The Federal Marriage Amendment
Here is the text of a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

I oppose this amendment for the following three reasons:

1. The U.S. Constitution was written to guarantee rights to our citizens, not restrict them. This amendment would restrict same sex couples from getting married (indeed, that is the whole point). Constitutional amendments which are designed to restrict rather than protect freedom are antithetical to what the United States and its Constitution are about (for this reason, I also oppose the 'Anti-Flag Desecration Amendment' or whatever it's called), and generally don't fare so well (think about prohibition).
2. Whenever conservatives lose a battle in the courts, they seem to want to enforce their will on the country by screwing with the Constitution. This document is the blueprint for our Democracy, not a way to circumvent court rulings you disagree with.
3. And in this particular instance, of course, I disagree with the policy underlying the proposed amendment. There is no legitimate reason to define marriage as an institution strictly for people of the opposite sex. I believe that people who oppose the right to marry do so mostly because they don't really believe that two men can love each other the same way a man and a woman can. They don't believe this is possible because they have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from anything to do with homosexuality. In short, these people want to enshrine their prejudice into the U.S. Constitution.

So, I was thinking about all of this, and reading about the recent furor the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision has caused, when it hit me: We really do need a Federal Marriage Amendment. We just need to change the wording slightly.

How about this:

"Marriage in the United States and the legal incidents thereof shall be conferred unconditionally upon any two consenting individuals who are both above 18 years of age and who are not already married. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall infringe upon this fundamental human right."

I think this amendment actually is necessary, unlike the one Republicans are kicking around, and if some brave legislator would actually introduce it, then we could start talking about the real question.

Instead of asking "What can we do to stop people of the same sex people from getting married?", we should be asking "Why aren't all mature, responsible adults allowed to marry whomever they choose?"
10:55 PM | Link

 
Alas, the Medicare Bill
First Florida in 2000. The Republicans used systematic intimidation of blacks, illegal absentee ballot applications, and late-received absentee ballots, along with the help of their friends on the U.S. Supreme Court, to screw the will of the majority and install Bush in the White House. Then Texas and California on 2003, where Republicans successfully passed a partisan redistricting plan for the second time since the 2000 census (yes, this was unprecedented), and successfully recalled a governor who was deeply unpopular but not corrupt or incapacitated.

Now this. In a concerted effort to give Bush his medicare and energy bills before Thanksgiving (bills which were largely written by Bush's major campaign donors, who --- by an amazing coincidence --- are also the bills' main beneficiaries), the House leadership kept debating the medicare bill until 3:00 AM this morning, then voted on it.

They lost. Votes in the House are typically concluded after 15 minutes. After 15 minutes, the vote stood at 195 in favor, 210 opposed, with 30 members not voting. So much for Bush and his corporate buddies, right?

Well, of course not. If the Republican party has demonstrated anything in the past 3 years, it is that they will stop at nothing to get their way. Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay --- models of integrity both, and both fiercely committed to our nation's democratic principles --- began walking around the House chambers, trying to strongarm recalcitrant Republicans into line.

They managed to push their numbers up to 216 in favor versus 218 against with one (Democrat) abstaining. They brought in Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson. They brought in Bush (by phone). Still no movement.

Then they started telling their members that the Democrats were planning to bring up a different medicare bill if this one failed, one with more spending on the sick and elderly, and less spending on subsidies to big corporations. And the Republican membership couldn't stand that. Two Republicans switched their votes, and it was all over.

Were the Democrats really going to introduce such a bill? Who cares? The important thing is, after 2 hours and 51 minutes (more than twice the length of the previous longest House vote) Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay got the bill passed, like the good little footsoldiers they are in Bush's systematic funneling of taxpayer dollars to corporate profiteers.

And if you listened very carefully in the background, you could hear our Democracy gasping its last.

