Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Does pro-Marriage = anti-Gay?
Throughout all recent discussions of marriage rights for gays, I have been troubled by otherwise sound thinking and clearly expressed people who seem to dogmatically cling to assumptions that are not demonstrably true but, rather, tend to end discussion. For example, I enjoy the writings of Andrew Sullivan and respect his well reasoned thoughts and style. While he has many valid points on the subject, though, his writings frequently echo the titled assumption. I feel using such an assumption as the basis for a position to be markedly similar to those who brand all opposed to specific implementations of affirmative action as racist or those opposed to Judge Moore’s Ten Commandments monument as anti-Christian. They all devalue the opposing discussion by ascribing a negative motivation to the speaker while doing nothing to judge the merits of the position itself. In fairness, I must say that Andrew is certainly not the most strident in making such assumptions prime in his arguments nor is he particularly nasty in his response to opposed opinions. He is, however, one of the most eloquent and visible supporters of gay marriage rights and, by virtue of his profile and position, has been chosen as an example.
Lest there be any confusion, I can not find myself wholly in support of “gay marriage.” This is not religious in origin, but rather societal and comes from what I feel to be a clear, non-cultural specific age-old societal definition of marriage. Throughout recorded history, and most probably before, that which has defined marriage has not been “love”, but, rather, the formation of a new and distinct family unit. Any who argue that there is no difference between a heterosexual and homosexual marriage ignore the very real and biologically mandated fact that most heterosexual couple will eventually produce children while no homosexual couple will ever produce children. Yes, there are exceptions on both side, either through infertility or contraception in the case of the heterosexual couple, or by artificial means or adoption in the case of the homosexual couple, but the mere fact that these exceptions must be noted does nothing but accent that this is a primary and fundamental difference between the two institutions. It would seem to follow, then, that the real question is if it is right for these two to be legally distinct.
It would be beneficial in the discussion of legal rights of marriage to have a summary of what exactly these rights are, but they seem broadly to fall into the areas of medical rights (visitation, consent, insurance benefits), inheritance (including Social Security survivor benefits) and protections against dissolution (divorce, alimony, custody). I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but at the risk of sounding incurably naïve let us assume that most laws serve society in one or more of the following four ways: to protect the weak or innocent from the strong and malicious; to protect the proprietary interests of the government; to discourage actions that are “bad” for society, and; to encourage actions that are “good” for society. (If there are any real lawyers out there with issue on my conceptual purpose of law in society, please write). It is an interesting side note that often the same civil laws (specifically divorce, alimony and custody in the case of marriage) can serve as both incentive and disincentive, depending upon the role in which one is cast. I think it is generally observable that most laws specific to marriage are designed, in a small way, to encourage people to have children within the context of a marriage, but in much greater manner to ensure the protection of one member of the marriage. It seems logical to assume that the perceived need for legal protection so prevalent in laws related to marriage is based upon the assumption that one member of the marriage provides financial support while the other fulfills greater familial and child raising responsibilities. Very convincing arguments can be made concerning the utility and validity of the assumptions inherent in current marriage statutes in today’s society, but I will save those for another time. Overall, though, legal benefits derived from marriage can be conferred by other means, except for Social Security survivorship, a problem equally shared among all Americans in that these benefits are not willable, and dissolution protection (though these could be individually stipulated through specific contract, I do not feel these are as easily and commonly conferred through standard legal mechanisms such as wills or powers of attorney and so treat them as non-conferred).
If, however, the basis of marriage is to be love, as some seem to contend, why should others’ love not be an equally valid basis for marriage based purely upon the absence of sexual relations? Why could not, for example, two widowed sisters who live together not get married in order to secure their medical and property rights with regard to each other? Or is an arranged marriage with children to be of lesser legal standing because of the lack of love at the outset? In this regard, it has always seemed oddly ironic to me that some who would fight so strongly to keep the government “out of their bedroom” would fight equally hard to bring it into formal recognition of their love.
Society has a reasonable expectation that a man and woman who get married will have children. Just as there are people with concealed carry permits who do not arm themselves, there are married couples that never have children, but as a basis for conferring marriage rights this seems a reasonable basis, assuming the societal benefit of marriage rights is in protecting children and fostering a positive child rearing environment. Long before we had trained sociologists to spend millions on lengthy studies, the collective human conscious discovered that children are best raised in the context of a mother and father committed to each other in marriage. Contrary to the claims of some, this is not a uniquely Christian (or Jewish or Moslem) phenomenon, but is generally universal throughout human civilization. When the utility and purposefulness of marriage as it relates to children is de-emphasized it is to the general detriment of both children and society. Rather than continuing the trend to dilute the importance of children to the concept of marriage, I think steps should rather be made to strengthen marriage as it has traditionally been. Removing marriage-like rights that have been conferred to non-married individuals (i.e. common law marriages) and limiting no-fault divorce seem like good starting points. Opening the definition of marriage to include situations and configurations that arguably have little to do with the raising of the next generation, however, do not seem constructive.
This is just a quick brush of a matter that is much larger, and I am sure there are nuances in both my feelings and the ways I have expressed them that are either missing or not completely clear. I will most likely address these further at another time or attempt to clarify as possible. As I initially stated, though, it just sticks in my craw when others seem to paint me with assumed motivations based upon the barest of evidence, and, right or wrong, I have often felt myself almost under attack for “daring” to not agree with the “enlightened”.
Lest there be any confusion, I can not find myself wholly in support of “gay marriage.” This is not religious in origin, but rather societal and comes from what I feel to be a clear, non-cultural specific age-old societal definition of marriage. Throughout recorded history, and most probably before, that which has defined marriage has not been “love”, but, rather, the formation of a new and distinct family unit. Any who argue that there is no difference between a heterosexual and homosexual marriage ignore the very real and biologically mandated fact that most heterosexual couple will eventually produce children while no homosexual couple will ever produce children. Yes, there are exceptions on both side, either through infertility or contraception in the case of the heterosexual couple, or by artificial means or adoption in the case of the homosexual couple, but the mere fact that these exceptions must be noted does nothing but accent that this is a primary and fundamental difference between the two institutions. It would seem to follow, then, that the real question is if it is right for these two to be legally distinct.
It would be beneficial in the discussion of legal rights of marriage to have a summary of what exactly these rights are, but they seem broadly to fall into the areas of medical rights (visitation, consent, insurance benefits), inheritance (including Social Security survivor benefits) and protections against dissolution (divorce, alimony, custody). I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but at the risk of sounding incurably naïve let us assume that most laws serve society in one or more of the following four ways: to protect the weak or innocent from the strong and malicious; to protect the proprietary interests of the government; to discourage actions that are “bad” for society, and; to encourage actions that are “good” for society. (If there are any real lawyers out there with issue on my conceptual purpose of law in society, please write). It is an interesting side note that often the same civil laws (specifically divorce, alimony and custody in the case of marriage) can serve as both incentive and disincentive, depending upon the role in which one is cast. I think it is generally observable that most laws specific to marriage are designed, in a small way, to encourage people to have children within the context of a marriage, but in much greater manner to ensure the protection of one member of the marriage. It seems logical to assume that the perceived need for legal protection so prevalent in laws related to marriage is based upon the assumption that one member of the marriage provides financial support while the other fulfills greater familial and child raising responsibilities. Very convincing arguments can be made concerning the utility and validity of the assumptions inherent in current marriage statutes in today’s society, but I will save those for another time. Overall, though, legal benefits derived from marriage can be conferred by other means, except for Social Security survivorship, a problem equally shared among all Americans in that these benefits are not willable, and dissolution protection (though these could be individually stipulated through specific contract, I do not feel these are as easily and commonly conferred through standard legal mechanisms such as wills or powers of attorney and so treat them as non-conferred).
If, however, the basis of marriage is to be love, as some seem to contend, why should others’ love not be an equally valid basis for marriage based purely upon the absence of sexual relations? Why could not, for example, two widowed sisters who live together not get married in order to secure their medical and property rights with regard to each other? Or is an arranged marriage with children to be of lesser legal standing because of the lack of love at the outset? In this regard, it has always seemed oddly ironic to me that some who would fight so strongly to keep the government “out of their bedroom” would fight equally hard to bring it into formal recognition of their love.
