***

Marriage is one of the most sacred, significant and personal things most people will face in their lives. That’s precisely why the government has no business even being in the marriage business.

States throughout the country have been debating the issue of gay marriage for years. Like the majority, Texas enacted a “defense of marriage” act, decreeing that valid marriages can only involve a man and a woman. Some states, however, allow homosexual marriages.

This raises interesting matters involving the Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, records and judicial Proceedings of every other State. …”

It recently became an issue when a couple of guys who were married in Massachusetts sought to get a divorce in Texas. If this state didn’t consider their marriage valid, how could it validate their divorce?

A Dallas judge determined that Texas’ definition of marriage is unconstitutional. State Attorney General Greg Abbott has appealed the ruling, and Gov. Rick Perry has condemned it.

We can expect the debate to be repeated in other states, since gay couples are no more immune to breakups than their heterosexual counterparts. In addition, advocacy groups have been challenging state laws that presume to define, and restrict, marriage.

Gay unions aren’t the only marital controversy to arise lately. A Louisiana justice of the peace recently refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, citing concerns about the welfare of any children the couple might have.

Until now people generally have had no problem with allowing government to regulate marriage, through the issuance of licenses and laws ostensibly intended to protect the parties involved.

But is there even a need for government involvement in the institution of marriage?

Certainly, people are used to the government’s sanction of weddings, and the legal rights that grow out of them. The marriage license is a valuable document when those rights need to be asserted. As we’ve seen regarding gay unions, insurance coverage, inheritances and other matters are affected when two people say, “I do.”

But couldn’t those matters be handled just as easily through our well-established system of common contract law?

There’s no need to go to the extremes that are taken in Mexico, where the separation of church and state, at least with respect to marriage, is so absolute that people who wish to be married in the church, which could be a majority of Mexican couples, must go through two ceremonies — one religious and one civil. U.S. religious officials, as well as judges, mayors, ship captains and other officials, can be licensed to perform the marriage ceremony, as they are now.

Licenses shouldn’t even be necessary for something so personal. However, the document can be valuable in the event of any unfortunate acrimonious breakup. The license essentially guarantees the existence of a legal, binding document that can be invoked to secure the estranged individuals’ rights, and it probably is cheaper than any similar document that might be drawn up by a lawyer.

Besides, the aforementioned officials would never give up the lucrative side business they now enjoy of performing weddings for loving couples.

The fact that so many people in Mexico choose to endure two weddings, and a good many Americans likely would do the same if they had to, indicates quite clearly that for many if not most people, marriage transcends the simple legal aspect of promising to love, honor and cherish.

Regulation of marriage — especially to the point of defining who can and cannot get married — increasingly is a problem for public officials, who can expect more headaches as people challenge those regulations. They’d be better off letting individual churches and officials decide whom they will and won’t unite in holy matrimony, and let couples search for somebody who’s willing to do the honors. Holiness, after all, is best defined in our churches, and in the hearts of God’s people; it will never be found in the halls of government.

Besides, grown, rational and consenting people shouldn’t have to ask for the government’s permission to marry the people they love.

Carlos A. Rodriguez is opinion editor for The Brownsville Herald. His e-mail address is crodriguez@brownsvilleherald.com

We dedicate this song to all Americans who feel that their elected officials don’t reflect their personal views: “Stuck in the Middle With You,” by Stealers Wheel.

***

Our nation’s political battles are becoming more contentious. Last week’s outburst by U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., during President Obama’s speech on socialized health care last week is only the most recent and most visible volley in an increasingly bitter battle between two widely divergent political parties.

Democrats try to show a united front in hopes that they’ll remain in power. However, a power struggle is going on behind the scenes between staunch liberals and “blue dog,” or more fiscally conservative, members.

Across the fence, former Vice President Dick Cheney and radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh earlier this year launched attacks on former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who complained that the Republican Party alienates legions of people who agree in principle with the party’s core values; many of them are people of color.

Limbaugh essentially said that people who aren’t hard-core right-wingers should simply leave the party.

Should they? Should they fight a tough battle to wrest control of the party from entrenched neocons, or should they look for, or form, another group that is fiscally conservative but socially liberal?

The problem is, most Americans seem to be caught in the middle of the two parties.

Many Americans — a majority, it seems — believe they are taxed so much that their standard of living is compromised. They question many of the programs, and the cost, of programs promoted by the Democratic Party. Many are horrified to think that their tax dollars are being used to fund things they consider morally wrong, such as abortion. They might not like union-friendly legislation that impedes workers’ ability to make independent agreements with employers.

