The Maine Objection

So, Maine has gone ahead and repealed its same-sex marriage law. Perhaps this is the time to stop and think about this, ask ourselves why people are so vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage in the first place. I think there’s an easy answer – religion. But maybe my meaning isn’t what you think.

I propose that most people, and especially those opposed to same-sex marriage, think of marriage as an essentially religious event. And they see the support of same-sex marriage as getting the government involved in their religion. They forsee government telling them who they have to allow to marry in their church, and it makes them crazy. And you know what? They’re right.

Marriage is a religious event masquerading as a civil event, or rather as a series of civil events. It’s a financial and legal joining of two households, a simple substitute for a will, medical power of attorney, financial power of attorney, a joint custody agreement (in case of children) and so on. I’m sure there’s a list somewhere online that details all of the things marriage represents in law. My point is: it shouldn’t.

Perhaps marriage should be left up to the churches. They could decide who can get married, how they can get married and whether the marriage is under any circumstances allowed to end before the end of time. But (and here’s the important part) it wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) have any force or meaning in civil law. Just as baptism/christening doesn’t (and shouldn’t) determine what your legal name is. Domestic partnerships would take up the legal end of things.

What is the possible objection? It provides freedom of religion without making anyone a second class citizen. Government still gets to push around the same people it was pushing around before, only religion doesn’t tie it’s hands. Religions get to set clear rules… or byzantine structures that can only be interpreted by the chosen initiates – as they wish. And we, the people, can get on with our lives, and stop butting into everyone elses. Pretty much the only people who will see this as a loss are those who think Christian Morality (read as /their/ morality) ought to have force of law for all people. And quite frankly, I’ve had about enough of their bullshit.

There’d be a lot of legal issues to get straight before it could be put in place of course. For instance, what if you get married in church, but do not put a domestic partnership in place to support it? How will existing marriages be handled? What if you have an existing state marriage, but object to the domestic partnership on philosophical or religious grounds? Do you have to accept it? I’ll leave all of that to the lawyers.

And for the future, I forsee arguments about multiple domestic partnerships, group domestic partnerships, and customized domestic partnerships (with prohibitions on certain behaviors (sex ouside of partnership, smoking, drug use)? financial restrictions? expiration dates? Lotsa fun. The lawyers should love it, too! See, everybody wins.

Prohibition Genealogy

I'll be the first to admit that it sometimes takes me longer to put 2 and 2 together than it takes the average person. But how did I miss making the connection that my grandparents were kids during prohibition? I knew they were kids throughout the depression (1929-1939), but somehow failed to realize that this meant they were kids during prohibition (1920-1933). I just looked it up in the family genealogy... Grandpa L was born in 1922, Grandma L in 1925, and Grandma F was born in 1916.

I asked Grandpa and Grandma L about it yesterday, and they both had memories of prohibition. Specifically, the had memories of how their families flouted the law. Let me refresh our collective memories. The 18th ammendment prohibited "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors", which was basically anything with ethanol in it, with a few exceptions which I haven't bothered looking up.

And how did my proud American ancestors react to this restriction of their ability to purchase beer, wine, brandy and schnaaps? Well, my Grandpa's family brewed their own beer in the basement. Grandpa didn't remember, but I'm guessing this involved malt syrup, water and bread yeast. Probably not the tastiest thing ever, but apparently palatable enough. Grandma's family took a different approach, possibly because they had a source a few doors down where they could buy the distilled stuff. I'd guess the difference was a cultural one, though. Grandpa's lineage is german, so beer was the object, with brandy and schnaaps viewed more as window dressing. Grandma comes from Polish stock, more oriented to vodka. Whatever bathtub hooch the guy down the street had must have fit the bill nicely.

I'll have to see if I can find out what Grandma F's family did during prohibition. They're Norwegian-descended, so their alcoholic heritage would have combined farmhouse brewing and flavored spirits. On the other hand, her granddad moonlighted as a lay preacher, so maybe illicit liquor wasn't an option. I'll let you know if I find out.

Happy 75th Anniversary of Repeal!

