HOLDING HANDS—AND MUCH MORE—SOON TO BE LEGAL FOR ALL

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from gay couples whose marriages are illegal in some states in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. On Friday, January 16, 2015 SCOTUS voted to accept the appeal involving same sex marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/supreme-court-gay-marriage_n_6439926.html

A couple things are surprising about this.

First of all, the decision appealed from, that of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, was by a 2-1 majority of a three judge panel. The losing parties could have asked for a review by the Circuit En banc which would have meant a re-hearing before all the judges in the Circuit. Since the two ruling judges were Bush appointees, and since all other Circuits ruling to date have struck down bans, it is very likely the entire court would have reversed.

And since that review was possible it was a little surprising that SCOTUS did not refuse to accept the case until further action by the Circuit judges as a whole.

Although the Supreme Court leans conservative…absurdly so as in Citizens United (which they certainly are not)…it did strike down DOMA in 2013 which action, at least in part, has led to the ensuing decisions in federal courts.

The 6th Circuit decision was premised on the notion that gay marriage should be a matter for legislatures, not courts.

Were that notion to be followed by SCOTUS in this appeal, it would undermine and effectively be a repudiation of Loving v Virginia, the 1967 case that negated state laws against interracial marriage. Recall that marriages between the races were once considered to be as immoral and as contrary to Biblical teachings as some continue to claim gay marriages are today.

Of course any prediction of Supreme Court decisions is fraught with peril for the predictor. And the most harrowing of these potential perils is pure embarrassment at being wrong, no matter the level of legal expertise and knowledge of the inner workings of the Court and the nine Justices. My own level of expertise is surpassed by many observers with far greater experience dealing with the history and nuances of Constitutional Law.

Yet it is difficult to imagine a Supreme Court with the recalcitrant likes of Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas being able to stem the tide of history. As we saw in the Affordable Care Act ruling Chief Justice John Roberts abandoned his natural conservative bent to provide the saving vote, albeit in a strange construct claiming the law was entirely within the power of Congress to tax while he, in effect, ignored its power to govern Interstate Commerce.

In a way looking at the ACA as a tax scheme satisfied the conservative base while simultaneously appalling and infuriating that same base by finding that “tax scheme” all huggably legal. Of course the conservative base considers any tax scheme to be the greatest sin perpetrated upon mankind.

Since Justice Anthony Kennedy has been ever more consistently liberal on any case remotely touching upon gay rights adding him to the four Court liberals is not illogical with the chance that Roberts finds a way to come aboard withe the majority.

Somehow 6-3 decisions of the Court sound more persuasive to Americans than does a 5-4 one. But the assumed persuasiveness is questionable given the 7-2 Roe v Wade decision and we know how well that has been embraced. Brown v Board of Education was a unanimous decision but  met both immediate and long term resistance in practicality if not in legal challenges.

Morality aside, there is simply no reason for gay marriage bans to be upheld. Not that I agree that such unions are immoral, but the Supreme Court does not rule on the basis of morality. Thus, we still have the death penalty.

SCOTUS has ruled that laws forbidding gay sex are unconstitutional in Lawrence v Texas. It has ruled that denying gay married couples certain federal benefits in states banning gay marriage is wrong in the DOMA case. It seems inconceivable, as an extension, that it would permit states, in effect, to restrict the interstate movement of couples legally married in one state by disallowing them to enjoy the same marital rights as other couples.

From that point is just a short distance to determining that there is no Constitutional justification to banning consensual adult couples from marrying no matter their gender.

I can just picture Rick Santorum rubbing his hands in glee now that he can fulfill his lust for the family dog.

DOMA’S ON LIFE SUPPORT—LET’S PULL THE PLUG

The Defense Of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was struck a serious blow when the Supreme Court ruled that its Section 3 was unconstituional for denying equal rights by requiring the federal government to ignore the legal married status of gay couples in states where that is permitted when applying federal law.

There certainly are multiple benefits to be derived from federal law for married couples and now thousands of couples in the states who recognize gay marriage may avail themselves of them.

But to me the most odious provision has always been Section 2 which allows states to refuse to recognize the marital status of couples who are not one man- one woman.

Ridiculous.

SCOTUS could only rule on the issues before it and those pertained to Section 3. But Section 2 flies in the face of the Constitution,

Section IV, Article 1 reads

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.   

There has been some conflict in the application of this clause by the states, though it consistently has been ruled that it does apply to judicial actions such as judgments and orders in domestic abuse and child custody cases.

But historically, other than for miscgenation, marriages legal in other states have been treated as legal in all states. Thus, common law marriages, which only a few states permit the establishment of, have been treated equally in states that do not. Likewise where the age of consent to marry differs, a marriage created lawfully where, for instance, that age is 14, has been treated the same in states where it is higher.

