John's Blog

Falsehoods from Stand for Marriage Maine

This morning I was doing some research on both sides of Maine's "Gay Marriage" referendum, Question 1 on the November 2009 state ballot. I found some misinformation on the Stand for Marriage Maine site (the group leading the repeal effort, to overturn gay marriage), which I'll use this site to clear up, at least according to my knowledge.(Click title to read more...)

Following is the text of their Q&A page, quoted, with my responses unquoted afterward.

Questions & Answers About Question 1

What is Question 1?

A People’s Veto is a simple and straightforward voter-initiated measure that gives voters the power to decide if they accept or reject an act of the legislature. More than 100,000 Mainers signed the petition to place this People’s Veto on the November ballot as Question 1 to repeal the recent same-sex marriage proposal (LD 1020) passed by Maine’s legislature.

Passage of the Question 1 will restore the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman by asking the citizens of Maine, “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?”

Marriage is a pillar of society and should be protected from distortion by politicians and homosexual marriage activists who want to redefine it to suit their objectives.

Question 1 will preserve the centuries-old definition of marriage.

What does a Yes Vote Mean?

Voting Yes on Question 1 does several important things:

* It restores the definition of marriage to what Maine Law has always been and human history has understood marriage to be: between a man and a woman

Marriage has also been many other things throughout human history, most notably a means of soldifying political bonds between countries by the marriage of their royals and nobility, completely separate from any romantic interest between the partners. In such a political marriage, procreation is valued entirely for its political advantage (producing heirs for both kingdoms). Marriage has also often been denied to couples of differenting ethnicity. My point is simply that marriage is hardly the monolithic unchanging institution that this page wants to present it as. Marriage has always been more complicated than that.

* It maintains the rights and benefits of Maine same-sex couples who are covered by our domestic partners law. A YES vote does not take anything away from homosexual couples, but protects traditional marriage.

See more on this below.

* It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage as happens in Massachusetts, where children as young as the second grade are being taught that they can grow up to marry either a boy or a girl, and either option is the same, while parents cannot opt their children out of such “instruction.”

In Massachusetts, teaching on marriage is legislated into the school curriculum, and was so even before gay marriage was legalized there. Maine has no such curriculum requirement, and the law legalizing gay marriage here does change this. This example is simply not applicable here.

* And, a Yes vote on Question 1 puts the power in the hands of the voters, not politicians!

If policy regarding treatment of a minority were always left to the votes of the majority, we would probably still have Jim Crow laws in the South.

What does a NO Vote Mean?

If Question 1 is defeated, LD 1020 will take effect and the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed. Maine law will no longer promote monogamous marriages and the interests of children. Marriage’s powerful influence on the betterment of society will be lost.

An amazing amalgamation of unfounded or just plain false claims here.

"Sanctity of marriage will be destroyed" - Surely sanctity is in the soul of the beholder? I think they refer to the sanctity of their definition of marriage. Will having gay and lesbian couples participate in viewing their commitment as sacred somehow "destroy" it? Doesn't it just enlarge the pool of people allowed to participate in a sacred institution? "Destroy" is a strong word, not to be tossed around lightly.

Secondly, sanctity is a religious concept, and the legalization of gay marriage in Maine makes no requirements that any religious institution change it's religious definition of marriage.

"Maine law will no longer promote monogamous marriages" - Completely untrue. The gay marriage law does not permit multiple-partner marriage.

"Maine law will no longer promote ... the interests of children" - Most studies that Stand for Marriage references to "prove" this point compare two-parent heterosexual families with one-parent families, not to two-parent homosexual families. I have heard of no studies comparing the latter to two-parent heterosexual families with negative conclusions.

"Marriage’s powerful influence on the betterment of society will be lost." - Again, a strong but unfounded statement. "Lessened" would maybe be a more arguable claim (although the lack of studies proving so would make it harder to argue), but "lost"? No. The rate of gay marriages will still be much lower than the rate of straight divorces, which are well-known to be have a stronger negative effect to society and children. And there are plenty of gay parents who are lovingly and monogamously raising psychologically healthy children, certainly bettering society in the process.

The defeat of the Question 1 would result in the very meaning of marriage being transformed into nothing more than a contractual relationship between adults.

Which is all civil marriage is to the state, the only entity which is affected by this law.

No longer will the interests of children and families even be a consideration.

