Like Shooting Fish in a Barrel

Towleroad has a post about the National Organization for Marriage's 'pro-family' fear-mongering zombies release gay marriage scare ad. I checked out the NOM and found this FAQ on their marriage talking points page, which attempts to give same-sex marriage opponents the answers to some awkward questions.

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

They have equated "believing mothers and fathers matter" to being against same-sex marriage, which it is not. They introduce African-American opposition, which is a red herring. Pointing out that marriage is not new and asserting their conclusion (not taking away rights) does not address the question of bigotry.

2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

Prohibiting same-sex marriage continues the stigmitization of gay couples and continues their oppression. In this way, it is similar to bans on interracial marriage. The argument about marriage being for the purpose of male/female parenting assumes that marriage is always about having children and that alternatives to male/female parenting are inferior, both invalid assumptions.

3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”

A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

The fact that same-sex marriage opponents desire an amendment to the constitution which codifies discrimination against gay people demonstrates that they understand that such discrimination is currently unconstitutional, confirming that judicial activism in states such as California and Iowa is correct.

4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples does not remove any rights from anyone, as there is no right to define a word the way you wish. People who have beliefs that others find bigoted are not treated as bigots unless they act on those beliefs. Religious organizations who are acting as agents of the government by running public programs are obligated to follow public policy. If this is in conflict with their dogma, they may decline public funding and limit their bigotry to purely religious expression. The education issue is a red herring, however, if children are being taught that people may be who they are, that is a good thing. Same-sex marriage does not hold that children should not have both a mom and a dad, only that there are valid alternatives. There may be an assumption among same-sex opponents that exposing children to the idea of homosexuality may make them gay, which is of course, absurd. Finally, asserting that something is "not right" is not an argument.

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

Actually, marriage is a legal contract and, for some, a sacrament.

6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”

A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

Many decades ago, we decided that "separate but equal" did not work with respect to race relations. The same is case with respect to gay people and same-sex marriage. The only way to guarantee that everyone has the same rights is to say that everyone has the same rights.

7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

An excellent point. The same-sex marriage opponents should be spending their time trying to make divorce illegal. I'm kidding, but hope I made a point that our legal system should not be used to enforce religious views.

8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

There is an assumption in this argument concerning fitness to be a parent. Who is to decide this? Are two people, who together possess male and female parts, always the best parents? Are there not other factors, such as how these people participate in the lives of their children? There was one episode of Mr. Rodgers' Neighborhood that I cherish where he suggests that what a child really needs is one adult who really cares about them.

9. What about older or infertile couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”

Again, there is the assumption of the ideal parents, which is invalid. If you accept this assumption, then it seems reasonable to deny male/female marriage to a couple who intends to neither procreate nor adopt.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Oh Greg!

On Tuesday, one of my personal guides through the financial crisis demonstrated that otherwise smart people can sometimes totally not get it. Concerning the AIG bonus flap, Professor Mankiw wrote in Trivial Pursuit:

The AIG bonuses now being debated in Congress and everywhere else represent about .001 percent of annual GDP. Regardless of how outraged you are about the AIG bonuses, it is probably not an optimal allocation of resources for our elected leaders to spend large amounts of time and energy on the topic.

Conventional wisdom says that our populist rage is unleashed on this particular topic because, unlike many topics in the financial crisis, we understand it. People understand companies going insolvent, getting bailed out, then paying $400,000 bonuses to a chosen few. And they don't like it, regardless of the fact that the bonus fund is .001 percent of GDP.

Mankiw would have done better to have stuck to prior criticisms of recovery legislation, which focus on the inefficiencies and mistakes that are inevitably made when so much money is spent so quickly.

As it turns out, Mankiw's lack of faith in the wisdom of congress (evidenced by the last paragraph of his post) was supported by today's House vote to tax the AIG bonuses at 90 percent. Newsweek's Howard Fineman pointed out on Olberman that such a law is unconstitutional because it is both retroactive and targets a specific group (Article I, Section 9. No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.)

Domestic Partnership Initiative

Two straight southern California college students now have an initiative in circulation which, if passed, would turn all married Californians into "domestic partners" and put government out of the marriage business. To get on the ballot, the backers must obtain 700,000 signatures by early August. Their proposed text states...

The proposed measure calls for the term "marriage" to be removed from government legislation. The State of California's Law code would have "marriage" replaced with "domestic partnership," while the definition and the rights provided would remain the same. The purpose of which is to provide equality amongst all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, without offending the religious sect. Legally speaking, "Marriage" itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions. Furthermore, the initiative would void Proposition 8. (09-0003.)

This initiative appears to address the objection of gay marriage opponents that gay marriage would "redefine" marriage.

