Why oppose a federal marriage amendment?

This posting summarizes the excellent rationale for pro-family citizens to oppose the proposed federal marriage amendment.

The Liberty Committee -- Legislative Alerts: federal marriage amendment

Why We Cannot Win by Al Lorentz

As my friend, Dean May, says:

"Let's really support our troops. Let's Bring 'Em Home."

Why We Cannot Win by Al Lorentz

Opposed to government ban on smoking in private businesses

Following is a letter I sent today to the mayor and members of the City Council of Columbus, Indiana.


I have not seen a copy yet of the smoking ban ordinance that Mayor Armstrong plans to introduce to the City Council on September 21, but I am strongly opposed to any measure such as this which would dictate to private business owners how they may conduct business on their own property. Trying to cast a private business as a "public place" may try to put this in a different light, but it comes down to the same thing.

I encourage local government officials to seek out and find effective non-statutory means of promoting healthy individual and business choices.

By way of background, I am a non-smoker and I prefer to avoid entering and staying in situations where I am breathing significant second-hand smoke. Therefore I seldom frequent businesses in which smoking is prevalent, and I choose to work for an employer who voluntarily prohibits smoking on the premises, except in designated areas. The company for which I work has made this decision because they perceive it is a wise business decision for them.

I also favor no-smoking policies in government buildings, where there is no private competition available for the services which are offered there.

However, government regulation of smoking in private businesses unnecessarily forsakes the American tradition of providing the least intrusive government that serves the best interest of all its citizens. Here we are talking about a local government taking the money these very business people are forced to provide to support that government, and then wanting to turn right around and use their own money against them to force them to run their businesses in a different way than the way they perceive to be best. That just doesn't sound have a "land of the free" ring to it to me.

As in many other realms, the free market is effective and sufficient for regulating smoking in this situation. If having a smoking section is good for business, then the business owner should have the freedom to offer that situation. Customers (and employees) who disagree are free to vote with their feet. If there are enough of them, competition for customers and employees will show that the non-smoking establishments do better than businesses which permit smoking, and the enlightened business owner can choose to adjust his business strategy or not.

The specific fallacy which I have not seen much addressed thus far in the public debate is that employees are somehow helpless victims of an employer who chooses to offer a choice of smoking in his business. It is disingenuous to claim that "employees deserve a healthy work environment." While no employer should negligently permit unnecessary risks in the workplace, it is a fact of life that every job carries with it intrinsic hazards, some more so than others. The compensation for working in that workplace must implicitly take those hazards into account, or the employer would not be able to hire any employees who were willing to subject themselves to the risks inherent in that workplace.

For example, the general public understands that those who choose to work in such occupations as the armed forces, firefighting, law enforcement, mining, or offshore drilling voluntarily assume greater risks to life and health as a part of their job than those who choose many other occupations, for example as an office worker. Other than the military, nearly every other occupation in our country permits each employee to evaluate on a daily basis whether he considers the benefits of his job (e.g., the pay) to outweigh the costs, including the health risks.

Indentured servanthood has been gone for a long time in our society. Nearly everyone who works in our country, including the Columbus and Bartholomew County area, has the daily freedom to leave a job whenever he comes to believe that the risks outweigh the benefits for him. I understand there are many compelling reasons for wanting to stay in a long-held job, including accrued vacation and benefits, but those must all simply enter into the daily cost-benefit analysis.

I grew up on a hog farm in nearby Rush County, so that brings an illustration to mind. We occasionally shook our heads in near-incredulity to hear the stories of city folk who, longing for a nice place in the country, knowingly selected property near a hog confinement operation for their new residence. Then, after a period of enduring the odors to which they had knowingly subjected themselves, they took the hog farmer to court to protest the very smells that had been there all along, usually since long before they ever decided to place themselves in that environment.

This is the same sort of pomposity I see in an employee (or a well-intentioned public servant who wishes to intervene on his behalf in exchange for a vote in the next election) who knowingly hires into a smoking environment, and then suddenly decides that he has a right to demand the employer provide him a different environment, rather than just voting with his feet and selling his services to someone else who will provide him a work environment with a cost-benefit ratio more to his liking.

Another option open to any employee is to politely negotiate with the employer before deciding to leave. Perhaps faced with losing one or more valued and experienced employees, some employers would suddenly find it in their own enlightened self-interest to voluntarily institute a no-smoking policy for the business. If not, asking the question has at least helped to clarify whether the employer with these priorities is really the one for whom you wish to work anyway.

One of the sound bites playing on WCSI radio today in the story on the August 30 public forum was positively Orwellian. I did not hear who the man speaking was, but he said something to the effect that if the taxpaying members of the community were not voluntarily making "good" health choices (as he defines "good"), then he sees government's role as stepping in and forcing them to do so. This flies in the face of those like me who see one of government's primary roles as preserving the rights of liberty and private property.

It reminds me of Benjamin Franklin's comment, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." In this case, those giving up essential liberty are those seeking a little temporary safety from tobacco smoke by using the force of government to compel their neighbors to give up a measure of liberty.

While I am no fan of second-hand smoke, the loss of liberty, and the precedent it sets for further losses in the future for other perceived "public goods", is just not worth it.

"Red Dawn" and Iraq

Thomas Eddlem quotes a line from the 1984 movie "Red Dawn" and draws a parallel with the "friendly" British occupation of Boston in 1768 to help explain why the Iraqi people are not happy about being occupied by a foreign force.

Nostradamus, Bush Is Not - by Thomas R. Eddlem

How politicians muzzle preachers

Discover the history behind the muzzling of America's clergy.

Intellivu - Editorial Columns

Whom Do We Elect?

