Category: Stupidity

Bigot-Bigot Bigot Amendment

Delegate Robert Marshall co-sponsored the proposed amendment to the Virginia Bill of Rights that voters will likely pass next Tuesday. In his determination to show that he really isn’t a bigot, he included a nice bit in his latest newsletter. I’ve scanned the original for proof, but a few thoughts are warranted, so I’ve transcribed the text.

Marshall-Newman Marriage Amendment

This November citizens will be able to vote for Del. Marshall’s proposed Marriage Amendment to the Virginia Constitution defining marriage as the union of one-man and one-woman. In four states (MD, MA, VT, and HI) courts have, on their own and without legislative input or sanction, granted same sex couples the legal authority to “marry” or enter into “Marriage lite,” i.e., a civil union.

One-man and One-woman. [sic] and [sic]. Del. Marshall can’t grasp the English language, yet he’s qualified to propose a wordy amendment that goes beyond his stated goal of banning what’s already been banned twice by Virginia. This will go well. Of course, I’m sure he wishes he could have this newsletter back to amend New Jersey into his parenthetical proof that Virginia’s courts will catch The Gay. Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maryland. It’s spreading south, can’t we see?

But the ability to register to vote, enter a contract, have a joint bank account, write a will, buy a house with a friend, start a business, receive job benefits from an employer, designate a friend to carry out advance medical directives, or the right to be free from assault belong to any competent adult. These rights do not derive from marriage or a legal relationship approximating marriage, and are not altered by the Marriage Amendment.

So, if these rights – excuse me, “abilities” – are still in effect, in spite of the wording of the proposed amendment, why do we need this amendment? Again, two laws against same-sex marriage already exist in Virginia, as well as the indefensible-yet-still-accepted federal DOMA. Same-sex marriage isn’t coming to Virginia any time soon, amendment or not. That leaves one explanation, which is quite unbecoming of an elected official. But maybe Del. Marshall can save himself with an example.

When Massachusetts parents objected to a public school requiring their second graders to read a story with pictures about two princes who “marry,” the school said, “We couldn’t run a public school system if every parent who feels some topic is objectionable to them … decides their child should be removed. [This community] is committed to teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.”

Bonus libertarian points if you’ve already figured out what I’m going to say about this paragraph. Ready? Is this paragraph support for a bigoted marriage amendment, or would it be better support for eliminating the public provision of education? Without public provisioning, parents could send their children to whichever school sells their preferred bigotry, if that pleases them. Instead, Del. Marshall believes we should all be sold bigotry, in the Virginia Bill of Reduced-at-the-Whim-of-the-Majority Rights, no less. Del. Marshall seems to be on the wrong side of (at least) two issues. Let’s bump that to three, just for fun, since it’s clear he favors mob rule over republicanism.

The Amendment reads:

“That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”

Remember, Del. Marshall says no rights will be eliminated because they do not derive from marriage. So why do we need the second paragraph in the amendment, in as much as we (don’t) need any of it? I’m trying to draw a conclusion other than bigotry, but I can’t.

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.

Does this make me a political vegan?

This, from an article about Sen. Specter’s efforts to acknowledge existing Constitutional principles within the recent torture bill, shows what’s wrong with Congress:

But for at least some Democrats involved in lobbying on the bill, the defeat of these amendments — plus Specter’s — was not entirely an unhappy result. Some lawyers representing detainees told lawmakers before the vote that they were convinced the Supreme Court would strike down Bush’s version of the bill.

They argued against a compromise — such as Specter’s unoffered amendment — on grounds that it could make the outcome more difficult for the court to reject, a senior Democratic aide said. “We were hearing from some of the constitutional experts that . . . it is better to leave the pig ugly than put lipstick on it,” the aide said, explaining why Democrats did not propose a habeas corpus amendment that might have won.

I understand the logic, but it’s a sad indictment of the hacks in Congress that everyone can just leave the mess to the Supreme Court. That’s certainly no guarantee that the President will be held to his Constitutional limits.

I bet this isn’t in the Constitution

I’m happy to have contributed my share to this $20 million:

Tucked away in fine print in the military spending bill for this past year was a lump sum of $20 million to pay for a celebration in the nation’s capital “for commemoration of success” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not surprisingly, the money was not spent.

Now Congressional Republicans are saying, in effect, maybe next year. A paragraph written into spending legislation and approved by the Senate and House allows the $20 million to be rolled over into 2007.

The original legislation empowered the president to designate “a day of celebration” to commemorate the success of the armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to “issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.”

