I'll be out of town, and away from my computer, for a few days.
When I next post on here, there will be about 36 hours left of the bush league dynasty.
January 20, 2009 has been a long long time getting here.
But here at last, thank God Almighty, here at last !
Ralph
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
High level dispute
With 7 days to go until he is out of office, I thought george bush would content himself with his faux-victory lap, giving interviews and press conferences to press his version of history, full of all the lies, denial, and spin he can manage. I even found one thing to be grateful for: that he did not start a war with Iran which, as recently as 6 months ago, I was moderately sure he would do. It does seem that Robert Gates and Condi Rice have been able to neutralize some of Cheney's most aggressive intentions.
But his self-congratulation goes too far, and CNN's Campbell Brown challenged his claim that his administration's response to Katrina was not too slow, as had been almost universally acknowledged:
Here's what Reuter's News Agency is reporting this morning:
"Inaccurate" is a politician's waste basket that can be a diplomatic way of saying the other person is flat-out lying -- or it can be a dodge of the truth based on an incomplete or slightly misworded quotation. We may never know.
What is undeniable, it seems, is that there was a last minute change in the U.S. position. And someone is trying to cover up what happened. When both the Arab leaders and the Israeli Prime Minister tell the same story, I'm inclined to believe them rather than the White House's weak denial.
It's not over 'til it's over.
Ralph
But his self-congratulation goes too far, and CNN's Campbell Brown challenged his claim that his administration's response to Katrina was not too slow, as had been almost universally acknowledged:
"Mr. President, you cannot pat yourself on the back for that one," she then said. "We will debate the war in Iraq, debate national security, the economy, and the rest of your legacy. Those debates will continue for years to come. But on how you handled Katrina, there is no debate."Now, in his last week, we have a big international flap of who's telling the truth at the highest levels of the U.S. and Israel. It concerns the U.N. resolution calling for immediate cease fire in Gaza that Condi Rice and the British and French ministers had introduced, haggled with Arab leaders over wording, and finally worked out a compromise that was about to be voted on.
Here's what Reuter's News Agency is reporting this morning:
Arab ministers said after the U.N. vote Thursday that Rice had promised them the United States would support the resolution, but then made an apparent about-face after talking to Bush.A few minutes before the scheduled vote at the United Nations, Rice's staff told reporters she would make a few brief comments beforehand, but then abruptly canceled her press appearance, saying she would instead speak to Bush by phone.
The vote was delayed while other ministers waited for Rice to finish the call. She then entered the U.N. Security Council chamber, huddled with Arab ministers who shook their heads as she spoke to them.
Immediately after the vote, Rice left for Washington without talking to waiting reporters. Her spokesman did not return repeated calls and e-mail over why Rice had reneged on her promise to Arab leaders to back the vote.
On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert released a statement saying that he had called Bush and "demanded" to talk with him with only 10 minutes to spare before the vote and that Bush then called Rice and told her not to vote for it. If reports of Olmert's statement are correct, he seemed to be gloating that he was able to control the U.S. vote. "He [Bush] gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not vote in favor of it -- a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organized and maneuvered for. She was left pretty shamed and abstained on a resolution she arranged," Olmert said.
"Inaccurate" is a politician's waste basket that can be a diplomatic way of saying the other person is flat-out lying -- or it can be a dodge of the truth based on an incomplete or slightly misworded quotation. We may never know.
What is undeniable, it seems, is that there was a last minute change in the U.S. position. And someone is trying to cover up what happened. When both the Arab leaders and the Israeli Prime Minister tell the same story, I'm inclined to believe them rather than the White House's weak denial.
It's not over 'til it's over.
Ralph
Obama listens
Many in the gay community were hurt and angry that Obama chose evangelical minister Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration because of Warren's stance on homosexuality. He has explained that he "loves" gays but considers their life sinful according to Biblical teaching.
It's OK to be gay -- as long as you don't have sex.
Further, until the outcry of protest, his church's web site had stated that, unless gays are willing to repent of the sin of their homosexual life style, they are not eligible for membership in his church. He later explained that members of his church enter into a fellowship commitment that requires adherence to scriptural teaching and that an unrepentant adulterer would fall into the same category and not be eligible. Although neither could join this committed fellowship, they are welcome and encouraged to attend services.
