blind insight

Outing the Agenda.

So you thought I was done ranting about all that gay marriage stuff? Do gay people get to marry one another anywhere outside that Queer Capitol of the Free World (oh, wait -- is that Amsterdam? OK, the Queer Capitol of the Rather-Less-Free-Than-They-Used-To-Be United States), the City by the Bay, dear ol' San Francisco? Hmm? Didn't think so.......

And so I leave you for the weekend with this most excellent analysis of the issue's complexities, presented by cartoonist Mark Fiore. Close your office door, turn up the computer sound (deaf buds -- this is still good soundless), and prepare to see exposed . . . The Gay Agenda!

Shocking, ain't it?

Oratory.

I need to buckle down and bang out a brief this week, but wanted to pass on this wonderful riff from Bill Maher.
_____________________

Bi-Definition (from Real Time with Bill Maher, on HBO)

You can't claim you're the party of smaller government and then make laws about love. On this Valentine's Day, let's stop and ask ourselves, "What business is it of the state how consenting adults choose to pair off, share expenses, and eventually stop having sex with each other?"

And why does the Bush administration want a constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey, why stop at weddings? Birthdays are important; let's put them in the great document. Let's make a law that gay people can have birthdays, but straight people get more cake. You know, to send the right message to kids.

Republicans are always saying we should privatize things like schools, prisons, social security -- hey, how about we privatize privacy! Because if the government forbids gay men from tying the knot, what is their alternative? They can't all marry Liza Minnelli.

You know, the Republicans used to be the party the opposed social engineering, but now they push programs to outlaw marriage for some people and encourage it for others. If you're straight, there's $1.5 billion in the budget to promote marriage, but gay marriage is opposed because it threatens or mocks or does something to the sanctity of marriage, as if anything you can do in Vegas drunk off your ass in front
of an Elvis impersonator could be considered sacred.

Half the people who pledge eternal love are doing it because one of them is either knocked up, rich or desperate. But in George Bush's mind, marriage is only a beautiful lifetime bond of love and sharing, kind of like what his dad has with the Saudis.

But at least the right wing aren't hypocrites on this issue. They really believe that homosexuality is an abomination and a dysfunction that's curable. They believe that if a gay man just devotes his life to Jesus, he'll stop being gay, because that worked out so well with the Catholic priests.

But I have to tell you that the greater shame in this story goes to the Democrats because they don't believe homosexuality is an abomination, and, therefore, their refusal to endorse gay marriage is hypocrisy. Their position doesn't come from the Bible; it's ripped right from the latest poll, which says that most Americans are against gay marriage.

Well, you know what? Sometimes most Americans are just wrong, and where is the Democrat who will stand up and go beyond the half-measures of civil union and hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner and say loud and clear, "There is no sin. It's not an abomination and no one can control how Cupid aims his arrows, and the ones who pretend they can usually turn out to be the biggest freaks."

The law in this country should reflect that some people are just born one-hundred-percent outrageously, fabulously, undeniably Fire-Island gay. And they do not need re-programming -- they need a man with a slow hand.
_______

When you stop laughing and applauding, you might also read this article in today's Sydney Morning Herald. Apparently, Chief Justice Yong Pung How of Singapore recently stated his support for that country's oral sex prohibition as necessary to safeguard "Asian standards of decency." The article quotes Justice Yong as stating, "There are countries where you can go and suck away for all you are worth. . . . "People in high places do it for all they're worth. I'm not an expert, but you read about it in the papers. But this is Asia."

Singapore apparently treats oral sex, anal sex, and homosexual intercourse as crimes punishable by up to ten years in prison. Post-Lawrence, America seems almost . . . tolerant in comparison.

Spouses for life, after a half-century.

And on other fronts, this story is too great not to share with you. I can't imagine the range of emotions this couple must have experienced upon receiving official sanction of their union after 51 years together.

Mazel tov!

John Kerry opposes the death penalty!! (And the Ninth Circuit stays an imminent execution.)

This month's issue of The Champion, the magazine of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, includes a piece about the presidential candidates' positions on criminal justice issues. Each of the Democratic contenders claims to support the death penalty, at least for "the most heinous crimes." EXCEPT for my boy John Kerry, who instead says:

"I oppose the death penalty other than in cases of real international and domestic terrorism. I support a moratorium on the death penalty because I believe that there are serious systemic flaws in the death penalty system, which have resulted in the conviction of people who are innocent. In fact, one hundred and eleven innocent people have already been released from death row because of wrongful convictions."

Bravo, Senator Kerry. Bravo.

In unrelated death penalty news, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit yesterday spared California inmate Kevin Cooper from execution, which was scheduled for 12:01 a.m. this morning. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the stay, and Cooper's case now will be reheard by an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit. Cooper's lawyers claim to have new evidence of their client's innocence. For the briefs and related documents in the Cooper case, go here. For recent news coverage, try this article in the Los Angeles Times or, if you have Real Player, this Morning Edition segment from NPR.

Unfaithful.