Society has a reasonable expectation that a man and woman who get married will have children. Just as there are people with concealed carry permits who do not arm themselves, there are married couples that never have children, but as a basis for conferring marriage rights this seems a reasonable basis, assuming the societal benefit of marriage rights is in protecting children and fostering a positive child rearing environment. Long before we had trained sociologists to spend millions on lengthy studies, the collective human conscious discovered that children are best raised in the context of a mother and father committed to each other in marriage. Contrary to the claims of some, this is not a uniquely Christian (or Jewish or Moslem) phenomenon, but is generally universal throughout human civilization. When the utility and purposefulness of marriage as it relates to children is de-emphasized it is to the general detriment of both children and society. Rather than continuing the trend to dilute the importance of children to the concept of marriage, I think steps should rather be made to strengthen marriage as it has traditionally been. Removing marriage-like rights that have been conferred to non-married individuals (i.e. common law marriages) and limiting no-fault divorce seem like good starting points. Opening the definition of marriage to include situations and configurations that arguably have little to do with the raising of the next generation, however, do not seem constructive.
This is just a quick brush of a matter that is much larger, and I am sure there are nuances in both my feelings and the ways I have expressed them that are either missing or not completely clear. I will most likely address these further at another time or attempt to clarify as possible. As I initially stated, though, it just sticks in my craw when others seem to paint me with assumed motivations based upon the barest of evidence, and, right or wrong, I have often felt myself almost under attack for “daring” to not agree with the “enlightened”.
What's in a Name
Special Adviser to the President for Cyberspace Security and Chairman, President's Critical Infrastructure Board
This was Richard Clark's official job title in the Bush Administration. If this doesn't sound like a "he's a good guy and we don't want to toss him out on his ear but need a place to stick him away" made-up title then I've never heard one. Looking through his biography, I see he was a player in the State Department's Intelligence and Analysis branch.
As I remember it from a few years ago (and it may have changed since), a National Intelligence Estimate required the agreement of four agencies: CIA, DIA, NSA and State I&A. At the time, I remember a great deal of dissatisfaction the first three had with the last, largely because they felt that State Department policy unduly influenced the analysis part of I&A. It seemed just too convenient that their analysis always backed up whatever policies and actions the department had already decided upon. I will admit my bias, but I have always suspected I&A folks, especially high mucketty-mucks, as providing a little too much wag and not enough dog.
Roger Simon asks a valid question concerning titles and qualifications. I will go a bit further and ask if we are seeing the Peter Pricipal in action?
This was Richard Clark's official job title in the Bush Administration. If this doesn't sound like a "he's a good guy and we don't want to toss him out on his ear but need a place to stick him away" made-up title then I've never heard one. Looking through his biography, I see he was a player in the State Department's Intelligence and Analysis branch.
As I remember it from a few years ago (and it may have changed since), a National Intelligence Estimate required the agreement of four agencies: CIA, DIA, NSA and State I&A. At the time, I remember a great deal of dissatisfaction the first three had with the last, largely because they felt that State Department policy unduly influenced the analysis part of I&A. It seemed just too convenient that their analysis always backed up whatever policies and actions the department had already decided upon. I will admit my bias, but I have always suspected I&A folks, especially high mucketty-mucks, as providing a little too much wag and not enough dog.
Roger Simon asks a valid question concerning titles and qualifications. I will go a bit further and ask if we are seeing the Peter Pricipal in action?
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Assumptions and the 9/11 Hearings
Contrary to the old canard ("when you assume ..."), assumptions are a normal part of the daily human experience. Without assumptions, the whole world degenerates into an incoherent string of isolated incidents absent of any cause or effect. The crux of wisdom, rather, lies in making astute and sensical assumptions in order to better understand and predict what is happening and in recognizing the assumptions that are implicit in one's line of thinking.
The blatant attempts to take what ostensibly should be a inquiry into facts in order to judge the validity of assumptions in the pursuit of national security and turn it, instead, into a blame game for partisan political points is, as Jeff Jarvis notes, not only disgusting but a real disservice to Americans. It also conveniently ignores many of the most important assumptions under which all administrations were operating pre-9/11. Chief among these are:
1. Al Queda and other terrorist organizations are not capable of harming the United States on a whole.
2. Threats from AQ and other terrorist organizations are hyperbole used to rally their own and supporters.
These two assumptions caused everyone to underestimate the threat posed and ignore potentially telling signs of impending doom. While there are certainly things in the intelligence community, both regarding collection and analysis, which can be improved upon, the major failure that made 9/11 possible was in the implicit assumptions we held.
For years we treated the threat from terrorists and rogue nations like that obnoxious third grader on the bus that calls you names, threatens you and occasionally punches you in the arm. You largely ignore the kid, keep an eye on him and, from time to time, push him back into his seat. But the threat we faced was not from a child, and it had carried a gun onto the bus.