But the text of DOMA’s section 2 includes judicial proceedings concerning same sex unions as acts that states cannot be forced to recognize.

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

The problem with seeking the overturn of this section of DOMA is that plaintiffs must be found who are directly affected, not just speculatively so, though the language about judicial proceedings leaves a large Constitutional hole to drive a truck through.

Of course though the tide seems turned towards gradual near, universal acceptance of gay marriages, a number of states have it within their constitutions prohibiting them. Those are much more difficult to reverse than are mere statues. where activists are fighting for this right.

But that was so back in the days when interracial marriages were prohibited and that didn’t keep SCOTUS from negating them all.

Oh what a glorious sight it be be to see a similar ruling in a same-sex marriage case and watch Scalia go ballistic.

I’d pay to see that.

MY ROB PORTMAN CODICIL

Recently I wrote of Ohio Sen. Rob Portman and his announcement that he now supports gay marriage. He changed his mind after learning, about two years ago, that his own college age son is gay. https://umoc193.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/true-compassion-or-playing-favorites/

My basic position was that it appeared to me he had made this change pretty strictly for family reasons, not because of holding a general compassion for gays.

Since that time several other prominent politicians have announced their support though some were no real surprise since they were Democrats/liberals.

I’ve had some chance to give this more thought in the intervening period and have come to the realization that my attitude was far too harsh.

Let’s face it, even the most strident advocates for gay marriage probably spent at least part of their lives in either opposition or apathy. And that may include members of the LGBT community themselves.

Certainly any history of gay rights I am familiar with seems to have seen any movement for equal rights/nondiscrimination focused on gaining…if not outright acceptance…at least tolerance  towards gays and removal of barriers in employment, housing and such.

And millions of the people who were not promulgating or even lending tacit backing to gay marriage were full of compassion for their fellow man, perhaps beyond what is normally expected of us all.

So as increasingly greater percentages of Americans polled favor gay marriage it is self-evident that such was not always the case.

Thus I should have embraced Portman’s conversion unconditionally and separated that from his other political positions.

Indeed I presume the majority of us who agree with Portman arrived at this point not by following the beeline but instead took circuitous routes, often traveling on unpaved roads, down one way streets, and dodging umpteen orange cones en route.

As long as we arrive at the same destination safely, that should be my concern.

TRUE COMPASSION, OR PLAYING FAVORITES?

The biggest news story this week was about Miley Cyrus ending her engagement to whatever nonentity she had been dragging around. Oooooops! I guess that honor really goes to the election for the latest pope, now called Pope Francis

Personally I have about as much interest in who is pope as I do in who serves as treasurer for the city of Zelienople. I won’t go into the whys and wherefores of that willful disinterest as I’ve already been accused of having hate coursing through my veins due to it. Suffice it to say that, as a non-Catholic, whatever he does is entirely unlikely to have the least little influence on my life.

Another notable news item in the past day or so was the announcement by Senator Rob Portman (R.-Ohio) that he now supports gay marriage, the only GOP Senator to take such a public stand. It turns out he has a personal reason for doing so in that he learned a year or so ago that his son is gay. Thus Portman was able to see the essential humanity involved noting that gays should be able to enjoy just such a stable and happy and prosperous marriage as he and his wife have had for over twenty years.

Young Miley aside, I do see a connection between these latter two tales.

Pope Francis, from Argentina, has been hailed as a champion of social justice, dedicated to eliminating poverty. Yet it is abundantly clear that no one should expect any alteration of his views on contraception and gay marriage. (He’s agin ’em!)

To my way of thinking not only are access to contraception and the ability to marry…gay or straight…a matter of social justice, in many ways the existence of poverty is inextricably woven into these sexual issues.

In November of 2010 a startling revelation was that Pope Benedict had given at least some approval for the use of condoms in fighting AIDS, particularly in Africa, where the disease runs rampant. Yet there is some ambiguity present which gives pause to the notion that this form of contraception has been given blanket approval.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/world/europe/24pope.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In Africa with the AIDS epidemic it is difficult to fight poverty. As a report from the UN notes:

The economic impact of HIV/AIDS presents huge challenges. While the causality between poverty and HIV is not clear, it is certain that HIV pushes households and individuals into poverty. While many illnesses create catastrophic expenditures which can result in poverty, HIV/AIDS is among the worst because its victims are ill for a prolonged period of time before they die, and many are the chief household income earners.

http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/chronicle/home/archive/issues2011/hivaidsthefourthdecade/impactofhivaidsoneducationandpoverty

So while Pope Francis will…we are told…use the influence and power of the Catholic Church to fight poverty and serve the “people”, what good will that do if he does not recognize and support the basic humanity of people regardless of sexual orientation and help poor people have the means to not only prevent the horrible destruction of HIV-AIDS but to give them a chance to escape the poverty that results from too many babies they are unable to care for.