The interests of children and families is already not a consideration when a straight couple applies to the state for a civil marriage license.

Defeat of Question 1 will mean that homosexual marriage activists will have been able to redefine marriage for all of society, even for those people who have deep objections to it.

Only civil marriage, not the religious practice for any religious institutions.

The marriage between a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time.

It promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and father in a family held together by the legal, communal and spiritual bonds of marriage.

And while divorce and death too frequently disrupt the ideal, as a society we should put the best interests of children first, and that is traditional marriage.

Voting No on Question 1 would destroy marriage as we know it and cause profound harm to society.

This has already been covered above. The site is repeating itself.

Will Question 1 take away any rights for gay and lesbian domestic partners?
No.

Question 1 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gay or lesbian partners who are covered by Maine’s domestic partners law.

Maine law guarantees gay couples many of the rights offered to heterosexual couples.

Passage of Question 1 will not change that.

A contradiction. First it says repealing the gay marriage law won't take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian partners under the domestic partners law, then it says that that law "guarantees gay couples many of the rights offered to heterosexual couples". This implies that the domestic partners law does not provide all the same rights that marriage would, so repealing this law will take away whatever rights the marriage law provides that the domestic partners law does not.

Federal law controls other rights and changing the definition of marriage in Maine similarly won’t change that.

This is true. So even with the gay marriage law, gay and lesbian couples will not gain the federal benefits of marriage. But without it, they will additionally lack many of the state benefits.

If Question 1 does not pass, will my children be forced to learn about homosexual marriage at school?
Yes.

No!

Without Question 1, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between homosexual marriage and traditional marriage and parents will lose control over what their kids learn in school about marriage and sexual orientation.

This is not a hypothesis.

It has already happened.

In states like Massachusetts where same-sex marriage has been legalized.

Children as young as second graders are taught that there is no difference between marriage and same-sex “marriages.”

Worse, parents who do not want their children exposed to this homosexual marriage instruction have been denied an opportunity to opt their children out. (See Parker vs. Hurley)

Maine is not Massachusetts. Our laws are different. This has already been clarified up towards the top of this essay. Parker vs. Hurly took place in Massachusetts, and has no relevance in Maine (because it involves laws which Maine does not have, and because cases in states other than Maine have no legal power of precedence in Maine.)

Why was a People’s Veto needed? Don’t we already have a law clarifying the definition of marriage?

“An Act to Promote Marriage Equality and Affirm Religious Freedom” was passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor on May 6, and is scheduled to take effect 90 days after the adjournment of the Legislature in mid-June. Without a People’s Veto, Mainers will be denied the right that voters in 30 other states have already exercised, which is to decide this critically important question for ourselves. It is wrong for politicians and homosexual marriage activists to redefine marriage for all of society without giving Maine voters an opportunity to have their say.

Who supports this initiative?

A wide range of national, state and local pro-family organizations, churches and individuals have formed a broad-based coalition to enact a People’s Veto, which more than 100,000 Mainers supported to qualify for the November ballot.

People of a variety of different faiths stand united in preserving the definition of marriage in Maine.

And people of a variety of different faiths also stand united in enlarging the definition to included committed and monogomous gay and lesbian couples.

To view a list of supporters, visit www.standformarriagemaine.com

What will happen to the existing same-sex partnership laws if Question 1 passes?

Nothing.

All laws on the books regarding same-sex couples will remain intact.

Gays and lesbians in a committed relationship will continue to enjoy all the legal rights and benefits that married couples enjoy, under existing Maine law. Question 1 does not affect those rights and benefits.

You just said above that they have many of the same rights, not all. Which is it?

Where can I find more information about Question 1 or get involved in the campaign?

You can visit the People’s Veto site at www.standformarriagemaine.com or send an email at info@standformarriagemaine.com.

There are a number of ways to get involved with the campaign, including volunteering, donating and helping to spread the word about the importance of voting YES on Question 1.

For more information on marriage equality, including volunteering, donating and helping to spread the word about the importance of voting NO on Question 1, see protectmaineequality.org

Labels: politics

0 comments

---

Human-Caused Climate Change - Is the Debate Over?

We've been hearing a lot about in the last year from the left that "The debate is over. Climate change is happening, and it is being caused by humans." Predictably, there is much hue and cry from skeptics that this is simply self-fulfilling prophecy that attempts to stop further questioning.(Click title to read more...)

