Same-Sex Marriage Referenda

I started thinking a bit more about the votes in Maine and Washington on Tuesday, and in California last year.  The founding fathers never envisioned or wanted the rights of a class of people put up to a popular vote.

There will always be classes of people who are less popular than others.  Do we really want the rights of those groups to be decided by a majority vote?  I submit that we do not.  It’s tyranny of the majority.  The founding fathers were quite concerned about this possibility.  It looks like their concerns were well founded.

We have equal protection under the law in this country for a reason.  These referenda are simply about a majority keeping a minority from enjoying the same rights and protections that the majority has.

We’ve seen the same thing over and over in our history.  We’re seeing it again now.  Some groups were denied their civil rights and had to fight the status quo to gain them.  Gays are fighting an identical battle right now.  The majority should not have the right to keep a specific group down.  We’re supposed to be better than that in this country.  But we’ve forgotten the 1960s, it seems, only 40 or so years later.

I just came across an Andrew Sullivan post about popular sovereignty and what a crock it is as applied to rights.  Either everyone is created equally and we live up to that standard, or they’re not, and Orwell was right in thinking that some animals are more equal than others.

Just last week I finished teaching the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and when I read the Rod Dreher post you linked to, I immediately thought of Stephen Douglas’s arguments for “popular  sovereignty” — the notion that states, especially former territories entering the Union,  could vote slavery “up” or “down” as they saw fit.

Lincoln saw what a fatuous argument “popular sovereignty” was — that it really is the destruction of self-government to allow fundamental rights to be determined by the whims of a majority. The Declaration precedes the Constitution. “All men are created equal” is the necessary preface to “We the People.”

Equal rights and the consent of the governed are the principles that make self-government intelligible in the first place. Without them, of course, there are no real limits to what majorities can enact, including doing away with democratic rule. This is why Lincoln repeatedly said that lurking in Douglas’s doctrine of popular sovereignty were the same arguments used to justify the divine right of kings. Once “all men are created equal” is dispensed with, once it is no longer held to apply to a certain group of people, what might limit the arbitrary rule of a few, or one, over other groups without their consent?

I understand, of course, the “legitimacy” victories in the democratic process confer on any movement. But for me, the legitimacy of the love and relationships of gay couples already is there. It’s a right, grounded in our basic equality. And no majority should be able to take that away. So there’s a real ambivalence here.

Here’s one of my favorite Lincoln quotes, from an 1855 letter to Joshua Speed:

“I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

Insert “gay” for “negroes” in the above and my point is made. His logic resonates still.

No historical analogies are perfect, of course. But this is a great irony, no? The Party of Lincoln is now aping the discredited arguments of Stephen Douglas (and for that matter, John C. Calhoun).

One other thought.  I am disgusted by the DNC and President Obama.  Their indifference to our rights is appalling.  Well, Mr. President, we’re ever so sorry to bother you with our humanity and our need for equal rights.  My boycott of giving Obama and/or the DNC any of my money is intact, so long as DADT and DOMA are still the laws of the land, and as long as they don’t begin to stand up for our civil rights as much as we stood up for their elections last fall.  I’m not asking them to win our rights for us, just to deliver on the promises they made.  And, by the way, I’d like the gay rights groups — like HRC — to hold the president to his promises and to stop being taken in by cocktail and dinner parties.

Updated: Yesterday’s Elections

It was Election Day yesterday.  People went to the polls to elect governors in New Jersey and Virginia, and members of Congress in New York and California.  Voters in Maine also decided a ballot measure on same-sex marriage.

I mostly want to talk about the referendum in Maine, but first a word or two about the votes in New Jersey and Virginia.  I disagree with the notion that these votes were somehow a report card on President Obama’s performance.  That, of course, isn’t to say that no lessons should be drawn from this election, just that the media are making mountains out of mole hills (or at least small hills), as they are wont to do. 

Let’s take Virginia:  Virginia voters have, for the past five gubernatorial elections, elected the opposite of the party controlling the White House.  If a Democrat won the White House, the Virginia Governor’s Mansion always went to a Republican, and vice-versa.  And that isn’t even mentioning the absolutely dismal campaign that Creigh Deeds ran.  In New Jersey, voters rejected the status quo and the corruption under Jon Corzine.

Now to Maine.  Same-sex marriage was repealed in Maine by a vote of 53 to 47 percent.  That margin is nearly the same as the margin on Proposition 8 in California last year.  A same-sex marriage law had been passed by the legislature and signed by the governor earlier this year.  The law had been suspended pending the outcome of the election.  This means, of course, that supporters of same-sex marriage have never won at the ballot box.

