Legislating in broad, populist strokes

This quote from two years ago is floating around The Internets again now that New Jersey accepts same-sex marriage. It’s from President Bush:

“I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between, a union between a man and a woman,” Bush said. “Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass … laws that enable people to you know, be able to have rights, like others.”

I blogged the President’s quote at the time. I’m not going to harp on how his stated view essentially coincides with New Jersey’s ruling. He’s a politician using this issue as an election year wedge when he really is fine with gays having equal rights? Old news. Instead, the bits I’ve placed in bold are more significant.

As strange as it may seem to the President and his base, we already have a legal arrangement that enables people to have rights. It’s called the United States Constitution. It’s an interesting document that everyone should read. But, again, it’s worth remembering that it doesn’t enable as much as it guarantees. There’s an important distinction between those two words.

Moving on, his last sentence is stunning. I can’t believe I ignored it, but I know more now, so I have a better response. The notion of majoritarianism in that sentence is clear. States have the right to pass laws to force itself to treat one group of people with the same respect it treats another group? If you want to be nice to everyone, you can, but you don’t have to do so if the majority doesn’t want to do it? Wow, so wrong. I certainly hope the President’s learned how ridiculous this is, although I doubt he has. (I’ve been reading the news.) He really should think about how history is going to judge him, because it isn’t going to be kind.

It’s nice that people realize that President Bush stated this, as it shows a bit of his character. But I fail to see how it’s complimentary to the President, since he still contradicts it with his political push, reducing my opinion of his character. It was at one point in the past, but it’s not useful to the discussion any more. I’d never think to quote it approvingly, as some are, in relation to New Jersey. If anything, it contradicts how stupid the “separate but equal” solution will be.

New meaning to unionization

I mostly skipped the “marriage in everything but name” option when I posted my thoughts on the New Jersey ruling this morning, but Kip stated it well in the comments:

Does anybody honestly think that New Jersey gay couples are going to run around saying, “We got civil unioned!”? Of course not; they’re going to say, “We got married!”

After a few years and a few thousand incidents of this, the politicians, or the judges, will give up and say, “This is silly — just call it marriage and be done with it.”

That’s pretty much the way I see it happening. I’d like to believe that the New Jersey legislature will accept the obvious and designate same-sex marriage within New Jersey as marriage. That’s what it is, so that would be the efficient way to do it. The purpose of civil marriage is the economic efficiency associated with not having to replicate a bundle of benefits wrapped into one contract. Why build inefficiency in for no other reason than the bigotry of a few. Call it marriage, and let the bigots pretend otherwise for as long as it takes them to realize they’ve lost.

Giving in to the inevitable avoidance of the word marriage, though, I suggest a public naming contest, similar to what a new sports team would run in the local media when it moves to a new city. This way, the populist ideals of anti-marriage marriage defenders can still play into this debate. If they stuff the ballot box, they’ll get their name that isn’t marriage. Maybe Joined in Sin or some other such stupidity. It could be a good laugh to hold us over until the masses come to their senses.

Of course, this will just end with an overwhelming vote for “marriage”, with the quotation marks, so I’m not sure how much fun it would be. At least New Jersey could use the same forms it already has, with two quick keystrokes for gay couples. Let me just get it out of the way now: Hacks, every one of them.

Another sentence I wish I’d written

My only take on Sen. Barack Obama’s announcement that he’s thinking of running for president in 2008 is that I won’t trust a politician who breaks a promise he made on national television barely ten months later. However, I do wish I’d written Charles Krauthammer’s opening sentence about Sen. Obama.

When, just a week ago, Barack Obama showed a bit of ankle and declared the mere possibility of his running for the presidency, the chattering classes swooned.

That’s a spot on assessment, and a well-written sentence.

Marriage is a fundamental right for individuals

I haven’t bothered catching up on what same-sex marriage amendment supporters have said about the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in everything but name because I don’t care what they think. Those in Virginia who are worked up because of it, like Sen. Allen, were already going to vote for the amendment here. Why should I care, beyond pointing out their obvious stupidity? They’ll drive 5 miles per hour faster to the polls on November 7th because they can’t wait to stick it to the gays protect marriage. Big deal. Instead, I’m focused on what intelligent people are saying.

