NYT: Advocating Frustration of Democracy

Senator Frist Approaches the Brink

Of all the hollow arguments Senate Republicans have made in their attempt to scrap the opposition's right to have a say on President Bush's judicial nominees, the one that's most hypocritical insists that history is on their side in demanding a "simple up-or-down vote" on the Senate floor. Republicans and Democrats have used a variety of tactics, from filibuster threats to stealthy committee inaction on individual nominations, in blocking hundreds of presidential appointments across history, including about one in five Supreme Court nominees. This is all part of the Senate's time-honored deliberative role and of its protection of minority rights, which Republican leaders would now desecrate in overreaching from their majority perch.

Republican majorities blocked more than 60 judicial candidates during the Clinton administration by denying them committee hearings through the use of anonymous "blue slip" holds by individual lawmakers and a variety of other tactics just as effective, if less visible, than the filibuster. The majority leader, Bill Frist, who is zealously planning to smash the Senate rules, took part himself in a filibuster of a Clinton appeals court nominee.

Questions:

1. What did the NYT say about the Democrats previous move, in 1995, to do away with all filibusters, including legislative? What did they say when Republicans used the filibuster? "... the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, . . . an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose." New York Times editorial 1-1-95, "Time to Retire the Filibuster." The NYT will certainly change its stance yet again if the Democrats are ever in power again.

As I've said, I hope these moderate Republicans remember what the Democrats tried to do in the past, egged on by the MSM, and aren't fooled into thinking they will respect so-called "time honored tradition" in the future.

2. If both Republicans and Democrats have used a variety of tactics to block presidential appointments in the past, many of them, such as the "blue slip," just as effective as the filibuster, then why are the Democrats going berserk about the filibuster? Why don't they just use their other "just as effective" tactics?

Obviously these other tactics are not as effective. The Democrats cannot actually win a majority or persuade the majority through rational argument and influence; they want to reserve for themselves the ability to block what they cannot accomplish otherwise. This is an admission of bankruptcy.

3. What deliberative role is the New York Times talking about? Harry Reid has already declared that the Democrats will not accept 100 hours of debate, or "any" amount of debate on nominees. Debate and deliberation are obviously not their goal. The Democrats are trying to block all public deliberation. All we've seen, and will see, on the Democrat's side is McCarthyite character assassination.

4. Is the NYT really so undiscerning as to not understand the difference between a filibuster threat by a few Senators, including Frist in the Paez case, and a systematic, party-enforced, actual, indefinite filibuster triggered entirely by opposition to judicial philosophy --- and probably religious belief?

The New York Times compounds their hypocrisy by accusing others of it.

In September the New York Times is going to start charging people $49 to read their editorial pages on-line. Whose idea was that?

Sex and Montgomery County

Another very well-written article in the Weekly Standard, this time on the sex-ed curriculum in Montgomery County, Sex and the County:

An advisory committee was put together in November 2002 to recommend a new program of 'health education' dealing with 'sexual variation.' The program, when it was finally written, reflected the liberal orthodoxy of the education establishment. With the claim to teach in an authoritative way about health and sex, the program put forth a series of 'myths' to be corrected with 'facts.' But the myths were not all mythical, nor the facts all factual. And the authors could not restrain themselves from pronouncing on the moral dimness of people holding opposing views, including the theological backwardness of those religions that continue to honor the tradition of Jewish and Christian teaching on these matters.

(I forget whether this requires a subscription -- some of their articles do; others don't.)

One of the most alarming aspects of this controversy is the poor quality of theological reasoning this advisory committee endorsed. For example, the teacher resource materials argues for moral equivalence of heterosexuality and homosexuality in the Bible by pointing out that there are many heterosexual practices the Bible condemns as abominations: rape, incest, etc. The obvious reply to this is that the Bible never condemns heterosexuality per se, but it does homosexuality.

The Scariest Nominee

Excellent story at National Review Online, Peter Kirsanow on Janice Rogers Brown:

To Democrats, Janice Rogers Brown is the scariest nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the history of the republic. Since her nomination nearly two years ago, she has been the subject of the most vitriolic and persistent attacks ever leveled against a nominee to the federal bench other than Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.

The black sharecropper's daughter, born in segregated Alabama, has been excoriated as a closet member of the Ku Klux Klan who, at least according to the Senate minority leader, would like nothing better than to return America to 'Civil War days.' Left-leaning political cartoonists depict her as an Aunt Jemima on steroids, complete with exaggerated physical features typically found only in the racist literature distributed by hate groups. ...

... What's driving the hysteria? Three things: demographics, abortion (more specifically, the doctrinal approach that produced Roe v. Wade), and impending Supreme Court vacancies.

As Professor Steven Calabresi of Northwestern University Law School has noted, Democrats are determined 'not to allow any-more conservative African-Americans, Hispanics, women or Catholics to be groomed for nomination to the High Court with court of appeals appointments.'

Democrats are afraid of diluting their appeal to their base. The more conservative African-American, Hispanics, women, and Catholics there are, the less credible the Democrats' claim to exclusively represent their political and economic interests.

NARAL and Mud Slinger Reid Finding Dirt Together

A story by Robert Novak on RealClearPolitics.com: Probing Judges

He[Mike Rice] and Craig Varoga, a former aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, are partners in a California political consulting firm. Their May 5 petition requested financial information on 30 appellate judges in all but one of the country's judicial circuits, including nine widely mentioned Supreme Court possibilities. Varoga & Rice's client: NARAL Pro-Choice America.

One of the appellate judges who learned that his financial records were sought by a Democratic political consulting firm told a friend that he felt violated by this political intrusion. He did not know that the firm's client was NARAL.

The abortion advocacy group surely was not asking the judges' views on abortion. Nancy Keenan, who has been NARAL's president some five months, told this column her organization is concerned about "out of touch theological activists" becoming judges. Why seek financial information from them? She said the disclosure information might help identify the "character" of judicial nominees.

How can anyone really claim these judicial nominees aren't being targeted for their religious beliefs? Reid's front organization, funded by NARAL, is clearly looking for financial information to disguise a religious test of judicial nominees.

Fineman: Ready to Blow

Politics: Ready to Blow - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com

Newsweek's Howard Fineman likes to portray himself as politically neutral. However, isn't it suspicious that he hangs the outcome of the coming filibuster showdown on a few Republican moderates? Not once does he contemplate the suggestion that the Democrats, who have violated over 200 years of Senate tradition, moderate their stance. There is not a single allusion to a "Democratic moderate" in his article, despite the heading of his article: "a few moderates hope for middle ground." Never in the history of the Senate -- with the exception of Fortas, who had ethical problems, and who opposed by both parties -- have judicial nominees been filibustered. This is the historically extremist position.

I do not believe any compromise is in order because a compromise legitimates an extremist negotiation starting point. By far the most desirable solution, one that everyone looking at the long term would agree on, would be no change to the Senate rules so long as the Democrats restore Senate tradition and quit filibustering judicial nominees. They would have to acknowledge that they have abused Senate rules and violated Senate tradition. They would also have to offer some guarantee that they would not violate their agreement.

However, the Democrats cannot offer any credible guarantee. And so, reluctantly, Senate Republicans must write honorable tradition into the Senate rules. The tradition has been not to filibuster judicial nominees, the change to Senate rules will only apply to this situation. Sen. Frist's proposal does not apply to the legislative filibuster.

Why can't the Democrats offer a credible guarantee?

The Democrats have a history of trying to destroy the filibuster when in power. The argument that someday Republicans will be in the minority and will need the protections of the filibuster assumes too much. If the Democrats ever do get back into power again, what will stop them from changing the Senate rules in their favor? The memory of Republican restraint? I doubt it!

Sen. Robert Byrd led the creation of precedents in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 to stop filibusters. In 1995, nine current Democratic senators sought to put an end to all filibusters, even legislative, a step much more radical than anything contemplated here. Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Sarbanes have already displayed a readiness to bend their principles as politically expedient. They have betrayed a willingness to take extreme positions in the past. What credible guarantee can they offer that they will not do it again?

It is far more reasonable to think they will change the Senate rules in their favor as soon as they get the chance than to think they will respond in kind to a "moderate" concession.

Also, the Democrats are led by a man who does not respect existing Senate rules with respect to confidential files, illegally characterizes these FBI files, and ignores a memorandum of understanding with the White House on treatment of nominees. What guarantee can there be that this man will suddenly learn integrity and keep his word?

No. For these reasons I support Frist's action and hope he presses on with it:

1) It codifies what was the Senate tradition until Democratic extremists highjacked the process.
2) A compromise would legitimate an illegitimate negotiation starting point.
3) The Democrats are much more likely to change the rules themselves in the future than to respect a concession today. Fineman couldn't find a single Democratic moderate.
4) The Democratic leader won't adhere to any agreement anyway.

