Catching up on current events

It's been a busy news week on the political front, so I thought I would give my thoughts on several of the most interesting developments that caught my attention.
California court strikes down gay marriage ban: On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California's Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2008 which banned gay marriage in the state. Overturning the ill-conceived and unfair ban was the right decision. Let's hope the full appeals court, and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court, leaves this decision alone.
Gay marriage is a sensitive issue for a lot of people. Frankly, I don't understand what all the complaining is about. Allowing gay couples to get married and recognizing them as actual "marriages" under the law does no harm to existing marriages. It does not, as opponents claim, do irreparable harm to the "institution of marriage." Half of marriages in the United States already end in divorce -- and that's among straight couples. On the other hand, many gay couples have relationships that last years -- even decades. It seems to me that allowing gay couples to get married would do no more harm to the "institution of marriage" than we straight folks are already doing to it ourselves.
The issue of gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, as some like to imagine it. This is a matter of simple fairness. Gay couples who are committed to each other should be allowed to leave their property to their partners. They should be treated as family during hospital stays. And they should be allowed to provide health insurance for each other. In short, they should enjoy every right that their heterosexual bretheren take for granted. To deny them those rights is simply bigotry. It has no place in a free society.
Newt Gingrich, closet racist?: Once again, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has shown that he is unfit to be the next president of the United States. In fact, his remarks in recent days have shown he is unfit to hold any elected office at all.
In recent debates and at campaign stops around the country, Gingrich has been deriding President Barack Obama as "the food stamp president." He claims that more Americans have been put on food stamps under Obama than any president in history. He's even applied the label to his chief rival, Mitt Romney, dubbing him "Little Food Stamp."
This latest tactic by Gingrich is as disgusting as it is factually wrong. Yes, the number of people eligible for food stamps has significantly expanded over the past decade. Today, about one of every seven Americans is eligible for food stamp assistance. But that expansion began during the administration of Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, a Republican. And although 14.2 million Americans have become eligible for food stamps under Obama, that's still nearly half a million less than those that became eligible under Baby Bush.
Some have labeled Gingrich's attacks as racist. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. What I do think, though, is that they show a lack of compassion that is common to a significant number in today's Republican Party.
Food stamps are not "wrong," as Gingrich seems to think. Millions of Americans count on them to provide food for themselves and their families every day. Without them, millions of Americans would go hungry every night. If we get rid of the program, as Gingrich seems to want to do, what would we replace it with to make sure people don't starve?
The same kind of questions can be asked about other "safety net" programs such as welfare and Social Security. These programs aren't perfect. And yes, in programs this large, there are always going to be cases of abuse. But they are a way of providing something for the poorest Americans who have become either too old or infirm to work. They are a way of helping those who, through no fault of their own, can no longer help themselves. And isn't that what the Constitution provides for, the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?
Obama and birth control: President Obama has come under fire this week for upholding a longstanding policy that requires employers (or at least those who employ more than 15 people) to offer coverage for birth control if they offer other prescription drug coverage. The policy was put in place in December 2000 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which ruled that to offer prescription coverage without covering birth control violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The policy remained unchanged throughout the administration of George W. Bush, yet now, it has become a source of great concern for Republicans desperate to win the White House in 2012.
Republicans are now decrying the policy as unnecessary government intrusion. They're casting this as a matter of religious freedom, saying that people and companies that are opposed to birth control on religious grounds shouldn't be forced to cover it in their insurance policies. As per usual, GOP critics have their facts only about half right.
The policy being supported by Obama already provides exemptions for those who object on religious grounds. And by the way, where were all these critics when Baby Bush was in the White House? This policy has been the law of the land for more than a decade and the Republicans said nothing. It's only now, when the White House is up for grabs, that they are making an issue of this? How hypocritical.
The issue here isn't really one of religious freedom at all. The issue here is whether companies should help their female employees pay for birth control. The issue is whether women should remain in control of when and if they become pregnant. The answer, of course, is "yes" on both counts.
Republican objections to this common-sense policy are opportunistic at best, backward and hypocritical at worst. Republicans are the ones who have been fighting to repeal Roe v. Wade for almost four decades. They drone on endlessly about "the sanctity of life." Isn't it better to allow women and families to decide for themselves when to become pregnant than to encourage abortion by making it harder to obtain birth control, so that unintended and unwanted pregnancy is the more likely result?
For the record, I believe that abortion used as a form of birth control is morally reprehensible. With all the effective forms of birth control out there -- and with all the young couples desperate to have children -- there really is no excuse for it. But I also believe that the choice to have a family -- or not to have one -- should be left up to each woman and each family, without the input of government. This rule has worked well for more than a decade. This is one time when our politicians should back off, take a deep breath and just leave well enough alone.