My take on Obama's choice was that he really did not consider it an insult to the gay community and didn't realize that it would be interpreted as such, since he also has the Rev. Joseph Lowery giving the benediction, and Lowery supports gay marriage. This does not indicate any change in Obama's commitment to gay rights. It is a typical example of his inclusiveness. He stated in his acceptance speech that he will be the president of all the people and that he wants to reach out especially to those who did not support him in the election.
I also think it's a bit of over-reaction in the gay community, even though I understand and had the same impulse initially. But consider that the Pope says almost exactly the same thing: being gay is ok; having gay sex is a sin, and you can't take communion unless you repent, the same as if you had committed adultery. A few priests even told their congregants that voting for Obama was a sin, because of his support for abortion rights. Yet, I doubt there would have been the same protest if Obama had chosen a Roman Catholic priest to give the invocation.
So I was willing to accept Obama's wisdom, as I have on many other things that I at first disagreed with him on. He could have avoided the gay protest by choosing a different evangelical minister, one who has recently changed his views on homosexuality and has said he is rethinking his stand on gay marriage: the Rev. Richard Cisik. But those remarks cost Cisik his position as Vice President of the National Association of Evangelicals, so asking him would have sent a negative message to the evangelical community.
Now we see again what is typical of Obama -- he listens and he responds. It was reported today that he has asked the Rev. Gene Robinson to give the invocation at the opening ceremony of Inaugural Week at the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday. Robinson is the first gay Episcopal priest to be elected Bishop, an act that has precipitated schisms in the world-wide Anglican community but has been tremendously affirming to the gay community.
That was a good decision. I can't think of anything he could have done at this point that would have better repaired Obama's stand with the gay community. Even more, it shows what we can expect from having a president who listens and takes note and tries to fix things.
Ralph
It's OK to be gay -- as long as you don't have sex.
Further, until the outcry of protest, his church's web site had stated that, unless gays are willing to repent of the sin of their homosexual life style, they are not eligible for membership in his church. He later explained that members of his church enter into a fellowship commitment that requires adherence to scriptural teaching and that an unrepentant adulterer would fall into the same category and not be eligible. Although neither could join this committed fellowship, they are welcome and encouraged to attend services.
My take on Obama's choice was that he really did not consider it an insult to the gay community and didn't realize that it would be interpreted as such, since he also has the Rev. Joseph Lowery giving the benediction, and Lowery supports gay marriage. This does not indicate any change in Obama's commitment to gay rights. It is a typical example of his inclusiveness. He stated in his acceptance speech that he will be the president of all the people and that he wants to reach out especially to those who did not support him in the election.
I also think it's a bit of over-reaction in the gay community, even though I understand and had the same impulse initially. But consider that the Pope says almost exactly the same thing: being gay is ok; having gay sex is a sin, and you can't take communion unless you repent, the same as if you had committed adultery. A few priests even told their congregants that voting for Obama was a sin, because of his support for abortion rights. Yet, I doubt there would have been the same protest if Obama had chosen a Roman Catholic priest to give the invocation.
So I was willing to accept Obama's wisdom, as I have on many other things that I at first disagreed with him on. He could have avoided the gay protest by choosing a different evangelical minister, one who has recently changed his views on homosexuality and has said he is rethinking his stand on gay marriage: the Rev. Richard Cisik. But those remarks cost Cisik his position as Vice President of the National Association of Evangelicals, so asking him would have sent a negative message to the evangelical community.
Now we see again what is typical of Obama -- he listens and he responds. It was reported today that he has asked the Rev. Gene Robinson to give the invocation at the opening ceremony of Inaugural Week at the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday. Robinson is the first gay Episcopal priest to be elected Bishop, an act that has precipitated schisms in the world-wide Anglican community but has been tremendously affirming to the gay community.
That was a good decision. I can't think of anything he could have done at this point that would have better repaired Obama's stand with the gay community. Even more, it shows what we can expect from having a president who listens and takes note and tries to fix things.
Ralph
Monday, January 12, 2009
more on gay marriage
Mickey Nardo makes the point (see his comment to my previous blog) that he would reverse Prop8 simply on the grounds that we make laws to protect others from harm. But no one has shown that anyone is harmed by someone else's same-sex marriage.