Diplomatic (I Hate Republicans and Everything They Stand For) Dean Does it Again

Boston.com: Dean rips DeLay at convention:

"Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Party, said yesterday that the US House majority leader, Tom DeLay, ''ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence,' referring to allegations of unethical conduct against the Republican leader."

With models of civility like Dean around, I can really see why people think it's the Republicans who have lost the art of civil discourse,

How did this man get this job? He was the governor of a tiny little state with a population of about 630,000 people. The mayor of a large city has greater responsibility. He, obviously, didn't even have to learn any self-control to do the job.

Is there a web site anywhere keeping track of Dean's stupid statements?

Reid's Self-Defense

At Center of Senate Showdown, a Boxer Takes On a Surgeon - New York Times:

"On Friday night, the Justice Department sent a letter to Mr. Reid, Dr. Frist and other senators expressing concerns about his disclosure of the F.B.I. report. Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, called the letter a 'ridiculous partisan attack,' noting that the existence of the report had been public for nearly a year."

How stupid does Reid think we are? There is a confidential FBI file on every nominee. Everyone knows that.

He didn't violate Senate rules by disclosing the mere existence of a file, he characterized its contents. He claimed that there was a "problem" dcumented in the file bad enough to disqualify Saad. But, since access to these files is severely restricted, and those who do have legitimate access (not Reid) are prohibited from divulging anything included in the file, his McCarthyite accusation cannot be answered.

This man has no shame! His previous defense was that Sen. Patrick Leahy also disclosed confidential information. Well that's good. That's the new I-had-an-accomplice defense. We both did it, therefore, neither of us is guilty.

Was Reid really a boxer or just a mud slinger?

More Leahy Hypocrisy

Time to vote on Justice Owen:

"Immediately, Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer and Patrick Leahy, (Mr. Leahy would become chairman of the Judiciary Committee when Democrats gained majority power in the Senate three months later) wrote to President Bush, stating: 'We firmly believe that ending the long-established practice of ABA review would dilute the quality of the federal bench. The process of judicial selection needs more information about the competence and integrity of potential nominees, not less.'

Senate Democrats resuscitated the ABA's role, with Mr. Leahy stating that he regarded the group's evaluation as 'the gold standard' for evaluating judges. Shortly after the nomination of Justice Owen, the ABA unanimously gave her its highest rating of 'well-qualified.'

But in September 2002, when committee Democrats finally got around to voting on the Owen nomination, it was rejected on a 10-9 party-line vote. Justice Owen thus became the first nominee in history who received a unanimous, 'well-qualified' rating by the 'gold-standard' ABA to be denied a floor vote by the Judiciary Committee. Having been endorsed by Georgia Democratic Sen. Zell Miller, she would almost certainly have won confirmation on the Senate floor. "

Editorial from the Washington Times.

90th Anniversary of Genocide in Armenia

This is one of the most shameful events in human history, and in American policy. It is too little known.

A promising start? - The Washington Times: Commentary - May 15, 2005:

"Also, we witness the dangerous temptation of modern-day Turkish officials to present the extermination of the Ottoman Empire's Armenian population as a result of World War I. We want to remind all that it was the exact hope, argument and calculation of the perpetrators that the massacres and deportations of Armenians would pass unnoticed under the cover of World War I. Neither war nor anything else can explain or justify the murder of 1.5 million innocent Armenian children, women, and men in the Ottoman Turkey. "

Its history can be found in A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide

WaPo Story on Montgomery County Sex-Ed Curriculum

This is an interesting story given the lengthy exchange I had with a commenter on the Montgomery County Public School sex-ed curriculum. Anonymous assured me that the judge disposing of this case had been confused and that all the clearly anti-Baptist, theologically revisionist material cited in the judges opinion was always just teacher resource material, never intended to be used in the classroom. This story supports Anonymous's contention. Committee Reassesses Sex-Ed Decisions:

"Rather, the program was undone by a packet of teacher resource materials that few on the committee thought would draw notice or objections and that students would not likely see.

But members of two groups that opposed changes in the course ... saw big problems with the supporting materials. They feared that the viewpoints expressed in the pieces -- articles that in some cases singled out religious denominations less tolerant of homosexuality, such as Baptists -- inevitably would slip into the classroom. A federal judge agreed.

'The Court does not understand why it is necessary, in attempting to achieve the goals of advocating tolerance and providing health-related information, Defendants must offer up their opinion on such controversial topics as whether homosexuality is a sin, whether AIDS is God's judgment on homosexuality and whether churches that condemn homosexuality are on theologically solid ground,' wrote Judge Alexander Williams Jr. in granting the groups' request for a temporary restraining order to prevent school officials from launching the new curriculum in six schools.

Montgomery County school officials, citing ongoing litigation, have declined to discuss anything related to the sex education curriculum, including the process by which the committee selected the teacher resource materials.

But members of the Citizens' Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development have offered their accounts.

Fishback said committee members had not anticipated problems with the resource materials because the documents were for teacher reference and were not likely to be distributed to students.

In January 2004, committee members approved the teacher resource materials for eighth grade on a vote of 13 to 1, with five abstentions. That May, teacher resource materials for 10th grade were recommended on a vote of 10 to 4, with three abstentions."

However, this still raises several questions:

1) Why did the committee think it so important to propagate such vehemently anti-conservative-Christian propaganda among teachers? Even if the resources were meant only for the teachers, it is extremely one-sided, it spreads theological revisionism of the worst kind, slurs the Baptist denomination and endorses other gay-friendly denominations by name, and bases fact/myth comparisons on gay and lesbian advocacy materials. According to this story, the committee voted explicity on the teacher resource material. Apparently this is the material the committee wanted the teachers to use. My Anonymous commenter suggested that it was to expose teachers to materials on this very complex subject, but, again if that were the goal wouldn't the committee have included materials that disputed these anti-Christian claims?

2) What would teachers draw on for actual in-classroom use if not the teacher resource material overwhelmingly endorsed by the committee -- especially when the teacher resource material was clearly selected to achieve the explicit instructional objectives of the curriculum? Among the teacher resource materials was a link to lesson plans. They included handout materials and suggested discussion starters. The supposedly more innocuous curriculum itself is merely an outline. It is not credible to think the teacher charged with examining the influence of religious beliefs on generalizations and stereotypes of homosexuals would not make use of the teacher resources addressing these very issues. It is not credible to think that the teacher charged with examining myths versus facts about homosexuality would ignore the myths versus facts handouts included among the teacher resource materials.

3) What research did this committee do to select these teacher resource materials? They seemed quick to reject ex-gay material as unscientific, yet endorsed as authoritative blatantly one-sided propaganda. For example, their resource material cites without question John Boswell's self-justifying historically revisionist arguments about homosexuality within the Catholic church.

I think the judge got it right. This committee endorsed propaganda for teachers who would, in turn, take it into the classroom.

Doubting Rationalist

Interesting story on Philip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, in the Style section of the Washington Post, today: Doubting Rationalist

Justice Dept. Enters Court Nominee Fight

The AP's headline betrays their usual bias, as though the Department of Justice has no real business making sure Senators keep confidential FBI files confidential. But, it still points out just how serious Reid's mud-slinging is.

Justice Dept. Enters Court Nominee Fight - Yahoo! News: "WASHINGTON - The Justice Department is edging into the Senate controversy over judicial nominees, writing key lawmakers after Democratic Leader Harry Reid publicly referred to an FBI file on one of President Bush's controversial appointees.

'The letter expressed concern about recent remarks on the floor of the Senate which alluded to an FBI background investigation file provided by the Department of Justice to the Senate Judiciary Committee on a confidential basis in connection with a judicial nomination,' a department official said Friday night."

It Is About Religious Belief

From today's Washington Post:

It Is About Religious Belief: "Well, I agree with the president that some Democratic senators have targeted the judicial philosophy of the nominees. But that judicial philosophy has been scrutinized and scorned in several cases precisely because of the nominee's belief system or faith -- not because of his or her record. After all, it was Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) -- not the Family Research Council -- who launched an inquiry into one key nominee's 'deeply held personal beliefs.' Schumer didn't challenge the nominee's 'deeply held judicial philosophy,' but rather his beliefs.


And what were those personal beliefs? In the case of former Alabama attorney general William Pryor, as with other filibustered nominees, it appears that it was the nominee's personal views on abortion, homosexuality and other matters on which Catholic and evangelical churches have clear positions that are contrary to those of liberal Democrats and their allies. "

Standing Rules of the Senate

U.S. Senate: Standing Rules of the Senate:

Section 29 Executive Sessions 5. Any Senator, officer, or employee of the Senate who shall disclose the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate, including the business and proceedings of the committees, subcommittees, and offices of the Senate, shall be liable, if a Senator, to suffer expulsion from the body; and if an officer or employee, to dismissal from the service of the Senate, and to punishment for contempt.