I think we shouldn't get sidetracked into a discussion whether the debate is over or not. It's a very subjective statement. Obviously, "the debate is over" does not mean that everyone agrees. Some people fervently deny that the earth is more than 6000 years old, and we are either misinterpreting the dinosaur evidence, or maybe they lived at the same time is early humans. Does that mean that the scientific debate about the various ages of the earth (Jurassic, etc.) is not yet over? What about people who doubt that the earth is round? That the earth revolves around the sun? That apartheid was bad? (Yes, getting away from science now.) That the holocaust happened? Are those debates still "open"?

So, "the debate is over" does not mean that there are no more dissenters at all. Should we then define it as saying that some threshold percentage of believers has been reached, maybe a majority? But on a scientific question, that quickly morphs into a debate about whose opinion matters. A researcher whose educational background is not actually science but happens to be working on the issue anyway? Those people exist. Someone whose educational background is scientific, but in another area of science? They exist too. Does it matter who is paying them? In some cases, undoubtedly. We could come up with any percentage depending on whose opinion we count as mattering.

I think it's really a political question. In fact, I'm not a rhetorician, but I'd wager this is a standard rhetorical device, to just proclaim that everyone agrees with you. It may be true that in different countries, one side or the other has captured the majority of public opinion, or even scientific opinion, and maybe one opinion does prevail in the majority of countries. So maybe you could say that "the debate is over" in certain countries. The reality for the United States, for better or worse, is that the debate is still not over, at least in a political sense. I think those who want it to be "more over", from one point of the view or the other, would better spend their time continuing to convince than to argue about whether it's over or not.

A few thoughts on scientific certainty: Science consists of facts and theories. Facts are merely the observed phenomena, theories are the potential explanations. Theories are strengthened or weakened depending on how well they agree with the facts, as shown by experimentation over time, but theories never, ever turn into fact. Gravitation is still just a theory. Newtonian physics was a fairly well-accepted theory until Einstein. Theories are always being modified or even replaced. When it comes down to it, all theories are just stories we've made up to explain the facts, and science is merely the methodology to compare the validity of competing theories.

Some people seem to unrealistically expect a theory to be "correct" in a way that can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Almost every theory now in existance has some facts which are not explained by the theory, and those that don't, no doubt someday will. The existance of facts that don't fit the theory of course means that the theory needs at least some refinement. It may or may not mean that the theory is flat-out wrong. Yet that's the conclusion that some, armed with conflicting facts, want to jump to.

Labels: environment, politics, science

0 comments

---

All I have to say about the Da Vinci Code

(At least for now...)

With all this hoopla over the release of The Da Vinci Code movie, it might be good to remember how outraged the West got over how outraged the Muslim world got over those Danish cartoons, or, for those with longer memories, Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses. "They don't value free speech like we do", some people said. Is turnabout fair play?

How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

- Luke 6:42

Labels: politics, religion

0 comments

---

Politics and Spirituality Conference, Day 1

(Posted by Heather)

Apologies for not posting last night, this site was down!

Anyway - I'm headed off to catch the Metro but here's a bit that I wrote last night after the first session:

I've been at this conference for two hours now and the trip here would have been worth it if this was all it was. Let me begin by explaining that there is a crowd of 1300 people, with 350 people watching in a Simulcast room next door and untold numbers turned away for lack of space (so many so that they have decided to hold ANOTHER Politics and Spirituality conference of exactly the same brand and variety this spring on the West Coast). When we sat down, they had us introduce ourselves to the people next to us, and express to them that we were happy they were here. She turned back to me and said "No, I'm really happy that you're here. And all of us - I feel so alone in this, like no one understand what I'm talking about, like no one can possibly be thinking the things that I am thinking" - and I don't think I helped her out - because all I could do was nod and nod and think "so true so true so true"

(Click title to read the full post...)I hope that with words I can transmit atleast something of this to you. We're sitting in a huge conference room. Up at the front is a stage, with a yellow banner - words that read "We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses - " There is a banner, up at the front, it looks like a quilt. On it are probably a dozen iconographic representations of - who - of those who have come before us - of - well let me tell you - of Moses of Jesus of Mary de los desparecidos of San Bartolome de las casas, of Gandhi of Black Elk of San Isidro and Santa Maria of Mother Jones of Oscar Romero of Etty Hillesem of Sojourner Truth of Martin Luther King Jr. and more. And the call together is a call talking of each of them - of how they have brought us to where we are, of bridge builders, and martyrs and people who live their faith.