Gary Benoit explains why it does not matter a whole lot who we elect as our next president. The critical elections in which an activist constitutionalist can really make a difference for our country's future are the 435 congressional districts.

Whom Do We Elect? - The New American - July 12, 2004

The war on drugs feeds the war on guns

Joel Miller explains how the war on drugs threatens the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

WorldNetDaily: The war on guns

WorldNetDaily: Boy Scouts still under heavy fire

David Limbaugh weighs in on the "homosexual activists' relentless assault on the Boy Scouts of America, all because the BSA will not conform its standards to accommodate their lifestyle."

WorldNetDaily: Boy Scouts still under heavy fire

WorldNetDaily: Child murders and illegal immigration

Joseph Farah connects the heinous child murders in Baltimore with the illegal immigration problem.

WorldNetDaily: Child murders and illegal immigration

WorldNetDaily: Pizza man saved by gun, but fired for packin' heat

Rick Whitham points out "the incredible unfairness of a huge company telling its employees – in essence – they must agree to die for the company rather than use legal reasonable means to defend themselves..."

WorldNetDaily: Pizza man saved by gun, but fired for packin' heat

Chuck Baldwin -- "The Spirit of Fear" Controls Many Christians

Pastor Chuck Baldwin reminds Christians that "Duty is ours; results are God's."

Chuck Baldwin -- "The Spirit of Fear" Controls Many Christians

How Much Is Hussein's Departure Worth?, by Harry Browne

Harry Browne asks, "Would removing Hussein be worth it if the cost were just one human life — but that life was yours?"

How Much Is Hussein's Departure Worth?, by Harry Browne

WorldNetDaily: 'Hate crimes' bill: Prescription for tyranny

Robert Knight says, ' Let's go to the bottom line: The federal "hate crimes" bill lays the groundwork for persecution of Christians in this country... This isn't a slippery slope; it's a luge ride toward totalitarianism.

If you value the freedom to speak our minds, you might want to let public officials know in no uncertain terms how you feel about politicians who aid and abet the effort to create "thought crimes." '

WorldNetDaily: 'Hate crimes' bill: Prescription for tyranny

WorldNetDaily: Randall Terry's prodigal son, the homosexual, Part 2

Randall Terry points out that ' Homosexual behavior is suicide on the installment plan. '

' The homosexual activists have become masters of "mix and match." They talk about "feelings" and behavior as if they are one and the some. They are not... Homosexual behavior is wrong because it violates the way our Creator made the world, and the Laws He gave us... absent the Created order and standards of the Almighty, there is no reason to oppose same-sex-marriage... The reason we oppose homosexual marriage is because it violates the way God made the world – it attacks the institution He created; it betrays and defies the Laws He gave us. '

' ... If there is no God... then anything goes... But if there is a God who makes the rules, then He has imposed His morals on all of us, and we are obliged to obey and defend those ethics in the public square... The Declaration of Independence declares that our rights come from God. It also declares that Laws come from God, and that God is the Supreme Judge of the Universe. We do not get to pick our rights, nor the laws that govern our behavior... God loves homosexuals, and will redeem their lives, and give them the strength to overcome this self-destructive behavior... '

' Our bad feelings don't come from our Maker. Our feelings are ours – they come and go – but we can all control our behavior, and overcome unhealthy feelings... we must not confuse homosexual "feelings" with homosexual behavior... We must never give up the idea that people can change. '

' We know there is a God in Heaven who loves us, and has helped many of us turn from unhealthy and unholy behaviors by the power of the Gospel. Likewise, with the help of God's grace, many of us have overcome unhealthy feelings, or we have learned how to defuse those feelings, and not let them rule over us... To say that homosexuals cannot overcome their addiction and their behavior is to deny the power of the Gospel. '

' We must have enough love and courage to tell the homosexual movement the Truth: We accept that you have feelings and struggles that are self-abusive, and we hope and pray you overcome them. We will help you as we are able. We love you, because you are made in the image of God. But don't expect us to validate, lionize, legalize or otherwise elevate as "normal" your self-destructive addiction. Don't expect us to tell our sons and daughters that homosexual behavior is a healthy path they might choose someday. '

' If homosexuals seek to live at peace while they work on their struggles, fine... But when they seek to cram their agenda and perversions down our throat as good and normal, we must oppose them, and defeat their efforts. '

WorldNetDaily: My prodigal son, the homosexual, Part 2

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY: THE IMPOSSIBLE UNION - Amir Taheri - Benador Associates

Amir Taheri makes a thought-provoking case for the immiscibility of Islam and democracy.

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY: THE IMPOSSIBLE UNION - Amir Taheri - Benador Associates

U.N. sea treaty supporters feel the heat

Cheryl Chumley recounts some excellent arguments to let the LOST (Law of the Sea Treaty) stay lost.

ESR | May 17, 2004 | U.N. sea treaty supporters feel the heat: "U.N. sea treaty supporters feel the heat"

Stop Immigration, Start Deportation

Mitchell Brooks makes a compelling case that George W. Bush refuses to protect our sovereignty while keeping the Border Patrol woefully understaffed.

The Washington Dispatch

Law Of Unintended FCC Consequences

Excellent commentary by Stuart Epperson on the downside of trying to gore the other person's ox.

The Washington Dispatch

Why Pictures of Flag-Draped Coffins Should Be Published (The Washington Dispatch)

Excellent case for the U.S. government to back off its attempted suppression of the true costs of our involvement in another undeclared war.

The Washington Dispatch

WorldNetDaily: Let's do some detective work

Walter Williams cites some Constitutional experts on what's wrong with today's national government.

WorldNetDaily: Let's do some detective work