Good point. My favorite anecdote to argue a similar question -- who harms marriage? -- stems from the time in 2004 when San Francisco's mayor challenged California's law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and performing some ceremonies himself.
The first couple in line was Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin. Long known and respected as leading activists for gay civil rights, this elderly lesbian couple had also been life partners in a committed relationship for more than 50 years.
A few weeks earlier, Brittney Spears woke up one morning to discover that, during the previous night of wild partying with an old boyfriend from high school, she had impulsively married him without quite meaning to. They were partying in Las Vegas where The Little White Wedding Chapel is open for business 24 hours a day to accommodate just such impulsive weddings -- for heterosexual couples, that is.
In the 55 hours it took her handlers to arrange an annulment, Brittney was entitled to more than 1000 rights and benefits that our laws grant to married couples but that were denied to Dell and Phyllis, whose marriage license was later declared null and void by the courts, because it was against the CA law in 2004.
Nine months after that caper, Brittney married someone else. And since then, her life has splashed across the media, featuring a messy divorce, repeated hospitalizations for drug addiction, encounters with the police, contempt of court for failure to comply with judges' orders, and subsequent loss of custody of her children -- not exactly the finest example of marriage and motherhood.
I want some 'Sanctity of Marriage' proponent to explain to me how Phyllis and Dell are a threat to the sanctity of marriage, but Brittney can turn it off and on at her whim -- or in a drug addled state -- and it's just fine, as long as she and her partner are equipped with genitals that are different.
Perhaps there is "poetic justice" for Phyllis and Dell, even if there is as yet no legal justice. They took advantage of the short-lived Court ruling to get married again -- legally this time -- in the summer of 2008. Whether the Court overturns Prop8 and lets its prior decision stand, at least it lasted long enough for the terminally ill, 87 year old Dell to die happily married to her long term, beloved partner in August 2008.
Of course, I think the critics' claim that it will destroy the sanctity of marriage refers ostensibly to the institution itself, not to individual marriages. I'll save my thoughts about the psychology behind this for another blog.
Ralph
Good point. My favorite anecdote to argue a similar question -- who harms marriage? -- stems from the time in 2004 when San Francisco's mayor challenged California's law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and performing some ceremonies himself.
The first couple in line was Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin. Long known and respected as leading activists for gay civil rights, this elderly lesbian couple had also been life partners in a committed relationship for more than 50 years.
A few weeks earlier, Brittney Spears woke up one morning to discover that, during the previous night of wild partying with an old boyfriend from high school, she had impulsively married him without quite meaning to. They were partying in Las Vegas where The Little White Wedding Chapel is open for business 24 hours a day to accommodate just such impulsive weddings -- for heterosexual couples, that is.
In the 55 hours it took her handlers to arrange an annulment, Brittney was entitled to more than 1000 rights and benefits that our laws grant to married couples but that were denied to Dell and Phyllis, whose marriage license was later declared null and void by the courts, because it was against the CA law in 2004.
Nine months after that caper, Brittney married someone else. And since then, her life has splashed across the media, featuring a messy divorce, repeated hospitalizations for drug addiction, encounters with the police, contempt of court for failure to comply with judges' orders, and subsequent loss of custody of her children -- not exactly the finest example of marriage and motherhood.
I want some 'Sanctity of Marriage' proponent to explain to me how Phyllis and Dell are a threat to the sanctity of marriage, but Brittney can turn it off and on at her whim -- or in a drug addled state -- and it's just fine, as long as she and her partner are equipped with genitals that are different.
Perhaps there is "poetic justice" for Phyllis and Dell, even if there is as yet no legal justice. They took advantage of the short-lived Court ruling to get married again -- legally this time -- in the summer of 2008. Whether the Court overturns Prop8 and lets its prior decision stand, at least it lasted long enough for the terminally ill, 87 year old Dell to die happily married to her long term, beloved partner in August 2008.
Of course, I think the critics' claim that it will destroy the sanctity of marriage refers ostensibly to the institution itself, not to individual marriages. I'll save my thoughts about the psychology behind this for another blog.
Ralph
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Is marriage a right?
