Archive for November 16th, 2006

by Jay Stevens 

Here we go. The work can begin.

Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd today announced his intention to introduce legislation in the Senate that would amend the “torture bill.” Some planned changes:

Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detaineesNarrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants

Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials

Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable

Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions

Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight

Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions

This is exactly what needs to happen: reinstitute the rule of law over the executive branch, yet still giving federal officials powerful law-enforcement tools to combat terrorism. Let’s face it: the executive needs oversight. Detainees must have their basic rights. This shouldn’t even be up for discussion, let alone already existing legislation voted on by the Senate.

There were 12 Democrats who voted for it and only 1 Republican who voted against it. Let’s hope those numbers change and significantly. The 2006 elections was a clear demonstration that American voters do not like the way the executive branch is handling Iraq and the “war on terror.” We’ll soon see which Senators got that message.

by Jay Stevens 

Longtime readers of the site know where I stand on the issue of gay marriage: I’m all for it, and largely for the same reasons that Massachusetts Chief Justice Marshall outlined in the court decision there that legalized it:

Marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. “It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.”…Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.

That is, the purpose of marriage is inherently personal and intimate, and is not solely about procreation or to uphold traditional gender roles. And if that’s the case, I just can’t see any moral justification for banning it.

That said, I also recognize that the majority of my fellow Americans and, more specifically, Montanans, disagree. There’s a certain traditional view of marriage that’s inherently wrapped up in religion and that views the very existence of homosexuality as immoral. Sharing the institution of marriage – a cultural ceremony and celebration of family and community – won’t do.

Just as gays are among my friends, family, and neighbors, so are devout Christians. If gays are asking the traditional-minded for a public space to form partnerships and families, it’s only fair for the traditional-minded to ask for some guarantee that their moral system and religious beliefs be free from governmental intrusion.

So, the question is, how can I – and American society – balance belief, individual liberty, diversity, and tradition?

Certainly forcing gay marriage on the electorate through legislative fiat is not the way to go. Most people don’t want gay marriage. Period. Why force it on them? If it’s going to be legalized, it should be done by direct vote in a ballot initiative. When the people are agreeable, it will happen.

On the other hand, the current system is grossly unfair and likely unconstitutional. Many states have special restrictions against gay couples, and gay couples and their families face institutionalized government discrimination. Married heterosexual couples enjoy benefits, taxes, and other special privileges that are denied to gays.

In effect, there are different sets of laws for different people.

The recent New Jersey court decision (pdf), then, seems to be the perfect fit. New Jersey’s Supreme Court fell short of approving gay marriage, but instead ordered the state’s legislature to come up with a civil union package that gives gay couples all the rights and privileges of married heterosexuals.

Unlike the New York and Washington decisions – which were based on the shaky logic that marriage – and sex – is solely for procreative purposes (a decision threatens to roll back the personal freedoms of adult Americans some 75 years), or that it’s a useful tool to encourage those pesky and irresponsible straight couples to marry and take care of their kids – the New Jersey decision recognizes that, while traditional values don’t support gay marriage, American jurisprudence demands that gays are treated equally under the law:

The Domestic Partnership Act has failed to bridge the inequality gap between committed same-sex couples and married opposite-sex couples. Significantly, the economic and financial inequities that are borne by same-sex domestic partners are also borne by their children. Further, even though same-sex couples are provided fewer benefits and rights by the Act, they are subject to more stringent requirements to enter into a domestic partnership than opposite-sex couples entering a marriage.

At this point, the Court does not consider whether committed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but only whether those couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded to married homosexual couples. Cast in that light, the issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people.

The New Jersey court did not find that marriage is necessary to procreation, but did admit that it promotes economic stability and monogamy, both of which have distinct societal benefits, and denying them to gays was detrimental to society and could possibly be injurious to the children of gay couples.