Like the gambling bill, I’m sure some legislator bundled this stupidity into a Must Pass Bill&#153. Well played, since no one can vote against it. But let’s pretend that declaring victory in Iraq and Afghanistan was as simple as enacting into law some lawmaker’s desire to hold a giant patriotic parade. Would this celebration make any sense? If those victories amount to a complete win in our war against terror, which is open-ended by definition, that would warrant a national party. Not at the expense of taxpayers, but a party no less. But is that what victory in Iraq and Afghanistan would represent? Of course not. Celebrating that with lavish ceremonies is no different than a linebacker celebrating every tackle.

Winning is what we’re supposed to do. Instead of expending the effort to win those wars, our current leadership would rather throw an “aren’t we swell” party. Patriotism isn’t real if it’s forced in some cheap imitation of 1984. If $20 million for what amounts to a national hug can be considered cheap.

Idiots, every one of them.

Principles used to defeat “If it feels good”

More Best of the Web obtuseness from James Taranto, this time regarding a story about the torture of British soldiers in Iraq in 2003. First, from the news report:

An inquest was told that Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth, 36, and Sapper Luke Allsopp, 24, thought that they were being taken to hospital for treatment, but instead they were moved to a compound run by Saddam’s military intelligence.

The harrowing ordeal lasted for hours until Iraqi agents killed the pair. The soldiers were buried in a shallow grave.

That’s a heinous crime, which I can’t imagine any civilized person would deem as anything other than the worst sort of sub-human action. Essentially, this is proof that we’re the good guys. I didn’t need more evidence, but the world is cruel. But what’s Mr. Taranto’s take? Consider:

We keep hearing that if we don’t accord Geneva Convention protections to al Qaeda detainees, our soldiers will be at risk of mistreatment. But here is how an enemy–one that, unlike al Qaeda, actually is a signatory to Geneva–treats Western soldiers. So what exactly do we gain by even meeting our obligations under the Geneva Conventions, much less exceeding them?

We keep our dignity and the moral high ground. We retain the right to become indignant at such violations, and to act on them. We hold true to our ideals. Most importantly, we remain human. That’s worth something. Everything, in fact. It’s shameful that the Wall Street Journal’s editors can’t understand that.

Congress could be where thinking began

Congratulations are in order to the United States Congress. In a bold move of understanding, it stripped a needless provision from the port security bill it passed over the weekend:

Congress is patting itself on the back for passing the Port Security Act last Saturday. But the day before, a House-Senate conference committee stripped out a provision that would have barred serious felons from working in sensitive dock security jobs. Port security isn’t just about checking the contents of cargo containers, it also means checking the background of the 400,000 workers on our docks.

Felons will not be barred from crucial jobs where a reasonable person not using the wonderfully intuitive powers of deductions granted to our smartest leaders might believe that to be a Bad Idea&#153. But leadership involves understanding the full picture of society, those “unintended consequences,” if you will. When viewed together with this provision of the port security deal, the good senators (Sen. Frist, in particular) understood that we wouldn’t want to exclude a significant portion of American adults.

House and Senate negotiators reached agreement last night on legislation to tighten maritime and port security regulations and, in a last-minute move, added an unrelated measure that seeks to ban Internet gambling.
…

The port security and Internet gambling legislation was approved 409 to 2 in the House and on a voice vote in the Senate early today, as lawmakers rushed to leave Washington for their fall reelection campaigns. Senate Republican and Democratic leaders announced it would be passed by voice vote after the House’s late-night vote.

You see, foresight! The Congress knew that many Americans could now become felons for operating a financial institution that offers customers a service they want violating Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s morality funding drugs and terrorism¹! That’s bad, and they should pay the price, but we still need secure ports. We don’t want no stinkin’ foreigners handling that job.

¹ From the Washington Post’s article:

Proponents of the crackdown said the industry, which is mostly based overseas, provides a front for money laundering, some of it by drug sellers and terrorist groups, while preying on children and gambling addicts. Americans bet an estimated $6 billion per year online, accounting for half the worldwide market, according to analysis by the Congressional Research Service.

Am I going too far out on a limb to request that the reporter investigate this claim rather than accepting spoon-fed horseshit from some political hack? I don’t think so.

No constitutional protection for you!

I came across two curious quotes about Virginia’s proposed amendment designed to diminish the Bill of Rights.

“Nothing will change,” said Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), one of the amendment’s sponsors. “All this would do is prevent the gay rights crowd from gaining any perceived right to marry by going to the courts.”

If nothing will change, why go through the process of putting a hateful limitation in the Bill of Rights? Oh, right, activist judges who might find a “perceived” right. I keep forgetting that our rights are open to the subjective view of the not-really-a-majority majority. If enough people don’t like you for their own reasons, you’re out of luck. As a bonus, there’s no need to consider whether or not a judge would actually interpret Virginia’s Constitution so that gays “gain” the right to marry.

