"Same-Sex Marriage" - CA Prop. 8

The big issue when I first walked onto campus as a freshman was the Civil Rights Movement. I see the passage of California Proposition 8 (prohibiting same-sex marriage), and the recent CA court ruling not to overturn it, as the same thing, just an update. I think it will eventually be passed/legalized. I am always stuck with the fact that same-sex marriage is really already legal, since one spouse in a regular hetero marriage could get a sex change operation, and they would still be legally married, even though now of the same sex. So, seems to me it is pure discrimination, to not allow it in the first place, just for that reason, nevermind I see it as outright discrimination anyway.

Plus, the court ruling, not to overturn Prop. 8, while still allowing same sex marriages performed while it was legal for a few months prior to passage of Prop. 8 to remain valid, just doesn't seem to make legal sense, being a contradiction saying it is both legal and illegal now, depending on when the ceremony was performed. Plus, since same sex marriage is totally legal in a few other states, what happens when such a couple then moves to CA or a CA couple travels to another state just to marry then returns to CA? I assume those marriages would then be legal in CA. So, we have where it is both legal and illegal in CA, just a confusing mishmash, with the end result just being a twisted form of discrimination.

Plus, biblical opposition to same same-sex marriage also doesn't make sense to me. Seems to me, it originates from the Old Testament's condemnation of male homosexuality. However, as I understand, the scripture does not condemn lesbianism. So, it seems logical that it isn't so much homosexuality which is the root of condemnation. So, likely the reason has do do with the wasting of a male "seed" at a time when humans were ordered to procreate. And, in ancient times, the world's population was relatively small, with many obstacles to survival, so that was the real reason against male homosexuality, even justified at the time. However, now it can be argued that the world is either already overpopulated or close to reaching some limit actually endangering humanity. Just like the Old Testament ordered death by stoning to a disobedient child, it is clear the document must be forever studied for new interpretations as humanity evolves.

In conclusion, not only is same-sex marriage an OK choice, now, but even, perhaps because the world is drastically overpopulating, there may be a converging of forces which is bringing this issue up to significance around this time, even out of a sense of concern for all of us, and a better future. Could these 'forces' be some interpretation af what God is? I surely don't know, but I just don't see why anyone wants to restrict committted 'love', because I do not see a reason to do so, and plenty of reasons to embrace it, especially when no one is materially harmed.

"Healthcare"

Since America has the most expensive healthcare system, showing signs of crippling our economy, with less than stellar results, as evidenced by specific statistics on life expectancy and infant mortality, time has come for massive changes.

Since all other major industrial nations use a single-payer government-financed systems with better results, plus a 2006 BusinessWeek Magazine article concluded that America's best healthcare system was the single-payer, government-financed VA Medical System, we might as well start there while at the same time weighing both the weaknesses and strengths of all the existing systems.

But, since there is such a big political divide in the US, likely the best approach, for now, is to incorporate several options, with all Americans guaranteed a choice, Universal Healthcare, but not "free" to all, with premiums based on ability to pay, adjusted gross income, likely "free" to those earning below about $100K per year.

Medicare is one existing option, though in need of major financial reworking, should remain since its administrative costs are very low, and most people having it, like it, plus it does combine public and private aspects since it only picks up about 80% of costs, plus certain deductibles, plus some Social Security payments deducted for Medicare. I do think it would be more efficient to eliminate the gap, and therefore eliminate insurance companies' Medigap and Medicare Advantage options, but, for now, it is best to make the insurance companies part of the winners to win their support for the massive changes needed in our healthcare system. I do think there should be at least one single-payer option, maybe just opening Medicare as a choice for everyone, since the system already exists. Medicaid also has to be included, perhaps rolled into an expanded Medicare. Also, expanding the VA system is a worthwhile option. Also, I think Kaiser Permanente should be part of the mix, since they have a fine HMO system, plus they are non-profit.