I think it shows that voters are still too easily swayed by what amounts to propaganda about same-sex marriage and that people are still caught up in traditional definitions of what makes a marriage.  People still can’t seem to separate religious and civil marriage, which are two distinct and separate things.  Until people see that distinction — which is blurry to many — we’re going to have these defeats at the ballot box.  I’m heartened, though, that same-sex marriage continues to win in court.  I think that the real victory will come in the legal system, just as the anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by Loving v. Virginia.

Just as I was disgusted by the proponents of Yes on 8 (the no same-sex marriage crowd), I am similarly disgusted by the absolute disregard for people’s families that is being shown by the Yes on 1 campaign in Maine.  Take a look at some comments from Matt Barber.  They’re not pretty, but they show exactly what the anti-gay referenda are really about — homophobia, pure and simple (Hat Tip:  Pam’s House Blend – emphasis in Pam’s post).

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, issued the following statement on news that the voters of Maine have rejected counterfeit “same-sex marriage” by 53% – 47%:”There’s good news and bad news here,” said Barber. “The good news is that even in one of the most liberal States in the Union, Maine, the people have once again rejected the ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of ’same sex marriage.’ The momentum has again shifted – hopefully for good this time – in favor of protecting legitimate marriage. A counterfeit is a counterfeit. An orange is an orange no matter how much you want it to be a turnip. This isn’t about ‘marriage.’ It’s about hurting and broken people desperately seeking affirmation of an objectively deviant lifestyle. One that, even in their heart of hearts, they know to be a dead end. As for the militant ‘No on 1′ homosexual activists? I’m reminded of spoiled children dressing up and playing house, refusing to come in when mom calls for dinner.

“Here’s the bad news. The margin of victory could have been greater. Many behind the ‘Yes on 1′ campaign, rather than simply telling the truth, chose the Neville Chamberlain approach. They merely circled the wagons around the word ‘marriage,’ even suggesting that ‘domestic partnerships’ (‘gay marriages’ by another name) are acceptable. This makes no sense. If that’s a viable compromise, then why not simply allow ‘gay’ duos the word ‘marriage’? It’s an incongruity that demands an explanation. This is an historic battle for the minds and souls of our children – for our very culture. The mealy-mouthed approach must end. This is not just about ‘marriage.’ It has everything to do with forced affirmation of homosexuality – under penalty of law. Indeed everyone who fought hard to defend marriage in Maine is to be congratulated, but if it weren’t for a brave group of truth tellers – Paul Madore, Peter LaBarbera and Brian Camenker – who came to Maine in the final hour to hold a press conference and address the pink elephant in the room – homosexual deviancy and the radical ‘gay’ agenda – counterfeit marriage might have prevailed.”

I don’t know how else his comments can be construed.  They’re simply homophobic and show what the anti-gay referenda are really about.  It seems to me that they’re about hate.  They hate gays and any perceived (even if it’s not true) invasion of the little boxes into which they want to put people.  As Pam notes in her post:

The fact is that it was, yet again, not yet time to test equality when put to a popular vote. It is proof, yet again, that civil rights should never be decided by mob rule — but the hateful people behind Yes on 1 capitalize on spreading fear — suckling pigs at the teat of dying, mud-covered sow of homophobia.  The hog is going to die.  Hate alone cannot sustain that beast.

We should find solace in the fact that the children and grandchildren of those who voted to rollback the rights of fellow Mainers will be embarrassed that their relatives were so short-sighted, duped by entities that exist solely to discriminate using the ballot box as a weapon — and making money off of the hate with great gusto.

Pam’s right.  People are going to look back in a few decades and wonder what all the fuss was about.  They’re going to look askance at their grandparents and wonder why they were so bigoted.  It’s going to be the same thing as what happened with inter-racial marriage a few decades ago.  Most of us wonder what the fuss was about.

So this is a major disappointment.  But we’ll get over it, learn from it, and keep advancing the cause of equal rights for LGBT people in America.  I still think the major victory is going to come in the courts, maybe even the Olson/Boies case now pending in federal court.  But whichever way it happens, it will happen.  It’s as inevitable now as it was when Gavin Newsom stupidly opened his fat mouth in 2004 and declared it so.

UPDATE: I just read David Mixner’s excellent post on yesterday’s election results in Maine.  He called the campaign against gay rights “gay apartheid.”  I agree.  I also agree that it is reprehensible for President Obama to sit on the sidelines.  I’ve been worried all year that maybe we have lost a major opportunity to repeal DOMA and DADT.  We’ve gotten some legislation, but DADT and DOMA are the big, consequential pieces of legislation that have to be repealed.  What is going to make Obama work on our behalf now?  I’m tired of half measures and getting patted on the head and told to go away.  I’m tired of politicians who do that.  I’m beginning to be sorry I worked for and voted for Obama last fall.  I’m beginning to be sorry I thought that he was different.

Obama’s Apparent Sexism

Am I the only woman in the world who thinks that President Obama should be able to play basketball with whomever he wishes to play?  We have a New York Times story breaking the news about President Obama’s White House frat house feel:

Does the White House feel like a frat house?

The suspicion flared in recent weeks — and not for the first time — after President Obama was criticized by women’s advocates and liberal bloggers for hosting a high-level basketball game with no female players.

[snip]

The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.

While the senior adviser Valerie Jarrett is undeniably one of the president’s closest White House confidantes, some women inside or close to the administration complain that Mr. Obama’s female advisers are not as visible as their male colleagues or, they suspect, as influential.

“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” said Dee Dee Myers, a former press secretary in the Clinton administration whose sister, Betsy, served as the Obama campaign’s chief operating officer.

Ms. Myers said women have high expectations of the president. “Obama has a personal style that appeals to women,” she said. “He is seen as a consensus builder; he is not a towel snapper and does not tell crude jokes.”

I find myself agreeing with Kathleen Parker in today’s Washington Post.  This is all one big yawn.  I mean, can you see Senator Barbara Mikulski playing basketball with the president as Obama drives to the basket?  Well, it would be comedic.  Basketball is, after all, a contact sport.

 We in the United States have enough problems (two wars, health care reform, gay rights, global warming, to name just a few) without being so over-sensitive to non-issues.  Obama has, as Valerie Jarrett pointed out, appointed women to many high-level posts inside the White House.  To me, this is what matters.  I get that this is about access to the president.  But I think that Obama should be able to play ball with whoever he wants to play ball with.  And the rest of America needs to grow up.

Interracial Couple in Louisiana Denied Marriage License

Does this really still happen in America in 2009?  What century does this guy think we’re living in?

HAMMOND, La. — A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press. But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.

“I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house,” Bardwell said. “My main concern is for the children.”

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

“I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”

If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.

“I try to treat everyone equally,” he said.

Thirty-year-old Beth Humphrey and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.

Humphrey told the newspaper she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell’s wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples.

“It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009,” said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzman. “The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry.”

The ACLU was preparing a letter for the Louisiana Supreme Court, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and see if they can remove him from office, Schwartzman said.

“He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it,” Schwartzman said.

According to the clerk of court’s office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.

Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.

The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk’s office.

More Thoughts on Issues of the Day

More random thoughts on issues of the day:

• President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today.  While I am a supporter of his, what has he done to win this already?  Keep in mind that the nomination deadline was 12 days after Obama took office (the deadline is February 1).  I think there is a good possibility that Obama could earn this prize later in his term as president, but he doesn’t seem to have done much yet other than lay out some goals and set a tone.
• State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano was out of line yesterday.  He yelled “You lie!” and “Kiss my gay ass!” to Governor Schwarzenegger yesterday during a speech the governor was making to a Democratic fundraiser in San Francisco.  Apparently the governor was not expected.  It was, after all, a Democratic fundraiser and Schwarzenegger is a Republican.  But Ammiano was out of line.  This kind of attack should have no place in American politics.  It doesn’t matter if emotions are running high.  That kind of thing is just not needed.  The only (slightly) redeeming factor is that Ammiano’s outburst did not come during a joint session of Congress.
• Apparently the National Republican Congressional Committee thinks that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to be “put in her place” and said as much yesterday.  Do they not see how offensive that is?  Do they not see how sexist that is?  I’m not exactly a huge Nancy Pelosi supporter, but this just isn’t right.
• Charlie Rangel needs to resign.  Now.  Every day he doesn’t (and every day the House Democratic leadership continues to protect him), the chances grow that he’ll cost the Democrats in next year’s mid-term elections.  “The Republicans did it, too!” (with Tom DeLay) is not a good defense.  Sure, the Republicans are hypocritical in their posturing.  So what?  It only matters what Rangel did and the appearance of Democrats improperly protecting their own.
• Julian Bond is right on in his op-ed in today’s Washington Post.  LGBT people still do not have equal rights in America.  As he points out, our “…struggle is no less necessary, nor worthy, than a similar struggle fought by blacks several decades ago. Now, as then, Americans are denied rights simply because of who they are.”  It’s past time we had equal rights.  It’s also past time for Obama (and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) to actually do something to help get those rights passed in Congress

Thoughts on Issues of the Day

Since I’m way, way short of time these days for in-depth blogging – I’m in my extremely busy period at work – here are some thoughts on the issues of the day, in no order of importance:

• President Obama’s trip to Copenhagen to speak in front of the International Olympic Committee was an unforced error.  Whether Chicago won the Games or not (and the Games were always going to Rio – South America is long overdue to host the Games), he had no business going to Copenhagen to make a pitch for the Games.  I don’t care if Chicago is his hometown.  The President of the United States doesn’t deign to do what amounts to business development.  His time is too valuable for that, especially with health care coming to a critical point, his diplomacy initiatives with Iran, and the Afghanistan war review.  I know he can communicate fine when he’s out of town and that presidents travel quite a bit, but this was one trip he didn’t need to make.
• Roman Polanksi is a man who, when he was in his 40s, had sex with a 13 year old girl.  Where is that not wrong?  Where is that not a crime?  It doesn’t matter if he had a plea deal in place and the judge was a publicity hound who was going to renege.  Polanski committed a crime.  And, by the way, the Hollywood elite look to be pretty out of touch (and wrong) for their defense of him.  Does the fact that Polanski makes good films outweigh the fact that he raped a 13 year old girl after plying her with alcohol and drugs?  Apparently it does in Hollywood.
• I’m afraid that we’re biting off much more than we can chew when it comes to Afghanistan.  Withdrawal – which the White House says is off the table – should be considered.  Has no one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue read any history?  The Afghan people have never had a functioning government.  Never.  Are we so sure we can be the ones to finally break a cycle that’s been going on for centuries?  There are ways to contain the Taliban and al Qaeda without committing thousands more American troops to the fight. 
• Speaking of Afghanistan – General McChrystal should be fired for making public statements about the advice he gave to Obama.  Politicizing decisions that are made by the elected, civilian controllers of the military is not a general’s place.  There is a reason that there is civilian control over the military.  General MacArthur forgot that, too, and had to be reminded by President Truman.  General McChrystal should suffer the same fate that MacArthur suffered.
• President Obama seems to be facing a lot of the same questions he faced during the campaign – that he doesn’t have the backbone to be Commander in Chief during a time when a long war is being fought.  I think there’s some mettle there, in Obama, but it still remains to be seen.  Is there something he’s waiting for?

I’ll blog as I can, but as I mentioned above, this is my busy time at work.  But even if I’m not posting as much as I’d like, I am still around reading comments and other things.  So please feel free to comment.  I’ll respond as I can.

Sunday’s Doonesbury

Doesn’t this just say it all about the “debate” going on today?

Doonesbury, September 27, 2009

Criminalizing Teens for Being Teens

I came across a blog post about the trend of criminalzing teenagers for being teenagers.  (Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan, who also points the way to a must-read Economist editorial on this subject.) As a mother of a young son, this trend scares the hell out of me. 

The graph, from Classically Liberal’s site (linked above), tells the story. Obviously, the graph isn’t sourced.  But the story it tells is poignant.  It looks to me that 14 year olds are the most dangerous people in the country, as it applies to sex offenses.

The fact is that we have Puritanical attitudes toward sex in America.  It shows up in society’s attitudes toward teen sex and teaching kids about sex; it shows up in society’s attitudes toward gays and gay rights.  Many people have hang-ups about sex because of these attitudes that have been beaten into us while growing up, which does everyone a huge disservice.

Obviously, sex offender laws are not all bad.  If they work as they’re supposed to, they will protect us from predators.  But criminalizing a teenager (or younger) for being a kid is just wrong.  I said it in my last post: Grow up, America.

Iowa Poll on Same-Sex Marriage Disconnect

The Des Moines Register fielded a poll on same-sex marriage.  Its report was in the newspaper yesterday.  There were two things that jumped out at me as I read the article, and they seem to be disconnected to me.

Des Moines Regiser Graphic

First, Iowans are evenly divided on the question of whether to ban same-sex marriage.  As you can see in the graphic above:

Forty-one percent say they would vote for a ban, and 40 percent say they would vote to continue gay marriage. The rest either would not vote or say they are not sure.

The most intensity about the issue shows up among opponents. The percentage of Iowans who say they strongly oppose gay marriage (35 percent) is nearly double the percentage who say they strongly favor it (18 percent).

That’s all fine; I don’t have an issue with the numbers on their face.

Des Moines Regiser Graphic

But here’s where the disconnect comes:

The overwhelming majority of Iowans — 92 percent — say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives.

So here’s my question.  If you’re not affected by your gay neighbor’s marriage, why in the world would you vote to ban it?  That smacks of spite, or simple bigotry, to me.  I don’t care if you dress it up in religious terms.  It would be a vote to remove a right from a distinct group of people based solely on the characteristics of the group.  That’s discrimination on its face, and is wrong.