The Washington Post relates the whole, sickening story.
10:25 PM | Link

 
A Letter to All of the Townhall Conservatives (except one)

I have noticed a troubling number of articles in recent weeks and months detailing the various ways in which our troops are not receiving the level of support they need and deserve from our government.

First, MSNBC reports that the Bush administration is going to court to prevent 17 Gulf War POWs from receiving compensation from Saddam's regime (http://www.msnbc.com/news/945622.asp).

It's bad enough that these veterans, who suffered untold hardship at the hands of Saddam Hussein, are getting ignored. But our current forces serving stateside are getting the support for their families cut, as reported by The Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-2335705.php).

But worst of all, our active duty personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq are not getting paid and are being denied medical care. Stars and Stripes reports that "Army National Guard soldiers activated to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan are plagued with pay-and-benefits problems and even denial of medical care to those wounded." (http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=17997&archive=true)

The public needs to know about these and other abuses, so that they can let Congress and President Bush know that it must stop. So far, I've only found one conservative journalist who addresses this issue: Paul Craig Roberts (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20031001.shtml). I hope that you will use your position as a prominent conservative columnist to publish the truth, so that our fighting men and women will get the support they deserve.

They would do it for you.

Actually, this letter went to every Townhall columnist except Paul Craig Roberts who, as noted above, has already written an article on this topic (actually it was an article about how this country treats illegal aliens better than its military, but just the same, it's refreshing to see a conservative take on the administration).

And I went ahead and sent it to Thomas Sowell anyway, even though he will probably give a response to the effect that the concept of 'Supporting Our Troops' is undefinable.

In the course of researching whether any of the Townhall conservatives had written on this topic, I came across this quote from Oliver North, who writes of:

". . . the men and women of our armed forces, who have seen their pay raises cut and killed, their benefits diminished, and their weapons and equipment worn out -- all while being deployed to exhaustion. They have been treated like lab rats in radical social experiments and dispatched like a global 'Meals on Wheels' program."

North was talking about the treatment of the military under Clinton, of course; this article was written in February 2001.

I don't know whether there's any validity to the charge that the troops were treated this way under the Clinton administration. But doesn't it sound like an accurate description of their treatment over the past 2 years? But I'm sure North would have written about it if it were, and my search through the Townhall archives shows he hasn't.
12:03 PM | Link

 
Support Our Troops!
Yet another story about the Pentagon letting down the active-duty troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I feel another letter to the Townhall conservatives coming on . . .
9:13 AM | Link

 
Stop the Energy Bill!
I knew the proposed energy legislation in Congress was bad, but I didn't realize just how bad until I read Calpundit's latest post about it. Note the New York Times article he cites which states that The Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute, Citizens for Tax Justice and Public Citizen are all opposed to the bill. If all of these organizations can agree that a bill is bad, then it must be bad.

Now, I'm a Minnesotan, and worked for a time on Paul Wellstone's last campaign, so I'm already painfully aware that Norm Coleman is not only supporting this bill, but thinks "it's a tremendous opportunity for Minnesota, and I think it's an important bill for America". This should give you a good idea about Senator Coleman's integrity. But what's really got me upset is that apparently our other senator, Democrat Mark Dayton, is also considering voting for it (reason: the bill contains $800 million for a coal gasification plant on Minnesota's Iron Range and a biodiesel tax credit, along with other sops to the agricultural states).

All that agricultural stuff may or may not be good, but folks, come on! This bill provides $25 BILLION (that's 'BILLION' with a 'B') in tax breaks to polluting industries over 10 years, and significantly erodes environmental protections. And what do we get for it?

According to the directors of 19 environmental groups, we get extensive damage to the environment. According to John Podesta, we get weakened national security and a devastating blow to our economy. According to Lynn Hargis of Public Citizen, we open the door for more Enron-style scandals. And as all of these writers note, the bill doesn't really do much of anything to solve America's energy problems.

