When it comes to same-sex marriage, individual opinions on the issue are often predetermined by personal beliefs, morals, and yes, even religion. But the issue is not so much a moral or religious one, as much as it is a legal one. Nevertheless, I am going preface this post by stating that I am in favor of same-sex unions having the same rights as heterosexual ones.

I use the term “unions,” because I believe the term “marriage” has no place in our legal or political systems. Marriage is in fact a religious term, which explains why religious communities are so often less receptive to the phrase being applied to non-heterosexual couple.

It’s not prejudice, it’s logic. Marriage is defined by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (I will focus on these three religions since they make up the majority of the American populace) as a covenant (or agreement) before God between a man and a woman, declared during a wedding or other public ceremony in the presence of some sort of representative of God (i.e., a preacher), and then consummated as the final step (Source: Definition of Marriage: What Does the Bible Say?). Though there is some debate about the order, the actual ceremony, and the role of consummation, these elements are the same across all three religions, and the concept of only a heterosexual marriage is uncontested. So of course, many religious people take offense to that term being applied to other unions that do not fit those sacred characteristics. Which begs the question: Why is this religious term in our secular government?

The legal definition of marriage in the United States is:

The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.(Source: Mariage: Legal Definition)

What’s more, with this official term comes official responsibilities and rights. Rights that range from the ability to care for a child, to family visitation rights in hospitals, to qualifications for insurance carriers. And in order for the LGBTA community to have access to those rights, the legal definition of marriage must somehow be made to apply to them. Consequently this group has been pushing, protest by protest and state by state to change the legal definition of this term.

However, I believe that this term has no place in the law and should be replaced entirely by the term “union.” Because though the legal definition of marriage does not speak of a contract in the eyes of God, or even about the role of consummation, it still stems from a religious concept. This being said, I also believe that the term “union,” if it ever does replace “marriage,” should not specify the two parties as male and female, allowing the LGBTA community the same rights as heterosexuals.

“Here’s a reality about a second-term presidency: You have a narrow window — at the beginning of the term — to persuade Congress to do something big. For Ronald Reagan, it was tax reform (which he achieved); for Bill Clinton, it was education reform (which failed); and for George W. Bush, it was Social Security reform (which crashed and burned). And this is perhaps the best way to view President Obama’s State of the Union address at 9:00 pm ET tonight. It is essentially his last chance to lay the groundwork for domestic achievements.”

“First Thoughts: Obama’s Last Chance to Go Big”

I turned on CNN tonight expecting these big domestic policy pushes. I watched President Obama make his way to the podium, expecting to see a freshly re-inaugurated executive spearhead reforms for Congress, with concrete points for the two most important questions when it comes to public policy: “Why?” and “How?” I expected more riveting and inspiring rhetoric than Barack Campaign Obama ever produced. I expected to see the most powerful leader of the free world use his peoples’ mandate to institute positive change.

To be perfectly honest, none of my expectations were met.

The President began his speech with a John F. Kennedy quote about the purpose of the State of the Union Address. And to me, this set a bad tone from the get-go. Because quoting a popular former president struck me as piggybacking on another man’s popularity, as opposed to inspiring a divided Congress with original, and perhaps more adequately tailored rhetoric.

As Obama transitioned from his introduction to his main policy points, he threw in some crowd-pleasers such as “supporting the middle class” and “equal opportunity for each child.” And while this brought many Democrats to their feet, there were no phrases that truly stuck with me. I kept waiting for a climax, a purpose, something passionate enough to inspire. But it never happened.

Moving on to his policy proposals, I was once again, disappointed. I heard little mention of concrete solutions. There were kernels of good ideas in his deficit reduction and green energy programs, but I did not hear any solid legislation proposals or methodology. He also spent very little time addressing each issue, trying instead to cover as many domestic policy issues as possible, and even dipping into foreign policy and nuclear disarmament. Though he spoke with a steady, even pace, I felt myself being rushed through issue after issue, as if Obama didn’t want me to think on his proposals long enough to find parts to question. The one concrete idea he proposed was raising the minimum wage to $9, which made my inner economist cringe (because minimum wage is a price floor that creates a surplus of workers).

Furthermore, the President had emphasized at the beginning of his speech that none of his policy suggestions would increase the deficit by a single penny. But right after this sweeping statement, he began going through policy after policy, suggesting the creation of new government programs and the expansion of existing ones. By definition, this means increased government spending which naturally increases the deficit. I was expecting some sort of explanation after each proposal about how the President would counter these expenses with revenues or cuts elsewhere (in other words, I was waiting for him to back his previous statement), but Obama made no such mention. Marco Rubio was quick to criticize this afterwards in the Republican rebuttal to the President’s speech.