He cannot be a true seeker of social justice if he picks and chooses like this.

Likewise Portman is perfectly content to allow gay marriage, but only because HIS son is gay. What if his son were not? He would still be maintaining his prior stance opposing such unions.

Matthew Yglesias of Slate views this conversion thusly:

I’m glad that Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio has reconsidered his view on gay marriage upon realization that his son is gay, but I also find this particular window into moderation—memorably dubbed Miss America conservatism by Mark Schmitt—to be the most annoying form.

Remember when Sarah Palin was running for vice president on a platform of tax cuts and reduced spending? But there was one form of domestic social spending she liked to champion? Spending on disabled children? Because she had a disabled child personally? Yet somehow her personal experience with disability didn’t lead her to any conclusions about the millions of mothers simply struggling to raise children in conditions of general poorness. Rob Portman doesn’t have a son with a pre-existing medical condition who’s locked out of the health insurance market. Rob Portman doesn’t have a son engaged in peasant agriculture whose livelihood is likely to be wiped out by climate change. Rob Portman doesn’t have a son who’ll be malnourished if SNAP benefits are cut. So Rob Portman doesn’t care.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/15/rob_portman_and_the_politics_of_narcissism.html

So I guess this indicates Portman cannot visualize about or empathize with the woes that beset so many millions of families unless someone close to him shares these woes. Are not the people receiving “entitlements” or lacking health coverage, etc. deserving of the same compassion and rational thought and analysis as Portman applied to gays due to his son?

Again this is where the one in power is playing favorites and not applying his alleged compassionate principles equally across the board.

At least in Portman’s case there is at least some chance this selectivity will benefit Americans.

As for Miley I suggest Match.com.

THE NOT SO HAPPY NEWS ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE VOTES

Tuesday, November 6, 2012 was an historic day for those who are in favor of allowing people of the same gender to marry each other and suffer just like heterosexual couples have been able to do for centuries. (Okay, I’m divorced…but from a wonderful woman. I can make jokes can’t I?)

In any event voters in three states—Maryland, Maine and Washington—approved marriages between gays. It is the first time such ballot issues have resulted in the expansion of gay marriage.

In addition a measure on the ballot in Minnesota that would have banned gay marriage was soundly defeated.

Millions of Americans applaud these new laws, including friends of mine with long term gay relationships and/or marriages. One couple in particular lives in Maryland and had to go to Canada several years ago to formalize and make official the love they have shared for over thirty years.

I am so happy for their happiness over these laws. I can appreciate that many of the legal benefits of marriage previously unavailable to them may now be enjoyed  in the same way that other married couples have been able to enjoy them throughout their lives and that are taken for granted.

Yet there is a an element of these developments that quite disturb me.

I’ll preface my explanation by openly declaring that there should be no question that gay marriage is a simple matter of recognizing the basic humanity of individuals regardless of whom they romantically love.

I suppose if I had been asked if that were my position fifteen or twenty years ago I may not have been quite as adamant in that regard. But in those intervening years I personally have become more exposed to people I know who are affected by this issue. In addition gays themselves, together with their families, have become much more forthcoming…even aggressive…in expressing their experiences of being made to feel they were outsiders, not just to certain exclusionary groups but to the human race.

For the most part gone are the days when open scorn heaped upon gays could be witnessed in almost any context. Of course violence against them was very common. I don’t doubt that violent episodes still occur but…just as in racial bias…prejudice is more likely to manifest in subtler ways.

Instead of physical violence legislative violence was committed. Many states eagerly moved to block gay marriages or refused to ban discrimination of any kind against gays even as more and more gays revealed themselves to be in loving long-term relationships that emulated heterosexual ones.

We have also had the pleasure of hearing stories about gay marriages or from gay couples or from the childen of these relationships told passionately and eloquently and convincingly. Zach Wahls, the young man from Iowa with two loving, nurturing mothers comes to mind.

Human dignity is a precious quality. Demonstrating that quality on a consistently non-violent,  basis was truly the key to the success of Martin Luther King, Jr. and his associates and followers in not only gettting the Civil Rights Act passed but also in garnering greater public acceptance of the basic rights of black Americans.

So it is with gay Americans. But instead of a federal legislative mandate that guarantees their rights, they have had to rely on the whims of voters on election day.

NO…and I do mean NO basic right of human existence should ever be subject to a popular vote.

It is difficult enough to procure the courage of sufficient legislators who will enact protective or corrective legislation. But to submit these same rights to a popular referendum is dangerous.

This election cycle three states had the votes to do the right thing and a fourth had the votes to prevent a wrong thing. But the 800 pound gorilla occupying this room is something called the United States Constitution.

Article IV Section 1 reads

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2 reads

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

The acts, records and judicial proceedings of some states now include the validation/legalization of marriages between persons of the same gender. The only control Congress has in this regard is to prescribe the manner in which these acts shall be recognized.