On this day 75 years ago, alcohol prohibition was repealed. Most of us agree this was a good thing, and that our country is safer for it, and that life is better for it. So let's sit down with a glass of beer, or whiskey, or what the hell, a glass of each, and celebrate! And while we're at it let's think about the parallels between the violence brought by alcohol prohibition back then, and the violence spawned by drug prohibition now. Here's hoping for another repeal soon!

PS: Thanks to BA for the reminder of today's importance!

I am a Constitution Voter

Apparently, I'm a bit late to this, but I thought I'd share it anyway. The ACLU is hosting a petition drive that I quite like. By signing the petition, you agree to this pledge:

• I believe that no one -- including the President -- is above the law.
• I oppose warrantless spying.
• I believe that government officials, no matter how high-ranking, should be held accountable for breaking the law and violating the Constitution.
• I believe that the Constitution protects every person's rights equally -- no matter what they believe, how they live, where or if they worship, and whom they love.
• I reject the notion that we have to tolerate violations of our most fundamental rights in the name of fighting terrorism.
• I am deeply committed to the Constitution and expect our country's leaders to share and act on that commitment -- every day, without fail.

Now, these are very topical, and I like them all, but they are a bit... pointed, shall we say. I'd be happier if they added some more timeless ones. For instance,

• I believe that, in accordance with the 10th Ammendment, the federal government's actions are restricted to those specifically listed in the Constitution, and that the interstate commerce clause does not give congress carte blanche to control everything goddamn thing it sees.

or

• I believe that when the members of one branch (say, the legislative) attempt to delegate one of their powers (say, the power to declare war) to another branch (say, the executive), that their attempt should be struck down and a suitable punishment should be applied.

But, the list of points is a fine thing, as far as it goes, and I'm proud to sign on. Objections to any of the points are welcome in comments!

PS: Russ Feingold held hearings in September on essentially this same topic. He's calling it Restoring the Rule of Law. He pitched it as a means of generating a blueprint for the next President to restore executive respect for the Constitution and the law. I doubt he's be asking for veto on spending laws not authorized by the Constitution, but you take what you can get. A quote from Russ:

"As we celebrate the 221st anniversary of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, I want the next president – whoever that may be – to pledge his commitment to restoring the rule of law. It is a sad fact that for the past seven and a half years the Bush Administration has treated the Constitution and the rule of law with a disrespect never before seen in the history of our country. The years that follow this president’s shameful legacy will be the true test of the strength of our democracy."

Wouldn't it be cool if the right and the left both started hammering on each others' unconstitutional actions and we ended up with a federal government that operated within the bounds of the Constitution? And also if Santa brought me a pony this year?

Suspendered Campaign

Cheap political ploy? Certainly. Isn't everything done by either candidate at this point a cheap political ploy? Successful political ploy - it seems not. And I understand why it seemed like it would be a good idea. But, I don't want a President who can't handle everything at once. And besides, you don't pull something like this without making SURE that the other side is on board. Shows a lapse of Prezidenshul Skillz. What do you guys think? Comments are open.

Speeches

Watched Lieberman's and Palin's speeches over lunch today. I don't quite understand the hubub about Lieberman's speech. It didn't seem particularly brutal, or anything. And Sarah Palin's speech was nothing special to my ear. A few rah, rah America moments, a few snide stabs at Obama - nothing out of the ordinary for a convention. But I’m quite a bit disturbed by one line in particular from Sarah Palin’s speech the other night. She was talking about how al Qaeda was waiting for an opportunity to harm Americans and snidely commented:

"and [Barak Obama]’s worried that someone won't read 'em their rights"

Oh my god. Yeah, that’s right, Palin. Guilty because you say so… that’s what makes America great. Gov. Palin, have you ever heard of civil liberties? No, didn’t think so. How about “guilty until proven innocent”? No? Well, it’s official. Bush’s brain has been put into the body of a woman. At least now we know his plans for staying in power.

PS: Time magazine reports that, as Mayor, Palin tried to get some books removed from the library, and threatened to fire the librarian when she refused. Nice.

