However, some comments on the post seem to miss the point of the Senate as well. There have been people saying that Senators should be apportioned by population just like happens in the House of Representatives. However, the Senate was created as it is precisely to protect smaller states, such as my state of Maine, from being overruled by larger states, such as California. While that particular aspect is undemocratic, you have to realize we are a democratic republic, which means that it’s not all about the majority. The idea is to let the majority make the decisions most of the time, while still protecting the rights of the minority. Remember, states are basically semi-autonomous nations that bought into the United States government. They all had to agree to join when the country was created, and while the Constitution is our founding document, in many ways, it is also a treaty between the states saying which powers they keep for themselves and which powers they hand over to our alliance. When considered in this light, the Senate is there to make sure each individual state has an equal voice in the proceedings, while the responsibility of the House of Representatives is to make sure the people have an equal voice in the proceedings. Sure, this system isn’t perfect, but it is better than just doing representation by population in both houses, or equal state representation in both houses.

Now, I’ll be honest, I’m very dismayed that our Senators are speaking against meaningful health care reform, and if it were my choice, we’d have the democratic candidates in the Senate right now. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case, so we are dragging the debate down because of that. So I understand the frustration of those in other parts of the country, and I encourage all Maine residents to communicate their views on this to our Senators to try to sway them on their positions.

However, that doesn’t mean smaller states should lose their equal representation in the Senate. We should just lose the power to filibuster with impunity. This would go a long way toward restoring the balance of power as it seems to be intended.

Remember, when the gay marriage legislation in Maine was being drafted, Governor Baldacci was against gay marriage. He was convinced to change his views during the debate that took place during the time the legislation was drafted. The very civil debate that took place. And that’s how we’ll win the hearts and minds of the people as well, though it’s obviously going to take longer than we originally hoped. While that really sucks, that’s the reality we have to deal with.

Right now, the campaign to move gay rights forward has two options. One is to try again in 2011, which is when we can pass a new law granting same-sex couples the right to marry and attempt to vote down a people’s veto. The other option is to challenge the people’s veto in state court on the grounds that it violates protected minority rights. In California, that court challenge failed after proposition 8, which sets a bad precedent for us, but precedents don’t always carry over between states either. Waiting until 2011 has the problem of waiting another two years, but really, we do have to be in this fight for the long haul if we’re going to gain equal rights for everyone.

There’s also talk about challenging the constitutionality of prop 8 in federal court, which would be good on a national level if it succeeded. However, with such an even split of justices, that’s a very high risk, high reward strategy. If the supreme court rules in favor of the gay community, then we basically win in the eyes of the law. Otherwise, we don’t get to challenge in federal court again, and have to keep campaigning state to state. It really depends on if we think we can win in court now, and if we think we’ll have a better chance at a reasonable point in the future.

In any case, there are lots of paths to be taken to continue the fight for equal rights. So, we should be focusing on that, rather than the name-calling that has recently sprung up. I know that there’s a lot to be unhappy about after the vote, but we need to focus on the solution to the problem. So, let’s be civil, let’s talk to people about equal rights, and let’s think about our next move to get equal rights for everyone.

However, they do have one idea, that’s really quite simple, that we should put into practice. Let people buy insurance across state lines, and force all the insurance companies in the country to compete with each other. Make them earn our business instead of being the only place to turn in a given area for coverage. As far as I’ve seen, it hasn’t been added to any reform efforts yet, and it really should be.

Now, I understand that this could cause some insurance companies to go under. While that isn’t great news, it would mostly be a result of having more companies than we need taking more money from the market of buyers than they can afford. And the health of our country comes before company survival. Of course, if too many companies fall out of business, then we’ll end up right back where we are now. I think this is unlikely to happen since there would be a much larger pool of people, so the presence of enough companies to foster competition could be supported.

That doesn’t mean we should do away with the public option though. I’m still a huge supporter of the public option, and I think it’s one of the most important parts of health care reform, along with eliminating clauses about pre-existing conditions and eliminating the ability of insurance companies to rescind coverage. The public option provides us with a non-profit option for health care, will help to keep the insurance companies honest, and can also be used to make sure a basic level of care is offered at a rate as affordable as possible. Besides which, the public option provides us with cover in case the remaining insurance companies after the dust settles decide they would like the idea of a rate hike.

But, when an idea is good, it’s good, and we ought to acknowledge that and think about how it might be incorporated into the larger policy package. Perhaps we’d hear more about it though, if the republicans would stop obstructing and start conversing.

Most opponents of gay marriage laws present their case as protecting their religious freedom and religious institution of marriage. I have some bad news for these people. The government can not and does not regulate the religious institution of marriage, only the secular contract. Gays and lesbians already get married religiously, and there are plenty of religions perfectly happy to perform the ceremony for them. Besides which, while you have the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit (so long as you bring no harm to another), other people have this same religious freedom, including the freedom to allow gays to marry in their services. Furthermore, Maine’s gay marriage law doesn’t force churches to perform marriage ceremonies that go against their religious beliefs. A gay couple will instead simply find a church who supports their marriage, or they’ll be married by a justice of the peace.  No infringement of religious freedom is required to provide equal rights to gay couples.

So, to those who would deny the right to marry to gay couples, stop pretending you’re protecting marriage. You aren’t, you’re simply trying to enforce your view of religion on everyone else and deny a group their civil rights. Frankly, I’m tired of hearing this argument that the religious institution of marriage will fail if gays are allowed to marry, and I’m tired of hearing you treat religious marriage and secular marriage as the same thing, because they aren’t. They’re just currently tied a little too closely together in the law.