“Opponents are looking for every single nuance to say why we’ve put this on the ballot,” said Del. John A. Cosgrove (R-Chesapeake), another sponsor of the amendment. “All the brouhaha about unintended consequences and any partisan motivations are just scare tactics.”

I’m an opponent, but I’m not looking for nuance here. The wording and hysteria makes it fairly obvious that bigotry explains this proposed amendment. But Del Cosgrove’s dismissal of the brouhaha about unintended consequences is an amusing insight into his understanding of government action, as well as his shameful agreement with exclusionary politics at the expense of justice and logic. He wants this amendments language to fight the potential for activist judges to read a right in the Virginia Constitution that he claims isn’t there. Okay, so a strict textual interpretation. So how would he decipher this, without needing an activist judge to decide that unmarried individuals actually means same-sex individuals?

“This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”

Allow me to grant for a moment the notion that this language achieves the specific “interest” of the Commonwealth. This is still nothing more than a bigoted assault on the Bill of Rights. That’s shameful, whatever the excuse.

This can’t be the level of debate

Am I missing something? At Commonwealth Conservative post about the brouhaha over Sen. Allen’s alleged use of racial slurs in the early 1970s, a commenter named Ben argues that no one should support Sen. Allen because he is a racist. Maybe, though the accusation is hardly iron-clad. Ben states that supporting James Webb is the better character choice. Again, maybe. But in response to that, a commenter named Cato asks Ben:

So how do you like Webb personally profiting from the gratuitous use of the N-word in his novels?

Let’s assume for a moment that Sen. Allen used racial slurs. I’ll also assume Mr. Webb’s novels include gratuitous use of that word, since I have not read them. That said, I’d like to believe that voters are smart enough to decipher between a conversation in a person’s life and made-up conversations in a book. If that distinction isn’t possible, I myself am not suited for any future political office because I have written stories in which (imaginary) people are (pretend) murdered by (fake) characters who temporarily resided in my mind. I should be locked up.

The Central Planner’s Handbook for Protecting the Ignorant and Ungrateful

Libertarians understand the stupidity of this action by the New York City Board of Health:

The New York City Board of Health voted unanimously yesterday to move forward with plans to prohibit the city’s 20,000 restaurants from serving food that contains more than a minute amount of artificial trans fats, the chemically modified ingredients considered by doctors and nutritionists to increase the risk of heart disease.

This is absurd, because the eventual “logical” step is banning the sale of packaged foods with trans fats within the city limits. At what point do citizens stand up and demand that government not turn a city into an institution where permission for every decision must be granted by some small group of public officials claiming to be experts? This is lunacy, although not a surprise.

Chicago is considering a similar prohibition affecting restaurants with less than $20 million in annual sales.

Why only restaurants with less than $20 million in sales? Even if this type of policy made sense, it’s counter-intuitive to impose this regulation on the smallest members of the group while leaving the largest free to attack its customers’ arteries offer any menu item its customers desire. The restaurant industry is a small-margin business, so those with lower sales have less fiscal cushion in their budgets. I’m most amused that Chicago loves big restaurants while it hates big stores. But government knows best.

Lynne D. Richardson, a member of the Board of Health and a professor of emergency medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, said yesterday that restaurant owners might still see an advantage in the long shelf life of trans fat products.

“But human life is much more important than shelf life,” she said. “I would expect to see fewer people showing up in the emergency room with heart attacks if this policy is enacted.”

Expects? Obviously the greedy restaurant owners don’t care about their customers (repeat business is insignificant in restaurants, right? No?), but should she support public policy based on hopes rather than logic? If diners want foods with trans fat, and restaurants can’t serve it, diners will stay home and eat their bad oils and margarines and whatever else will no longer be allowed. If When that happens, I’m fairly certain the same people will show up in the emergency room with heart attacks. That gets back to the likelihood that the planners will admit that the policy isn’t having the intended effect, thus justifying the need to ban trans fat products from grocery stores.

If people wanted strictly healthy diets, everyone would be vegans who eat only raw, organic food and exercise every day. They aren’t those people. We can cry about that, but statist public health policies won’t make it any more our reality than it already isn’t.

Update: Based on information provided in by Chris in the comments, the New York Times report about Chicago considering a trans-fat ban affecting restaurants with less than $20 million in sales is wrong. The ban under consideration involves restaurants with greater than $20 million in sales. My analysis is now worthless for the facts, but that doesn’t make the ban any wiser. Screw the poor, screw the rich. It’s still the same stupidity. Regardless, I should’ve checked those facts first.