Last week, my women's discussion group talked about spirituality. As is our practice, the topic was selected by the evening's hostess, who had just returned from a trip to Peru led by a shaman and was trying to hold on to the intense spirituality she felt during her journey. For most of the evening, I listened quietly to the rest of the group discussing the efforts they have made to find a spiritual community or to bring spirituality into their lives. I enjoyed hearing about everyone's experiences, but felt disconnected from the discussion and had little to contribute myself.

Eventually, though, the group pushed me to speak. Reluctantly, I explained that I do not seek out spirituality on any kind of conscious or deliberate level. I added that I feel most "spiritual" when I am doing something active outside in a beautiful place. At those moments, I feel connected to all the elements, and most alive within myself. Rock climbing, in particular, produces a feeling of one-ness with my mind, my body, and the world around me.

But, as I also told the group, despite my rather un-spiritual nature, I do feel deeply connected to Judaism. The Hebrew portions of the religious service, particularly the singing and chanting, give me a powerful sense of connection to my people and my roots. Yet the English readings leave me cold, and fail to spark any sense of faith or spirituality in my heart. That is, the ancient Hebrew, which I can read but for the most part cannot understand, is like a gossamer thread linking me inseverably to all who have uttered these words over the last five or six millennia. In English, whether translated from the Hebrew or added in the modern era, the words drop like lead on my ears and heart, full of paeans to God's awesome power and generous protection.

Mostly this is because I don't really believe in God. Or more accurately, because the concept of "God" gives me no comfort or guidance. Instead, I believe above all that we each are responsible for our decisions and actions, that things don't "happen for a reason," but rather simply happen for reasons we may or may not understand, and we are left to react and respond to those happenings as best we can.

At the group meeting, some of the women suggested that I reconceptualize God, or try to perceive God in all that surrounds me. But while I revel in the beauty of nature and the unpredictability of the elements, and while I never cease to be enthralled by the ever-shifting majesty of the Colorado sky, I don't associate these wonders with divine workmanship. These phenomena exist, they are perhaps beyond my understanding, and I am fortunate to perceive and experience them. Attributing them to "God" neither alters my perception nor heightens my experience.

I suppose there is something essential missing in me, preventing me from experiencing religious reverence and feeling the powerful force of a divine spirit. Probably, I would be a better person if I could experience a spiritual awakening from yoga, rather than simply enjoying the benefits of strength and flexibility that yoga brings to my corporeal self. Perhaps I would feel a greater fulfillment in life if I could open my heart and mind to religious guidance, whether from rabbi, shaman, guru, or some other spiritual leader.

But the idea that God -- whatever he, she, or it may be -- is watching over me offers no solace. Maybe I resist the notion of God because so much evil has been perpetrated in this world in God's name. Maybe I reject prayerful religiosity because I see so much hypocrisy shrouded in prayer. I do believe deeply in tradition, family, and culture, and I recognize many phenomena in life that I cannot explain through logic or science. And I support wholeheartedly those who adhere to any doctrine or faith that guides them to treat others with respect and kindness, to help those who are less fortunate, and to pursue peace and goodwill among all people.

The Miami Herald gets it (mostly) right.

This editorial in today's Miami Herald calls "unjust" the indefinite detention of Mariel Cubans such as my client and the petitioner in Benitez v. Wallis. Among the Herald's points is that releasing these detainees is no "reward." Rather, it is their right; they have served the sentences for their criminal convictions, and are being held only because of geopolitical wranglings far beyond their control.

But the Herald oversimplifies the issue in one respect, when it says that "the Justice Department interpreted the 2001 [Supreme] Court [Zadvydas v. Davis] ruling to exclude all those who entered the country illegally and, thus, technically aren't here." In fact, Justice appears to be arguing that only those who, like the Mariels, are considered not to have "entered" at all are exempt from the Supreme Court's limitation on indefinite detention. Under the government's approach, even those who have entered illegally would be entitled to release after six months if they cannot be deported, while the Mariels, who left Cuba as pawns in Castro's political game and were processed into the United States upon their arrival (by being granted conditional "parole"), must languish in prisons. As the Herald points out, they are here, and it is "unjust to keep them imprisoned indefinitely."

More Mariel stuff.

A quick update this morning. This article from the Boston Globe does a much better job of explaining the indefinite detention issue now before the Supreme Court than did the first-out-the-gate wire piece I linked to yesterday.

I've had a long couple of days trying to synthesize the extensive, confusing, and repetitive decisions relevant to this issue, and am heading back into the office today to continue my efforts (after a much-needed pedicure and lunch with a friend). Once the brief is filed, it's a public document, so I'll try to figure out how to link to it in case you're interested in reading it (or just need a good sleep aid).

President Yenta.

I keep trying to get to the point where nothing the Bush Administration does surprises me, but man, do they keep tossing out the zingers. The latest news is that, in addition to seeking billions of dollars to spend on colonizing the moon, Da Prez wants another bundle of cash to spend on promoting marriage. At least among straight people. And especially, it seems, among straight poor people.