But, in 1996, Congress passed the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) with this pertinent provision

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

 

DOMA has been found unconstitutional in several federal courts though The Supreme Court has declined to hear appeals from any such rulings as yet. That may be good news. On occasion SCOTUS will not accept cases where the lower court rulings are clear and there are no conflicting rulings from other courts.

 

Enforcing DOMA invites chaos. The decisions against it involve issues of bankruptcy, immigration, estate taxes, and public employee benefits. Yet the law allows different application of the principles entailing married couples on these issues simply because of the lack of diversity in the gender of the couples.

 

So under DOMA if you reside in Maryland and are a legally married gay couple and move five miles across the border into Pennsylvania which has no such law, you lose all the rights specific to married couples. On the other hand, Pa. recognizes common law marriages (not merely living together…couples must put themselves before the world as married) which entitle the couple to all rights, even absent a formal ceremony or license, and those marriages will be recognized everywhere.

 

The simplest thing would be for SCOTUS to strike down DOMA which is clearly unconstitutional besides being morally bankrupt legislation. Yet, at present our nation is still faced with loving and decent human beings, joined together as a couple, being dependent on lower court rulings, accommodating state legislatures, or the broad-mindedness of the majority of voters in order to be certain that the rights and privileges they enjoy in one state are available to them in all states.

 

Forty-five years ago the ban on interracial marriages was struck down. Those couples in violation could usually be determined by viewing the color of their skin. We still have oppressive laws where one must determine violators by the more invasive examination of their genitals.

 

The people opposing fairness, given the opportunity, would elect to continue the oppression.

 

Do not give these Abominable No-men the chance to do so.

TOLERATING THE INTOLERANT

While doing my morning reading, I came upon this headline among the op-ed pieces in today’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Trashing traditionalists: End the intolerance toward opponents of same-sex marriage

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/trashing-traditionalists-end-the-intolerance-toward-opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-650945/

The writer, Jennifer A. Marshall, is a director of a division of the conservative Heritage Foundation. The basis for her argument was the lone gunman at the Family Research Council’s (FRC) offices last week who apparently was bent on protesting that organization’s opposition to same sex marriage.

While few were willing to say groups advocating for gay marriage were responsible for pushing  this idiot over the edge, some commentators such as liberal Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank believed it to be irresponsible for organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to label the FRC a “hate group” for its refusal to accept the practice.

Would that it were so.

If that was the only “sin” of the FRC, the SPLC would not have labeled it a hate group. Alas, the FRC has made statements and taken positions much more egregious on this issue and has uttered outright lies, fostered discredited research about homosexuality and defamed the gay community with unsubstantiated accusations of criminality.

The SPLC lists its reasons for its assessment of the FRC here, and those reasons are reflected in the FRC’s own words and deeds.  http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

I am not going to dissect these reasons to determine the validity of each one. But I cite it to show that the “hate group” labeling of the FRC is founded on much more than mere opposition to gay marriage.

Even more so I view the resistance to gay marriage and gay rights in general as akin to those who fought against the civil rights movement for negroes and who had managed to get laws passed forbidding interracial marriages.

That INTOLERANCE to me is a denial of recognition of the basic humanity of those who are homosexual, who…other than the sexual orientation programmed into them…share the same dreams and aspirations as most people which include establishing a long term relationship of a romantic nature that is loving, nurturing, family oriented, and desirous of living in peace.

To deny them the opportunity to establish these relationships on the same legal basis as heterosexual marriages is an act that denies them this basic humanity.

So in response to Jennifer A. Marshall I ask, “Why should we tolerate the intolerant?” My own answer is we should not, but neither do we need to commit violence upon them. But our civil rights movement did not end the shame and degradation of official and de facto racism by tolerating the intolerant.

No, those individuals were shunted to the wayside through passionate passive resistance and  advocacy for and passage of protective and remedial laws and the final removal of laws prohibiting interracial marriage with the Supreme Court’s 1967 ruling in Loving v Virginia of their unconstitutionality.

The rightness and righteousness of that ruling are reflected in the plaintiffs’ name…Loving. So today the the couples who are in gay marriages or desire to be are also… LOVING.

I LOVE GAYS

Yes, I love gays, though I am not among their number. But then again, I love women and I’m not among their number either. Likewise with blacks, Asians, Indians, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Zoroastrians or anyone else belonging to the species known as homo sapiens. You know, human beings.

Note that the term for mankind is HOMO sapiens, not HETERO sapiens.

If I were a devout Christian, I would be proud to follow the admonition of Christ to “love thy neighbor as thyself”. I am not a devout Christian, instead hovering on the precipice between agnosticism and outright atheism, yet I take pride in trying to follow this admonition.