Why is Harry Reid exempt from this?

His defense seems to be that Sen. Patrick Leahy previously made the same sort of statement, even referring to an email contained in the file. This is no defense. The only difference is that Leahy, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, had legitimate access to the file. Both divulged the contents of this confidential file in violation of Senate Rules. Harry Reid's defense is that he's following Leahy's unconscionable smear. Is this a new defense, "I have an accomplice?"

The Washington Post said today that there still might be place for a compromise agreement after debate on Priscilla Owen's nomination begins on the floor. Given this recent performance, why would anyone be foolish enough to trust Reid, et. al. to keep an agreement?

Senate Republicans to Open Filibuster War Next Week

It's about time!

Senate Republicans to Open Filibuster War Next Week - New York Times

Bench Memos on National Review Online

Bench Memos: "People forget this, but two of the original eleven were judges originally nominated by President Clinton: Roger Gregory and Barrington Parker. In the case of Judge Gregory, it was the first time in history that a president had re-nominated a failed circuit-court nominee originally nominated by his predecessor from the other political party. This was unprecedented and highly significant, and it was intended to send a message. It was an olive branch. The president highlighted it in his speech that day, asking the Senate to move beyond the bitterness of the past in the judicial wars and to start afresh in a spirit of cooperation and good faith.

The Democrats took the olive branch the president extended and slapped him in the face with it. They immediately held hearings for, and confirmed, the two Democrats among the nominees and then held up the rest, refusing even to hold hearings for a long time on most of them. They then complained incessantly (and, for the most part, falsely) about not having been adequately consulted by the White House with regard to these nominations. And they executed the play suggested by Professor Tribe, Marcia Greenberger, and others at a Democratic strategy session on how to block Bush judicial nominations — a session held before the president had even taken office — when they scheduled hearings under Senator Schumer to try to legitimize the notion that judicial nominations could be blocked on ideological, rather than competence grounds.

This sent the strongest possible message to those of us in the White House that there was no interest at all in cooperation or good faith from the Democratic side"

Byron York on Harry Reid & Judges

Byron York has a story that sheds light on what may be in Saad's file. Sen. Patrick Leahy hinted at it in 2004. Leahy, of course, is among the slimiest of them all. I still remember when Leahy accused Bork of greed when Bork was taking almost every speaking engagement he could to pay for treatments for his severely ill wife. Byron York on Harry Reid & Judges on National Review Online

Nuclear? No, Restoration

Great editorial by Charles Krauthammer today:Nuclear? No, Restoration

Democrats are calling Frist's maneuver an assault on the very essence of the Senate, a body distinguished by its insistence on tradition, custom and unwritten rules.

This claim is a comical inversion of the facts. One of the great traditions, customs and unwritten rules of the Senate is that you do not filibuster judicial nominees. You certainly do not filibuster judicial nominees who would otherwise win an up-or-down vote. And you surely do not filibuster judicial nominees in a systematic campaign to deny a president and a majority of the Senate their choice of judges. That is historically unprecedented.

The Democrats have unilaterally shattered one of the longest-running traditions in parliamentary history worldwide. They are not to be rewarded with a deal. They must either stop or be stopped by a simple change of Senate procedure that would do nothing more than take a 200-year-old unwritten rule and make it written.

What are we waiting for, Senator Frist?

Question of the Day

Just to repeat from my post below:

If Sen. Reid will illegally characterize the contents of confidential FBI files, violate Senate rules, and ignore the Senate's memorandum of understanding with the White House in order to trash a nominee's character with vague McCarthyite accusations, why would Frist believe he will adhere to any so-called compromise agreement they might work out? Hasn't he proved dramatically that he would not respect any agreement?

Reid's Latest

Reid cites FBI file on judicial pick:

"Minority Leader Harry Reid strayed from his prepared remarks on the Senate floor yesterday and promised to continue opposing one of President Bush's judicial nominees based on 'a problem' he said is in the nominee's 'confidential report from the FBI.'
Those highly confidential reports are filed on all judicial nominees, and severe sanctions apply to anyone who discloses their contents. Less clear is whether a senator could face sanctions for characterizing the content of such files.
'Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway,' Mr. Reid said on the floor yesterday, about the Michigan Appeals Court judge who is nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
'All you need to do is have a member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI, and I think we would all agree that there is a problem there,' Mr. Reid continued.
Republican staff members and supporters of Mr. Bush's nominees were outraged.
'Can you think of a better way to trash someone's reputation?' "

Let's recap:

Access to FBI confidential files on nominees is restricted to senators on the Judiciary Committee and senators from the nominee's home state. Reid is neither. So either he is lying about having looked at the file, or he has violated Senate rules and the Memorandum of Understanding the Senate has with the White House.

If he is lying, which is likely, then he has engaged in deliberate character assassination with the knowledge that no one can respond without violating the confidentiality of the file. Even Saad himself is not allowed to know what's in the file. So, neither he nor anyone else can defend him from Reid's sneaky charge.

Whether he is lying or not, the Senate ought to take at face value Reid's admission of violating Senate rules, illegally divulging confidential information, and trashing the Memorandum of Understanding with the White House.

Senator Frist had better recognize that a bloc led by this senator will not respect any so-called compromise agreement they make. It's time to quit talking Senator Frist and go nuclear!

Agents and Ambassadors

From an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal, subscription required WSJ.com - Agents and Ambassadors:

"Which brings us back to Mr. Bolton. In its wisdom, the Foreign Relations Committee could not bring itself to endorse the nominee: Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski, whose state is within range of North Korean missiles, complained the nominee had made 'inflammatory' comments about that nation. And Ohio Republican George Voinovich described Mr. Bolton as 'the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be.'

The same could be said about Mr. Voinovich, who didn't bother to show up to the initial hearings for Mr. Bolton. But leave that aside. Given what we have learned from the Senate subcommittee about the U.N., to say nothing of Paul Volcker's independent inquiry, just what qualities does a U.N. Ambassador need?

Here's a thought: The Oil for Food scandal is not just the product of Saddam's manipulations, or of the corruptibility of a few officials. Rather, it is what happens when America's diplomats choose to 'be diplomatic,' to speak softly, to defer to the U.N. consensus.

Mr. Voinovich may think we need more of the same. But we are reminded of the words of another Senator, who also knew something about the U.N. 'It is time that the American spokesman came to be feared in international forums for the truths he might tell.' That was Pat Moynihan, writing in Commentary in 1975, and John Bolton is his heir."

There are many of us who have been newly engaged in the political process because of Bush's foreign policy. Voters turned out in unprecedented numbers to declare their support for Bush, and to repudiate the "global test" thinking of Kerry and his fellow-multilateralists. We do not believe the U.S. ought to defer to a corrupt U.N. And, if the U.N. is going to mean anything it must be reformed.

Anyone who watched these Bolton hearings immediately realized this wasn't about Bolton. The Democrats voiced all the same talking points against Bolton they did against Bush. They're upset with his policies. Even Colin Powell's qualms about Bolton clearly reduces to a policy dispute. For a man like Biden, who admittedly smiles while ruinning the careers of his opponents spreading unfounded lies about them, to smear Bolton for being passionate and "hotheaded" is wild inversion.

Now, Voinovich is mouthing the Democrats' talking points against Bush foreign policy and its representative. Remember: this is a man who didn't even bother to show up for the hearings!

CBS Lies Again

So, CBS lied again. Here's Ken Starr's public email about CBS's claim that he is opposing the Republican's constitutional option on filibusters:

"In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather is being lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure' snippet was specifically addressed -- although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip -- to the practice of invoking judicial philosopy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice . . . with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process, as numerous Republicans voted (rightly) to confirm a former ACLU staff lawyer. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer, but they voted (again, rightly) to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences. . . . In the interview, I did indeed suggest, and have suggested elsewhere, that caution and prudence be exercised (Burkean that I am) in shifting/modifying rules (that's the second snippet), but I likewise made clear that the 'filibuster' represents an entirely new use (and misuse) of a venerable tradition. . . .

"[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said."

MCPS

Update:

The Volokh Conspiracy has a post on the Montgomery County Public School sex-ed class.

HughHewitt.com

Great line from Hugh Hewitt yesterday on Charles Schumer's silliness

HughHewitt.com:

"At what point does Old Media bother to tell the country that Senator Schumer has the credibility of a carnival barker on this issue, but lacks the manners of that profession?"