Richard Rohr is the introductory keynote speaker. Fran, every word you say is true. Richard Rohr is a Franciscan monk, ordained in 1970 who runs a place called the Center for Action and Contemplation. He says that he will start his talk with a piece of poetry and a piece of Scripture. He says how can we read Scripture if we cannot understand poetry - that in both there is meaning on about 10 different levels, so fraught in meaning and possibility. He sets up what becomes the theme for the evening - in Mary Oliver's poetry he brings up that there are two types of fire: the lone, heroic, individual, and the fire of participation - of unitive consciousness, of being inherently, intrinsically connected.

Then he reads from Exodus 3: "Here I am" - that the litmus test to refrain from ideology is to ask your self - am I PRESENT with another person, that the most personal is really what becomes the most universal.

He defines for us: politics is what you do publicly. Spirituality is why you do it, personally. One without the other - both become corrupt. Exodus talks of God freeing enslaved people - that from the very beginning, the very establishing of the Judeo-Christian tradition politics and spirituality are only a verse apart. He defines enslaved - saying that it when you cannot imagine an alternative - when you are captive to the status quo. He then asks us - isn't this city [DC] enslaved? And aren't many of us enslaved in conceiving of the church?

And this next part is what moved me - He remarks on the fact that a friend of his says that any intimation in religion that this is about the individual is an economic concept with a moralistic façade - that having "my soul saved" is ill-disguised narcissism. Western modern Christianity, he says, has become largely about self-validation - about being good enough and worthy enough to be saved individually. He remarks "don't even go down that worthiness road". Its only collectively, he writes, that we are the glory of god. This is not about "making ourselves better" - and he remarks on law at this point as well. That law as established by politics AND by religion do the same thing - try to make you better - the private self trying to pull itself up by its bootstraps. And religion operates, as much as we might hate to admit it - on the Santa Claus model - totally bowled over by reward and punishment, naughty and nice. Its not possible, through law to transform yourself.

This, he says, is where this goes wrong. For integrity has been substituted ideology - prefabricated conclusions without the journey - the transformative journey - transformative does not mean changing the individual - transformative means realizing that the ego, the individual, has so little to do with it. Transformation has to do with becoming a part of something greater.

He talks about steps on this journey - the first step, by which most do not pass is recognition and awe of outer authority - the second is something that (and I laughed when he said this) many people go through in college, and their 20s - a recognition of inner authority - an assurance and a trust in oneself and one's own logic and intellect. And the third step, he writes, is both an end to the inner ego and the outer authority on their own - a balance of the inner and outer authority such that we do well to stand on the shoulders of ancestors who have come before us but also to understand that the only experience we can trust and the only understanding that we really have is our own inner.

Of course, he says, you have to know the rules before you can break them. He says he thinks this conference is well-timed - that we are on the beginnings of the death of civil religion. That is, he says, the "best disguise for a real spirituality is religion" - keeping the individual safe, and in control - morally on high ground - saved, if you will without transformation or real solidarity.

But, he says, he cannot give up on Jesus - because his starting point is not sin, the way we are so often told. His starting point is suffering. He cracks a joke about modern religion, and modern religious leaders as being "sin managers".

[The question I have here is what we do when religion has caused this suffering - previous to the first session I went into the American Indian museum of the Smithsonian with friends - Christianity was instrumental in the breaking down of a functional indigenous tradition - and at the same time "swooped in to save".]

Authentic religious experience, he remarks is falling into a communion, a togetherness, that you did not create, when you don't know what there is to prove or rationalize any more.

Then he begins to talk about prayer, and this is as well touched me very deeply. Prayer so often is something functional and practical (Jim Wallis remarks on this later, in a voice saying "God, Aunty Bessie is very sick" and God booming back "Oh, really? I didn't know - " Richard Rohr remarks - "We don't need to inform God - God already knows - "

Instead, he engages in what he calls "contemplation" - participating - letting it happen to you - flow through - getting to a place when your ‘egotistical' mind can let go and be out of control for awhile.

This is the misconception he feels with Christianity - that we can still be in control of ourselves as individuals (but no one else will know it). He reminds us that in the mature forms of all religions it is about letting go.

