Monthly Archives: May 2008

Same-Sex Reruns

The California Supreme Court has struck down that state’s ban on same-sex marriage. And we all know what that means: the forces of self-righteous indignation are gearing up for the mother of summer reruns. Wait for these oldies but goodies:

Judges have no business making such decisions. Um, sorry, but that’s their job. Judges are supposed to decide the cases before them, and some require deciding whether a particular law is consistent with the state or federal constitution. Judges don’t just wake up in the morning and say, gee, I feel like overturning some legislation today.

Judges should not overturn the will of the people. Failed government class, did you? In a constitutional republic, fundamental rights are not subject to majority vote. The Bill of Rights is a list of things the government cannot do even when popular majorities approve. In this case, moreover, that argument is unavailable; the California legislature—the “voice” of the people—passed same-sex marriage legislation not once, but twice, only to have Governor Schwarzenegger veto it both times. (It’s also worth noting that those on the Right who scream most loudly about respecting “the will of the people” didn’t hesitate to ask the courts to overturn the will of the people in Oregon who passed a referendum legalizing assisted suicide, or the will of the people in California who endorsed medical marijuana. Can we spell hypocrite?)

We need to elect Republicans who will put “strict constructionists” on the bench. Well, let’s see. It’s certainly true that contemporary Republicans are determined to put ideologically driven judges on the bench. And they have had some measure of success. But judges who are even minimally qualified are more likely to rule based upon controlling statutes and precedents than on their personal preferences. The California Supreme Court is a case in point: of the seven sitting judges, six were appointed by Republican governors.

And then there’s the old standard: Throughout human history, marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Well, no. In early Israel, a man could have several wives and concubines. (People who’ve actually read the bible, rather than merely thumping it, might recall the story of Jacob, who married two sisters, Leah and Rachel. Or Solomon, who had 700 wives and 300 concubines.) In America, in 1848, the Oneida community practiced “complex marriage” where every woman was married to every man in the community, and there was a so-called “Christian polygamy movement,” as late as 1994. Although Mormons have (formally) renounced it, polygamy persists in many parts of the Middle East to this day—among President Bush’s princely pals in Saudi Arabia, for example, and in Senegal, where an estimated 47% of marriages are “plural” or polygamous. There is even some evidence—admittedly disputed—that the medieval Church blessed same-sex unions.

What with Iraq, the recession, climate change, natural disasters, food shortages and gas prices, do we really have to replay these tired arguments about allowing Adam and Steve to file joint tax returns?

 

       

Comments

Our Votes Will Count

For once, Indiana voters will actually have a say in who gets a major party’s nomination—and a reasonably important say, at that. As a result, many of us are pondering issues we often don’t consider until fall. What are the factors that should—and should not—drive our choice of a President?

I can’t speak for others, but my vote will depend upon the answers to two sets of questions: whose positions do I find most convincing (recognizing that there is no candidate I will always agree with)? And who has the character, judgment and management skills to get those positions adopted? 

Whatever John McCain’s merits, his fervent embrace of virtually all the worst policies of the Bush Administration means I won’t be rejoining the GOP this year. That narrows my choices to Clinton and Obama. And because there are few policy differences between them, my choice is based upon my analysis of their respective abilities to do the job.

What are those abilities?

Most Americans desperately want a President with intellect and a real grasp of policy, someone who lives in what a Bush operative once dismissed as the “reality-based community.” But much as we like to think of the President as the sole “decider,” we know that he or she will choose a team to actually manage the government. The ability to choose highly competent people, and to manage them effectively, is critical. Evidence of character—truthfulness, honorable behavior, integrity—is equally important. Good judgment is key.

Barack Obama passes those tests. Hillary Clinton fails them.

The best available evidence of a candidate’s management skills is the ability to run a large, sophisticated Presidential campaign. Obama has chosen talented, highly effective people who are still with him, while Clinton’s campaign has been an ongoing soap opera. Her first campaign manager was fired for mismanagement. The current one is stiffing small businesspeople by not paying their bills. Mark Penn’s tirades and conflicts of interest have been the subject of ongoing leaks from dismayed campaign operatives. Bill Clinton has been a loose cannon. Clinton was so sure she’d be the presumptive nominee on Super Tuesday that she had no Plan B (a la Bush’s lack of an Iraq “exit strategy.”) These problems are uncomfortable reminders of Clinton’s mismanagement of the health policy effort—her one truly substantive assignment as First Lady.

Judgment? Clinton voted for the Iraq War, and still refuses to admit it was a mistake. Obama spoke out against it when it was politically damaging to do so.

Character? Ignore the obvious sense of entitlement. Forget the repeated “mis-statements” about being under fire in Tusla. Look instead at her campaign’s willingness to play the race card and identity politics, to go back on her prior commitment not to count Florida and Michigan, to throw the “kitchen sink” at the all-but-certain nominee no matter how much ammunition that might provide to Republicans.         

Ultimately, Clinton’s campaign has been all about her, while Obama’s has been all about us.

    

Comments

Verily, Veritas

As empowering as the blogosphere has been for gay and gay-friendly folks, it is always worth remembering that the virtual world is also host to plenty of hateful and reactionary rhetoric. In Indiana, one such site is a right-wing blog called Veritas Rex. Recently, a friend called my attention to a post there, headlined piteously “No Choice for Pro-Family Voters.” The post had been triggered by news that the local Stonewall Democrats had hosted a reception for the Democratic Gubernatorial candidates. And the candidates actually attended! And candidates who openly take money and/or solicit votes from citizens who are gay can’t possibly be “pro-family.”

 

Right.

 

Odd as it may seem to the exemplars of Godliness over at Veritas Rex, I have always considered myself pretty damn pro-family. (We have five kids! We’ve been married for thirty years! I couldn’t stand being any more pro-family!)   

