CNN and Fox News are projecting Barack Obama as winner of Ohio, a major swing state, and New Mexico while they are calling Louisiana for McCain, giving Obama a commanding 200-90 electoral lead. With the typically Democratic West Coast factored in, that would give Obama 273 electoral votes and victory.
The GOP has never won the Presidency without Ohio.
These are just projections, and the actual result may differ as in Florida in 2000, but it certainly seems that the road is open for Barack Obama to win.
Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Colorado, and Virginia are still too close to call.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Networks Call Pennsylvania for Obama; Other news
The major networks have called the battleground state of Pennsylvania for Barack Obama. Between Fox News and CNN, Obama has taken 175 Electoral Votes, winning New York, the District of Columbia, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois as well as Pennsylvania. John McCain has been projected as winner in Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Dakota, and Wyoming for 81 Electoral Votes.
This gives Obama 15 states plus D.C. while McCain has won 11.
Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina are too close to call. The popular vote is nearly tied, with CNN reporting Obama with 15.3 million to McCain's 15.1 million.
In the Senate, the Democrats are projected to pick up 3 seats including Elizabeth Dole's in North Carolina, giving them a majority. The Republicans have successfully defended the Georgia race and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's seat in Kentucky.
This gives Obama 15 states plus D.C. while McCain has won 11.
Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina are too close to call. The popular vote is nearly tied, with CNN reporting Obama with 15.3 million to McCain's 15.1 million.
In the Senate, the Democrats are projected to pick up 3 seats including Elizabeth Dole's in North Carolina, giving them a majority. The Republicans have successfully defended the Georgia race and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's seat in Kentucky.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Russia and Georgia agree to ceasefire, Russian tanks advance farther into Georgia
Tuesday, August 12, the Russian and Georgian governments agreed to a truce. The peace, produced by negotiations run by French President, and current EU President, Sarkozy entails a Six-point plan includes return of troops to pre-war positions as well as providing aid for civilians. The treaty, according to Sarkozy, "underlines, respects, guarantees Georgia's territorial integrity," and that the countries involved in the plan want to make it long-term.
However, the ceasefire does not seem to be in effect. On August 13, a convoy of Russian armored vehicles was seen leaving Gori--but going South, deeper into Georgia, not North. One Russian soldier reportedly shouted at reporters, “Come with us, beauty, we're going to Tbilisi [the Georgian capital].” Russian troops stopped just miles from Tbilisi. Georgian resistance in Ossetia was limited to isolated sniper fire as the bulk of the Georgian Army rallied around the capital, limited to old rocket launchers and vintage cannons to resist Russian armor. In addition to Russian soldiers, Abkhazian and Ossetian militants were also seen entering Georgia after reportedly looting ethnic Georgian homes within Ossetia and Abkhazia, on Abkhazian, laughing at the retreating Georgians, reportedly said that the Georgians received “American training in running away.” In response, President Saakashvili has announced that Georgia is leaving the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States), an alliance of the states that made up the Soviet Union (Georgia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine). Saakashvili has called it a final farewell to a relic of the Soviet Union.
In response to renewed belligerence, the U.S. and Britain have made new threats of Russia’s removal from the G-8, some Western politicians have even referred to the group by its Cold War name, the G-7, as well as threats of barring Russia from the World Trade Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The crisis has shown rifts among NATO, with other nations response not being as strong as that of the United States and Great Britain. The U.S. boycotted a NATO meeting with Russia, NATO cancelled joint naval exercises with Russia, and President Bush has sent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Europe. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has also announced that Russia will need to ask for permission to return to Ukrainian naval bases. Finally, Poland and the U.S. have finalized a controversial deal for a missile shield placed in Poland with radar stations in the Czech Republic. In exchange for an unspecified number of U.S. Patriot missiles, Poland gives the U.S. the right to install 10 missile defense interceptors in Poland. The U.S. has also begun to send humanitarian aid to Georgia, under President Bush’s stern warning to Russia not to interfere.