With all this brouhaha about gay marriage I find it at least slightly ironic that Jesus’ s words are found in  Matthew 22 where he presents the wedding parable.

Verses 37-39 give the full quote and context:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

³⁸ This is the first and great commandment.

³⁹ And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22&version=KJV

Another irony is that the same phrase appears in Leviticus, which is the source for much of the approbation directed towards gays.

‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:18

http://bible.cc/matthew/22-39.htm

President Obama last week spoke in favor of gay marriage, explaining what he called his evolutionary thought process. Whether that is accurate is of no issue here.

However, evolution is very much the process I personally went through to arrive at my present condition where I can openly say, “I love gays”.

Growing up, especially as a teenager when puberty’s raging hormones foment all manner of irrational behavior, like most of my contemporaries we made fun of queers. Not that many of us truly knew what queer was or who might accurately be described that way, but the wise guys who’d already ascended up the ladder of sexual knowledge gleefully bequeathed us the sense that queer was bad and was to be avoided.

That attitude prevailed through college. But when I returned to Morgantown in 1974, the atmosphere was changing. When, a year later, I met the young woman who would eventually become my wife, I became exposed to the reality that homosexuals actually existed and…GASP!…they were normal people.

My girlfriend was an art major and many gays came from that school, but her entire coterie of friends consisted of folks of varying colors, genders, and sexual persuasions. Some were nice, some were obnoxious, some gave no outward signs of being gay while others were flamboyantly so.

A big “Ho-Hum” was my reaction.

My evolution was in its early stages.

In 1986, when I was married with children, an old friend, a fraternity brother re-entered my life. Harry had moved to D.C. in 1975 to go to seminary. He was married to a woman at the time. But in the intervening years we had little contact and rumors swirled that Harry was now “out of the closet”.

Rumors can be true. Harry visited in Morgantown and came by our house and we talked for a few hours before he had to return to the Capital area. Other than him touching briefly on now being openly gay the conversation was pretty much like any other with someone you haven’t seen for years.

Beginning in 2006 our fraternity alumni have had reunions and Harry has attended all but one of the now annual affairs. The fact that he is gay was known among the brothers but is essentially a non-issue at this point.

Harry and I have become closer than ever these past six years and I’ve met Mark, his partner of over thirty years and whom he married in Canada seveal years ago.

I have read tales of violent discrimination against gays and been disgusted. I have seen loving gay couples and heard and read other tales of their simple desire to enjoy the rights granted other loving, monogamous couples.

I do question their quest to be married in the standard way. After all, there is a valid reason that marriage is called an “institution”. Who the hell wants to be in an institution?

Then there is Zach Wahls. He is the remarkable young man raised by two women as a couple. He spoke before the Iowa legislature on the topic of gay marriage and has a book out My Two Moms: Lessons of Love, Strength, and What Makes a Family.

He has appeared on talk shows like Letterman. Commenting on gay marriages destroying “regular” marriage he opined that Kim Kardashian was doing a good job of that herself.

Many of those who oppose gay marriage or, in some cases, any legal protections for gays, speak of the “gay agenda”.

They are right. Gays do have an agenda. They want to live in harmony with their families and friends, work at jobs that provide a living and are satisfying, live in a comfortable home, and generally be able to strive to achieve the American dream. You know, just like the other 310 million or so of their fellow Americans.

I love all people who share these dreams and seek to fulfill them honestly without detriment to fellow citizens.

I love gays.

TODAY’S LINKS—MAY 12, 2012

Some powerful stories top my offerings today. The death penalty, gay marriage and other hot topics are covered, but the distinctive elements of them may leave substantial room for legitimate argument.

Some of the regular readers and commentors on my blog are familiar with this first tale. The subject was discussed at length in another forum with some very interesting, and in some cases, surprising views expressed.

There is a man awaiting execution in Texas next week who is a certified paranoid schizophrenic. He has been forced to take medication that presumably restores him to competence, because otherwise he’s, to use a technical term, batshit crazy.

I present to you one Steven Staley. He committed the murder for which he was convicted and sentenced to death. In 1989 after escaping a Denver jail he went on a robbery spree ending up at a Steak and Ale Restaurant in Tarrant County, Texas near closing. He and his two friends took the money and Staley took the manager hostage and fled in his car. While the police were chasing him, he shot and killed the manager.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/05/the_execution_of_steven_staley_forcible_medication_on_death_row_in_texas_.html

Emily bazelon fills in some details.