Stop trying to deny gay and lesbian couples their civil rights. Don’t force your religious beliefs onto others. Instead, learn to live peacefully with your neighbors, and accept them for who they are. We’ll all be better off if we can manage this. So vote no on question 1, and show the state of Maine and the United States that we support marriage, equality, and civil rights by allowing gays to marry.

Note: For reference, this is question 1 in Maine on November 3rd: “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?”

Check out some videos on gay marriage in Maine:

Rachel Maddow
A cool WoW machinima piece on gay marriage in Maine
People’s reactions to letting gays and lesbians marry

The group behind this project feels that the Bible has too much of a liberal bias. So, the liberal passages need to be taken out and replaced with ideas about the free market, mention of government needs to be removed, and old wording needs to be replaced with modern conservative buzzwords. Excuse me? Isn’t the far right conservative movement based on the idea that the Bible should be taken literally? Yet here they are, changing the book they believe is the literal word of God to suit their personal political agenda.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the Bible should be taken literally. However, the group of people changing it, up until this point in time, believed it should be. Furthermore, I guarantee you when they finish their editing project, they’ll insist their version is the word of God, even though it will have obviously been written by people with a political agenda.

Basically, you believe in literalism or you don’t. Make up your minds. If you believe in literalism, you don’t get to edit out the parts that support liberal arguments just because we can quote verse as well as you can. If you don’t believe in literalism, you don’t get to quote the Bible as your only source in making an argument, and really shouldn’t be using it as a basis for policy in the first place. Of course, that shouldn’t be done anyway (remember separation of church and state?), but I’ll ignore that point for this argument.

So, in conclusion, far right conservatives claim the Bible, the foundation of their belief structure, has a liberal bias. Perhaps now that they’ve seen the light, we’ll see them changing their beliefs and joining those of us in the center and on the left looking for health care reform, helping the poor, and ending unjustifiable wars. More realistically, they’ll just decide to edit the book their belief system is supposedly based on until it matches their beliefs word for word. Too bad they’ll miss the irony.

I understand why the mandate is seen as a good idea. There are many people who are uninsured who will have their bills footed indirectly by taxpayers and those who do purchase health insurance, and by requiring other people to purchase insurance, we’ll be spreading the cost around more and asking them to contribute to the pool of money that will likely end up helping them or their families at some point in their lives.

Here’s the problem though: many of the people who do not purchase health insurance can not afford it. They simply haven’t found a way to earn enough money to do so. Fining people money they don’t have is not the way to help them get insurance or get on their feet. While I understand there is a system of tax credits in the work, such a system does sometimes render people who need help to make such purchases ineligible for help. See the recent fiasco with food stamp benefits for an idea of what I mean. If this were to happen with health insurance, it could deal some families a financial blow they can’t deal with. The public option would be another layer of protection to prevent this from happening with a mandate to purchase in place.

I know there are also talks of having insurance co-ops instead of having a public option. I don’t think co-ops can replace having a public option when it comes to providing affordable insurance to the largest number of people possible. I think they would be a great supplement to the public option and give people more choices in their plans to pick one that best suits their needs, but a non-profit will likely be most able to offer the most inexpensive insurance, which is what some people need.

I’ll be honest, on their own, I think the public option is a good idea, and the mandate to purchase is a bad idea. As a package though, having the public option and the mandate together is still quite good, and I’d be very happy with a bill that did include both. I just don’t want to see a mandate to purchase health insurance pass, then see families who can’t afford health insurance fined because the assistance system put in place to help them overlooked them.

As a final note, I’m no expert on health care, I’ve just been reading a lot about it lately. So, this is true to the best of my knowledge, but there is a lot of information and misinformation going around, and it really is difficult to pick the good out from the bad right now. I’ve also mentioned my biases about the two major topics, so you know where I’m coming from on this. In addition, the bill is still being hotly debated, is constantly changing, and different ideas seem to be going on and off the table all the time, so it’s hard to keep up with all the developments. I’ve tried to be accurate in my representation of what is being talked about, but I know that I may be missing some pieces, so feel free to add your own voice in the comments if need be.

I want to talk about another reason we need better health care, one that might even get through to those who have oodles of money and don’t want to “subsidize everyone else’s health care.” Because this reason effects them too.

Remember the outbreak of swine flu we had recently? Remember how it wasn’t a big deal, but many people seemed to think it would be? Well, what happens when we have a real epidemic?

Under our current system, those who can afford it get preventative treatment, whether it be a shot, some kind of medication, or some other way to prevent the disease. Those who can’t afford it will go to the emergency room after they get sick. Guess what happens then? The disease spreads like wildfire, because it has plenty of carriers who simply couldn’t afford preventative treatments. And then it’s more likely to infect those who could afford preventative treatments, because said treatments aren’t usually 100% effective, especially when they’re new treatments, or general treatments for a variety of illnesses. Which means, by letting the poor get sick, the rich are also more likely to be sick, because more carriers of disease means that there are more chances for everyone to get infected.

Now, if we had universal or inexpensive health care, we’d see something different. Yes, some people would still get sick. But, with everyone getting preventative medicine, fewer people would get sick, which will leave fewer chances for the disease to spread. This is good for everyone, not just the people who have health care who otherwise wouldn’t.

Basically, the point I’m trying to make is that no matter who you are, it is in your best interest that everyone have access to affordable health care. Because really, your health will be affected by the health of everyone around you, and the people they’re around as well. So, even if you don’t believe health care is a human right, at least bear in mind that by denying a segment of the population health care, you’re putting yourself at greater risk too.