On November 4, 2008, the voter initiative known as Proposition 8 passed by 52.3% to 47.7% and amended the California Constitution to read: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. It is a long and complex history:
(1) A successful 2000 voter initiative law in CA declared marriage to be only between a man and a woman.
(2) In 2005 the CA Legislature passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage. It was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger, citing the will of the people in the 2000 vote.
(3) A similar bill passed the Legislature in 2007 and again was vetoed.
(4) In May 2008 the CA Supreme Court ruled that the 2000 law limiting marriage to same-sex couples was unconstitutional.
(5) From May to November, approximately 40,000 same-sex couples got married.
(6) In Nov. 2008, the voters adopted Prop8, which purported to amend the Constitution, thus superceding the Legislature and the Courts.
Now only another constitutional amendment could overturn it -- unless the CA Supreme Court declared that the amendment itself was unconstitutional because it violated other constitutional rights. Thus, the question: is there a right to marry?
So we have the CA Legislature and the CA Supreme Court having declared same-sex marriage legal, and voters twice rejecting that view and trying to write it into their Constitution. Prop8 is now being challenged in the CA Supreme Court. What they ruled unconstitutional before were laws; now they are asked to say whether this constitutional amendment is itself constitutional.
There are two arguments for overturning Prop8. One is procedural, the other concerns rights.
(1) The first argument is that this type of voter initiative, which can be placed on the ballot by voter petition and then requires only a simple majority vote, is not intended to alter the Constitution in such a basic way. In California, there is a distinction between "amending," which is for relatively minor changes, and "altering," which is a more basic change and requires the added step of a prior vote of the Legislature to be placed on the ballot. Thus, the argument is that Prop8 is not legal, because depriving a group of people of their right to marry is an "altering" of the Constitution and should have first been approved by the Legislature. This, of course, would likely kill the measure since the Legislature has twice taken the opposite position.
(2) The other argument has to do with whether there is a "right" to marry that cannot be denied on the basis of the gender of the two people. Arguments cite the 1967 U. S. Supreme Court case, Loving vs Virginia, which overturned the laws prohibiting marriage between people of different races. In the majority opinion handed down with that decision, the Justices stated: "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival..."
What keeps this from being a simple and obvious refutation of Prop8 is that the opinion clearly ties this decision to the 14th Amendment and its prohibition of racial discrimination. Whether the same argument can be made for discrimination based on sexual orientation is the nub of the question. Loving vs Virginia does not say that the right is limited to heterosexuals; on the other hand the decision could be seen as narrowly relating only to race and therefore not germane to sexual orientation.
These are the legal arguments. There are, of course, arguments based on religious grounds. But in as much as this is a matter before the Court, it cannot rely on religion but only on law.
Many legal scholars believe that the Court will overturn Proposition 8. It's conceivable they could say that the same arguments that were pursuasive against simple laws do not hold against a constitutional amendment. But then, of course, they would be affirming the legality of making such basic changes in the Constitution with only a simple majority vote.
State Attorney General Jerry Brown initially said it would be his duty to defend Prop8 to the Supreme Court, even though he personally opposed it. After more study of the legal issues, however, he has declared that his legal opinion is that it is unconstitutional and he will not enter an argument on behalf of the State to uphold it.
Polls as late as September had suggested that Prop8 would be easily defeated, and gay activists were blindsided when millions of dollars began pouring into the state from outside religious groups to fund a last minute campaign blanketing the state with misleading ads and outright lies about what would happen if Prop8 was defeated. There were claims that it would damage society, force teachers to promote same-sex ideas in school, and threaten freedom of religion. It was too late to salvage the "No on Prop8" campaign, but robust protest and educational counter-initiatives since the election are beginning to turn public opinion back around. Recent polls suggest that, if the vote were held today, Prop8 would be defeated.
I think it should be overturned by the Supreme Court both on the procedural and the rights arguments. Whether you frame it as a right to marry, or as a right to equal protection under the law, I see only religious arguments against it. Ideally, the government should simply issue civil union licenses for everyone, gay and straight, and let marriage be a religious institution. Some religious groups would decide to permit same-sex marraige, others would not; but none would have the power to control what others do.
That is not likely to happen for a long time. The religious argument that this would "destroy the institution of marriage" has a powerful hold in our society. I will probably write more about that in the future.