Law and Behavioral Biology

I just downloaded this article from the Columbia Law Review. I don't know yet what it contains, but the abstract is interesting. This is the most urgent area of research for anyone interested in theology: the implications of recent developments in the biological basis of behavior.

SSRN-Law and Behavioral Biology by Owen Jones, Timothy Goldsmith: "Society uses law to encourage people to behave differently than they would behave in the absence of law. This fundamental purpose makes law highly dependent on sound understandings of the multiple causes of human behavior. The better those understandings, the better law can achieve social goals with legal tools. In this Article, Professors Jones and Goldsmith argue that many long held understandings about where behavior comes from are rapidly obsolescing as a consequence of developments in the various fields constituting behavioral biology. By helping to refine law's understandings of behavior's causes, they argue, behavioral biology can help to improve law's effectiveness and efficiency.

Part I examines how and why law and behavioral biology are connected. Part II provides an introduction to key concepts in behavioral biology. Part III identifies, explores, and illustrates a wide variety of contexts in which behavioral biology can be useful to law. Part IV addresses concerns that sometimes arise when considering biological influences on human behavior."

Phil Bredesen Blogging Governor, State of Tennessee

Phil Bredesen Governor, State of Tennessee, has started a blog.

This will be worth monitoring, for several reasons:

1) Gov. Bredesen will probably be a Democratic candidate for President in 2008. In my opinion a very good one. It should be interesting to watch what position he takes on issues during the next couple years.

2) Bredesen has had to take the lead in dealing with many fiscal issues facing other governors. He inherited a terrible mess with Tennessee's state Medicaid program, TennCare. On paper, TennCare's mission is admirable and urgent. And, Bredesen is able to make the tough decisions. He knows what he needs to do. But his hands have been tied, especially in dealing with pharmacy costs. TennCare is a noble experiment that ran into too many advocacy groups to succeed. The Medicaid issue has become urgent in many states. As structured today, it is a fiscal albatross.

The posturing of the New York Times, has been predictable. They've already run several stories about Bush's "$10 billion cut in Medicaid spending." This is irresponsible nonsense. Bush has proposed a $2.5 billion reduction in the automatic annual increase of $30 billion per year for four years. So, he's proposing a cut from an automatic 15% increase to a 13.75% increase. (Of course, Bush's proposal affects the federal side of the Medicaid program. The problems are more acute in the states.)

3) Bredesen is a moderate who appeals to red-state-types and blue-state-types, partially because he is a very effective communicator. He seems to be wildly popular in Tennessee. (I'm judging on the basis of a couple very brief visits.) I expect he'll bring that to his blog.

Connecticut Papers Reporting on Church Decisions

I do not have standing within the Catholic Church nor within the Episcopalian Church. I am not a member of either. Therefore, I avoid commenting on these churches internal decisions re: governance. However, Connecticut papers feel no such qualms, and, I am free to comment on their reporting.

The Hartford Courant's story, Under Fire, Jesuit Editor Leaving, celebrates the independence of the editor of the Jesuit weekly magazine, lamenting the newly oppressive imposition of hierarchical authority.

At the same time, the Waterbury Republican-American, carried an article about six Episcopalian priests who are facing a crisis of conscience because of their Bishop's stance on gay marriage. They, of course, are not called independent, intellectually vigorous thinkers. Instead they are rebels being influenced by out-of-state rabble-rousers.

Again, I have no standing within either of these two churches, but the juxtaposition of these two stories is striking. Why do these papers, who have less standing than I do -- I, at least, am now a seminarian -- feel so free to add their evaluative commentary to straight new reporting?

A setback for Rockville's sexperts

The Washington Times has an editorial today on the Montgomery County Public School sex-ed program. It cites many of the same portions of the judge's memorandum I did, but also includes a comment about the appeal to Kinsey's science. The Washington Times: Editorials - May 09, 2005

Edward Feser's article in the March issue of City Journal exposes the flaws in Kinsey's science, a task more necessary because of Hollywood's recent depictions of him.

Notoriously, he derived his “sexual histories” largely from persons on the fringes of society—prison inmates and the denizens of gay bars, the latter being in the 1940s and fifties much farther outside the mainstream of American life than they are now.

Then there’s Kinsey’s strange fascination with pedophiles, with the horrific data on the frequency of orgasms in infants and children he derived from interviewing child molesters blandly recorded in his volumes alongside the more ordinary perversions. One particularly monstrous pedophile, a man who had sexual relations with various of his family members and molested hundreds of children, kept regular contact with Kinsey and his associates. They assured him that they wouldn’t turn him in to the authorities, despite the fact that he continued to molest children throughout the time of their correspondence. Kinsey justified such aiding and abetting of criminality in the name of “science,” of course.
...
All of this would be bad enough if Kinsey’s work merely sought to convey some unusual facts and figures. But of course, Kinsey took that work, and his admirers still take it, to have far greater significance. In their view, it amounts to nothing less than a refutation of traditional sexual morality. Kinsey had shown—or so he claimed—that adulterers, homosexuals, and pederasts were as common as rain. How could anyone ever again regard such behavior as abnormal?

One of my previous commenters says the judge was confused: the Revised Curriculum provides these references for teacher use only. However, even if that is true one has to wonder about the quality of this curriculum. The references it cites were entirely one-sided and includes appeals to junk science such as Kinsey's.

More on the Bible in Public Schools

Excerpts from the judge's memorandum on the proposed sex education curriculum in the Montgomery County Public Schools.

Beginning with one of the judge's concluding statements about the Plaintiff's first ammendment rights.

In this case, Defendants open up the classroom to the subject of homosexuality, and specifically, the moral rightness of the homosexual lifestyle. However, the Revised Curriculum presents only one view on the subject — that homosexuality is a natural and morally correct lifestyle — to the exclusion of other perspectives. Indeed, the Revised Curriculum advises teachers that the information concerning homosexuality is to be presented to students as facts and that “no additional information, interpretation or examples are to be provided by the teacher.” As such, the Court is deeply concerned that the Revised Curriculum violates Plaintiffs’ free speech rights under the First Amendment, and believes that Plaintiffs’ free speech allegations merit future and further investigation.

With regard to the encroachment of religion in the schools:

The Court is extremely troubled by the willingness of Defendants to venture —or perhaps more correctly bound — into the crossroads of controversy where religion, morality, and homosexuality converge. The Court does not understand why it is necessary, in attempting to achieve the goals of advocating tolerance and providing health-related information, Defendants must offer up their opinion on such controversial topics as whether homosexuality is a sin, whether AIDS is God’s judgment on homosexuals, and whether churches that condemn homosexuality are on theologically solid ground. As such, the Court is highly skeptical that the Revised Curriculum is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, and finds that Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim certainly merits future and further investigation.

On propagating anti-Baptist sentiment in the name of "tolerance":

The Revised Curriculum notes that “Fundamentalists are more likely to have negative attitudes about gay people than those with other religious views.” The Revised Curriculum also notes that fundamentalists and evangelicals are more likely than other religions to have negative attitudes about gay people. The Revised Curriculum contrasts this view with view of “more tolerant religious backgrounds.”

The Revised Curriculum also paints certain Christian sects, notably Baptists,which are opposed to homosexuality, as unenlightened and Biblically misguided:

Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression. Less than half a century ago, Baptist churches (among others) in this country defended racial segregation on the basis that it was condoned by the Bible. Early Christians were not hostile to homosexuals. Intolerance became the dominant attitude only after the Twelfth Century.

The Revised Curriculum plainly portrays Baptist churches as wrongly expressing the same intolerance attitude towards homosexuals today as they did towards African Americans during segregation. The Revised Curriculum states that this attitude towards homosexuality is based on generalized arguments that most modern day people reject: “Today, many people no longer tolerate generalizations about homosexuality as pathology or sin.”

The Revised Curriculum also implies that the Baptist Church’s position on homosexuality is theologically flawed. The materials state that theologians and Biblical scholars agree that “Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality.” The materials also note that many seemingly innocuous activities were deemed abominations by the Bible, such as “wearing clothing made from more than one kind of fiber, and earing [sic] shellfish, like shrimp and lobster,” inviting the reader to draw the conclusion that not all activities that were banned in the Bible are still morally objectionable today. The Court would again note that the strength Defendants’ substantive theological arguments are irrelevant — it is their exclusive nature that the Court finds troubling.

Most disturbingly, the Revised Curriculum juxtaposes this portrait of an intolerant and Biblically misguided Baptist Church against other, preferred Churches, which are more friendly towards the homosexual lifestyle. The Revised Curriculum states:

Fortunately, many within organized religions are beginning to address the homophobia of the church. The Nation Council of Churches of Christ, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches support full civil rights for gay men and lesbians, as they do for everyone else. (emphasis added).

The Bible in Public Schools

The sex-ed program which would have taught students how to put a condom on a cucumber has been put on hold. The Washington Post's slant on this is that parents in the county were blind-sided by conservative groups. Their headline Montgomery Blindsided Over Sex-Ed would indicate they endorse the program. It's too bad those blasted conservatives had to get in here and mix things up again! The New York Times, of course, cites this as yet another example of the encroachment of religion into the public arena, a move toward American theocracy.

But let's look at what was being taught. The following is a quote from the Myths vs. Facts portion of the curriculum.

The Bible contains six passages which condemn homosexual behavior. The Bible also contains numerous passages condemning heterosexual behavior. Theologians and Biblical scholars continue to differ on many Biblical interpretations. They agree on one thing, however. Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality.

Among the many things deemed an abomination are adultery, incest, wearing clothing made from more than one kind of fiber, and eating shellfish, like shrimp and lobster.

Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression. Less than a half a century ago, Baptist churches (among others) in this country defended racial segregation on the basis that it was condoned by the Bible. Early Christians were not hostile to homosexuals. Intolerance became the dominant attitude only after the Twelfth Century.

Today, many people no longer tolerate generalizations about homosexuality as pathology or sin. Few would condemn heterosexuality as immoral--despite the high incidence of rape, incest, child abuse, adultery, family violence, promiscuity, and venereal disease among heterosexuals. Fortunately, many within organized religions are beginning to address the homophobia of the church.

So, apparently it is permissible to talk about the Bible in public schools, but only if advocating revisionist interpretations justifying homosexuality and only if you also slam Baptists in the process. Note that this curriculum was approved by the school board.

The judge's memorandum on the case can be found here . It has more interesting Myths and Facts.

Fishing Biden Catches a Shoe

Smearing Joe Biden's fishing expedition is going bad on him. He can't catch any more damaging information on Bolton at the State Department, and is threatening to delay the vote further until he does catch something. In the meantime, here's what he did catch, (a story buried at the very bottom of the WaPo article):

Biden Hints at Delaying Bolton Vote:

"Meanwhile, Margaret Thatcher, who gained a reputation for outspokenness as Britain's prime minister, endorsed Bolton's nomination, largely for his 'capacity for straight-talking rather than peddling half-truths.'

In a letter made available Thursday by Bolton's office, Thatcher said she wrote to tell her longtime friend 'how strongly I support your nomination.'

Bolton also was endorsed by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who told a reporter, 'John Bolton is eminently qualified. He's one of the smartest guys in Washington.'

Armitage is close to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who did not sign a letter sent last month to Lugar by all other former living Republican secretaries of state backing Bolton."

Armitage was reputed to be behind many of the State Department complaints about Bolton. This should have been the lede of the story.

Congressional Travel: Goodbye Ethics Truce (part II)

Here's a useful page for anyone who wants real, primary source information about Congressional travel: Political Money Line Tom DeLay ranks 119th on this list. The New York Times story made it seem as though DeLay was the only one with an ethical problem. A real investigation would probably find many more in line ahead of him.

House Bought

I previously reported that we finally sold our house. We are downscaling, using the proceeds from our house to pay for our sons' college and to finance a career change for me. This has not been without its challenges (see my previous entry, God's Presence Better than a Beautiful Home.) We've finally made it to the next step in our move. Last weekend, we spent one day house hunting and bought one. We move in June.

I am finishing up my first semester as a seminary student. Right now, it's just a grind. Hebrew is impossible! No one over the age of 40 has the capacity to learn this language! I do well enough on the quizzes, but only because I cram immediately before. I retain this stuff for less than 24 hours. One course is almost the equivalent of a full-time job.

The course in Hermeneutics has been good. The topic is inherently interesting; it is also relevant. I have amassed a substantial library on the topic, including E.D. Hirsch's books, Gadamer's Truth and Method, Fish's Is There a Text in This Class?, and many others. I would also put my leisure-time reading on Constitutional jurisprudence in this category.

The course on Philosophy has been a mixed bag. My undergraduate degree was in Philosophy. I took many graduate-level courses, as well. Much of the course has been boring review. However, some of our reading has been very refreshing. I have never, for example, considered Aquinas's proofs for the existence of God to have much value, but we studied the version originally developed by Arabic scholars in the late middle ages, embraced by Saint Bonaventure, and updated by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. Their arguments against actual infinities -- Aquinas's inifinite regress -- are very compelling.

This time next week I will have my first semester behind me.

Christian Morality and Public Law--Five Theses

Al Mohler's got a great series going on Christian Morality and Public Law. Today's essay, the third and last in the series, is especially good.

Mohler's first thesis:

First, a liberal democracy must allow all participants in the debate to speak and argue from whatever worldview or convictions they possess. A liberal democracy should say yes to the entry of all citizens into the public conversation. Those citizens will come from many different backgrounds, and they will represent many different worldviews, some more religious and some less, some more secular and some less, some more Christian and some less. But all should be allowed equal access to the conversation. This is a principle that lies at the very heart of a deliberative democracy. Each citizen must be allowed to speak from his deepest convictions, and to identify those convictions without fear of prejudice or of being eliminated from the public debate.

One of the abuses evident in Connecticut during these recent debates on gay marriage has been the disenfranchsement of religion: the de facto disqualification of religiously-informed opinion. Many Connecticut legislators heaped ridicule on the arguments made by religious people, not because of the content of their arguments, but because they were made by religious people.

As I've written before, the supreme irony was legislators' use of Jefferson's famous Letter to the Danbury Baptists, where he interpreted the Federal Constitution to mean there is a "wall of separation between church and state."

The Connecticut state legislature had passed laws essentially establishing Congregationalism as the state church. Congregational churches were supported by a state tax. Citizens who wished to divert their contribution to other churches, as did the Danbury Baptists, had to file for exceptions. These were difficult to obtain in some communities.

The Baptists complained that the Connecticut legislature effectively treated religious freedom as a grant of the state. The free exercise of religion was simply a concession. They appealed to Jefferson to affirm religious freedom as an inalienable right, recognized, not bestowed, by the state and, therefore, inviolable. Jefferson's statement was meant to keep the state from curtailing religious freedom. The wall was meant to keep the state from trampling on the rights of Baptists. The wall protects Baptists from the state (not the other way around.)

The Baptists were free to practice their religion. There were no restrictions on attending their churches, no restrictions on their worship practices, no restrictions on their beliefs. Their grievance was about access to state resources (in this case, tax money), and the preferential treatment by the state of one religious body over another.

Connecticut's disregard for Baptists, and Catholics, and other conservative religious groups, has not changed, nor has the Connecticut legislature's view of the free exercise of religion as a mere "tolerant" concession of the state. When they repeated the Courant's propaganda differentiating civil rights and religion, "This is a civil rights issue not a religious issue," they basically asserted that homosexual sodomy is a right, religion is something else, outside the domain of rights entirely.

Perhaps those Connecticut legislators who spoke so disparagingly of religion and the value of religious opinion, and who asserted their right to impose an alternate, irreligious view of morality on Connecticut's citizens ought to take another look at history. They are on the wrong side, yet again.

End to Ethics Truce

The ethics truce is off! We are going to see much more of this sort of thing, Lobbyist Paid for Lawmakers Travel. When the Democrats tried to nail Delay for having his family on the payroll they had to back down because it turns out many of them did, too. Now it turns out that unlike Delay's stiuation where a couple of his aides travelled on Abramoff's nickle, a couple Democratic congressmen benefitted directly themselves. They are pleading ignorance, but that's Delay's claim as well.

It looks like we're reverting back to the days of continual charges, counter charges, and investigations.

Update:

Pelosi's ethics stance hypocritical: " In an ABC interview Sunday, Mrs. Pelosi dismissed questions about travel by Democrats, telling interviewer George Stephanopoulos: 'Do not fall into a Republican trap of equating technicalities on reporting, timing of reporting with not upholding an ethical standard of the House.'

Republicans see a double standard.

'What is a 'technicality' for her requires a full-scale investigation for others,' said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Carl Forti. "

5-year-old's Dad Winds Up in Jail over School's Indoctrination on Homosexuality

From the Boston Globe: Arrested father had point to make:

Parker and his wife, Tonia, 34, who was also in court yesterday, said the dispute arose because they asked school officials to notify them about classroom discussions about same-sex marriage and what they called other adult themes. They also wanted the option to exclude their boy, now 6, from those talks.

Parker said he met with school officials to gain those assurances and then refused to leave until he got them. Parker stayed at Estabrook School for more than two hours, according to Superintendent William J. Hurley, as officials and Lexington police urged him to leave. Finally, they arrested him for trespassing.

Parker, who refused to bail himself out of jail Wednesday night, said he spent the night in custody to prove a point.