And here are the facts of Staley’s mental illness: He has a long history of paranoid schizophrenia and depression. Staley was abused as a child by his mother, who was also mentally ill; when he was 6 or 7 she tried to pound a wooden stake through his chest. His father was an alcoholic. Staley tried to kill himself as a teenager. Doctors who have examined Staley on death row have said that he talks in a robot-like monotone yet has “grandiose and paranoid” delusions, including the beliefs that he invented the first car and marketed a character from Star Trek. He has given himself black eyes and self-inflicted lacerations and has been found spreading feces and covered with urine. Medicated with the anti-psychotic drug Haldol, Staley complained of paralysis and sometimes appeared to be in a catatonic state. He has worn a bald spot on the back of his head from lying on the floor of his cell.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the 8th Amendment prohibits the execution of the “insane”. But the Justices left wiggle room when they also said that one could be put to death who had at least a minimal understanding that he is to die and why.

A court order was entered compelling Staley to be medicated.

In two cases in the 1990s, the Supreme Court said that the government can forcibly medicate a mentally ill inmate if he is dangerous to himself or others, the treatment is in his medical interest, and there is no less intrusive alternative. In 2003, the court acknowledged concerns about side effects of the drugs, and emphasized that the treatment had to be medically appropriate. None of these cases involved pending executions, however. When death is the state’s end goal, how can anyone argue that forcible medication is in a prisoner’s medical interest? The Louisiana and South Carolina supreme courts have both rejected that macabre contention in ruling that to drug someone in order to execute him would violate their state constitutions.

Bazelon cites two other Texas cases, now on appeal, where clearly deeply disturbed men were found competent to stand trial and be executed. You can read the link to find details of the manifestations of their illnesses. They are quite graphic.

I, of course, object to capital punishment under any circumstances. But I wonder if anyone who supports the penalty could justify any purpose served by executing these men.

Also from Slate the always excellent Dahlia Lithwick, together with Sonja West, explains why President Obama did not go far enough in voicing his support of gay marriage. Instead of leaving it to the states, they opine, this is truly a federal question of Constitutional rights.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/05/same_sex_marriage_is_a_constitutional_right_not_a_democratic_issue_.html

The “marriage is a purely state issue” rhetoric has been around for some time. It’s become a familiar default argument, maybe because it sounds fair and feels safe.  But having “evolved” this far on gay marriage, the time has come to evolve our own thinking on what is really at stake when we talk about marriage equality.  We must embrace that this is a constitutional and not a democratic issue. Equality is not a popularity contest.  This is hardly a radical argument. It’s Supreme Court doctrine: Our rights to be treated as equal and full citizens do not evaporate when we cross state lines. Rather there are certain essential liberties, even in the realm of marriage, we all enjoy regardless of our ZIP code.  

This is the rationale for treating the issue as such.

We pause now for a quick constitutional law primer: The Supreme Court has decided marriage cases under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14^th Amendment.  The Due Process Clause protects fundamental rights while the Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination. Seen as a denial of a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause, the case for marriage equality for same-sex couples should be obvious. Viewed as a matter of discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause it becomes slightly more complicated. The court has acknowledged that certain groups of people are more likely to face discrimination and thus it demands more of the government when it tries to treat them differently.  The court has been coy, however, about telling us whether people who are denied a government benefit based on their sexual orientation receive this kind of heightened protection. But the logic for stronger constitutional protection is undeniable. Like racial minorities and women, homosexuals as a group have historically faced societal and government discrimination based on a personal characteristic they cannot control. Thus, as with race and gender, the federal courts must be the guardians of justice and ensure that they are treated equally. That is the argument Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, N.J. has been advancing most vocally.

Same sex marriage should be examined in the same manner as miscegenation laws were dealt with by SCOTUS in the ’60’s. Furthermore it is important for the Court to be clear and timely on deciding such controversies. Otherwise they risk the backlash and messy resolutions arising from Brown v Board of Education and Roe v Wade.

This next item is also from the gay rights spectrum but it is a surprising recommendation from an unlikely source. Jan van Lohuizon, a respected Republican pollster, has circulated a memo among certain GOP higher-ups telling them to get on the bandwagon regarding gays.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/top-gop-pollster-to-gop-reverse-on-gay-issues.html

Andrew Sullivan presents this revelation thusly.

The last paragraph is, to my mind, the most remarkable. It’s advising Republican candidates to emphasize the conservative nature of gay marriage, to say how it encourages personal responsibility, commitment, stability and family values. It uses Dick Cheney’s formula (which was for a couple of years, the motto of this blog) that “freedom means freedom for everyone.” And it uses David Cameron’s argument that you can be for gay marriage because you are a conservative.

The entire memo is available and it is fairly brief.

One could take a 100% cynical approach and charge that this action is without full conviction, insincere, and designed solely to deflect a loss of votes. That is not an unreasonable attitude.

However, look at it this way. If the politicians follow through and take this advice, insincere or not, it will be ever more difficult to resist the tide of history.

Now for a purely visual treat.

This last item, a look at the JPMorgan loss of $2 BILLION on derivatives trading, should make it far more difficult for lobbyists to keep their clients from more intense regulatory scrutiny.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/jpmorgan-trading-loss-2-billion-financial-crisis_n_1510217.html

JPMorgan revealed on Thursday that it had lost about $2 billion (with possibly more losses to come) from risky bets on opaque derivatives at a London trading desk.