He says that prayer is whatever it is that you are doing when all of you is there - that through that is possible to overcome the distinction between secular and sacred spaces.

Finally he talks about truth as being that which we already know is true on the deepest level. And I hear him on that - its not prescribed for us - and we already know it is there.

Jim Wallis spoke briefly in response to Richard Rohr. He speaks later tonight so I'll have much more to say I'm sure - but he said one thing that struck me:

You can't be a contemplative without eventually having to bring your prayer in to the world - and you can't be an activist without eventually having to become a contemplative.

We will not think ourselves into a new way of living, we will live ourselves into a new way of thinking. And prayer is about transformation -

Jim Wallis was a stutterer. Who knew - he has a booming voice, and is hilariously funny.

More on Jim Wallis' talk later - but he speaks in a manner in which I think it must have been to hear Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. speak.

Signing off now so that I can make it to the next session!

Heather

Labels: politics, religion

2 comments

---

Bike against terrorism!

In many respects, bicycles are the ideal mode of transportation for the age of terrorism. They of course lessen our dependence on petroleum, thus lessening the leverage that terrorists have over us when they sabotage the petroleum infrastructure. But because everyone can ride their bike wherever and whenever they want, they avoid the problem of mass transit that requires centralized routes and large numbers of people gathering together, which makes it vulnerable to terrorist attacks (as well as being less convenient). In short, bicycles combine energy independence with the security and convenience of decentralization.

(Click title to read full post...)The central fact preventing widespread use of bikes for transportation, of course, is our suburban sprawl. Those who live 20 miles from their job cannot (all) be expected to commute even part of the way on their bike every day. Non-farmers who nonetheless live in the country, miles from the nearest grocery store, will not be using bikes for grocery runs. The sprawl factor is perhaps the biggest obstacle to increased use of bikes for transportation, and is much harder to solve than simply adding more cycling infrastructure.

Obviously, neither cars nor mass transit will ever be completely replaced by bikes, even discounting the sprawl factor. There will always be people whose age or health problems will prevent their use of bikes, and there will always be jobs requiring individuals to cover large distances in relatively short periods of time. For these reasons, there certainly needs to be continued research and investment in alternative fuel sources for personal vehicles, as well as increased investment in mass transit technology and infrastructure. (Increased use of various electronic conferencing tools to replace job travel is another alternative.) But to the extent that the bicycle can be promoted, it is a much cheaper and easier alternative than any of the others, and can only improve our society's ability to provide for the transportation needs of its citizens while minimizing our vulnerability to terrorism or any other kind of supply disruption.

Labels: bicycling, politics

0 comments

---

Marriage vs. Civil Union

In my other post on the gay marriage topic, I explained why I support it, and what I think the limits are to the governments role in the debate. In this essay, I want to investigate more fully the differences in meaning between the terms "marriage" and "civil union". Among other reasons for thinking about this, it is an area in which I would like John Kerry to be a lot clearer on.

Let me lay out an example to illustrate this. Suppose, in Kerry's ideal world, that I (a straight man) take a trip to my local courthouse, with my fiance "Stacey" (all names but mine are made up), and our two friends "Amy" and "Jenn", a lesbian couple. Stacey and I obtain a marriage license, and Amy and Jenn obtain a civil union license. We then proceed down the hall to the Justice of the Peace, who "solemnizes" (I think that is the legal term?) my and Stacey's marriage, with Amy and Jenn as our witnesses. The JP then solemnizes Amy and Jenn's union, with Stacy and I as their witnesses. No religious institution involved anywhere.

At the end of the day, so to speak, what rights and benefits do we all have with our respective partners? Are Amy and Jenn's benefits identical to Stacey's and mine, or are they fewer, greater, or just different?

If identical, why make the distinction? Not only is it a legally useless one, but it is fiscally senseless to maintain two different systems that do the same thing. On the other hand, if it will satisfy people who are "against gay marriage but tolerable of civil unions", then okay, whatever.

However, I don't imagine that that's what most people who say that have in mind. And if not, then won't this amount to a two-class, "separate but 'equal'" system? Will this stand up in court? Is "sexual orientation", as a group designation, qualitatively different (not including from a religious viewpoint) from "race", on which basis "separate but equal" has already been found unconstitutional? (Which is probably why the MA Supreme Court said essentially the same thing.)