“Instead of striking a conciliatory tone and proposing compromises, as he did throughout much of his first term, Mr Obama laid out an unashamedly partisan agenda. He reiterated past calls not just for higher taxes on the rich, but also for more restrictive gun laws and for concerted action to slow climate change—all ideas which Republicans abhor, and which will therefore struggle to make headway in the House of Representatives, which is under Republican control.”

“Obama asks for more” – The Economist

The President’s speech ended with a sweeping presentation of Gun Control reform. Directly referencing three people associated with gun violence or heroism, he addressed special guests in the crowd. He preceded every policy proposal with a tragic story of gun violence, and used considerable emotional appeal. I found these tactics staged, inappropriate, and, quite frankly, slimeball moves for a person in his position. Don’t get me wrong, what happened in Newton was horrific, and there are certainly many lessons to be learned from there; but emotional stories do not serve as the basis for a public policy.

I created this blog for two linked purposes: to better educate myself about political issues, and to try to inspire others to do the same. Seeing the President of the United States deliver such a speech before Congress, devoid of inspiration, originality, or concrete specificity, truly sickens me. How can Americans make informed decisions when our politicians don’t believe us capable of understanding more than empty promises and emotional stories?

The stock market and housing bubble fiasco of 2008 left many Americans wondering if we were going to experience another depression. Politicians, Wall Street bankers, and even economists were dumbstruck that the goldmine of credit backed by real estate had run dry, sending both the domestic and the global economy reeling. But why did no one foresee this? What caused so many institutions to make such bad choices? And what does this mean for future economic policy?

“Aside from signaling the end of an era for Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, this weekend’s activity definitively drew a line at the end of another historical era: the Age of Glass-Steagall.

Recent events on Wall Street—the failure or sale of three of the five largest independent investment banks—have effectively turned back the clock to the 1920s, when investment banks and commercial banks cohabited under the same corporate umbrella.”

“Shattering the Glass-Steagall” – Sept. 15, 2008

In order to understand what happened in 2008, we need to look back to what caused the banking failures of 1929, and by extent, Great Depression. Beginning in the 1900’s, commercial banks started underwriting* securities at great risk for enormous profits in the booming stock market. That is, until 1929 when Black Tuesday set off the fuse on the growing risk bombs, causing the failure of some 5,000 commercial banks (4,000 of which fell within 4 days of October, 29th).

*In underwriting, a bank guarantees to furnish a definite sum of money by a definite date to a business or government entity in return for an issue of bonds or stock. – New York Times: Glass-Steagall Act (1933) 

In response, FDR passed one of my favorite pieces of legislation, the Glass-Steagall Act, in 1933. Originally part of the New Deal program, the act prohibited commercial banks from engaging in the investment business and created the FDIC, which insures bank deposits with money appropriated from banks (typically up to $100,000 per bank customer). It successfully restored public confidence in banking practices during the Great Depression and became a permanent measure in 1945, when World War II began turning the broken wheels of the economy. And until 1999, Glass-Steagall prevented banking failures for over half a century.

With the advent of the Internet, the late 90’s were characterized by an economic boom the likes of which had not been seen since World War II or the Roaring 20’s. The stock market soared, as did the standard of living, and the value of real estate. And commercial banks wanted a piece. Combined with a revival of classicalist economic theory (which argues for less government interference), Glass-Steagall stood no chance against repeal. While the FDIC remained, the Gramm-Leach-Bilely Act of 1999 repealed Glass-Steagall’s restrictions on bank and securities-firm affiliations. Free to invest in securities once more, banks did just that.

Here’s a video that describes just what happened in the early 2000’s, and how that directly contributed to the recent recession:

The Crisis of Credit Visualized (YouTube)

As the video shows, the constant passing of “credit bombs” merely had a snowball effect on increasing the risk of investment. And the resulting bank failures plunged the U.S. into a recession comparable to the 1930’s (though it should be noted that this recession is still not nearly as bad as the Great Depression).

So what does this mean for economic theory and U.S. economic policy? It means that our  current models, Keynesian and classicalist, are outdated. That FDR’s Glass-Steagall should have marked the incorporation of a new factor in the models: the banking industry. Because when it comes to the economy, government actions cannot be limited to merely fiscal and monetary policy, but must also include a banking policy.

So far, that policy has only been bailouts and upholding the dangerous Gramm-Leach-Bilely Act. But this is not enough. Glass-Steagall needs to be reinstated, and further measures need to be researched and implemented. If that doesn’t happen, the wheel of the business cycle will undoubtedly turn south once more, perhaps in 20 or 30 years, and 2008 will repeat itself all over again.