The pressure on the bank intensified on Friday, with reports that the Securities and Exchange Commission had opened an investigation of its trades and Fitch Ratings downgrading the bank’s long-term credit rating to A+ from AA-.

JPMorgan’s big losing trade shows that at least some big banks are engaged in the same sort of behavior that rocked the financial system in 2008, if on a smaller scale.

“This is a smaller version of the same betting that went on in 2006,” said Will Rhode, a principal and director of fixed income at The Tabb Group, a financial-markets research and advisory firm.

“Ultimately, this is about banks being dissatisfied with the single-digit returns on equity that are associated with their conventional lending businesses, and trying to find other ways to make money,” said Daniel Alpert, founding managing partner at investment bank Westwood Capital, “with risk, once again, taking a backseat to potential reward.”

The Volcker Rule, a ban on proprietary trading by federally insured  banks and part of Dood-Frank, is due to go into effect in July…

…though Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has suggested regulators will probably miss the deadline. Part of the delay is due to a barrage of pressure from lobbyists, who have helped to complicate and water down the rule.

Where’s the moral outrage from conservatives on shenanigans like this that put our economy at risk? I guess they’re too busy executing the insane and trying to keep gays from marrying.

LET MY PEOPLE MARRY

President Barack Obama today declared that his position has evolved and that he now is in favor of gays being able to marry.

Vice President Joe Biden made a similar declaration on Meet The Press on Sunday.

Voters in North Carolina yesterday approved a state constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage.

North Carolina was once the scene for  protests where four young black men sat at a lunch counter in a Woolworth’s store where it was illegal to for blacks to have a simple meal with whites.

North Carolina was on the wrong side of history in 1960.

North Carolina is on the wrong side of history in 2012.

Those young black men were my people.

I am not black.

Six million Jews perished at the hands of the Nazis in World War II.

The Nazis were on the wrong side of history.

Those Jews were my people.

I am not a Jew.

Until the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, in the nation as a whole and in most states, it was illegal for women to vote.

Our electoral process was on the wrong side of history prior to 1920.

Those women were my people.

I am not a woman.

The argument goes that marriage between same sex couples is not natural and undermines “acceptable” marriage.

I was married. I got divorced.

Did I undermine acceptable marriage?

I have friends or know of people—heterosexuals—who have been married and divorced more than once.

Mitt Romney, the putative Republican nominee for President, is a Mormon. The Mormons once permitted their male members to have multiple wives. He is against gay marriage

Newt Gingrich, who recently ended his campaign for President, has been married three times and divorced twice. He is against gay marriage.

Real estate mogul/blowhard Donald Trump, who last year tried to threaten America with the possibility he would run for President (his bluff was called), has been married three times and divorced twice. He is against gay marriage.

Former (9/11) Mayor of New York (9/11) Rudy Giuliani (9/11) has been married three (9/11) times and divorced twice.(9/11) He is against gay marriage. (9/11)

Noted radio bloviator and misogynist Rush Limbaugh has been married four times and divorced thrice. He is against gay marriage.

The Republic has survived these politicians’ cavalier attitudes towards marriage.

Many celebrities are famous also for multiple marriages.

The Killer, rocker Jerry Lee Lewis, once famously married his thirteen year old cousin. He was married twice before that and four times since. His latest wife, whom he married earlier this year, is the ex-wife of his cousin who is the brother of the other cousin Jerry once wed.

Movie stars such as Zsa Zsa Gabor, Mickey Rooney, and Elizabeth Taylor were married and divorced more than six times each.

The Republic has survived.

I have a close friend who has been with his partner for over thirty years. A few years ago they had to go to Canada to legally marry, to make official their loving, committed relationship.

There are several states where gays may legally marry and have been doing so.

The Republic has survived.

On Facebook or chain emails the exhortation is often made to honor our troops and veterans.

About eighteen months ago Congress voted to repeal the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that forbade our troops from being openly gay, despite fighting and dying just as their heterosexual counterparts did.

The military, and thus the United States, was on the wrong side of history.

Those gays were my people.

I am not gay.

If these gay troops return home, most would not be able to legally marry depending on where they reside.

We seem perfectly willing to let gays DIE for us.

Why are we not as willing to let gays LIVE for themselves?

Let us be on the right side of history.

GAY MARRIAGE MAKES ME HAPPY

Last week the state of New York passed a law legalizing the performance of marriages between same gender parties in that state, joining six other states and the District of Columbia in doing so.

That state’s legislators are to be congratulated for doing so even if some of the usual political horse trading and political contributions from interest groups may have been at least partially responsible for this accomplishment.