While they might want fiscal restraint, however, many Americans have a real problem with institutionalized xenophobia, edicts that mandate the promotion of a specific religion to the detriment of others, or restrictions on media, behavior and expression the Republican Party espouses.

The obvious question, then, is, why do Americans, who ostensibly decide who gets elected and what party gains power, allow these political aberrations to run the country? Why don’t we have a strong political party that reflects the majority view? After all, other parties do exist; they just don’t have the strength of the two biggies.

You can pick your answer: Maybe the assumption is wrong, and people really are gathered at either ends of the spectrum. Maybe people prefer a two-party system that precludes the formation of coalitions that would lead to compromise legislation rather than the all-or-nothing battles we have today. Or maybe the incumbent parties have stacked the deck in their favor, and a vote for a minority party might as well be thrown away. People don’t think they have a choice.

Actually, they do. Several other political parties exist, although most of them are single-issue groups like the Green Party, America First Party and the U.S. Marijuana Party.

Some, however, do offer comprehensive philosophies that can be applied to all aspects of life and government.

The largest of these is the Libertarian Party. Traditionally most in line with our country’s Jeffersonian founders, it combines the small-government views that conservatives espouse, while defending the social freedoms that many modern political liberals tout.

Members of the Libertarian Party’s state and local organizations will be in Brownsville on Sunday to discuss their political philosophy, and to see if anyone who agrees with their positions might want to run for state or congressional office in upcoming elections.

They will meet at 2 p.m. Sunday at the Denny’s restaurant at 6131 Paredes Line Rd. Anyone who wants to look beyond the limited options offered by our two major parties is welcome to stop by and listen to the Libertarians’ message.

They might or might not convince newcomers to support their political efforts. What’s important, however, is that people recognize that they are not limited to the two big parties. If enough people decide to vote their conscience, rather than for political expediency, we could well get members of our legislative bodies who better reflect the views of most Americans.

At the very least, active and informed voters would force the current majorities to respect the opinions of the people who put them in power in the first place.

Carlos A. Rodriguez is opinion editor of The Brownsville Herald. His e-mail address is crodriguez@brownsvilleherald.com.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Tuesday that the recession that’s plagued the country for the past year “is very likely over at this point.”

We’ll see.

Many positive signs could support the Fed chief’s announcement; economic indicators are still sluggish, but their rate of decline has slowed. At least the stock market has started to improve, but it’s still; a bit spastic. Many of the sales could be speculators scooping up securities with depressed prices. Secured debt is still selling short.

In addition, unemployment hasn’t begun to rebound, and that means that many of the core element of any economy — consumers with disposable income — still hasn’t begun to grow. Indeed, many workers with jobs have taken pay cuts and endured unpaid furloughs, so even they have less money to spend.

It’s worth noting that this is at least the third time Bernanke has announced an official end to the recession. Makes one wonder if he’s trying to pull a Greenspan.

Former fed chief Alan Greenspan was so influential that if he sneezed, the markets tanked over fears that he might be coming down with something. If he announced the recession was over, Wall Street probably would have rallied to the point of actually pulling the economy out of the doldrums.

Bernanke doesn’t have that power, however. Unfortunately for him, it wasn’t the position that was so influential, it was Greenspan himself. Bernanke doesn’t inspire that kind of confidence among the nation’s financial movers and shakers.

So the previous two ploys, if they were ploys, didn’t work. And if they were ploys, they exposed Bernanke as a manipulative wonk who tried to force the issue, and failed. It’s worse if they weren’t ploys, since that would expose our nation’s top economic official as someone who misreads the indicators and doesn’t know when a recession actually ends.

Either way, it was a bad display of Keynsianism.

Because of this, Bernanke’s latest announcement might well backfire, if its seen as yet another cynical effort to make the economy rebound by force, rather than by just letting it heal on its own.

Chances are the investors will simply ignore his latest proclamation, and the economy will start to once again grow when it’s good and ready — that is, when it has rebuilt a solid base and can maintain its growth.

We dedicate this song to everybody involved in the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation circus: “Everyday People,” by Sly and the Family Stone.

***

Sotomayor’s Senate approval to the nation’s highest court was inevitable, since the Democrats had enough votes to make it so. In the days leading up the final vote last week, most talk was about the politics involved in the vote: were conservatives more afraid of offending the gun lobby that had come out against her, or Hispanic voters who would likely remember on Election Day?

It shouldn’t have been this way, but it was. In a way it had to be. Sotomayor has been a federal judge for 17 years, and in that time she’s made hundreds of decisions on which she could, and can, be judged.

However, during Judicial Committee hearings and leading up to final confirmation, Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” statement, made at a 2001 symposium at the University of California at Berkeley got most of the attention. Conservatives were shocked — shocked! — that she would suggest that a “wise Latina” — emphasis on “Latina” — would make a better decision than a white guy.