I believe our national policy should treats terrorists and rouge nations more as equals and gives them the respect they, as adults responsible for their actions, deserve. When Al Queda or Hebolah or the DPRK or anyone else says "U.S., you are an evil Satan and we declare war on you" we should allow them to clarify their statements and then afford them the dignity of respecting their beliefs. For when an enemy openly and clearly declares themselves to you, you have but two choices: accept them as your enemy or ignore their stated beliefs and act as if they were a petulant child. Once you recognize an enemy, the only reasonable thing to do is to try and remove their ability or will to fight. There are many ways to do this, ranging from full-scale unrestricted war to even humanitarian assistance to "win hearts and minds", but we should never flinch from openly recognizing those that have declared themselves our enemies and doing what we can to make them otherwise.
In the pursuit of national security, two main assumptions that would be prudent to clearly understand are:
1. There are no children in world politics.
2. Everyone has a gun.
The blatant attempts to take what ostensibly should be a inquiry into facts in order to judge the validity of assumptions in the pursuit of national security and turn it, instead, into a blame game for partisan political points is, as Jeff Jarvis notes, not only disgusting but a real disservice to Americans. It also conveniently ignores many of the most important assumptions under which all administrations were operating pre-9/11. Chief among these are:
1. Al Queda and other terrorist organizations are not capable of harming the United States on a whole.
2. Threats from AQ and other terrorist organizations are hyperbole used to rally their own and supporters.
These two assumptions caused everyone to underestimate the threat posed and ignore potentially telling signs of impending doom. While there are certainly things in the intelligence community, both regarding collection and analysis, which can be improved upon, the major failure that made 9/11 possible was in the implicit assumptions we held.
For years we treated the threat from terrorists and rogue nations like that obnoxious third grader on the bus that calls you names, threatens you and occasionally punches you in the arm. You largely ignore the kid, keep an eye on him and, from time to time, push him back into his seat. But the threat we faced was not from a child, and it had carried a gun onto the bus.
I believe our national policy should treats terrorists and rouge nations more as equals and gives them the respect they, as adults responsible for their actions, deserve. When Al Queda or Hebolah or the DPRK or anyone else says "U.S., you are an evil Satan and we declare war on you" we should allow them to clarify their statements and then afford them the dignity of respecting their beliefs. For when an enemy openly and clearly declares themselves to you, you have but two choices: accept them as your enemy or ignore their stated beliefs and act as if they were a petulant child. Once you recognize an enemy, the only reasonable thing to do is to try and remove their ability or will to fight. There are many ways to do this, ranging from full-scale unrestricted war to even humanitarian assistance to "win hearts and minds", but we should never flinch from openly recognizing those that have declared themselves our enemies and doing what we can to make them otherwise.
In the pursuit of national security, two main assumptions that would be prudent to clearly understand are:
1. There are no children in world politics.
2. Everyone has a gun.
Monday, March 22, 2004
Hot Damn! I'm Rich ...
... at least according to the anti-tax-cut gang.
I've always supported the Bush tax-cuts, on principle if nothing else, and felt the "tax-cut for the rich" mantra was never more than blatant partisan sloganeering. The engineer in me, though, has always wanted empirical quantitative evidence. I got it last night when I entered my 2003 Federal Income Tax data into last year's software and then imported the exact same data into the 2003 version. Actually, there was one difference, as a portion of my IRA contribution was deductible this year and wasn't last year. The results? Well, with a total income in the $50K - $75K range, filing jointly with two kids and mortgage (i.e. typical middle-class family) the 2003 bill was about $790 less then it would have been in 2002.
Don't know about you, but I'm still not so rich that I'd look an $800 gift horse in the mouth. And, as a bonus, I get bragging rights to being "rich".
I've always supported the Bush tax-cuts, on principle if nothing else, and felt the "tax-cut for the rich" mantra was never more than blatant partisan sloganeering. The engineer in me, though, has always wanted empirical quantitative evidence. I got it last night when I entered my 2003 Federal Income Tax data into last year's software and then imported the exact same data into the 2003 version. Actually, there was one difference, as a portion of my IRA contribution was deductible this year and wasn't last year. The results? Well, with a total income in the $50K - $75K range, filing jointly with two kids and mortgage (i.e. typical middle-class family) the 2003 bill was about $790 less then it would have been in 2002.
Don't know about you, but I'm still not so rich that I'd look an $800 gift horse in the mouth. And, as a bonus, I get bragging rights to being "rich".
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
This is the obligatory "testing" post. Damn, I'm original!