I predict that the initiative will either fail to qualify for the ballot or, if on the ballot, will fail to pass, as just about everyone has reason to not like it. Consider these objections:

1. The initiative redefines marriage by removing government support. If you are against any redefinition of marriage, you will be against this initiative.
   
2. Some fundamentalists who are against homosexuality based on their interpretation of scripture will want to maintain the status quo, which denies same-sex marriage or civil unions.
   
3. Some gay marriage supporters will not be willing to settle for a "domestic partnership" solution. They feel that they have a right to be "married", just like straight couples.
   
4. Some married straight couples will be annoyed that they will be "domestic partnered" rather than "married." If they want to regain their "married" status, will they have to have another ceremony?
   
5. Some fundamentalists will be annoyed that gay domestic partners will be able to obtain marriage from a church which is accepting of gays and lesbians.
   
6. Some who are indifferent or hostile to religion will object on the basis that the initiative is kowtowing to religion.
   
7. Not really an objection, but some married people will claim that the state has nullified their marriage and they are now divorced. I doubt their claim will stand up, but am fairly certain someone will try.

A simpler version of this initiative is to repeal Prop 8 and reinstate gay marriage. Non-governmental institutions (i.e. churches) can then issue or deny "the sacrament of man-woman matrimony" to whoever they wish.

Big Love Too?

HBO's Big Love (not actual polygamists but play them on TV)

On March 6, the California Supreme court heard oral arguments on the validity of Prop 8, which took away the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry. Regardless of their decision, the right to gay marriage will eventually be guaranteed to all Americans, as suggested by our progress in extending to the few those civil rights which are enjoyed by the many.

One question that occurred to me is... if we legalize gay marriage, why not do the same with polygamy?

There are two differences between gay marriage and polygamy that persuade me to allow the former while denying the latter. First, people are born gay and culture can only suppress that fact, not change it. The trend in our society is to not deny civil rights based on who we are at birth (e.g. sex, ancestry, disability). One might argue that men are hardwired for polygamy in that they seek out multiple sexual partners, however, being born with a desire to have sex with multiple women is not the same as a desire to be in concurrent marriage with the same.

Second, there is no benefit to society in denying gay marriage; in fact, there are costs, such as complicating the legal and financial situation of committed couples. Simply put, it's bad for business. On the other hand, there is benefit in denying polygamy. In past cultures where a minority of men commanded all the wealth, women may have benefited from being one of many rather than the sole wife of a pauper, however, that is not the world of today. Society suffers if men are unable to find wives. Their chances improve if other men can only marry one woman at a time.

I write about this topic because it adds to the debunking of the argument that if gay marriage is legalized, then the door to the marriage tent is open to anything, including fruit salad.

McCain's Tweets

Maureen Dowd's Stage of Fools piece in the NYT discusses the content of Senator John McCain's efforts on Twitter, focusing on his top ten lists of stimulus pork. As that ground has been plowed, I will confine my remarks to his tweet style.

First of all, I believe that Senator McCain is posting his own tweets because they don't appear everyday. If this task had been assigned to a staffer, I would expect to see more regular output. For example, he does not tweet on most weekends and he skips some weekdays, such as February 9. Also, when not pork listing, he maxes out at 3 or 4 tweets.

McCain uses tweets primarily for three things: a public day timer (e.g. "I am working in my office on Capitol Hill today."), a promo (e.g. "Watch my interview with Fox & Friends LIVE @ 8:15 am"), and to garner media attention by listing pork (e.g. "$95,000 for Hawaii Public Radio"). This last use subverts the whole concept of Twitter, which is micro blogging or the publishing of a tweet, a self-contained 140 character message (or less). By assembling a lengthy communication into successive tweets, he is exploiting Twitter's ability to stream messages into mobile devices in real time, but making the recipients read the message in a start/stop fashion. For example, on March 5, he started his list at 6:41am and ended it at 1:35pm. A list is more easily read from the archive once it is posted in entirety, which means that Senator McCain should be blogging, not Twittering.

Another style issue is prefacing, or sending a tweet to say you are about to send a tweet (e.g. "and the #1 project is..." ). To me, it's just getting around the 140 character limit.

The Twitter homepage states that a tweet is an answer to the question "What are you doing?", however, my experience with the Facebook status feature suggests that micro blogs are just as concerned with what people are thinking or feeling. We rarely get that from Senator McCain. On occasion, he might twitter something like "I appreciate Senator Byrd speaking in favor of my Constitutional point of order", but not very often.

Tweets (as I experience in Facebook) can also be funny. I am seeing no humor in Senator McCain's thumb jockeying. OK, Congress is serious business but he is using something called "Twitter." Throw us a bone every once in a while. Actually, the "Happy Birthday Joe Lieberman!!" tweet on Feb 24 was a little bit funny.

One cute thing McCain does is to start some tweets with ICYMI, which I have never seen before but assume means "in case you missed it". I find it cute because it's almost always unnecessary. In 159 updates, he has yet to utter a single LOL, ROFL, or WTF, which one might expect given his history of salty language.

In the final analysis, there is nothing really wrong with McCain's tweets. Hey, it's a free country. He is simply using a new technology, getting some media attention because of it, and possibly shedding a bit of his internet-illiterate image. But he has not embraced the spirit of micro blogging, which is more related to social interaction than public relations, at least this week.

DeMint Amendment Fails

Today the Senate is debating the economic stimulus bill (HR1) that came over from the House and voting on amendments. One was proposed by Senator DeMint (R South Carolina). HR1 contains the following language:

(3) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.—No funds awarded under this section may be used for—

(A) the maintenance of systems, equipment, or facilities, including maintenance associated with any permissible uses of funds described in paragraph (1);

(B) modernization, renovation, or repair of stadiums or other facilities primarily used for athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which admission is charged to the general public;

(C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities—

(i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or

(ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission; or

(D) construction of new facilities.

Senator DeMint's amendment is to strike section (C) above, which makes it illegal to use stimulus money to fix up buildings used for religious activities. Note that if the religious use of the facility is not "substantial", stimulus funds may be used.

I listened to part of Senator DeMint's argument for his amendment on C-SPAN (perhaps doubling it's viewership). His main concern is that a person's right to exercise their religion, for example by praying or discussing religion in a public speech or offering an invocation before graduation, will be compromised should the place of this expression be an institution that received stimulus money. Are not the restrictions on stimulus spending simply restrictions on spending? Does anyone think that if the University of Texas receives stimulus money, then the Longhorns can no longer play football in their stadium because the stimulus money cannot be spent on the stadium?

DeMint also appeared to give an argument against his own amendment. He stated that the courts have held that religious groups have the same rights as non-religious groups, which might mean that the fellowship of christian athletes has the same right to use a meeting room as the coed rugby team. The stimulus bill does not change this.

The vote on the amendment was 43 ayes and 50 something nays, which looks like it followed party lines. If the Republicans in Exile are to come back, they first need to shed their theocratic tendencies.

Daschle Dashed

The TV machine reports that this NYT op ed piece was the final straw that sunk the nomination of Tom Daschle as secretary of health and human services. It was not just his tax problems; the NYT believed that "financial ties to major players in the health care industry may prove to be even more troublesome." If Obama is to walk-the-walk of shutting down the lobbyist/government revolving door, then he needs to waive the waivers.

Back to the tax issue, I have always been under the assumption that if you don't report taxable income or if you list bogus deductions, you are committing a crime, not an honest mistake. If the reporting is accurate, Mr. Daschle only came clean because he anticipated that his financial records might come under scrutiny. There was no smoking-gun 1099 from his employer, so had he been headed to retirement, he might never had amended his taxes.

But he did amend his taxes and pay off the IRS, without further allegation of wrong-doing, so what's the big deal? That would be perception, that is, the perception that change has not really come to Washington and the rules get changed for special people.

Daschle did the right thing by withdrawing. Nancy Killefer, the almost chief performance officer, also did the right thing. Timothy F. Geithner, our treasury secretary, not so much.

Obama went on the TV machine and admitted to Katie Couric that he had made a mistake concerning the Daschle nomination. Point to Obama.

Week Two

President Obama started week two by going to Capitol Hill to gain support among Republicans for his stimulus package. As one might expect, the Republicans are playing the role of the opposition by opposing the plan, even though it contains things that Republicans usually vote for, like tax cuts.

Were I a member of Congress, I would be hard pressed to know what to support, as the so-called expert economists are not in agreement. In fact, they have started to get testy with one another, as this Mankiw post suggests.

The Jan 26, 2009 issue of the New Yorker (which we receive in Tahoe on Jan 26) has an article by Ben McGrath titled The Dystopians, which describes various current and past prognosticators who have raised alarms against the demise of life as we know it. In particular, he writes about his time with Jim Kunstler, an architectural critic, novelist, blogger, and general critic of the way-things-are-now-particularly-in-America. What gave me pause is that Mr. Kunstler makes a lot of sense to me. I am not sure if this is because his prescriptions for returning to a more sustainable lifestyle are just a good idea or they resonate with my 56-year-old brain that is yearning for simplicity.

The reason I mention this after bringing up the stimulus package before Congress is because, if you believe Kunstler, the stimulus package might put us back on the road that led to the crisis in the first place.

Doesn't anyone have a vision of what the world would be like in 25 years (2034) if our energy, environmental, and economic problems were solved?

Day Three

No more torture!

Closing Gitmo!

Thank you Mr. President. This is getting good.