So my specific questions for Kerry (and others who make this distinction) are:

1. When he says civil unions, does he mean with all the same rights and benefits as civil marriage, just a different name? Or a separate set?
2. When he refers to "marriage", does he mean a civil status which will (presumably) have more civil rights and privileges than civil unions, or is he referring only the cultural and religious meanings of the word? If the latter, he needs to clarify that, to avoid people getting the mistaken impression that the government has any say in those definitions. He is entitled to his religious conviction, but if he's bringing it into the political debate, it needs to be more clearly labelled as such.

Labels: politics

0 comments

---

Gay Marriage and the Constitution

First, a bit of humor.

Let's be clear on one thing. "Marriage" is a very ambiguous term. Therefore, in this essay, I concern myself primarily with civil marriage, meaning when you are married by a Justice of the Peace instead of a religious clergyperson. No one's going to be forcing any religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages, whether they are civilly legal or not. Civil and religious marriage are pretty much separate issues, except that a religious clergyperson can be licensed by the state to represent the state during the ceremony. This enables the single ceremony to be have both the religious and civil significance, rather than requiring a separate ceremony for each.

One thing that I sense a lot of disagreement on in this whole issue is, what is is the government's proper role in defining marriage? In a government which in which church and state are separate (at least officially), what's the government's justification in defining marriage at all, and what are the its limits in doing so? The answer to this question has varied widely in different times and places throughout history. In 21st century America, the current consensus seems to be that the government's justification for maintaining a marriage institution is to encourage stable relationships. Many people would link the raising of children to that, although we can probably all agree that having more stable relationships is a better situation for society even without the addition of children.

So why limit this opportunity to heterosexual couples, when homosexuals also tend to fall in love and/or have sex, and/or raise children for that matter? All defenses of "traditional" (opposite-sex) marriage that I have heard ultimately derive from the moral and/or religious views of the person making them. To approve even of civil union, from what I can discern from the conservative viewpoint, amounts to condoning the homosexual orientation. (Note that I refuse to call it a "lifestyle", because I do not believe that it is.) And that, they cannot bring themselves to do.

While I support their right to their theology, I hope that we can all agree that it is not necessarily the government's role to protect the religious sensibilities of any one religious group, and indeed most conservatives do not go quite that far. They appeal instead to a "general" notion of morality, or "traditional" cultural norms. But is it even the government's role to "protect the general morality"? On the conservative side, it is true that the government has always had laws which are certainly informed by morality: laws against murder, theft, rape, pedophilia, etc. So does that mean the government *does* have some business legislating morality, maybe up to a point?

When asking about a government's proper role, the ultimate answer has to lie in the constitution of that government, the document by which the government has agreed to abide. Here's the preamble to ours:

We the People of the United States, in Order to

• form a more perfect Union,
• establish Justice,
• insure domestic Tranquility,
• provide for the common defence,
• promote the general Welfare, and
• secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Under which of these points would making legislation concerning morality fall? (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; these are my own subject interpretations.)

• form a more perfect Union? This is so vague, I have no idea.
• establish Justice? For whom, by whose definition? Problematic.
• insure domestic Tranquility? Well, yes, things would probably be more tranquil if all of us liberals would just shut up and go home (but see the First Amendment). I suppose if there was sufficient outcry against civil unions, it could be likened to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre in terms of its impact on domestic tranquility, but this analogy fails because someone shouting "fire" is not relative to the morality of its hearers.
• provide for the common defence? The more people feel welcome in our armed services, the stronger our defence, right? (Again, unless enough people are uncomfortable enough with it to undermine morale, which again is a moral issue on the part of the perceiver, and outside the scope of this essay.)
• promote the general Welfare? I think this is the strongest argument, see below.
• secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity? If you take "Blessings of Liberty" to be material and spiritual success, I think this argues for gay marriage or at least civil unions.

I think we can easily justify the traditional morality-based prohibitions on murder, etc. with the "general welfare" clause. It's clearly not in a society's interest, either collectively or individually, to allow these things to go on. Following that reasoning, perhaps government may also have a role in the decision whether or not to allow gay civil unions based on the "general welfare" argument. However, the justification is far less clear one way or the other, in my view.

Looking through the "general welfare" lens now, we have on the one side proponents of gay civil unions, who can argue, quite rightly I believe, that lack of the same rights and benefits afforded to straight couples severely limits their particular welfare, and therefore that of the society collectively. On the other side, opponents claim all sorts of problems for general society if gay civil unions are allowed, which if they are correct, would undermine the general welfare. So the "general welfare" clause could both sides have valid constitutional claims.