If the White House wasn't so obviously dead serious about this $1.5 billion request for "marriage promotion" money, I'd think this was some kind of stupid joke spawned by a late-night talk show host ("Did you hear that President Bush is arranging marriages for homeless people and then shipping them off to the Moon colonies?). But it's reported right here, in the New York Times, which (Liberal Jewish Media Conspirator that I am) I consider a pretty darn reliable news source.

So I guess it's true. As Maureen Dowd comments today, President Bush wants to be the "national yenta."

What will this mean for the country, and particularly for us single folks? Will our dating expenses become tax deductible? Will Match.com, Jdate, and It's Just Lunch receive federal subsidies to further their efforts to pair off the American populace (and can I get a slice of the pie just for linking to them)? Will the government pay for me to visit an image consultant, a shrink, Rachel Greenwald, or some other expert who will teach me how to attract a marriage-minded man? And, perhaps most important, if I do get the ring, will President Bush pay for my wedding?!

But as much as this latest proposal seems to offer endless fodder for Bush-whacking, it's pretty scary. In a culture in which we increasingly are bombarded with the message that coupledom rules and singletons are somehow flawed (or at least incapable of scanning a decent picture and posting a few sentences of pithy self-promotion on one of the increasingly-ubiquitous dating sites), do we really need the entire United States Government exhorting us to stop being so picky and get married already?

I'm not exactly sure what the President hopes to accomplish with his matchmaking money. Apparently, the conservatives don't think he's going far enough, and the liberals are still trying to figure out how much humor-mileage they can get out of this idiocy. But it scares me, particularly since I think it marks yet another example of the Republicans' efforts to invade every aspect of our private lives, and to return the country to a 1950s-like era of racism, intolerance, gender-based discrimination, and moralistic hypocrisy.

"More bad judges."

If you thought the Bush Administration had eased up on its efforts to pack the court with under-qualified, hyper-conservative judges, think again. Political commentator Jack Newfield has this frightening essay in the current issue of The Nation. I recommend printing out the Newfield piece and pasting it in a prominent location wherever you listen to NPR or watch the news, for regular review as these horrifying nominees make their way through the confirmation process.

And it's an election year now, folks. Let's start getting informed, educated, and opinionated about who has the best shot at unseating President Shrub in November.

It's our choice.

I decided to sleep in this morning, rather than freezing my ta-tas off in minus-fifteen degree cold waiting for the bus at 5:30 a.m. As a result, I caught a snippet of the Today show, during which Tim Russert was telling Matt Lauer about what a huge challenge the Democrats face in trying to turn all the "red" states "blue" this November.

Apparently, not only do vastly more Red Staters than Blue Staters go to church, synagogue, or mosque on a regular basis, but 59% of the Red folks think that abortion is the unlawful killing of a child. "Only" 46% of the Blue Staters share this view. This little statistic stayed with me all morning, and I remain horrified and saddened to realize that a majority of Americans still oppose reproductive freedom.

Even more disheartening was the realization that despite having the theoretical upper-hand in the matter for nearly my entire lifetime, we have failed even to correct the lexicon of the abortion debate. Those Red Staters and nearly half of the people in their purportedly-liberal Blue neighbors still control the verbiage, and even intelligent commentators still bandy about loaded labels like "Pro Life" and the equally inaccurate "Pro Abortion."

How can it be that thirty-one years after Roe v. Wade only 41% of the people in blue states and 30% of those in red states think abortion is not murder or manslaughter? That well over half the population nationwide conceptualizes abortion in terms of "killing babies" instead of "saving women's lives," "preventing unwanted pregnancies," "providing options to victims of rape, incest, and domestic violence," and "helping women and families get out of poverty"?

Back at Vassar, I served on the steering committee of the Pro Choice Coalition, and one of my most powerful college experiences came when I marched on Washington, linking arms with thousands of women and men to raise our voice for choice. In the ensuing decade, though, I've become complacent. I shivered in front of the State Capitol last winter at a 30th birthday rally (and hopefully not a wake) for Roe. I give moderate contributions every year to Planned Parenthood and NARAL and respond to their congressional-contact action alerts. But I haven't done much more than that in recent years to protect a woman's right to control her reproductive destiny.

Sure, I think we need to do everything we can to turn those red states blue this election year. Sure, I recognize that the next President is likely to fill several Supreme Court vacancies, and thus to shape American jurisprudence on reproductive freedom and other civil liberties for generations to come. But I also think we need to redouble our other efforts to protect Roe, educate the public about what so-called "abortion rights" really mean, and advance the cause of reproductive freedom for all women, both in the United States and worldwide.

Here are a few organizations that are striving to do just that:
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains
National Abortion Rights Action League ("NARAL")
Emily's List
The United Nations Population Fund
Catholics for a Free Choice
The Pro-Choice Public Education Project
The Alan Guttmacher Institute
Choice USA

Perhaps one or more of these organizations will interest you -- please consider donating your time, your money, and/or your voice to help them, and all of us who understand that reproductive freedom saves lives.