- LB 388 continues to raise questions about many issues (3/22/24)
- Solution to fast-food inflation as close as the kitchen (3/19/24)
- Protect our community: Vaccinate for measles (3/15/24)
- Better Internet access comes with hazards of its own (3/13/24)
- Don't become a victim of the lates online scams (3/4/24)
- Happy 157th birthday to Nebraska (3/1/24)
- State property taxes are a matter of perspective (2/23/24)
Editorial
Simple 'solutions' probably too simple
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Spend any time on Facebook or at the coffee shop and you're likely to run across a couple of controversial topics.
One is gun control -- that's what it's called by Second Amendment proponents -- or gun violence, which is what it's called by those attempting to impose new laws.
The other is the definition of marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court just got done hearing arguments for and against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which, in the case before the court, forced a surviving spouse in a same-sex marriage to pay inheritance taxes when the other spouse died.
We agree with the Second Amendment folks who think it is wrong to impose more restrictions on law-abiding, sane individuals while ignoring the fact that lawbreakers will continue to break the law, regardless of new legislation.
At the same time, the current rush to buy "assault"-type weapons and ammunition can only serve to increase the number of weapons in circulation and the chance they will fall into the wrong hands.
Why not simply tweak the existing system into something like the "no fly list" -- a "no buy list" to better prevent felons and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms? Perhaps then firearm purchase decisions could be made for better reasons than a possible prohibition.
On the second issue, the definition of marriage, why not give a nod to the separation of church and state? Let faith communities determine their own definition of marriage, and let state and federal law recognize civil contracts entered into by consenting adults without passing judgment on matters of faith.
Neither of these ideas are original here, and both will raise protests of moral decline and erosion of constitutional rights. Like most compromises, they would leave neither side completely satisfied.
But perhaps finding middle ground on controversial issues like these would allow the national debate to move on to solving the looming prospect of financial collapse.