It proves same-sex couples’ point — we’re not out there trying to gain special rights, and we’re not out there trying to change people.  We simply want to live our lives with the same — same, not different — legal protections that our heterosexual parents and brothers and sisters and friends enjoy.  And most importantly, our marriages and relationships cause absolutely no harm to anyone else’s marriage or relationship.

So it’s time to grow up, America.  Stop hiding behind religion as a cover for discrimination.  I don’t have a problem with anyone’s religious beliefs; anyone is free to believe in what they want in America.  It’s a free country (for some).  But my wise high school government teacher taught me that my right to move my elbow ends at the rib cage of the person next to me.  The same thing applies to religion.  People are entitled to their religious beliefs, but they’re not allowed to make them impact me.  But that is what’s happening in America now, and it’s time for it to end.

There is some hope, though, that people’s opinions are moving our way.  See Nate Silver’s analysis on the changing attitudes on same-sex marriage in America.  Attitudes are changing, albeit very slowly. 

California’s School and Prison Problem

The Los Angeles Times has some stories out this week about the overcrowding in California prisons and the problem with the huge increases in fees and tuition that will be charged to University of California students.  Those pieces, along with a San Francisco Chronicle story about the huge cuts made to education’s budget, illustrate a problem that will haunt California for a long time.  Simply put, if we don’t pay to educate our kids now, we’re going to pay to incarcerate them later.

It’s a question of values, really.  Do we prepare our children to lead productive lives, or do we lock them away when they are adults?  We’re doing the latter now, and we’re going to be doing a lot more of it in the future, too.  Don’t get me wrong — there will always be bad people in society, people who have gotten all the chances they should have and still do terrible things.  Prisons will always be needed for that reason.  But we’re adding to that population when people don’t even have a chance to get started in their lives because they can’t get a decent education.  (And no, not all of that is the state’s fault either; I believe in personal responsibility as well.)

Right now, Governor Schwarzenegger has until midnight (see the first link) to give a federal judge his plan to reduce the overcrowding in California prisons.  Currently the system has about 149,100 prisoners in a system designed for about 80,000.  And the budget for those prisons has almost doubled since 1999, from $3.22 billion to $5.57 billion in fiscal year 2008-2009.  The really telling statistic, though, is the cost per inmate over the same time period — $22,737 to $48,536 (see LA Times graph to the right).  That’s a huge increase, and it’s actually down slightly from fiscal 2007-2008.

And still California’s prisons are overcrowded.  The inmate population keeps rising, in large part because many of the inmates have nothing else to do except sell drugs or commit other crimes to survive.  The long term solution isn’t more prisons, even though those will probably be needed in the short term.  The solution is more and better schools and making sure that all California children get a good education and aren’t priced out of going to a good state school like UC Berkeley or UCLA.

Yet California cut its school budget by something like $8.4 billion this year (see third link above), after other cuts were previously made, totalling about $18 billion.  Yes, I know California’s budget crisis necessitated making hard choices.  But cutting like this is akin to eating your seeds instead of planting them.  You’re not hungry now, but you will be tomorrow.

That makes it necessary for the schools to lay off teachers and staff.  It also makes it necessary for the UC Regents to raise fees by a factor of almost four, for the 2010 spring term, as well as lay off and furlough professors and other staff.

[...] basic undergraduate fees for California residents next year would rise to about $10,300, not including room, board and other campus expenses. That figure would be 44% higher than in fall 2008.

In all, most UC undergraduates living in on-campus housing would pay more than $26,000 a year under the proposal, although officials said needy students would receive enough additional financial aid to cover the increases.

Yes, saddling them with more debt as they come out of school and start their lives.  That’s a huge burden.

Under the fee proposal, professional school students in areas such as medicine, law and dentistry also would see steeper increases over the next three years. For example, by 2012-13, a UC Berkeley law student would pay $51,818 per year, or 40% more than this year, and a UCLA medical student would pay $34,616, or 33% more. Those figures do not include the costs of living and books.

More huge burdens.

I’m not saying that education is without its problems.  I’m not saying that there isn’t waste, and I’m not saying that there aren’t ways to make the schools more efficient.  But the fact of the matter is that educating children requires money.  We have to pay for good teachers, and yes, we even need back office types in the schools, so that teachers get paid and have benefits.  We have to have good colleges and universities, and they can’t be priced so high as to make it unreasonably difficult to go or to pay back the student loans that are needed.

We’re shooting ourselves in the foot here in California, but I see the same thing happening all over the country.  Yes, we need prisons, but we need schools — good schools — more.