The senators and other naysayers knew better. Many of them are the same people who voted for her when President George H.W. Bush nominated her to a federal district court and again when President Clinton tagged her for a federal appeals court.

The opponents conveniently ignored the fact that the judge’s emphasis in her speech was on “wise,” and that she was speaking at a symposium specifically dealing with the presence of Latinos in the judiciary. She was addressing the famous statement attributed to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor that a wise man and a wise woman would reach the same conclusion. Sotomayor said she hoped a wise Latina, with her knowledge and experience, would reach a better conclusion than a not-so-wise white guy.

Her point was that equally wise people with diverse backgrounds and experiences could better evaluate issues and reach better collective judgments because of their diversity, “whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences.”

In the same discussion, Sotomayor noted that nine white males had proven their wisdom in 1954 when, comprising the Supreme Court of the day, they unanimously ruled against school segregation in the landmark Brown v. the Topeka, Kansas, Board of Education.

“I … believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable,” she said in her speech. “… (N)ine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues, including Brown.”

The fact that race is still such a major issue in these kinds of decisions shows just how important it is to create that kind of diversity. Every time a opening occurs on such a major panel, whether it’s the Supreme Court or other high-profile office, minorities of all types clamor for one of their own to be chosen, and they cry discrimination if they don’t get their wish. Likewise, Anglos cry reverse discrimination whenever a minority is chosen.

It’s worth noting that most of the landmark decisions advancing equal treatment of all have only come about in the past generation.

The good news is that we see signs that those efforts to promote equality are paying off. The fact that pretty much every minority group can provide a healthy list of qualified candidates, whether it be for firefighter or Supreme Court justice, is significant.

That wasn’t so easy just 30 years ago, and it shows that the opportunities are growing. It might seem incongruous, but the very fact that it’s becoming easier to find qualified applicants or nominees from various demographic groups suggests that it’s becoming less crucial to focus on demographics when considering candidates. As long as the decisions are objective, the best candidate should win out.

However, these battles that place ethnicity over qualifications show that too many people still don’t see equality with regard to race, creed, color, gender or any other factor over which we have no control. Of course, some people never will.

And until those people are in the minority, we will still have a ways to go.

Today we dedicate a song to Barack Obama: “My Little Demon,” by Fleetwood Mac.

***

Don’t mess with Barack Obama. In recent days has proven that he’s a shrewd man who knows how to maintain high percentages of success.

We assume that he wanted Hillary Clinton in his administration more than she wanted a high-level post, and she was the reason the “negotiations” we kept hearing about went on for so long. He finally won out, and on Dec. 1 named Clinton as his choice for secretary of state.

The pick in no way indicates that the two Democratic rivals are now buddy-buddy after a heated presidential race. They might have buried the hatchet, but there’s reason to assume they’ll both know exactly where it is in case they ever need to wield it again.

Remember the old saying: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

It was important to make Clinton part of his administration. That gives her a stake in its success. It offers the added benefit of mending rifts that formed within the party during the campaign and builds more support behind Obama’s presidency, but that’s a secondary concern.

More importantly, it gives the new president some protection in case things don’t go swimmingly. Clinton can’t very well rise up in two years at the “I told you so” candidate if she’s a major part of his administration. After all, nobody bought John McCain’s promises of change; with more than three decades in Congress, he couldn’t escape the perception that he was one of the members who had gotten this country into the mess it now finds itself.

With Clinton, his strongest opponent, on board, Obama essentially has increased his chances for a second term.

We don’t know how willingly the former first lady signed on to the Obama camp. This is where Obama’s genius comes to light. All the while he was “negotiating” with Clinton, according to the Washington media, the president-elect was also systematically picking up key Clinton aides and supporters for other parts of his administration. In doing so he essentially hired away much of the support on which Clinton would rely if she ever did mount a challenge.

By co-opting her posse, Obama left Clinton with two bitter choices: come on board, or try to launch a new campaign from scratch, and dig around for an entirely new set of aides and advisers to help her challenge the popular incumbent.

Simply put, he’s neutralized the one little demon who remained a threat.

Obama had the most organized presidential campaign of all the candidates, by far. Given that fact, and the shrewdness he’s shown so far in building an administration and consolidating his power in the Democratic Party, we could be in for a tight-knit, professional White House machine. Quite a change from the marauding band of cowboys we’ve had to deal with for the past eight years.

That could be great news, if one agrees with the policies and actions the new administration will bring before the American people. Otherwise, prepare to be overrun by a juggernaut.