I recently finished Sex and War: How Biology Explains Warfare and Terrorism and Offers a Path to a Safer World by Malcolm Potts and Thomas Hayden and nowhere did the authors suggest that torturing people or detaining them forever in Cuba was part of the terrorism solution.

Actually, the key to peace on earth may rest with a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices. As women take their role as equals in society, nations become less likely to engage in team aggression. When women can choose to limit family size, the age demographics of society are more conducive to economic success. Why be a terrorist when you have other attractive options?

Day Two

Our 44th President was in the oval office by 8:30am on day two. Does he need sleep?

The final inaugural event is National Prayer Service at the National Cathedral. On "The West Wing", President Bartlett reflects on the irony of such a practice in a country that prides itself on the separation of church of state. Of course, the word "separation" appears nowhere in the First Amendment. The scholar Margaret R. Miles believes the phrase "independence of church and state" is more accurate. Religion and government coexist but operate independently.

On day one, I attended a late afternoon yoga class taught by a wonderful yogi who also teaches first grade (qualifying her as a saint, in my book). She said the children were so excited that anyone can now be President.

Almost. Just as people are born into their skin and sex, they are also born into the religion of their family. Who will break out of the glass cathedral? When will a viable presidential candidate be a non-Christian? When can we elect a Jew, or a Muslim, or heaven forbid, one who finds no evidence for the God hypothesis.

To clear up any possible constitutional issues, President Obama took the oath again in the map room of the White House, administered by the Chief Justice. There was no bible this time, as the Constitution does not require one and they had probably already returned Lincoln's book to the Smithsonian.

Day One

Following the Fortran array indexing convention (Fortran is a classic computer programming language), the first day of the 44th presidency is day one, not day zero.

The GeoEye image of the inauguration shows an interesting distribution of people on the mall. I had thought that they would be more or less solid back to the Washington Monument, but not so. Rather, people seemed to be clustered in front of the jumbotrons, leaving plenty of walking room around the crowds. Evidently, the crowd problems involved ticket holders for spots closer to the Capitol. As the areas filled, people were turned away.

What was Chief Justice John Roberts thinking? Was it a simple lack of any preparation for administering the presidential oath that caused his flub? Or do you subscribe to the conspiracy theory? I'm going with the "who needs to rehearse the oath" theory.

Biden was back with the big family bible, which Stephen Colbert believes is actually the Hogwart's spell book. Could be.

So cutting to the chase, what did I think of Michelle's inauguration gown? First, it is wonderful that she wore something by Jason Wu, who is young, talented, and deserves a break. In an interview, he said that he had no idea she had selected it until he saw her on TV. Fashion is not my game but I am a huge Project Runway fan and think that Heidi and Tim rule. And my nephew John Renaud is a senior fashion design student at Brooklyn's Pratt Institute, so fashion is a big topic in our family. Overall, the gown was just OK for me, not a knockout. The best part of the dress was what it did for her shoulders and arms. Our First Lady has a very fit and athletic body and the gown played to that. The choice of white was not ideal, as under the intense lights of the media, the gown morphed into a white blob on HD TV screens across the world. This was a bit unfair to Mr. Wu, as his gown had rich texture and fine detail. Perhaps a beautiful shade of blue or perhaps a metallic tone would have worked better. The bottom portion of the gown was full and flowing and worked well. Not so much for part above the hips. A ball gown should leave no doubt that a woman is underneath, and this one did nothing to flatter her curves.

If I could have given the First Lady one piece of advice, it would have been to wear the most comfortable shoes possible.

The media coverage of the various balls was lacking. I was watching CNN, MSNBC, and a little Fox, all of whom kept their talking heads going the whole time. Hey, it's time to par-tee. Where is E!? Where is the TV Guide channel? We want fashion, celebs, performers, and shots of the first couple that don't appear to be on a loop.

One exception to my "talking heads" comment is Rachel Maddow. Those who know me know that Ms. Maddow is the best thing that has happened to my TV machine since they started showing space shots in the 60's. Rachel, I hope you are on my TV/internet tube for a long time. And I love it when you say "infrastructure".

Day Minus Two

It's nice to be inspired and the presidency of Barack Obama has inspired me to write this blog. My daughters, Jane and Julia, who have been hearing me go on about things for some time, suggested the same.

The "We Are One: the Obama Inaugural Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial" occurred on day minus two, that is, two days before the inauguaration. Can an event of the federal government be any better? The music was fun, the remarks appropriate, and the clothes were fun to watch. For a while I was wondering if everyone over 30 was color coordinated... blacks, browns, and earth tones. Then there was Renee Flemming in red with red on top of red... guess not.

Garth Brooks was the most suprising act for me, him being a country star and all. But Obama's got a big tent so there was plenty of room for the big hat. The act that hit home emotionally was James Taylor, performing with friends. And Stevie, of course.