The results of the 2006 gay-marriage initiatives actually demonstrate support for this line of reasoning. Like Glenn Greenwald, I saw in those initiatives the beginning of a push against Southern-based social conservative values in the gay-marriage bans passed in South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Colorado, and especially in the defeat of the anti-gay initiative in Arizona. In the twenty bans previous to 2006, an average of 71 percent approved such bans; this time around, approval was only 52 percent in South Dakota and 56 percent in Colorado. And Arizona – hardly a bastion of liberalism – voted down its ban:

But the defeated Arizona referendum, like the one in South Dakota, would have not only reinforced that gay marriage ban, but would have also barred the recognition by state and local governments of any type of civil unions. As a result, the campaigns to defeat the referendum in both states focused not on the desirability of gay marriage, but rather on the unwarranted limitations imposed by the referendum on the ability of citizens — gay and straight — to secure equal benefits for their chosen relationships.

Put another way, the successful campaign to defeat the Arizona referendum was based on a generalized libertarian aversion to governmental intrusion into the private sphere, rather than support for gay marriage per se.

In this aversion to government intrusion, Greenwald sees the chance for Kos’ “liberal libertarianism” to flourish, as Westerners reject the social engineering program of Southern conservatives and the GOP, and the Democratic Party has the opportunity to step in and become the champion of individual liberties.

Maybe that’s the case. But certainly it seems the New Jersey decision is the best compromise for our communities where gays and Christians and partisan hack bloggers need to live in the same neighborhoods, work at the same jobs, and wrestle with mortgage and insurance payments. The decision erases the legal discrimination against gays, but preserves the tradition and values of the institution of marriage for the traditional-minded.

by readbetween 

A quick reminder to the visionaries in the audience: tonight from 6 to 9 PM at the Inn on Broadway (1609 W. Broadway), the city of Missoula is going to host the a hands-on public participation event, the most public and unstructured of the  ongoing effort to get some sort of a plan for West Broadway on paper.

During the city Local Government Study Commission process, the number one complaint was the absence of strategic planning to handle growth and transportation. Well, here’s your chance to plan away.

See you there.


Courtney Lowery crunches the numbers…and concludes rural Montana carried the day for Tester.

John Adams crunches the numbers…and concludes Missoula carried the day for Tester.

NPR interviews JT. Jon promises to do what’s best for Montana and stand up to the Democratic leadership, if need be. Nice interview.

Kos and the WSJ take a look at how the pollsters did.

Pogie wishes soon-to-be-ex-Senator Conrad Burns a nice trip back to Missouri. David Crisp chimes in.

The Good Guv’s budget proposal is out: tax cuts and increased funding for education.

Trevis Butcher fights for his right to out-of-staters to anonymously buy Montana elections. You know, maybe he should just try to start a home-grown, grassroots effort instead of tying up our courts with garbage like this.

Our Montana Republicans hard at work – poaching.

Justin’s political manifesto is now available. Politicians and activist everywhere run for cover.

Julie F crunches the number, Representative-elect Bill Sali paid $8,632 for each vote he received. Conrad Burns, on the other hand, only paid $38.41 for each of his votes.

How Richard Pombo’s defeat affects you, dear Montanan.

Emmanuel Rahm makes peace with Howard Dean. James Carville on the outside, looking in.

Hoya beats Murtha.

GOP Congressman calling on the Democrats to obstruct all of Bush’s appointments?

Meanwhile, down on the Gulf Coast the government steals from the poor and gives to the rich.

Judith Miller worried about Bush administration excursions against our civil liberties. And adds a gratuitous shot at bloggers. (Remember this is the reporter who dutifully printed Bush administration propaganda on Iraq as fact and is as responsible as any for the mess that followed.)

Speaking of Iraq, Iran wants us to stay. That should send neocons racing around in circles.

Ten reasons Congress must investigate Bush administration crimes. Tim Dickenson considers impeachment, and thinks better of the idea.

Paul Waldman comes up with a plan for how to crush the GOP…for a good long while.

Olbermann on the Fox News Memo.

Right-wing blogger calls for State Department to be bombed. Um…shouldn’t she be getting a visit from the FBI or something?

An interview with a “hyper-local” blogger. Where’s my local man, readbetween, been lately?

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,689,180 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,736 other followers

  • November 2006
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories