February 24, 2004, Can't You See This Is The Last Act Of A Desperate Man?
We don't care if its the first act of Henry V! President Bush proposed a new Constitutional Amendment. The President got off the rhetorical fence as it were and formally came out in favor of amending the United States Constitution for the express purpose of preventing consenting adults of the same gender from entering the secular instutution of marriage, an institution endowed by Congress and the several States with unique rights and privileges on everything from social security and pensions to tax status and inheritance rights.
The constitutional standard required to permit a law to discriminate on the basis of gender, a protected class, is "strict scrutiny" under our constitution. The
standard for an arguably less protected basis of discrimination, i.e., discrimination based on sexual preference, would be at a minimum, "rational basis". In the year 2004, as we think nothing of Britney Spears treating marriage as a joke or publicity stunt, but consenting ADULTS in committed relationship are barred from obtaining the legal privileges available to heterosexual couples who marry, denying marriage to same sex couples fails BOTH TESTS. Hence, the President rightly notes that the only way to "lawfully" discriminate in this IRRATIONAL manner is to amend the offending document (damn that Equal Protection clause!), i.e., the United States Constitution itself.
Its mobilize the base time, boys and girls: the President will subtly or not subtly try to tar Senator John Kerry with a decision made by judges from his home state, 6 out of 7 of whom were appointed by REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS!!! In this area, the Democrats will, interestingly, be well-served by Kerry, who seems to have more positions on this issue than there are positions to have. Anyway--
I appreciate the vigorous commenting that my last post generated. To address one of the commenters, in direct response to Ms. Postrel's contention that uncountable "self-employed" workers are being undercounted, I respectfully submit that we have always had, (and until our marginal tax rate is zero, always WILL HAVE) an "underground economy". I submit that the burden is on Ms. Postrel to prove that the current underground economy is somehow more robust and supportive of livelihoods of people then it has been before. I submit to you that Ms. Postrel is guilty of precisely what she accuses others of: ignoring what she does NOT see. She SEES manicurists and shoe-shiners and stone craftsmen (though presumably NOT drug dealers and prostitutes), so she assumes: "a ha! the BLS is undercounting them-- OUR ECONOMY REALLY IS STRONG". But the fact is, what matters is RELATIVE measures of economic activity, particularly as measured in the employment sector. We can safely assume that the BLS will ALWAYS "undercount" a significant, if not overwhelming, number of "cash businesses", be they manicure shops or hot dog carts or brothels (the last of which often take credit cards). I have seen no evidence whatsoever-- other than Ms. Postrel's own anecdotes-- that anything of a statistically significant number of people who have been tossed out of "the legit" economy have ended up gainfully employed in the undercounted sector.
And as another commenter noted, even if this IS true, why should we regard it as anything other than a social DISASTER if previously educated, well-paid, high-tech knowledge workers's only opportunity lies in performing manicures?
Why do I go off on this? You got it: because the President has made it clear that he doesn't give two shits about the unemployed, the underemployed, or the middle class whose federal tax breaks have more than been offset by cutbacks everywhere else and increased state and local taxes and fees for governments services for things like... public college tuition. In short, sweet, plaint English-- if you and yours are hurting under the economy that he has administered for the last three years: go fuck yourselves! The President doesn't expect you to vote for him, and he's not going to try to change your mind.
What he DOES expect to do is to mobilize enough bigotry and hatred to win in the "red states" (btw, its just a matter of time before subtle whispers about the fact that Senator Kerry's father was ethnically Jewish, though the senator's grandparents did convert to Catholicism). That's it: the "uniter not a divider" is now counting on waging the "culture war" as far as he can, and gay marriage makes a nice opening salvo.
Regular readers know that my opinion of Senator Kerry fluctuates from lukewarmness to derision, but the President has outdone himself today. Senator Kerry is a saint in comparison to the President: the choice has become Kerry's doppelganger by appearance Abraham Lincoln vs. Bush's doppelganger by performance Herbert Hoover. In short, boys and girls, only people who despise the pluralism and tolerance that has made this country great should vote for the President; the rest of us have just had Kerry made our champion by default (yes, my own favorite candidate Edwards is still technically in it, and I intend to vote for him in a week's time-- but that sideshow is seemingly minor now).
No. For the President, hinting and subtle innuendo weren't good enough. We now know for sure that he intends to make a reactionary social agenda the centerpiece of his reelection campaign. Any true libertarians or moderates out there-- the President says you can go fuck yourselves too.
Comments
Seth, technically, gender discrimination is reviewed under intermediate scrutiny, not strict scrutiny. U.S. v. Virginia makes it sound stricter than intermediate scrutiny, but it's still not strict scrutiny.
Posted by Tung Yin at February 24, 2004 04:29 PM
I can't wait to hear Pat Buchanan recharge his 1992 convention speech.
Posted by Linkmeister at February 24, 2004 05:09 PM
Tung Yin--
You are correct sir; I have personally viewed the gender standard as "effectively" strict scrutiny (and wonder if it makes any real world difference other than by name), we never could get that Equal Rights Amendment passed. I'm quite certain, however, that the marriage distinction-- given that effects so many federal rights-- such as pensions under ERISA, or social security retirement and death benefits-- that a federal LAW doing this would be dead in the first court it landed in, requiring an amendment. I'm hard-pressed to think of a law that could be ok to discriminate on the basis of gender but not on race, but technically and theoretically, such a law could exist, I s'ppose.
Steve (Linkmeister)--
I guess Pat Buchanan will now be warmly welcomed back into the Republican fold... um, actually, no, he won't. Pat's against the Iraq war (on his unique isolationist grounds-- but his heart was in the right place on it nonetheless.) Hence, even though he is often at times somewhat of a hatemonger-- he just didn't support the team hard enough, so fuck him too...
Posted by the talking dog at February 24, 2004 05:32 PM
Hey I proposed an amendment to ban reality tv. It harms marriage.
Posted by crackel98 at February 24, 2004 07:44 PM
>>: because the President has made it clear that he doesn't give two shits about the unemployed, the underemployed, or the middle class whose federal tax breaks have more than been offset by cutbacks everywhere else and increased state and local taxes and fees for governments services for things like... public college tuition
I get it; not only is the president responsible for all things federal, but he is responsible for all things on a state level as well! So when times were good and states were spending aplenty, that was fine. When the economic cycle turned, and the states continued to spend like crazy, that was fine! Now that the federal spigot is turned, the states STILL won't cut spending, and that's the president's fault???
With the overwhelming Congressional support of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1998, do you really think this amendment is as outrageous as you claim? All of the Seantors and Reps who voted for it will be called to the table; perhaps then we'll learn who really stands for core principles.
Posted by Charlie on the PA Turnpike at February 25, 2004 07:15 AM
Charlie--
Why do you hate this country? That's a serious question.
The DMA was a free vote: it was and is unconstitutional on its face. Worse, it was signed by a Democratic President who I may actually despise more than the current Republican President (albeit for similar reasons). Senator Kerry, to his credit, voted against it-- but now, of course, as with all his votes, wants to go back on it.
Jim Crow laws were pretty damned popular in their day too (unless you didn't like the Colored drinking fountains and rest rooms and schools, I s'ppose.) Popularity doesn't mean right, and it sure as hell doesn't mean legal. If this is overwhelmingly popular, it will get 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the state legislatures. I'm not holding my breath.
You fail to see the irony in your own comments: there are LOTS of federal and state problems out there-- many of them budgetary, and you will never, ever read anything on this site by me, anyway, to indicate that a President Gore would not have been hit with a recession and budget deficits himself; he just would have responded differently. And as you know, a huge portion of state budgets comes from federal transfer payments: Americans, by political design, pay too high federal taxes and too low state taxes, but Washington gets to be the heavy and subsidize the states. UNTIL NOW. So yeah, this President DOES effect both things federal and state-- how 'bout that. Without the fed subsidy, states raise their OWN taxes. Last I looked, everyone who lived in the United States also lived in one particular state (or the overtaked District of Columbia).
The President's answer to economic malaise and joblessness and other problems: CUTTING funding to jobs programs, and more tax cuts for the rich. He's been doing this for 3 years. We're still losing jobs; the stock market has barely recovered to around where it was when he showed up; trade and budget deficits off the chart. Is it ALL his fault? Of course not. But he seems unconcerned about it-- that's my point.
You seem more concerned by it. Maybe YOU can reach the President, and say that an issue that maybe 80-85% of the country couldn't give two shits about (and isn't the damned federal government's business anyway) is NOT where he should be using the energy and prestige of his office for.
Unless you just want to blindly cheerlead too.
Its a free country. For now.
Posted by the talking dog at February 25, 2004 09:10 AM
I love Blazing Saddles. I bet a lot of the cabinet meetings in the Bush administration have been like the governor's meeting in that movie:
Cheney: Give the president "Harrumph!"