Ralph
(1) A successful 2000 voter initiative law in CA declared marriage to be only between a man and a woman.
(2) In 2005 the CA Legislature passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage. It was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger, citing the will of the people in the 2000 vote.
(3) A similar bill passed the Legislature in 2007 and again was vetoed.
(4) In May 2008 the CA Supreme Court ruled that the 2000 law limiting marriage to same-sex couples was unconstitutional.
(5) From May to November, approximately 40,000 same-sex couples got married.
(6) In Nov. 2008, the voters adopted Prop8, which purported to amend the Constitution, thus superceding the Legislature and the Courts.
Now only another constitutional amendment could overturn it -- unless the CA Supreme Court declared that the amendment itself was unconstitutional because it violated other constitutional rights. Thus, the question: is there a right to marry?
So we have the CA Legislature and the CA Supreme Court having declared same-sex marriage legal, and voters twice rejecting that view and trying to write it into their Constitution. Prop8 is now being challenged in the CA Supreme Court. What they ruled unconstitutional before were laws; now they are asked to say whether this constitutional amendment is itself constitutional.
There are two arguments for overturning Prop8. One is procedural, the other concerns rights.
(1) The first argument is that this type of voter initiative, which can be placed on the ballot by voter petition and then requires only a simple majority vote, is not intended to alter the Constitution in such a basic way. In California, there is a distinction between "amending," which is for relatively minor changes, and "altering," which is a more basic change and requires the added step of a prior vote of the Legislature to be placed on the ballot. Thus, the argument is that Prop8 is not legal, because depriving a group of people of their right to marry is an "altering" of the Constitution and should have first been approved by the Legislature. This, of course, would likely kill the measure since the Legislature has twice taken the opposite position.
(2) The other argument has to do with whether there is a "right" to marry that cannot be denied on the basis of the gender of the two people. Arguments cite the 1967 U. S. Supreme Court case, Loving vs Virginia, which overturned the laws prohibiting marriage between people of different races. In the majority opinion handed down with that decision, the Justices stated: "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival..."
What keeps this from being a simple and obvious refutation of Prop8 is that the opinion clearly ties this decision to the 14th Amendment and its prohibition of racial discrimination. Whether the same argument can be made for discrimination based on sexual orientation is the nub of the question. Loving vs Virginia does not say that the right is limited to heterosexuals; on the other hand the decision could be seen as narrowly relating only to race and therefore not germane to sexual orientation.
These are the legal arguments. There are, of course, arguments based on religious grounds. But in as much as this is a matter before the Court, it cannot rely on religion but only on law.
Many legal scholars believe that the Court will overturn Proposition 8. It's conceivable they could say that the same arguments that were pursuasive against simple laws do not hold against a constitutional amendment. But then, of course, they would be affirming the legality of making such basic changes in the Constitution with only a simple majority vote.
State Attorney General Jerry Brown initially said it would be his duty to defend Prop8 to the Supreme Court, even though he personally opposed it. After more study of the legal issues, however, he has declared that his legal opinion is that it is unconstitutional and he will not enter an argument on behalf of the State to uphold it.
Polls as late as September had suggested that Prop8 would be easily defeated, and gay activists were blindsided when millions of dollars began pouring into the state from outside religious groups to fund a last minute campaign blanketing the state with misleading ads and outright lies about what would happen if Prop8 was defeated. There were claims that it would damage society, force teachers to promote same-sex ideas in school, and threaten freedom of religion. It was too late to salvage the "No on Prop8" campaign, but robust protest and educational counter-initiatives since the election are beginning to turn public opinion back around. Recent polls suggest that, if the vote were held today, Prop8 would be defeated.
I think it should be overturned by the Supreme Court both on the procedural and the rights arguments. Whether you frame it as a right to marry, or as a right to equal protection under the law, I see only religious arguments against it. Ideally, the government should simply issue civil union licenses for everyone, gay and straight, and let marriage be a religious institution. Some religious groups would decide to permit same-sex marraige, others would not; but none would have the power to control what others do.
That is not likely to happen for a long time. The religious argument that this would "destroy the institution of marriage" has a powerful hold in our society. I will probably write more about that in the future.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