 

Admittedly I have a rather different take from the wingers on what a real family looks like, but then, I live in the reality-based community, where we’ve noticed that families have changed since the 1960’s.

 

In 1960, according to the U.S. census, 44.2% of Americans lived in “Ozzie and Harriet” households, defined as a married couple living with their own children under eighteen. (Okay, so maybe mom was hitting the bottle in her suburban kitchen and dad was smacking the kids around when he came home from golfing with his buddies, but in Ozzie and Harriet time we didn’t ask impertinent questions. They were married, the kids were theirs, God was pleased. End of story.)

 

By 2000, however, only 23.5% of Americans fell into that category, and the folks at places like Veritas Rex (the folks who know exactly which families God approves of) are anguishing over what went wrong.

 

Data not being the wingers strong suit, permit me to enlighten them.

 

One big piece of the puzzle is pretty value-neutral: people got older. The life expectancy and average age of the population has increased, and those kids aren’t under 18 any more. More women are widowed. But there are, of course, many other factors. Maybe mom got the hell out of the kitchen, found out she could make a living and didn’t have to stay any longer in a sterile or miserable marriage. Maybe Dad found the courage to come out, and is living happily with his life partner in Upper Sandusky. Or maybe Mom and Dad are happily married, but have joined the growing numbers of married couples who’ve decided—for whatever reason—not to become a Mom and Dad.

 

When we look at couples who do have children, it is certainly true that two-parent families have more money, and more personal resources, and that money and other resources are important to childrearing. In a society that truly valued children, the census findings would motivate us to find ways to help children who are living in poverty, children whose custodial parent is overwhelmed. A number of initiatives come immediately to mind: expanded Day Care and Head Start programs, easier access to Medicaid coverage for children and pregnant women, increased educational and job opportunities for single parents.

 

Whatever the merits of such programs, however, they aren’t even being discussed. They cost money, and we need to save our money to make war in Iraq, and to ensure that the richest 1% of the population continue to enjoy tax relief. Instead, for the poor folks, George W. Bush and his administration have pursued programs that “provide incentives” for marriage by those receiving government aid. (Add a breadwinner to that household and get off the dole, you slut!)

 

Leaving aside the general lunacy of this approach, gays have to appreciate the irony. The Bush Administration says marriage is the answer to all our social ills. It will provide jobs for the unemployed, make an uncaring father into an earnest and helpful mentor, improve public school test scores and keep people off welfare. (Hell, it might even cure cancer! Worth a try—maybe we can avoid expanding health care.) But even though marriage is the prescription for what ails you, we sure aren’t going to let those homosexuals marry! Two parent families are more financially secure, and have more resources to devote to childrearing, but we aren’t going to let gays and lesbians in committed relationships adopt children!

 

Those who bemoan the demise of “traditional families” and “family values” refuse to admit that there are many different kinds of families, and that no one type has a monopoly on the ability to raise emotionally healthy children and contribute to the public welfare.  They are too intent on seeing to it that everyone accepts their limited and limiting definition of “family.”

 

Real  “family values” would require valuing families. Everyone’s families. 

 

As gay communities celebrate Pride this year, they can take comfort—and pride—in the knowledge that the culture wars are ending. And that the good guys won.

 

Verily.

 

 

    

Comments

Gaming the System

Two judicial candidates and Indiana Right to Life recently sued to overturn long-established Indiana rules of judicial conduct. Those rules prohibit judges from answering surveys from advocacy groups about matters likely to come before the court. In the case of Right to Life, the surveys ask judicial candidates their views on abortion and euthanasia, arguing that voters have a right to know where potential judges stand.

This is like choosing football referees by asking which teams they favor.

To belabor the sporting analogy, our legal system is set up with the expectation that the “teams”—the plaintiff and defendant—will vigorously compete in court. Judges and juries, however, are expected to be objective referees. Their job is not to root for one side or the other, but to apply the rules, or laws, fairly. Good referees are chosen for their knowledge of the rules, their ability to recognize instances when those rules have been broken, and to call them like they see them.

Biased judicial referees can apply the rules in ways that game the system. There has been a great deal of concern in the legal community about the imposition of ideological  “litmus tests” for appointees to the federal bench, especially to the Supreme Court. The Bush Administration has consistently preferred judicial candidates who favor authority, who believe in executive supremacy (sometimes called the theory of the “unitary executive”) and opt for order over justice. With the addition of Justices Roberts and Alito, especially, the Court has significantly limited the ability of ordinary citizens to complain about actions of either government or big business.

Two recent examples may illustrate the point.

Last year, the Court handed down a relatively obscure ruling in Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation. The case was a challenge to the constitutionality of portions of the President’s Faith-Based Initiative. Applicable precedents—the existing rules of the game—strongly favored the plaintiffs.  But the Court didn’t rule whether the program was constitutional or not; instead, it dramatically tightened a doctrine called “taxpayer standing” and ruled that the plaintiffs, being mere taxpayers, had no right to complain. If you’re not allowed to suit up or take the field, it doesn’t matter how well you can play.

Or take the case of Lily Ledbetter, the female Goodyear employee who discovered, after 19 years on the job, that she was making substantially less than male employees doing the same work. The company closely guarded its payroll information, making it nearly impossible for workers to discover relative pay scales. Nevertheless, the Court held that the applicable statute gives 180 days from the date of “the violation” to sue, and “the violation” occurred when Lily was first paid. (The dissenters would have upheld the lower court ruling in Lily’s favor, and would have considered each paycheck a new violation for purposes of the statute.)

That’s how rules get applied when one of the teams gets to pick the referee. I don’t think we want to change Indiana’s rules of judicial conduct.   

 

 

 

 

Comments