''I chose to stay, which I'm not sure was a wise move,' he said. ''But I wanted to see how far they would go for asking something simple.' Parker said he wanted to control ''the timing and manner' in which his son learned about ''adult themes.'

''This is not about creating a forum for hate . . . for any segment of society,' Parker said after his arraignment. ''I'm just trying to be a good dad.'

The email exchanges between the Parkers and school officials have been posted here. Most significant is the Principal's assertion that the school is free not to inform parents about the educational programs of the school re: families.

I have confirmed with our Assistant Superintendent and our Director of Health Education that discussion of differing families, including gay-headed families, is not included in the parental notification policy.

Once again, who is imposing moral views on whom?

Dave attended the anti-bias meeting on 4/11/05. They informed Dave that books with homosexual issues/families will be placed in every classroom in our school.

These are 5- and 6-year olds!

John Owen Site

Here's a new site dedicated to one of my heroes: John Owen.

It's been more than 25 years since I worked my way through The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. In my view, only Jonathan Edwards's On Free Will is a more important read.

I have since read volumes 1-7 of his complete works and sampled portions of volumes 8, 9, 13 16, and his commentary on Hebrews. It can be tough going, but much easier if you read him aloud, and worth it. Volumes 3 and 4 are on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Volume 4, surprisingly to those who adhere to the stereotypes of Puritans, is an analysis of spiritual gifts.

Breaking News from ScrappleFace

Scrappleface has another good one:

Republicans Redefine 'Majority' to Fit Current Usage

"Republicans in the House and Senate today introduced bills which would redefine the word 'majority' to mean 'a group compelled to do the will of a smaller group.'

The change in definition is designed to bring the word back in line with current usage and practice, according to an unnamed Senate source.

Read the whole thing. And, check out the Day by Day cartoon while you're at it.

Editorial Fiction

The New York Times is actually getting worse. Today's editorial concludes with the following paragraph:

The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious. If that transformation is now allowed to run off the rails, the new rationale could prove to be as hollow as the original one.

Glenn Reynolds and commenters on his site did a pretty good job of debunking this myth a couple weeks ago on Instapundit.com.

I remember the 2003 State of the Union vividly:

Different threats require different strategies. In Iran we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction and supports terror.

We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny, and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. . . .

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. . . .

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity.

I'm constantly amazed by people who either deny that Bush said this, or claim that he didn't really mean it. His actions prove he meant it; the record proves he said it. The NYT is lying!

Baloney!

The New York Times continues its anti-Christian crusade with an editorial filled with half-truths and non-truths.

The Disappearing Wall

Love's Language Lost

The debates in Connecticut over same-sex civil unions were about language as much as anything. And, the proponents of this bill won by a preemptive appropriation of words and phrases; e.g., "civil rights" and "love." I have yet to count up the number of references there were to Websters Dictionary. It was many. Rep. Toni Walker appealed to the dictionary as her legislative authority. Sen. Finch referred to the dictionary yesterday in his silly, silly speech, distinguishing "r i t e s" from "r i g h t s."

The Claremont Institute has an interesting article on nominalist and realist philosophies of language, and their application in this issue.

The Claremont Institute: Love's Language Lost

Good Op-Ed from NYT's Brooks on Roe v. Wade

The New York Times: Roe's Birth, and Death:

Justice Harry Blackmun did more inadvertent damage to our democracy than any other 20th-century American.

When Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, it took the abortion issue out of the legislatures and put it into the courts. If it had remained in the legislatures, we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views of the centrist majority that's always existed on this issue.

Instead, Blackmun and his concurring colleagues invented a right to abortion, and imposed a solution more extreme than the policies of just about any other comparable nation.

Religious conservatives became alienated from their own government, feeling that their democratic rights had been usurped by robed elitists. Liberals lost touch with working-class Americans because they never had to have a conversation about values with those voters; they could just rely on the courts to impose their views.

Brooks argues against the "Constitutional option" on filibusters, but deals with the root cause of lack of comity in the senate.

Civil Unions Signed into Law

Hartford Courant: Civil Unions Approved

Gov. Jodi Rell signed the same-sex civil unions bill at close of business today.

Despite all the self-congratulation about this bill -- "the legislature acted without a threat from the courts" -- we will have to see what happens now to the seven cases pending in the court. The fact that there's been no imminent threat from the courts on this has been propagandist genius. The new law will alter the argument in these cases, adding force to the idea that civil unions, as opposed to marriage, are discriminatory.

The legislature should have addressed the issue of same-sex marriage directly. Better yet, there should have been a straight-forward non-binding citizens' referendum on marriage.

This is historic. As a resident of Connecticut I have seen the arguments from the inside, as it were. It will be interesting to see what happens now in other states.

Most of the arguments evangelical Christians used to persuade their legislators to oppose this bill were completely ineffective. More than that, they were theologicaly incorrect.

1)They denied the doctrine of original sin. We believe that we are all born sinners. Therefore, whether homosexuality is a choice or something we are born with is the wrong question. It owes more to Pelagianism than to biblical theology.

2)They denied the psychosomatic unity of human beings. The resurrection is crucial. It teaches us that we are not souls housed in bodies, not ghosts in machines. The dissolution of soul and body is temporary and unnatural. We therefore should not be surprised if there are biological markers for behavior.

3)They were unclear about the relationship between church and state, conceding too much ground irretrievably from the outset.

I am not saying Christians should have argued with legislators over the doctrine of original sin, etc. But their thinking should have been so shaped by these doctrines that they never would have offered such naive, and wrong, arguments to begin with.

The Spineless Sit Up (or, Biden Borks Bolton)

Have you ever wondered how it would be possible to sit up without a spine? If you watched the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting yesterday, you actually saw it happening. Several Republicans are able to do it.

What a mess! Sen. Joe Biden, who did a masterful job orchestrating the smear on Bork way back when, is doing it again. He has wrested control over this committee from its chairman.

Voinovich is uncomfortable voting. Why? Because he hasn't attended any of the meetings, says he, and isn't up to speed. I can't believe his fellow senators let him get away with this. Then, Chafee jumps on this as though Voinovich has presented some new insight into the process.

The result is that Biden, Boxer, et. al. have more time to cut propagandist tapes and find whiny State Department employees to complain that Bolton once raised his voice.

Addition:

National Review Online Editorial: "In the key allegation against Bolton, he is said to have intimidated a State Department intelligence analyst who objected to Bolton's supposedly too-dire assessment of Cuba's bioweapons program. But Bolton aide Fred Fleitz has testified that the analyst in question, Christian Westerman, wasn't straight with Bolton or his staff — giving Bolton plenty of reason to be upset. At issue was language in a speech Bolton was to deliver about Cuba. It was Westerman's responsibility to run the proposed language by the CIA, but when he did so he attached his own prejudicial language dissenting from Bolton's views. When Fleitz learned this, Westerman falsely denied having done it, leading to the infamous confrontation in Bolton's office. Two of Westerman's supervisors subsequently apologized for how he handled the matter. That Bolton is now the one being pilloried for this spat — Sen. Chris Dodd said his conduct should be 'indictable' — is absurd. In any case, as Lugar pointed out in a statement earlier this week, in an environment characterized by contentious policy disputes — as Bush's foreign policy team was in the first term — you can expect some personal contention."

Law Review Article

David L. Chambers, professor at University of Michigan Law School, in Hofstra University School of Law's Law Review:

During the hearings and debates that led to the Defense of Marriage Act, many members of Congress and many witnesses drew comparisons between polygamy and same-sex marriage. Most of the comparisons were shallow and sarcastic, but, taken as a group, they offer interesting insights into conceptions of marriage and family in this country.

...

In a society with as heterogeneous a population as ours, the wisest role for the state in its relationship to families is one of supportive tolerance: The state should identify the patterns of family arrangements that actually exist and that endure throughout time. It should then perform a facilitative role to help these families prosper, unless strong reasons exist for believing that the arrangements cause significant harms. Under this view, the state would regard its decision to permit a certain group to marry (or its decision to provide a benefit to some family configuration), not as an endorsement of the group's worthiness, but as a simple recognition of their ongoing, nondestructive presence in the community and as a recognition of the group's need for access to the benefits and responsibilities that attach to various legal constructs, including marriage.

Thus, if there were a move to legalize plural marriages, I would encourage the state to permit them unless they genuinely posed significant harms.

Hofstra University School of Law Law Review - David L. Chambers

This is precisely the logic employed by many in Connecticut -- without his conclusion on plural marriages. The civil unions' bill was carefully crafted to avoid the stigma attached to Chambers' conclusion, but that's just an expedient to make civil unions parallel existing marriage laws. There's no good reason to start where he does and not end up in the same place.

