The State of Texas Bans Marriage

Just in. In an attempt to ban gay marriages, voters in the State of Texas accidentally banned marriage itself. That is hilarious.

In 2005, Texas voters approved the following amendment to their State's constitution:

Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. . . . This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

The second part of the Amendment was designed to prevent future Texas courts or legislatures from creating an alternative institution for gays - like civil unions - that would mimic marriage. But the unmistakable implication of the chosen language is that neither the State of Texas, nor any of its political subdivisions, may create or recognize any legal status identical to marriage.

Marriage is identical to marriage, so marriage is out. The people of Texas have spoken!

The moral of this story? Chose your lawyer in Texas carefully. Bozo the attorney who drafted this language should also take a bow.

Serves'em right if you ask me.

Joe

Interesting Development in Salt Lake City

I thought Salt Lake City would be behind the curve in the evolving efforts to see gay people treated as equal citizens. I was wrong. I also agree with Andrew Sullivan that their actions cast a very poor light on Catholic and Protestant Christians.

Way to go SLC!

Joe H.

Self Correction

This article offers an interesting reflection on the interaction of ideology and human psychology. Those of us who have undergone slow conversions from hard line positions do experience the desire for "a time machine" as Marty calls it. I'd Like to walk a few comments back myself. Glad I didn't have a soap box like he did.

I say no one should feel responsible for opinions they held and/or expressed twenty or more years ago.

Obama's New Self Appointed Where to Go and What to Kiss CZAR

I'm pretty sure Wanda Sykes is going to be a big it. I laughed pretty hard.

Joe

Immigration, Emmigration and Illegal Immigrants - Update

This week I learned the difference between "immigration" and "emigration." Turns out it is entirely a matter of perspective. "Immigration" refers to people moving into a country. "Emigration" refers to people leaving a country. The person doing the moving does both, simultaneously.

So, from the perspective of the people living in the country that you are departing, you are emigrating. From the perspective of the people living in the country that you are entering, you are immigrating. From the perspective of everyone else, including yourself, you're doing both.

For some reason, this kind of conceptual paradox fascinates me.

At any rate, I've decided that we shouldn't allow people to complain about "illegal immigration" anymore. We should instead ask them to clarify their objection. Are they objecting to the illegality of the presence of these people? Or are they complaining about their presence itself?

I've done this a few times. Each time the response was, "the illegality." I then explained that the law distinguishes between crimes constituting serious moral wrongs, and crimes that are solely the product of regulation. The former are called Malum In Se crimes. The latter are called Malum Prohibitum crimes

Murder, rape, and robbery are examples of Malum in se crimes. Malum prohibitum crimes, to the contrary, are crimes in which there is no intrinsic wrong being done, but society nonetheless feels it has an interest in regulating. Immigration - or emmigration for that matter - is precisely such a phenomenon. There's no better example of a malum prohibitum crime than an immigration violation. It is not morally problematic for people to move around. But we, for sound public policy purposes, need to keep track of where people are. So we regulate and keep track - as best we can.

Normally, non-violators don't get too worked up about malum prohibitum violations - "just pay your fine and get on with your life" is the general attitude. And that, in fact, has been proposed as a solution for illegal immigrants to become legal immigrants. But immigration is very different for millions of people, including the two I spoke with. They consider it a very serious offense - even when I explained that it was not.

The reason for this is obvious - their real objection is the presence of these people. They don't want them here.

Remarkably, the two people I talked to did not see themselves as wanting to keep people out, at all! They did not recognize the source for their strong feelings about the topic. That's because we've allowed them to talk about "illegal immigrants." Collapsing the two concepts into one classification allowed them to express their latent hostility as moral outrage regarding the importance of obeying the law. And it allowed them to do this without noticing what they were doing.

Well, no more! Enough with the "illegal immigrants" argument. I want people to break it down for me.

Joe H.

Update: My wife disagrees with my analysis. She noted that she does not want to keep different kinds of people out - Hawaii is the most intergrated mixed race place in the United States. People here don't think much about racial and/or ethic differences - which is admirable. Her position is that it is unfair to allow those who came in illegally to stay, while those who followed the rules and attempted to enter legally are kept out.

That's a fair point - but I'm hard pressed to think that justice for the law abiding foriegner is on many people's minds when they complain about illegal immigration.

Glen Beck is no Jon Stewart

Finally, someone with the talent to illustrate what a nut Glen Beck is. Comedy is wonderful. This is one of the funniest things I've seen in quite awhile. Thank you Jon Stewart.

Joe H.

U.S. Officials are Now Free to Torture - With Impunity - UPDATE

This is a pretty sad day in America. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a Federal District Judge's ruling that Canadian citizen Maher Arar cannot sue our Federal officials for abducting him and rendering him to Syria FOR THE PURPOSE of being tortured. Yes, I said that right - we sent him there for the purpose of having him tortured.

The Court said that the State Secrets privilege precludes all such suits - even in cases where, as this one, all of the relevant details are already public knowledge because Canada, a mature democracy, made public the findings of its official investigation and paid Arar $9 million dollars compensation for its role in the incident. The only purpose for upholding the so called privilege now is protecting war criminals.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

What kind of nation have we become? What kind of judges do we have? The dissent, by the way, is appropriately scathing. Cold comfort to those who endured torture.

Greenwald has an excellent piece on this as well.

My heart aches.

Joe H.

UPDATE

It is always dangerous to trust headlines. It turns out that the Court dismissed Arar's suit on other (equally noxious) grounds. Arar had stated what's known as a "Bevins" claim. A Bevins claim is a court created cause of action allowing tort victims to sue government officials personally, for tortious acts performed under the color of law.

Bevins claims are limited to a very few circumstances, and Courts are reluctant to extend them to new circumstances, particularly when the new circumstances implicate what the case law calls "complexities" - such as national security and international foreign policy. The Court argued that acknowledging a Bevin cause of action in a rendition case would insert the court into national security and foreign policy operations that are best left to the Executive.

Personally, given the facts of this case, I think the decision was horrific. The basic facts are that Arar was returning to his home in Canada from Tunisia. Acting on a tip from Canadian authorities that Arar was a member of Al Queda - a tip that turned out to be completely and utterly wrong - Arar was detained and mistreated by American authorities. Then, American officials working in the Justice Department and the White House arranged for Arar to be rendered to Syria - his place of birth - to be torture interrogated. Arar was then brutally tortured, with Americans participating indirectly, for months. Finally, he was released to a Canadian Consul and returned to Canada - a hollow shell of his former self.

Canadian officials subsequently conducted a full investigation, published a massive report making all of these facts public, apologized, and paid compensation.

Arar sued the American officials in Federal Court and was stymied at every turn. Read the stunning article for yourself. The misconduct of the American officials after the fact is breathtaking. And all of it was done to avoid legal and political accountability.

Warriors my ass. These men were cowards to the core. I am so ashamed that they represented me. I could puke.

And think about the Court's reasoning on the Bevin claim. The key fact of the case is that American officials conspired to send a person to a country for the express purpose of being tortured. If that isn't a violation of a person's 5th Amendment "Due Process" rights, what possibly could be? For the Court to refuse to extend the Bevins cause of action to these circumstances because they implicate national security and international relations complexities, is tantamount to the Court endorsing torture as a legitimate foreign policy option. Rendition is not the issue - the issue is a conspiracy to torture. How can allowing a suit to remedy a conspiracy to commit torture implicate any legitimate national security or foreign policy complexities, particularly when all the facts are already known.

Man have we lost our minds - and our souls.

Joe H.