Now, the impact of gay and lesbian couples of being denied the rights and benefits of civil union is easily imagined, and what's more, real and well-documented. In my view, the doom-and-gloom predictions put forth by opponents are less proveable and much less documentable. Nevertheless, I think this is at least a legitimate constitutional frame for the central conflict in America right now: Whether the "general welfare" will be better served by allowing gays and lesbians the rights of civil union (thereby improving their own welfare), or by continuing to deny them (thereby avoiding any supposed costs to society).

So where does the the debate go from here? I don't know how to convince people who are certain that the sky will fall if gay civil unions are allowed that it won't. But I don't think it will, and that's why I'm in favor of extending to gays and lesbians the same civil marriage rights as heterosexuals currently enjoy. If you disagree with me from a moral or spiritual standpoint, I respect that, but I also believe that the only justification the government has in determining this question is as it relates to the civil "general welfare", not what our opinion of the morality of it is.

Labels: politics

0 comments

---

"Whack-a-Mole" as Foreign Policy

Shortly after the Bush administration announced its foreign policy of "Pre-Emptive Unilateralism" last year (in which we assert our right to make war on any nation we perceive as a threat, before they attack us, and without the consent of any other nation), an image started occurring to me of gophers popping their heads out of their holes, and us busily running around trying to hit them before they got away.

I'm not enough of a video game-o-phile to have recognized this image at the time for what it is, namely, the classic"Whack-A-Mole" video game, which is played precisely as I just described it. Although that is undoubtedly what led to the image's appearance in my mind, I only recently was able to consiously put the name to it. Now armed with a name, I was able to do a search on it, and was pleased to find that this analogy has occurred to others as well. I present the highlights below, ranging from serious to sarcastic to humorous.

The thing that bothers me most about this policy is that it seems almost designed to make enemies, thus ever increasing the number of "moles" needing to be "whacked". Indeed, in the video game, each level presents you with an increasing number of moles, until you fail to whack enough of them to advance any more, at which point the game is over. In real life, the consequences of "not whacking enough" would probably be a little more severe (although it might still be termed "game over").

Before I get all maudlin about realpolitik, here's the list:

---

• Whack-a-Mole Foreign Policy


• Robert Scheer Editorial (not a Whack-A-Mole reference, but a good article referred to by the above)


• What A Suprise! Unilateral Whack-A-Mole Can't Stop Nuclear Proliferation


• Jon Stewart Quote


• Ted Rall Editorial


• Hans Blix says "I told you so." (Also not a Whack-A-Mole reference, but I couldn't resist throwing it in.)


• U.S. Stymied by "Axis of Wascawwyness"

Labels: politics

0 comments

---

On Ethnic Tensions

In his 'blog essay "Feeling Lucky", Tim Bray discusses the fortuitous lack of ethnic tensions in Vancouver, despite the many cultures in evidence, and ventures some theories on why this may be so so. I felt I had some additional comments on why this might be so, or, more accurately, why it might not be so in other places.

I'll start by making the somewhat obvious conjecture that it will be easier for immigrant groups to integrate into a new culture if it was their choice to be there in the first place. Not that leaving the old country would have been their first choice in an ideal world, but nonetheless it was their choice (or that of their forebears) to "escape" to what they hoped would be a better life elsewhere.

On the other side of the coin, as an American, I think that two of the groups that have had the hardest time integrating into my country over many generations are precisely the groups that historically did not join the culture by choice: Descendents of African slaves brought here forceably, and descendents of the native peoples who were here first but were by-and-large forceably integrated, displaced, or eliminated. It's hard to put this into words, especially since it is not my personal experience as a 4th generation or so English/German mix, but it seems to me that the effects in these ethnic groups of this profoundly negative introduction to what has become our dominant North American culture still linger even down to the current generation. In some cases, this can take the form of continued hopelessness, cynicism, and lack of self-esteem. In any case, it's very subtle and I can't explain it too much more than this.