Much of the rhetoric in the debate was "an endorsement of the group's worthiness." There's no other way to interpret such statements as Sen. McDonald's repeated assertion that same-sex relationships "Deserve! Deserve! Deserve!" the respect and honor of the citizens of this state. This is a claim of merit.

But the legislative middle ground in this debate adopted Chambers' lowest-common-denominator approach to the state's interest in marriage: it is a recognition of relationships as they exist in fact; as long as no one is hurt why not recognize them.

But how does this LCD approach work in combination with the assertion of "basic human rights"? Does every relationship that exists carry an entitlement, a right, to official, supportive recognition by the state and access to benefits, as long as it's already present and is nondestructive?

Chambers' article is very interesting and eye-opening.

Another Contrarian Book Coming from Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell has another new book coming, sure to be dismissed quickly because of its politically incorrect views, Black Rednecks And White Liberals: And Other Cultural And Ethnic Issues

I once sent him an email and received a timely, personal, and gracious reply. I'm a big fan!

He was on CSPAN last night. To the question, "What's the difference between a white redneck and a black redneck?" his quick answer, "Color!" Without embarrassment the interviewer followed up within a couple minutes, "What's the difference between a black liberal and a white liberal?" Again, "Color!"

Not too many are so willing to state the obvious; intellectuals generally shun it. But that is the main thesis in many of his books. He is determined to present facts, and asserts that is one of the major challenges of the day. Unfriendly facts are too readily beaten down.

The Irony of Quoting Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists

During the debate on same-sex civil unions some of the state legislators alluded with pride to Thomas Jefferson's famous Letter to the Danbury Baptists. The concept of a "wall of separation between church and state" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution but in this letter. The state's legislators obviously felt their actions would yet again confirm Connecticut's preeminence in dealing with such issues and that they were somehow acting in continuity with the citizens of Danbury, CT, in 1802.

What irony! The arguments offered in the debate were much closer to what this letter opposed than to what it established. The Connecticut state legislature is on the wrong side of this today, as it was back then.

Jefferson's letter was a response to a petition by the Baptist citizens of Danbury, CT, protesting the de facto establishment of Congregationalism as the state-endorsed religion.

The Baptist complaint was that the Connecticut state constitution did not prohibit the state from legislating about religious matters. As a consequence, they argued, "...what religious privileges we [Baptists] enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen."

The "degrading acknowledgements" referenced here refers to a system of religious taxation that forced many Connecticut Baptists to support the established Congregationalist church. According to church/state scholar Derek Davis, Connecticut law allowed the Baptists to rout (sic) their religious taxes to their own churches, but this involved locating and filling out an exemption certificate, and many Connecticut communities either made it difficult to obtain the certificates, or refused to approve the exemptions once submitted (see, "What Jefferson's Metaphor Really Means," Liberty, Jan/Feb, 1997, p. 13). Beyond this, the Baptists found the law unjust and discriminatory in that it favored Congregationalism over other denominations.

from: Separation of Church and State web site

The final version of Jefferson's reply is very short,

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Where's the irony?

1) The supreme irony, of course, is that this debate featured alot of religious argument, and the denomination whose arguments were endorsed by the proponents of this legislation is the historic descendant of the Congregationalism the Danbury Baptists complained about.

In spite of their assertion that "this is not a religious issue," one of the most common themes in the legislators' speeches was disparagement of religion; that is, certain forms of religion. A complete catalogue of arguments used by proponents of this legislation would have to include the bitter-former-practicing-Catholic argument and the my-small-minded-religious-relative story. The debate was very long on personal anecdote. The anti-unenlightened-religion anecdote was much more common than the emotionally cloying stigma-of-homsexuality story, though the latter was used to open the debate in both the state Senate and House. It seems that those who spoke most about separation of church and state also spoke the most about religion.

The only religious denomination that was cited favorably was the United Church of Christ, which joined with Love Makes a Family and the ACLU in lobbying for same-sex marriage. The fact that the UCC endorses same-sex marriage was used to argue that there is no consensus among people of faith on this issue, and, therefore, the religiously-informed opinion of Connecticut's citizens, unless they hold to the views of the UCC, are automatically disqualified.

Once again, the Congregationalists are endorsed by the state of Connecticut, and the rest of us are disparaged. (By Congregationalist, of course, I'm talking about those churches that remain in the UCC. Those Congregationalist churches that have left the UCC over this issue get the same treatment as the rest of us unenlightened types.)

2) It is ironic that the petition of the Danbury Baptists involved the unfairness of requiring an exemption for the free practice of religion, while the current state legislature denied an exemption for those religious organizations for whom recognizing same-sex marriages is "contrary to the bona fide religious tenets" of the organization. Once again, Lawlor, "Religious organizations should not be exempt from recognizing, respecting and honoring same-sex civil unions."

3) It is ironic that the main intent of Jefferson's response was to assert that religion is an inalienable right, a "natural right," not a mere concession of the Connecticut state legislature. Jefferson asserted the rights of conscience of religious people, "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights ..."

Yet the Connecticut state legislature, in voting against an exemption for religious organizations, trampled all over the rights of religious conscience, which though actually enumerated in the Constitution is apparently expendable while the right to sodomy is not. Their arguments disenfranchised religion, especially when they claimed that "civil rights" and "religion" are mutually exclusive, forgetting that religious expression and freedom of conscience are a constitutionally guaranteed civil right.

4) It is ironic that Jefferson said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions." But the purpose of Connecticut's recent legislation is precisely to regulate opinion.

The goal of this legislation is to confer social acceptance on homosexual relationships. Rep. Michael Lawlor, "This was a discussion about ... private attitudes towards homosexuality. That is really what is at the heart of this … That’s what it is all about. And recognition of same-sex marriage is the most symbolic acknowledgement that homosexuality simply appears to be a normally ocurring phenomenon in nature." This legislation is mere symbol, what it's really all about is private attitude and social opinion.

5) Finally, it is ironic that Jefferson signed his letter, "I ... tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."

The legislators' accusations of hatred, bigotry, ignorance, extremism, propensity toward violence, and so on, was offensive and insulting, very different from the high respect and esteem Jefferson affirmed, and much more blatantly "degrading acknowledgments" than the Danbury Baptists complained about.

Loss of Freedom of Religious Conscience in Connecticut

Here is the proposed ammendment that was resoundingly defeated by the House.

"No religious employer or business will be required to recognize a civil union if it is contrary to the bona fide religious tenets of such religious employer or business. As used in this section, "religious employer or business" means an employer or business that is a qualified church-controlled organization, as defined in 26 USC 3121, or a church affiliated organization. "

Lawlor said, "Religious organizations should not be exempt from recognizing, respecting and honoring same-sex civil unions."

So, religious people are losing their freedom of conscience in Connecticut.

Connecticut House Debates Same-Sex Civil Unions

The Connecticut State House of Representatives is debating the same-sex civil unions bill right now. Estimates are that the debate will continue till about 7:00pm.

They are currently debating a proposed ammendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Connecticut's current statues, I believe, are deliberately ambiguous on this issue. Proponents of the bill claim that this ammendment is completely unnecessary, "gratuitous" according to Lawlor, because that is already the law in Connecticut.

But their vociferousness in opposing a reiteration of what they claim is clear is enough to cast suspicion on their arguments. Lawlor does not want current ambiguity cleared up.

Addition:

Here is a copy of the current statute in Connecticut defining marriage:

Sec.45a-727a. State policy re best interests of child; public policy re marriage. The General Assembly finds that:

(4) It is further found that the current public policy of the state of Connecticut is now limited to a marriage between a man and a woman.

This is clearly time-bound. The current policy as of 5 years ago. Now as of 5 years ago. It's very reasonable for representatives to suspect that the current civil-unions bill will make this statement even more ambiguous than it already is, especially since it says that "wherever in the general statutes ... the term 'marriage' is used or defined, a civil union shall be included in such use or definition."

For Lawlor to make his "just trust me" argument is completely disingenuous.

Opponents of the ammendment have labeled it "offensive" and "insulting", and proponents "extremist." Kind of puts the lie to their claim that it's not needed because it just restates existing state law. Do they regard existing law as extremist?

5:35 pm The ammendment passed 80-67. May make passage of the underlying bill more likely. Some who spoke in favor of it thought it made the bill more palatable.

5:40 pm Current speaker is saying that this is a debate between science and religion. A vote for same-sex civil unions is a vote for science. Perhaps asexual reproduction among hydras and yeast is the new paradigm for marriage. Because an amoeba splits we need civil unions. What conclusion do we draw from reptilian cannibalism? (Sorry, it's hard not to get at least a little sarcastic.) In general, I've been impressed with the debate in the House.