I have nothing personal to gain from this as I shall confess that I am not gay. But also, at this stage in my life under my current circumstances I have little or no personal stake in the marriage of heterosexual couples. (Ladies, my deepest apologies for your shock and sorrow.)

I do not know many gays, or at least people who identify themselves as such. The ones I am familiar with are—SURPRISE—pretty much the same as my non-gay friends and acquaintances. They work, they love, they worship in their churches, they may even raise children.

The only way they truly and consistently differ is how they conduct their sex lives and express their sexual feelings (even that may be no different in quality). What they do behind closed doors concerns me not a whit.

If for some reason you disagree with me about their right to privacy in their sex lives, please be prepared to detail your own sexual practices as you comment in protest of my opinion.

Now I’m sure many Americans will take comfort from the fact that the state they reside in does not officially permit such marriages and may indeed have taken steps to officially outlaw them.

Well, don’t. There has been so much emphasis on the Constitution the past few years with loud complaints that the federal government has exceeded its Constitutional limits in exerting power. I won’t address that issue, but if you preach adherence to the Constitution, then you must recognize the obligations of all states to acknowledge and accept a marriage legally created in another state, whether that same marriage could have been created there.

Article IV of the U.S. Constitution deals with the rights and responsibilities of the states. Section 1 reads:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof

States have almost always had different requirements to enter into a legally recognized state of matrimony. Some may have an age of consent of 14 while others require the parties to be at least 18, without parental permission.

Some states permit marriages between relatives of as close consanguinity as first cousins while most do not.

Some states permit couples to enter into a “common law” marriage by living together for a given number of years if they give some public indication that their intent is to do so is as a married couple, even with no license. W.Va., among other states, does not permit a common law marriage to be established.

However, for instance, a couple that has established a common law marriage in Pennsylvania that moves to W.Va. does so having all the rights and responsibilities attendant to a legal marriage remaining intact.

Likewise a couple who have married in a state with an age of consent under 18 that now lives in a state which has 18 as the minimum age, and the couple is still under 18, lose no rights nor the validity of their marriage by doing so.

There does exist an abomination known as the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) which is a law passed by Congress in 1996 that essentially defines a marriage as between one woman and one man and further states that a same-sex marriage permitted in one state does not have to be recognized in another state where such marriages are not authorized.

DOMA is clearly and utterly unconstitutional. It violates the provisions of Article IV Section 1 as cited above. Congress cannot unilaterally abrogate a requirement of the Constitution. DOMA is currently under attack in federal court and the Obama administration, in one of its few acts exhibiting balls, has refused to defend it.

There is also talk in Congress about the repeal of DOMA but I’m not holding my breath since that band of idiot brothers cannot even come to agreement on admittedly more vital issues facing the nation.

Why is gay marriage important? Better you should ask “why is breathing necessary for life”? It is important because if you consider marriage as necesssary for the ultimate fulfillment of any heterosexual couple’s love for each other, then you should be aware that gay couples love each other in the same way.

Last year in the runup to the eventual repeal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell rules for the military, a young woman  eloquently expressed how thse issues affect her very humanit in an op-ed piece in the Post Gazette. Perhaps her words will be persuasive.

She was homosexual but desired a career in the military and was in a reserve unit. She agonized over being unable to share even the mundane aspects of her every day life with colleagues because it involved a gay partner.

One of the worst aspects of being closeted is not just
feeling like less of a person, but becoming less of a person — less open, less
honest, less trusting.

After several years, I was no longer willing to live in
fear of being found out, or to continue compromising my integrity. I finally
came out to my commander and was subsequently discharged — for “moral and
professional dereliction,” as my Army discharge papers read.

While her discharge was being processed she spoke often with her Commander who did not want to lose her services but had no choice under military law.

He finally understood my point: The person you build a
life with is not a hobby or a “lifestyle” you can just as easily keep private as
not. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is not about discretion, but the dehumanization of
gay service members simply because of who they love.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10052/1037169-109.stm

So it is with gay marriage. It is nothing more than an affirmation of that couple’s humanity. especially in relation to each other.

A long-time close friend of mine, Harry, entered into a brief hetersexual marriage in 1970. Several years later he emrged from the closet and became openly gay. Still friendly with his ex-wife, he has had a loving and devoted partner for just over thirty years now.

As avowedly straight as I am, my one foray into matrimony or any type of committed relationship lasted just over eleven years officially, though we separated permanently prior to our tenth anniversary. Yet my failure would garner more official recognition in many states than would Harry’s success.

There is no way that is morally right.

To deny Harry and Mark and other loving couples like them their right to formalize and sanctify their arrangement is nothing short of an obscenity. That more opportunities for them and others to do so now exist  is a blessing for this nation and an indication that sanity sometimes rules.

Thank you, New York Legislature.

Let us hope such sanity spreads like wildfire.