because a judge upheld its constitutionality against a religious-freedom-based challenge a week ago. Other than that, these two laws don’t have much in common. But this made me think, why did the Obama administration decide DOMA was unconstitutional while enthusiastically defending the constitutionality of the ACA?

DOMA defines marriage as between one man and one woman and, as a result, denies same-sex spouses of federal employees some benefits that are given to opposite-spouses. The Obama administration decided it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. As Attorney General Eric Holder wrote, “The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus that the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”

The Democrats’ health reform law, the ACA,  makes it illegal (for the vast majority of people) not to buy health insurance, and punishes people who disobey this requirement with fines. The Justice Department’s website has a prominent page dedicated to its “vigorous” defense of the law in federal courts.

Why does the Obama administration believe Obamacare is constitutional but DOMA is not? DOMA merely stops some people from partaking in a benefit offered through their spouse’s employment with the federal government. It might be fairer if both same-sex and opposite-sex couples  were offered the same benefits, but (a) the fairest thing for gay, straight, bisexual, asexual, married, and unmarried people would be not to offer benefits to spouses at all but only to actual employees; and (b) people don’t have a fundamental right to government-given health benefits based on their spouse’s employment. The ACA, on the other hand, outlaws the decision to opt away from health insurance and instead pay for all of one’s health services oneself. In other words, it takes away the ability to spend one’s own money as one chooses, which is a fundamental right.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to allow people to form whatever romantic relationships they want (or none at all) without government labels or interference, and to choose whether to buy insurance or pay for health services in cash? I sure think so, but I guess that’s just me.