A Brief Respite

With finals, and a busy summer coming up, I'm going to have to take some time off from this blog.

Frankly, it's a lot smaller and a lot less lucrative than the other site I run, so I'm going to try and just do the one thing right, at least for a little while.

I don't intend to close this site down, but it's going to be dead for a little while.

Apologies to those who actually enjoy the site.

Eddie Current on Fertilization

Maine Legalizes Gay Marriage

It's good news for the gay couples in Maine, as the governor has signed a bill legalizing same sex marriage in the state.

Interesting Stuff in the Times

I have sort of a busy day today, but there's some good stuff at the New York Times.

There's been a memo on the refusal to prosecute those responsible for torture circulated within the DoJ.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates goes to Saudi Arabia to seek aid in Pakistan. I always have mixed feelings about petitioning the Saudi's, given their domestic policy, but if they're willing to help us in Pakistan, it's a good move.

The Maine House of Representatives moves to legalize same sex marriage. That's excellent for gay couples in Maine, and it will probably start a tenth amendment conversation with respect to DOMA, but it should be an interesting debate as far as the constitutional issues go.

Also, on the conservative side of the spectrum, Townhall has an interesting quote from Harry Reid stating that he doesn't expect a GOP filibuster of the Obama nominee to replace Souter. It does make me wonder if he thinks this is going to wait until after Franken, or if he thinks that Republicans are going to avoid politicizing this to keep from looking like the "Party of NO."

U.S. Military and the Establishment Clause

It always seemed interesting to me that the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution was only ever applied to the Congress.

It seems obvious that the authors of the Constitution didn't foresee the use of Executive Orders, which act as an exploitation of the "executive power" clause that could have been much more specific.

That said, I'm curious what they might have thought of the military being used as a vessel for converting non-Christians in other countries.

I'm fairly certain that John Adams and Jefferson wouldn't have been particularly happy, but that's not really the point.

The point is where there is any legal action to be pursued against military personell for attempting to act as religious spokespeople while conducting business for the United States government.

Since there's no act of Congress involved here, it's hard for me to say that there has been a clear cut Constitutional violation.

Still, it's worth remembering Tripoli, which (like this military action) isn't blatantly subject to the Establishment Clause.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of [Islam]; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Of course, this is simple a statement that the United States will not enter into holy wars (which I think is a nice sentiment). The first part is what I think is important.

Obviously, as the United States government grants freedom of religion to all of its citizens, servicemen included, there can be no restriction placed on the practice of religion by servicemen.

My frustration with the notion of "converting the heathen" aside, there is a pretty serious diplomatic issue here.

In the uniform code, there's a provision which stipulates that active military personal cannot attempt to religiously convert another person.

This seems to be the core violation here.

I bring up the Constitutional issue because, unfortunately, I don't think that it exists. Former Prime Minister Ahmed Shah Ahmedzai seems to think there is one, but I don't see that argument either way.

That said, the Constitutional argument, in this case, in unnecessary. There should be court marshals issued to those servicemen who violated the military code of conduct, and punished accordingly.

Since this isn't a civilian issue, I don't see the legislature or the judiciary intervening, though they may feel the need to wag fingers or (in the case of the Christian right) protest the oppression of Christians in the military, but they really have no place in a military court, and they know that.

It's an interesting issue, though, and I'm curious to see how the military handles it, if we find out.

Fed Investigates John Edwards' Campaign

The Federal government has started an investigation into the campaign of John Edwards to see if money from his campaign was used to keep his affair quiet.

It's the first time I think the National Enquirer has broken a serious political story.

It's an interesting story and lends credence to my general dislike of Edwards, though I have to admit that the dislike wasn't really rational, just a personality issue.

Funny or Die on Gay Marriage

Yeah, they're really, really liberal, but I thought this was pretty entertaining.

A Gaythering Storm from Jane Lynch

Wait, What? with Michael Savage

I ran across this quote from Savage in 2004 and, just so I'm not accused of taking this out of context, the conversation is a discussion of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission and though it seems that, for a moment, he steps out and bashes human rights in general, I almost want to pretend he's talking strictly about gay rights, as that would add some credence to his bit.

"When you hear 'human rights,' think gays. When you hear 'human rights,' think only one thing: someone who wants to rape your son. ... When you hear 'human rights,' think only someone who wants to molest your son, and send you to jail if you defend him. Write that down, make a note of it."

Firstly, the connection of gays to child molestation is an old and played out line that the religious right uses.

Man-boy pedophilia is a disgusting crime, but to pretend that gay rights activists, should they get marriage rights, are going devolve into NAMBLA is a pretty vicious ad hominem with no basis.

Now, I'm not sure how Savage makes the leap from gay rights to the Nazi's (lets not forget that homosexuals were one of the groups that Hitler wanted to destroy, despite the recent discovery of how many closeted homosexuals were in the high command of Hitler's leadership), I don't get the jump from homosexuality to child-rape.

Savage might argue that it happens within the gay community, but that's a load of crap. Many married, heterosexual men commit sexual assault on minors (male and female). Many priests, thought to be abstinent, commit child molestation.

Are we going to outlaw being gay, married or celibate?

No.

The central note here is that repression of a social group cannot be justified by a social stigma perceived as a part of their lifestyle, especially when we acknowledge that the acts we're talking about supersede that social group.

Michael Savage is a shock jock, more so than Rush Limbaugh or Hannity or O'Reilly, in my opinion (though perhaps only because I grew up hearing about him, since he was local). Still, I expect a shock jock to at least shock me with things that make sense, not with mental gymnastics.

Why the Religion-Torture Poll Isn't that Significant

There are a lot of people who are very surprised at the latest poll that connects regular churchgoing to support of torture under certain circumstances.

As someone who understands the potential connection, and was awfully tempted to make it myself. The problem is that the survey's not really conclusive.

The sample size for regular churchgoing individuals is 336, and the number posted in the top two boxes is 54%.

Now, 54% is a majority, and a majority like that is a big thing in politics, especially when compared to the 42% of non-churchgoers (sample size of 168).

The problem is, people forget about the political component here.

Irreligious individuals (obviously, with exceptions, but I'm speaking in generalities) tend to be left leaning.

The heavily religious often sway towards the right, and have been pulled there more and more heavily over the last few decades.

Of course, these are generalities, but even a mild conservative pull among religious individuals could explain the trending towards support of torture.

Now, the liberal tendencies of non-churchgoers could also be used to explain the lack of support for torture, but I think that, in that respect, the off-put needs to be recognized as a little stronger.

Apart from the fact that I don't like polling data very much, especially when I look at the pool size, this trending doesn't seem surprising or significant.

If the number was 70%, I'd tilt my head and make a joke about the inquisition, but it's not. It's 52%, which means that almost half of the pews are filled with people who oppose torture. That's not surprising, and it's not significant.

49% of the U.S., according to this poll, falls into those top two boxes. Why is it shocking that there's a slight increase in the highly-religious population (and 3% is slight)?

It just seems like stretching nothing to me.