So. I'm asking all who read this to contact your senator (the bill has already cleared the House) and urge him/her to vote against the energy bill. If one or both of your senators happen to be Democrats, tell them you would support a filibuster. Were this bill to become law, it would be simply another disaster in a long list of disasters that has been the Bush presidency.

If you're a Minnesotan, you may contact Mark Dayton at 1-202-224-3244.

Otherwise, it's really, really easy to look up contact info for your senator(s) at Project Vote Smart.
12:45 PM | Link

 
"Gay Marriage" versus "Freedom to Marry"
In an interview in the UC Berkeley News, linguistics professor George Lakoff argues that Democrats are losing influence because of their inability to 'frame' national debate in terms favorable to them. One example he gives is that of 'gay marriage'. The phrase 'gay marriage', most often used in the media, emphasizes the 'gay' aspect of same-sex marriage, conjuring images of all sorts of sexual activities which would appall many heterosexuals. And while it's true that same-sex couples do engage in sexual practices which don't appeal to most heterosexuals, we all know that the concept of marriage encompasses much more than sex: love, caring, compassion, spiritual interconnectedness, etc.

It may surprise most folks on the 'ban gay marriage' side of this argument that gays and lesbians who want to marry experience all of these feelings for their partners, too. In other words, this issue really isn't about sex at all, but about marriage and all it entails. This is why Professor Lakoff recommends that Democrats frame the issue as 'Freedom to Marry', which is not only a more accurate description of the issue, but one which immediately disposes the listener to sympathize with the 'support the freedom to marry' point of view.

I'm bringing all of this up because, in light of today's decision by the Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court that Massachusetts has been violating its state Constitution by denying the "legal, financial and social benefits of marriage" to people of the same sex who wish to marry, there is considerable concern that many more legal challenges to the traditional notion of marriage will ensue. Both The National Review Online and The Washington Post predict that we are likely to see a large volume of challenges to laws which require the concept of marriage to be restricted exclusively to opposite-sex couples.

The right has seen the battle coming, and is prepared for it. In addition to supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment, Republicans are likely to make heavy use of the fact that the likely Democrat nominee, Howard Dean, signed Vermont's civil unions legislation into law, making Vermont the only state in the union (until today) which recognized something like same-sex marriage.

So okay. This is going to be a big issue next year. That's unfortunate, because I believe that there are many more pressing issues to discuss, like our troops coming home from Iraq in 'transfer tubes', and a net loss of nearly 3 million jobs since Bush took office, and giveaways of our tax dollars to polluting corporations, and a litany of lies, disinformation, stonewalling and felonies. But, since the conservatives will want to discuss gay marriage (excuse me: I meant "the freedom to marry"), so be it.

Can anyone advance a sensible reason for opposing the freedom to marry which has nothing to do with religion? Many religions have their own rules about who may marry whom, and that's great. I would never presume to tell some church that their definition of 'marriage' is wrong. But fortunately, we live under the U.S. Constitution, not under the Taliban, and so religious considerations really have no place when formulating public policy.

So, I did a brief Google search and read up on the some of the reasons why some people oppose the freedom to marry. Howard Kurtz actually gives a fair number of them, both in The Weekly Standard and in The National Review Online. But they all sound pretty weak, when given even a moment's thought:

• Slippery slope: If we expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, then there's nothing to prevent further expansion to polygamous or polyamorous (group marriage) unions. Kurtz notes fairly emphatically that there are already groups advocating for legalized polygamy and polyamory. That may be so, but there's also a group that wants every county government in the country to erect a monument to Ronald Reagan. Just because some fringe elements want something to happen doesn't mean it is destined to be. Furthermore, the freedom to marry is simply about removing the gender restriction on the definition of marriage: why would that necessarily open the door to changing the number of people involved in a marriage?
• Goodbye to monogamy: " . . . gay marriage will almost certainly weaken the belief that monogamy lies at the heart of marriage". There is a belief that gays and lesbians are more sexually promiscuous than heterosexuals. There seems to be little evidence to support or refute this thesis, but if true, do you suppose that it might have anything to do with the fact that there is still a great social stigma to being gay or lesbian, not to mention the fact that, um, same-sex marriage is currently prohibited, so it's more difficult for same-sex partners to publicly commit to one another, and internalize this commitment? Just a thought.
• Marriage of convenience: Once same-sex marriage becomes law, two people of the same sex can set up a sham marriage just to reap the financial benefits. This is true. And two people of the opposite sex can do the exact same thing today. Kurtz gives no argument to support the assumption that people will be more likely to engage in this kind of unethical behavior with a person of the same sex than with someone of the opposite sex. So let me give him an argument. One could argue that the institution of marriage between a man and a woman is held in sufficiently high regard that few people would make a mockery of it in this manner. I expect that's true. My counter to that argument is that the freedom to marry will not lower anyone's regard for marriage as an institution; it will simply allow more people to participate in it.

I found one other non-religious argument opposing the freedom to marry, given by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in citing his support for the Freedom to Marry Amendment: he's concerned that the freedom to marry will lead to another kind of slippery slope in which "criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned", which is a statement so absurd that I only included it as comic relief.

At its essence, the Freedom to Marry is all about granting all couples who wish to publicly declare their committed love for one another the opportunity to do so; it's all about 'loving individuals committed to each other's welfare'. Yes, it means that gays and lesbians will get the same work benefits and tax consequences as opposite-sex couples, and why shouldn't they? More than that, it's about family values. Kurtz mocks the thesis of Al and Tipper Gore's book Joined at the Heart, that a family is defined by the way people feel about one another, and not about such essentially superficial things as gender. But Kurtz should not mock this idea. All good 'family values' conservatives should instead applaud it, because if 'family values' doesn't mean 'loving individuals committed to each other's welfare', then it has no meaning at all.

11:47 PM | Link

 
Patriot or Traitor? You Decide!
Have you noticed all of the buzz lately concerning Valerie Plame, and the way she was thrown 'into the cold' by an anonymous senior White House staffer? No? Perhaps that's because no one has written anything about her in almost a month. The Washington Post hasn't printed anything substantive since October 24, same for the New York Times, etc. etc.

Well, I got to thinking about how startlingly similar the Valerie Plame leak is to the leak reported here yesterday, so I thought it would be fun to compare the leakers in each case, and determine which is the Patriot and which is the Traitor. So, buckle your seat belts, kids, and get ready for some fun!

Leaker	Information Leaked	Probable Motivation	Practical Outcome	Patriot or Traitor?
????? (Most likely Karl Rove)	Told Robert Novak and 5 other journalists that Valerie Plame, wife to Joe Wilson, was a CIA operative.	Wilson had made Bush look foolish by reporting that there was no basis for the claim in Bush's State of the Union message that Iraq had attempted to acquire nuclear materials from Niger. Most likely the leak about his wife was undertaken to punish Wilson for embarrassing the president, and to serve as a caution to others in the intelligence community who might be inclined to leak incriminating information to the public.	We have no way of knowing how many other potential whistleblowers were silenced. What we do know is that years of deep cover work on WMD were put at risk, as well as the lives of many of Ms. Plame's contacts. Furthermore, Ms. Plame's exposure may give foreign agents clues about the identity of other CIA agents. Ms. Plame's career is finished and many of her personal relationships have been damaged.	You decide
Katherine Gun	Told the media that the Bush administration had used the NSA to conduct illegal surveillance of foreign UN delegates for the purpose of potentially blackmailing them into supporting a resolution for an invasion of Iraq.	In the words of Ms. Gun, any alleged leaks exposed 'serious illegality and wrongdoing on the part of the US Government' and were designed to prevent 'wide-scale death and casualties among ordinary Iraqi people and UK forces'.	Remains to be seen. This story actually broke briefly back on March 2, then was bottled up under a British statute which The Guardian calls "An Odious Law". With any luck, the American people will wake up to the fact that the Bush administration will take all steps necessary, including the commission of felonies, to advance its agenda, and will send Bush and his cronies to the resounding defeat they richly deserve next November.	You decide