These groups, more than most others, I think, have had historically to form their own subcultures, and keep more to themselves, as a method of self-defense. This is more than just establishing an Irish-American club, or living in a "Little Italy" or "Little China". It has been harder, because of historical circumstance, for these groups to trust the dominant culture, hence to understand it or get along with it, much less try hard to integrate with it. And as a "white American", I can attest that it is harder for me to know how to approach American blacks and Native Americans than, say, the 2nd-generation Irish-American kid who lived down the street from me growing up. (Note: the right answer is "no differently", but intellectually knowing that does not guarentee that I can do it socially.) I know that we really have more shared experience than not, but the lack of interaction (on all of our parts) tends to only foster uncertainty and hesitation, not to mention distrust, ignorance, and even hatred among the more paranoid and scape-goating among us.

It must be said that if it sounds like I am placing all the blame on those groups for "not interacting more", that is not my intention at all. Real reasons for suspicion of the dominant culture are well-documented, from the post-reconstruction Ku Klux Klan, to real-estate "redlining" in the mid-20th century, to land grabs, to current racist groups. Bottom line, I think, is that historical difficulty in getting along is not easy to overcome. Conflict feeds negative energy all around, which lead to more conflict, in a vicious cycle.

An historical footnote: We don't hear much positive stuff in America about historical relations with our indigineous peoples, but I've been doing some interesting reading lately on pre-Revolution America and its relation with the Iroquois confederacy. When Euro-Americans numbered less than a million, and had penetrated less than a few hundred miles inland from the East Coast, relations with the Native Americans were (wisely) very friendly. They helped us defeat the French is the mid-18th century, and not only taught us a lot about survival in the New World, but also very much influenced the Founding Fathers with their system of government.

Labels: politics

0 comments

---

The Iraq War: Pro and Con

I have generally been against this war, for a variety of reasons, to the point of standing in a vigil with a local peace group every Wednesday over my lunch hour. Unlike many peoples' stereotype of an anti-war protester, however, I do grant the complexity of the issue, and that there may be good reasons to do it. In the company of my fellow "peaceniks", my spirit would like to be against all war, but my head is not yet convinced.

Much of my opposition to this particular war, I think, is a combination of concern for the long-term effects in our relations to the rest of the world, as well as a suspicion of the motives of many of those who are pushing for the war. Bush may (!) believe that it is purely good against evil, and it is all about removing Saddam from power just because he (Saddam) is a horrible person (which he is), but I doubt that everyone around him has these same motives, and it would be naive to think that that is the only reason we are doing it. Even his motive is suspect, as it is never good to presume that your side is all good and incapable of sin. Pride is one of the Roman Catholic church's major sins, isn't it? And there's the proverb about pride going before a fall.

I could go on, but for now, I'll enumerate some costs and benefits that I'm thinking about as the war seems to be winding down, which I'll probably make into the sign to hold at today's vigil. The sign will be entitled "SCORECARD".

Benefits	Costs
Saddam is gone (but where?) Thousands of Iraqis love us (so far)	1200+ civilians killed 5000+ civilians injured (Source: CNN.com, page since removed) Significant danger of political chaos and humanitarian crisis Hundreds of thousands around the world hate us God/Allah knows how many more al-Quaida recruits Undermining (further) of U.N. credibility 120+ Coalition casualties $100+ billion US taxpayer money

Worth it? What do you think?

Labels: politics

2 comments

---

Saddam as Hitler

Analogy is a very powerful rhetorical technique. It works by asking us to compare two situations in order to highlight the similarities between them. Indeed, it works so well, that often the mind jumps unnoticed from agreeing to the similarity of the circumstances, to agreeing to similar conclusions, and therein lies the danger. By so powerfully focussing on similarities, crucial differences that may make a difference to the outcome are minimized. For this reason, it is very important that analogies not be taken at face value.

One popular analogy to the current Iraqi situation is that of Hitler's Germany in the 1930's. If the leading powers of the time had taken a firmer stand against Hitler sooner, so the reasoning goes, World War II may not have happened. Now, even apart from the impossibility of knowing for sure if this is really true, there is also one important difference. The League of Nations in the 1930's was not sending weapons inspectors into Germany. (Germany would probably not have even allowed that!) The United Nations in the last 5 months WAS sending them into Iraq, until they were recently ordered out. (Not by Saddam Hussein, but by the U.S.) It may be that this effort would have proved insufficient in the end, but now we'll never know, because we have prevented them from finishing. (Were we afraid of the results?) The presence of the weapons inspectors is an important difference from Germany in the 1930's, and our cutting off their work is a strike against our decision to go to war now.

Labels: politics

0 comments

---