I’ve noticed two dominant themes regarding the decision: declaring victory and cautious agreement. I agree with the first viewpoint, as it’s clear that state-sponsored bigotry will eventually be set aside. I think it should occur faster. Rights are rights, regardless of who exercises them. We shouldn’t need a silly period of adjustment so that the majority can catch up. If they don’t like it, they’re capable of remaining in their own marriage anyway. But it is what it is.

The second viewpoint, while I’m happy that it exists, as opposed to opposition until the majority catches up, lacks what I think is fundamental about our Constitution and courts. Our rights are not provided by legislatures, at the will and whim of whatever majority exists at the moment. That’s a recipe for oppression, not liberty.

Instead, we must always remember that the Constitution guarantees rights we possess through the simple process of being alive. Courts exist to protect that fact, and enforce it on the other branches of government. It’s fine to believe that legislative action is a superior way to have rights protected, but legislatures are full of politicians. Rights, or the denial of rights, can and will be sold. That leaves the courts as a viable option that should not be dismissed as too challenging to the values and beliefs of Americans. If Americans can’t grasp that, our civics education has failed, not our political process.

I like what Jason Kuznicki wrote Wednesday at Positive Liberty:

Ultimately, I don’t care so much about process. I care about equality before the law, and I think that there are multiple legitimate ways to attain it. If equality happens one way, great. If it happens another way, that’s great too.

That’s the heart of it, I believe. The fight for marriage equality has been misrepresented by those more invested in maintaining some illusory sense of control over values. Marriage, as I understand it, is not a dual right, existing only for pairs. Every individual has the right to marriage, or whatever civil contract structure the government offers to promote efficiency in bundling certain incentives and benefits. The concept of individual rights requires this governmental offering be made to individuals who are interested in pairing, not to pairs who meet a notion of acceptability pre-conceived outside of the civil framework. Who a person chooses to marry is solely his or her business.

Our government’s role is merely to provide that benefit to everyone. Or no one, if it can’t play fair. Follow that common sense approach, and same-sex marriage opponents might finally understand the proper role of government. The rights of the individual trump the will of the majority.

He fought the claw, and the claw won

It’s been almost three years since I posted about a kid getting stuck inside the claw, the game that gives cheap stuffed animals if you drop its mechanical claw at the correct angle. Happily, I can now report that the claw claimed another victim [click through to the story for the most awesome picture]:

Three-year-old Robert Moore tried to scoop out a stuffed replica of SpongeBob SquarePants with the vending machine’s plastic crane on Saturday, but had no luck on his first attempt.

While his grandmother, Fredricka Bierdemann, turned her back to get another dollar for a second try, Robert took off his coat and squeezed through an opening in the machine. He landed in the stuffed animal cube.

First, to call this a vending machine is a travesty. A vending machine is supposed to vend. The claw never gives. It only takes. And as these stories show, it takes more than quarters, it takes small children.

But what’s scary about this story is that it happened in Wisconsin. That’s where the claw snatched the kid in 2004, when I last wrote about this. Wisconsin is worried about same-sex marriage while the claw is snatching children. Seriously, this is finally a case where thinking of the children would be an appropriate rallying cry, and legislators are worried about the sex lives of adults. How many children must we sacrifice to the claw while we contemplate the supposed evils of a couple seeking to marry?

Hat tip: Boing Boing, where there are more claw goodness links.

Whew, George Allen weighed in on New Jersey’s decision

I’ll have more thoughts later on yesterday’s ruling by New Jersey’s Supreme Court. Until then, I do want to note Sen. George Allen’s statement:

“Today’s decision by the NJ Supreme Court is another example of activist judges inventing the law and subverting the will of the people. This is why I support the marriage amendment, because it will protect the values and views of the people of Virginia from judges who would want to impose their elitist views on us. This is a clear difference between my opponent and me – I support protecting marriage from judges who do not understand their role: to interpret the law, not invent the law. My opponent does not. “My opponent says that this amendment would infringe upon the rights of ordinary Virginians, and he opposes it. But I and many members of the Virginia Assembly joined in asking the Attorney General of Virginia to render an opinion. His response: ‘I can find no legal basis for the proposition that passage of the marriage amendment will limit or infringe upon the ordinary civil and legal rights of unmarried Virginians’. “This amendment does exactly what it says it does; it defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, and I’m for marriage between a man and a woman while my opponent is against it.”