Obama's speech

Just caught the tail end of Obama's speech. It wasn't bad. Not his best work, but whatever. The part that was interesting for me was after the speech. See, I'd stumbled across the convention while channel surfing, and happened to be watching it on Fox. Wow. I've never heard Fox News commentators talk about Obama. They really hate this guy, don't they? I mean, slipping in his middle name (Hussein) ever chance they get? Subtle. And the barely restrained anger in the announcer's voice was kinda scary. I half expected him to start screaming "Get the N-! Lynch him! String him up!" It gave me the willies. I mean - vote for him or don't, but do anger and childish taunts have any place in a real news organization?

Supremely Interesting

The New York Times has just reported that US Supreme Court has ruled today that the "right to keep and bear arms" described in the Second Ammendment to the Constitution is to be construed to protect:

"an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,
and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense
within the home" - District of Columbia v. Heller

This should be good for a decade or so of lawsuits!

I'm trying to stay open on the issue of the Second Ammendment. It's one of the few issues where you can actually find meaningful discussion of the issue (as opposed to emotional wailing and gnashing of teeth) without too much effort. (Of course, you can find emotional wailing, gnashing of teeth and macho posturing with even less effort).

The source of the Second Ammendment argument, it seems to me, is that the ammendment was generated by politics. It was carefully reworded numerous times in its development so as to say nothing that would offend any of the groups whose votes were needed to get it to pass (hunters opposed to British poaching laws, states rights proponents worried about the their state's ability to keep the federal government in line, revolutionaries wondering if they might need to go through all this again, and on and on). This means that it's a bit vague, and that certain definitions included in earlier versions have been purposely ommitted. It's basically designed as an argument in written form!

Since there were as many intents for the ammendment as there were people working on it, an appeal to Intent is doomed to fail. We can only worry about what it says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

If you're politically minded, dig into this one a bit, you'll no doubt find it fascinating. I've particularly enjoyed these takes on the issue:

David Brin sci fi author, futurist, and philosopher on a possible approach

Dave Kopel of the National Review on the grammar of the ammendment

Wikipedia, of course, has a lot of good background (though I haven't sifted through all of it yet)

If you have any good ones I should read, mention them in the comments!

Don't do it, Barack! It's a trap!

Clinton says she's open to being Obama's VP - Yahoo! News

Oh lord. As if there won't be enough rednecks gunning for the guy, would he actually put Hilary Clinton in a position to benefit from his death. You'd have to be nuts to do something like that. It's basically an overblown form of ritual suicide. Ask Vince Foster... or Ron Brown... or Jim McDougal... This list is obviously well-exagerated, but I've always felt a ring of truth to it.

Plus... I just don't like Hilary Clinton. Don't trust her. Never will.

(although I hear my brother has been itching to vote for her again)

Libertarian?

Has the definition of libertarian been changed?

I just looked up some history on Bob Barr, the 2008 Libertarian Party candidate for president. Wikipedia lists the following tidbits about him:

- authored the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as between a man and a woman
- voted for the patriot act, authorizing unprecedented levels of unsupervised federal surveillance powers, (but now regrets voting for it)
- advocated complete federal prohibition of medical marijuana (but now favors allowing medical marijuana)
- proposed that the US military ban the practice of Wicca in its ranks

These do not look like the votes of a libertarian candidate. This is possibly the worst Libertarian candidate for president since I’ve been aware of the party. I won’t be voting for him.

Kosovo Declares independence from Serbia

Kosovo has declared independence from Serbian, and our National Idiot has informally recognized it. Should this declaration actually lead to full statehood, look for violence to erupt worldwide and the hundreds of secessionist movements already existing worldwide seek to push their advantage. We may expect many new wars to sweep the globe.

How do we justify allowing Kosovo to secede? And now that it seems a done deal, how do we keep it from happening here? Or are we willing to let the american southwest become an independent nation, should the resident mexicans there start harassing and killing the local anglos in the same way that the albanian ethnics have been harassing and killing the local serbs?

(Above: a photo from espritdecorps.ca, showing a serbian monastary in Kosovo which was burned by a mob of 200 albanians. The UN guard stationed there successfully evacuated the priests residing there without anyone being killed.)

UPDATE: France, Britain and the US have recognized Kosovo as an independent nation.