In conclusion, my old college classmate, who knows Ms. Gun personally, has sent the additional links about her story (most of these are referenced above), and asks that we all express our support for her:

• The original Observer article.
• Text of the leaked memo.
• Story about the UN investigation of the allegations of U.S. spying.
• Guardian's statement on the Official Secrets Act.
• The BBC's take on the story.

8:29 PM | Link

 
Loose ends
First, an update on my efforts to persuade a conservative columnist (or really, any columnist) to write about the shameless way in which House Republicans stripped an anti-profiteering amendment from the Iraq spending bill. It's been more than a week since I sent the email out, and had received only one response, so I figured my efforts were a bust.

Well, maybe not. Rich Tucker has now written back, and he was much more polite than Thomas Sowell was. In fact, he went so far as to say that he "may write about" the issue.

So I guess the word "war-profiteer" doesn't pose any particular obstacles for him.

Also, in the new weblog showcase over at Truth Laid Bear, edwardpig placed fourth in the 'political blog' category, out of, um, six. Yeah, but it was really close. Edwardpig finished only four votes out of third and 11 votes out of second. And the first place blog only had --- well --- 46 more votes than I did.

Oh well, one can't win them all. Thank you to the folks who did vote for edwardpig. If you haven't already done so, why not take a look at the winning entry over at And Then....
7:05 PM | Link

 
Katherine Gun: Another Heroic Whistleblower
An old college classmate of mine just called my attention to the following story in The Guardian. It appears that back in March, when the U.S. and Britain were still going through the motions of attempting to obtain UN approval for the war on Iraq, the U.S. National Security Agency was brought in to help 'persuade' certain delegates thought to be on the fence. Specifically:

"The NSA made clear that the particular targets of what was described
as an eavesdropping 'surge' were the delegates from Angola, Cameroon,
Chile, Bulgaria, Guinea and Pakistan - the six crucial 'swing votes' on
the security council.

A memo sent by Frank Koza, a senior NSA official, said the information would be
used for the US's 'QRC' - quick response capability - 'against' the key UN
delegations."

The upshot here being that the NSA was hoping to get some dirt on the swing voters in order to threaten them into supporting the war resolution.

In short, the U.S. was trying to blackmail UN delegates into approving the war.

If all of this happened back in March, why are we only hearing about it now? Well, it seems that we wouldn't be hearing about it at all were it not for a certain intelligence employee named Katherine Gun, who has now sacrificed her career and quite possibly her freedom in order to bring these facts to light. She leaked this information back in March, was arrested, and the information bottled up again by the British legal system. A fuller explanation comes from my college contact, who is a long time family friend of Ms. Gun:

"Katherine has worked as a Chinese translator for British intelligence for
the last few years, and was arrested back in March for leaking to the press
a document from the most secretive of the US intelligence agencies, the NSA,
asking British intelligence to help them gather information about the UN
reps of various countries with critical swing votes that could influence the
vote on war with Iraq in the hope that they could use the information
gathered to blackmail those countries into voting for the war.

British law mandates a media blackout in cases like this so there was no
press coverage of her arrest when it happened. She and her parents decided
to keep silent about it, hoping that she would not end up getting charged.
Now that she has been formally charged, apparently some coverage is allowed,
and the Harwoods want everyone to know about it."

Over at UK Indymedia, someone has bothered to point out that people with Ms. Gun's inside connections are thoroughly vetted, and so almost never leak information like this. The fact that she felt compelled to do so speaks to the seriousness of what the U.S. was doing.

We can only hope that others in the intelligence community will perform similar acts of conscience.
10:40 PM | Link