6:25 pm Rep. Klarides. Relative who married outside the Greek Orthodox faith rejected by family. Apparently, the view that marriage is just between a man and a woman is equivalent.

6:41 pm Starting to see celebration among proponents of the bill. They obviously think that all obstacles to this bill have been eliminated as a result of passing the DOMA-lite ammendment.

6:47 Current speaker is asking questions about custody and support implications of bill. He is also arguing that state employees who enter into civil unions will get greater benefits than those who are married. He has raised a series of unintended consequences of the bill.

Finally, someone who asserts that this is sneaky. Ought to address the issue of same-sex marriage, not civil unions. ... Also takes offense at the stories of violent, physical gay bashing, as though everyone who opposes same-sex civil unions is liable to physically assault gays and as though passing this bill will stop all gay bashing.

7:05 pm Can inmates in a prison enter into a civil union with each other?

If churches rent out their facilities for public use, they will be compelled to permit performance of same-sex civil unions in their facilities. Ammendment to protect religious organizations being offered. Lawlor is opposed! Remember this is the man who wants to legislate private attitudes about homosexuality. Says religious organizations shouldn't be exempt from honoring and respecting same-sex civil unions.

The ammendment was overwhelmingly rejected. Religious organizations are compelled recognize, honor, and respect same-sex civil unions!

7:30 Lesbian representative announces that she will vote against the bill because of addition of DOMA-lite ammendment.

8:02 One of the repeated arguments for the bill is that it is necessary to bring order into an area that requires it. The status of adopted children of same-sex couples is often not clear, for example, in those cases where same-sex couples split up. At the same time, those who make this argument characterize their previous votes as progressive.

So, the logic is this: "We've created chaos with all our previous votes on this issue. Now we need to clean up the mess we made." Real compelling argument.

8:11 Brendan Sharkey basically on an anti-Catholic rant. Opposition to the bill all based on fear and ignorance. Claims that "many" Christian denominations are favoring the bill. I doubt it. The UCC only had 4 people show up at their press conference.

8:31 The bill passed 85 to 63.

Outrageous Statements in the Hartford Courant

GOP Plots Values War: "As Republicans fight for relevance in the General Assembly, where they hold barely one-third of the seats, they see a potential ally in serial killer Michael Ross."

This is a new low, even for the Hartford Courant!

Basketball Movie

B-ball Cool!

More on Sex Differences

More on sex differences, thanks to Chuberto.

Edge: THE ASSORTATIVE MATING THEORY: A Talk with Simon Baron-Cohen

State Senate Votes

The state Senate just completed its vote. The bill recognizing same-sex civil unions passed 27-9, no abstentions.

I will try to transcribe portions of the video.

As is typical with this body, they congratulated themselves on their high level of debate and civility. I guess what they mean by that is that no one was shouting. There were plenty of accusations of bigotry and hatred.

The low point came when Sen. John Fonfara told about rereading Arthur Miller's The Crucible. The hanging of the Proctors reminded him that there is no essential difference between those who oppose same-sex civil unions and those who killed the Proctors. His religiously motivated constituents are just like the witch-hunting reverend John Hale.

Sen. Bill Finch stated "we are not to be deluded by religious argument" contrasting all religious faith and reason. He also congratulated the Senate on "expanding democracy" in the direction of "natural rights" consistent with both the state's and country's constitutions.

Again, how is this an expansion of democracy? Are we giving people a right to vote they did not have before? If his interest is in the expansion of democracy why is he so reluctant to submit this to a vote by the state's citizens?

Why Post on Civil Unions?

The accusation that opponents of same-sex civil unions want to impose their morality on the citizens of Connecticut while its advocates do not is sheer hypocrisy. Every earnest, heart-felt exhortation to right the wrong of denying recognition to these same-sex couples is an appeal to moral obligation. Every appeal to “civil rights,” especially a right that has never been previously recognized, is an appeal to morality. When McDonald and others say it is “wrong” to require same-sex couples to “justify to the outside world the love they have in their hearts” they are making a moral argument.

If this isn’t a moral appeal what is it? They certainly aren’t appealing to legal obligation. If a legal obligation already existed there would be no reason for a bill. No, advocates are looking to create a new law based on an alternate morality. To pretend anything else is the propagandist’s big lie.

At least Lawlor is more honest, “This was a discussion about public attitudes and private attitudes towards homosexuality. That is really what is at the heart of this … That’s what it is all about. And recognition of same-sex marriage is the most symbolic acknowledgement that homosexuality simply appears to be a normally ocurring phenomenon in nature.” Lawlor is seeking to regulate private attitudes toward homosexuality. He is imposing his views on the morality of homosexuality without apology.

Now, I want to be clear on my position. I am not complaining about the effort to legislate morality, though legislating private attitudes is out of bounds. Morality-free legislation is a myth. It is the hypocritical accusation that one side is imposing morality while the other is not that angers me. The “imposing morality” shibboleth is really about alternate moralities: invalidating a religiously-informed, natural-law-based, or objective morality in favor of an evolving, sentimental, culture-response morality. The latter is no less imposed than the former, in this case its enactment is the culmination of a long, politically sneaky manipulation.

Let’s be very clear what happened here in Connecticut. An openly gay chairman of the state Senate Judiciary Committee, with his allies, forced this issue on the state, congratulating himself that “the people” were acting while at the same time ensuring that the people have no opportunity to express their opinion in a non-binding citizens’ referendum.

The citizens of Connecticut have not been clamoring for a civil unions bill. In fact, the best analysis of previous polls is that most have responded to this issue with a big yawn. We have been apathetic, never believing that it would become a priority for the state. Yet, McDonald and other lobbying groups have made it so. And, today the state Senate is voting on McDonald’s bill.

Democrats accused President Bush of using a marriage and family ammendment as a wedge issue to divide Americans and to energize his base. It ought to be blatantly clear to everyone that the wedge is in the hands of McDonald and his allies.

He has made me respond. Me and many others who have been stirred to flood the legislature with phone calls, emails, and letters.

Drawing The Line At Gay Marriage

The Hartford Courant has finally run an article acknowledging that the majority of this state's citizens are opposed to same-sex marriage. But they continue to try to claim that most of the state's citizens are open to civil unions -- as though there's a difference.

Some Republicans, such as Governor Jodi Rell, are still trying to have it both ways. ctnow.com: Drawing The Line At Gay Marriage:

William A. Hamzy, chairman of the state Republican Party, touched off a dispute within the ranks of the GOP recently when he dismissed those who support civil unions but oppose gay marriage as 'parsing words.'

The problem was that Hamzy's declaration ran directly counter to the position adopted by two of the state's top Republicans: Gov. M. Jodi Rell and House Minority Leader Robert M. Ward, R-North Branford.

Rell and Ward, like many people, are far more willing to extend rights in the form of civil unions than they are to accept a new definition of marriage.

Hamzy, of course, is right. No one could watch any of the legislative hearings on this bill and be fooled. Proponents of the bill invariably argued for conferring "marriage rights and benefits" on same-sex couples. And, state senator McDonald is very clear that the intent of the bill is to confer the state's recognition and respect on same-sex couples equivalent to the state's interest in encouraging marriage.

The state senate votes today on the same-sex civil unions bill. It is expected to pass. But the latest betting is that it will fail in the house.

David Brooks on The Strength of Conservatives

David Brooks's column in the New York times is always interesting. Today he argues that conservatives have become so strong because they're so divided. Very much a contrarian view.

A House Divided, and Strong: "Nobody joins a movement because of admiration for its entitlement reform plan. People join up because they think that movement's views about human nature and society are true."

Intelligent Design Blog

As part of my seminary studies I am beginning to look into issues with regard to faith and science. One of Phil Johnson's books is assigned reading. I've never really spent much time on this before, and still don't have formulated opinions on many issues. However, today I discovered a new cooperative blog maintained by key thinkers in Intelligent Design.

Here's the link: Intelligent Design the Future

Hopeful Signs

We are beginning to see signs that same-sex civil unions may not prevail in Connecticut after all. It certainly won't pass overwhelmingly without opposition as its self-congratulating advocates were predicting just a month ago.

Governor Rell now says she wants an ammendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. She will sign the civil unions bill but only if the one-man/one-woman uniqueness of marriage is upheld, too. This is a cowardly compromise, preserving only a label. The civil unions bill is a "marriage equality" bill conferring on same-sex couples all the recognition and benefits a state can confer. But, at least she's finally acknowledging the concerns of the majority of this state's citizens.

And, the Family Institute of Connecticut is reporting that the Speaker of Connecticut's House of Representatives, Rep. Jim Amann, predicts the bill will fail in the House. I don't know if that's true, but no one was even suggesting this as a possibility before.