I’m sure that majoritarian plea about the will of the people (and current law being more than individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution) is a sacred part of his own libertarianism. Of course, I’ve already debunked the silly notion that values will disintegrate if we don’t pass draconian bills and amendments. I’ll refute the rest of what Sen. Allen said when I post my thoughts on the ruling. Until then, perhaps someone should tell Jim Webb’s wife that he’s against marriage between a man and a woman. Although, I’m amazed she doesn’t know, since that is a giant plank of The Homosexual Agenda&#153.

Rep. Don Young will be my inspiration

I know how I’m planning to avoid dangerous military service if the draft returns¹: I’ll spend like a Congressman.

Thousands of U.S. troops are being barred from overseas duty because they are so deep in debt they are considered security risks, according to an Associated Press review of military records.
…

The Pentagon contends that financial problems can distract personnel from their duties or make them vulnerable to bribery and treason. As a result, those who fall heavily into debt can be stripped of the security clearances they need to go overseas.

While the number of revoked clearances has surged since the beginning of the Iraq war, military officials say there is no evidence that service members are deliberately running up debts to stay out of harm’s way.

Damn, they might be on to my brilliant plan.

The problem is attributed to a lack of financial smarts among recruits, reckless spending among those exhilarated to make it home alive after a tour of duty and the profusion of “payday lenders” — businesses that allow military personnel to borrow against their next paycheck at extremely high interest rates.

My brother is in the Navy, and I’d suggest that the first suggestion is the issue. Perhaps this is just another data point suggesting economics education for kids while still in school? Of course, the red flag went up when I read mention of payday loans. Good grief, we know where this will end up is already going:

Runaway interest rates at payday lending businesses, many of which are clustered outside bases, are another source of the problem. Several states have cracked down on payday lending practices, and President Bush signed legislation this month limiting how much these businesses can charge military personnel.

Is President Bush taking economic advice from that model libertarian, George Allen? He’s clearly absorbed the “trust free people with free enterprise” lesson. All military personnel are now affected because some military personnel may degrade their financial health with stupid loans. Well done.

¹ I do not believe the draft is coming back any time soon. It’s just a literary device, so no crackpot ranting about its inevitable return if we elect Democrats or fail to re-elect Republicans next month.

Supervised peril beats unsupervised peril

USA Today has an interesting, if not surprising, story on teen driving fatalities between 3pm and 5pm on weekdays. I say not surprising because teens are getting out of school at that time and don’t have much driving experience. Sometimes, statistics simply present the obvious. However, the story contains one useful quote that I think is much more universal than in the exclusive context of teen driving. It comes from a mother whose son died in a traffic accident in 1999.

[Kathryn] Orosz says she had such rules for her son: “I had Michael sign a contract that he would not have his friends in the car, he would not drive after dark.”

In the end, though, the rules were not enough. “Parents need to not just say this,” she says. “They need to get in the car and drive with the kids, monitor them. You don’t want to just throw them in a car. You need to be teaching them. They need … to gain experience.”

She offers sound advice for driving, but it could just as easily be applied to drinking, for example. We believe in a training period for driving, which clearly involves a risk of negative externalities on society, but abstinence is the only allegedly justifiable policy for drinking. Why? Drinking problems for teens and young adults (including those barely 21) can involve those same negatives, but more likely the impact will be on the individual only. Is the risk to society greater for an inexperienced teen driver to hurl 2,000 pounds of automobile down the road or for him to pound 13 beers in an evening? The answer is clear and it should inform public policy more than any moral aversion to free choice/fun/whatever that drives anti-alcohol hysteria.

Wanting to do and Doing are not the same

It’s now obvious that the Republican strategy over the next two weeks will be to hammer away at the supposed fringe liberal agenda Speaker Pelosi would force upon America. It’s an amusing narrative, if only because what it ignores – the benefit of divided government – is so painfully obvious. We’re not changing the president in this election, and I don’t even buy the promise of impeachment proceedings. That leaves a Republican president to veto any and every fringe bill that comes from Congress. That assumes the Democrats gain both houses. If not, the “dangers” of a Democratic Congress never arrive on the president’s desk. This fear is overblown.