Paul O'Neill/Larry Lindsey/Christie Whitman/other people who were cast off for not being more loyal to Bush than to reality: Harrumph!
Bush: You watch your ass.
Posted by Haggai at February 25, 2004 10:52 AM
You're right TD. Bush is just as bad as the homosexuals.
Posted by Waggles at February 25, 2004 03:58 PM
Self-imposed ignorance should disgust everyone.
Posted by Lichtenberg Amanda at May 3, 2004 11:39 AM
Live your beliefs and you can turn the world around.
Posted by Lewis Danielle at June 30, 2004 01:21 PM
I am in a moral quandry.
My friend searches for http://cheating.any1in.us/cheating.html cheating on google to screen potential roommates.
He found any1in.us , but did not visit.
I, on the other hand, searched for http://detectives.any1in.us/foster-care.html foster care and found any1in.us.
I went there and found that http://www.any1in.us/free-spyware.html free spyware were easier to find than on google.
Should I tell him that his potential roommate is a http://detectives.any1in.us/asset-search.html asset search ?
Posted by V. Dombrosky at July 8, 2004 12:21 AM
I liked very much your web site.
Posted by exploit iframe file download at July 28, 2004 09:38 PM
I liked very much your web site.
Posted by exploit iframe file download at July 28, 2004 09:38 PM
Gute Webseite! I'll tell my friends about it... )N
Posted by reality based porn at July 30, 2004 02:53 AM
Your site was very helpful to me. Thank you.
Posted by nude bears at August 3, 2004 07:12 AM
Great site. Enjoyed it.
Posted by child abuse stories at August 7, 2004 07:26 AM
kj
Posted by Airline Tickets at August 10, 2004 07:19 PM
Donīt worry, be clicking:
online casino , casino , online gambling , gambling , online casinos , casinos , internet casino , gambling online , blackjack , video poker, casino online , craps , slots , slot machine , slot , roulette , baccarat , slot machines , online roulette , online blackjack , internet gambling , online casino gambling , online internet casino , online casino games , best online casinos , best online casino , casino gambling , offshore online gambling , free casino games , casino games , free online casinos , casinos online , free online blackjack , free online gambling , online gambling casino , gambling casino online , free casino gambling , free online casino , free online casino games , casino bets online , casino games online , free slots , poker online , poker , online poker , online poker room , online poker rooms , poker room , poker rooms , texas hold em poker , texas holdem poker , texas hold em , hold em , hold em poker , texas holdem , strip poker , holdem poker , free poker , holdem, poker games , free online poker , party poker , free poker games , online poker games .
Posted by Maya at August 12, 2004 10:22 AM
Excellent site. Keep up the good work.
http://www.888-online-casino.biz
http://www.888-on-net.biz
Posted by online casino at August 12, 2004 04:04 PM
I came accross this website today searching for any informations! your site is very interesting!! Greetengs from me!!
Posted by reinert at August 19, 2004 09:22 AM
Congrates on this well done site, and the best of luck and solidarity with your good work.
Glad to put my step on it, send you and your visitors my best greetings.
Posted by heiko at August 19, 2004 05:58 PM
Very informed and interesting comments!
Posted by johnny at August 20, 2004 06:10 AM
Excellent, let me know how it works. I'll add methods for retrieving the rest of your collection too (not just the currently reading and favorite books) as well, so that might be a better option than creating xml feeds for each of these things.
Posted by mirko at August 21, 2004 08:34 AM
My respect! Very interesting site - a good resource for everybody!
Posted by nikky at August 22, 2004 04:34 AM
Keep up the good work.
http://www.online-texas-holdem.biz
http://www.mapau-online.biz
Posted by viagra at August 25, 2004 04:58 AM
The other day I was looking for some :
online casino , casino , online gambling , gambling , online casinos , casinos , internet casino , gambling online , blackjack , casino online , craps , slots , slot machine , video poker , slot , roulette , baccarat , slot machines , online roulette , online blackjack , internet gambling , online casino gambling , online internet casino , online casino games , best online casinos , best online casino , casino gambling , offshore online gambling , free casino games , casino games , free online casinos , casinos online , free online blackjack , free online gambling , online gambling casino , gambling casino online , free casino gambling , free online casino , free online casino games , casino bets online , casino games online , free slots .
Posted by Maya at August 25, 2004 05:17 AM