Not surprisingly, more of this appeared in yesterday’s Opinion Journal. It’s a valiant effort, I suppose, except it ignores the last half-decade and pretends that we don’t remember it. Among many hilarious bits of nonsense:

Second, President Bush will not be able to re-energize his effort for individually owned Social Security accounts, for “preventing the privatization of social security” is in the Democratic National Committee’s “6-Point Plan for 2006.” Democrats don’t trust people to own or invest their own retirement funds–better to let a wise government do that, for as socialist Noam Chomsky says, “putting people in charge of their own assets breaks down the solidarity that comes from doing something together.” And since Congress gets to spend Social Security tax receipts that aren’t needed to pay benefits, letting people invest their payments in their own retirement accounts would be a costly revenue reduction that the new, bigger-spending Congress won’t allow to happen.

Privatizing Social Security is necessary. The longer we wait, the worse the pain when we finally fix it. I get it. But provide me one example of how the current Republican Congress fought for privatization. Show me evidence that President Bush didn’t pack up his reform agenda (saving his political capital for other expenditures?) at the first hint of resistance from the Republican Congress. And, no, quoting Noam Chomsky’s stupidity isn’t proof.

I don’t like the idea of Democrats in power, but I despise the reality of Republicans in power. A few years out of power won’t hurt any more than what we’re suffering now. Maybe I’m wrong, but shouting “they suck more” won’t convince me.

We are hypocrites if one is bad and the other is good

I’m sorry for the theme today, but this story warrants a mention:

A father stands accused of the unthinkable: brutally cutting his daughter’s genitals.

The girl was only 2.

I’m not going to say anything beyond the obvious, for it’s unnecessary. The Female Genital Mutilation Act prohibits what the father allegedly did to his daughter. His action¹ is despicable and demands a harsh penalty if he is convicted.

That’s not the end of the story, from my perspective. The obvious connection to male circumcision should be clear. I’ve made the comparison in the past, maintaining that the difference between the two is one of degree, not kind. For anyone who disagrees, consider:

Adem’s trial may be a landmark case for health and human rights activists fighting against the African custom they call genital mutilation. But for those close to the victim, this trial is about vindication and healing for a little girl who was forced to endure unbearable pain.

In America we circumcise healthy infant males without anesthesia². How much pain do they endure? Is it unbearable? The comparison is not ridiculous.

“When I saw that child I saw myself. I could see the pain in her eyes,” said Soraya Mire, a filmmaker and activist who was circumcised when she was 13 in Somalia. Mire is known for her 1994 documentary “Fire Eyes” in which she chronicled her struggles after having the procedure.

I met Ms. Mire at the 9th International Symposium on Circumcision in Seattle this August, where she shared her story. I listened as she advocated the position that both male and female circumcision are genital mutilation. By stating that, and in posting my agreement, I don’t mean to minimize what she endured or what this little girl endured. It only indicates that the severity of the cutting does not change the ethical violation of the action, the genital cutting of a healthy, non-consenting person. Societal customs may differentiate between the two, as our’s does, but where it differs, it is wrong. Both are barbaric violations of individual rights.

Fortunate Adem [the girl’s mother] refused to comment for this article but has said her daughter suffered severe pain since the circumcision.

“Her whole life has been changed,” she said. “She is going to be traumatized psychologically. Parts of her body have been taken away from her without her consent. They need to look at this child the same way they would if she had been raped.”

We can argue about the various issues involved with Ms. Adem’s statement, but one of her claims applies to male circumcision, as well. If removing parts of a girl’s healthy genitalia without her consent is wrong, it’s wrong for boys. There are no exceptions based on ease of removal or societal tradition.

¹ The father pleaded innocent. The article mentions a claim that the mother’s family could’ve performed the circumcision. I do not know. Whoever circumcised the girl should be punished.

² Please do not mistake this as an argument that using anesthesia permits the surgery’s justification. Anesthetized circumcision should be the minimum level of medical intervention, but it does not change the unethical nature of non-medically indicated circumcision on an unconsenting individual. Any argument that it does is mind-numbingly misconceived.