In response, Russia has told Georgia that they can forget about annexing South Ossetia and Abkhazia, declaring her borders “limited,” and has issued an ultimatum to the U.S.: Friendship with Georgia, or long-term partnership with Russia, which is included on nuclear negotiations with North Korea and Iran. Meanwhile, Russian troops have reportedly advanced past Gori and Senaki and stopped just short of Tbilisi and Kutaisi, the second largest city in Georgia, and has allegedly launched missile strikes into Poti on the Black Sea, aimed at destroying what ships Georgia has. Russian criticism has been more focused on Mikhail Saakashvili, the Georgian President, calling him a tool and project of the United States and the West.
Finally, despite more recent reports by U.S. and Russian officials that indicate that Russia was planning on pulling out of Georgia later today, Russian military convoys were reportedly scene advancing towards Poti and Kutaisi while full blown Russian T-72 tanks were scene leaving Gori in the direction of Tbilisi. U.S. officials estimate Russian forces at 15,000 strong, up from initial estimates of 8-10,000.
My Take
I cannot help but laugh at the stupidity of Western diplomats in their dealings with Russia. It should come as no surprise that Russia is breaking this truce, if it ever began to pull back. It should come as no surprise that Moscow cannot be taken it at its word. One needs simply to look at history--old and recent. There is a reason one of Germany’s roles in European affairs was to keep the Russians out of Europe--whether it was the Prussians keeping out the Tsars or West Germany being the first buffer against the Commissars. RUSSIA CAN’T BE TRUSTED. People often learn in school about Senator McCarthy’s Anti-Communist hearings and about how he went too far. Not many learn that in some of his accusations he was correct--the Soviets really had a major spying operation in America and the U.S. government during World War II, when we were “friends” with the Soviets. The IMF (International Monetary Fund), set up by the great economist John Maynard Keynes, was also set up by a Communist in the Treasury Department with a built in mechanism to ruin the U.S. that wasn’t realized until, just in the nick of time, Richard Nixon was President. In 2001, nearly 10 years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the U.S. finally caught Robert Hanssen--a high level F.B.I. official who was a spy for the Russians.
Russia could not be trusted then and cannot be trusted now. They apparently agree to a ceasefire and to pull out of Georgia, but Russian tanks are still running around Georgia’s biggest cities. And Joseph Stalin publicly promised free elections in Eastern Europe. The stepping up of anti-Saakashvili rhetoric should come as no surprise to anyone with a basic knowledge of Russia. As I said in my previous post, if undeterred Russia is going to try to do what is in their interest--the removal of Saakashvili’s government whether by force--covert or otherwise--or a prolonged military presence forcing Saakashvili to resign to save Georgia’s sovereignty.
On a side note, this brings to light the need for America’s energy independence. Europe has been relatively silent, except for a few voices, due to Russia’s control of oil. Russia’s recent post-Cold War resurgence is due to the massive surpluses they have been running thanks to oil exports. It’s sleek, new gear, not old Soviet materials, that are rolling into Georgia. The most prudent course of action is an “All of the Above” approach favored by many, including former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, that entails lifting all drilling bans, funding for research and development such as wind and solar, nuclear power, and even properly inflating our tires--everything. We cannot sustain shipping $700 billion a year for our energy needs indefinitely--no nation in history has survived unchanged incurring deficits, whether government, trade, and energy, as the U.S. is now.
On an electoral note, I am of the mind that prolonged exposure of the Georgian crisis helps John McCain more than Barack Obama. McCain has been firmer, even more so than Bush, and has echoes of the Cold War in his rhetoric. If reminded, the Americans who lived through it will remember the Cold War, and despite increased youth turnout, older people most likely will make up the bulk of the vote.
Provocative? Maybe. Disagree with me on Russia, Energy, or Anything Else? Feel free to comment.
Links
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/12/georgia.russia.war/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/12/georgia.russia.out/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_road_to_tbilisi;_ylt=AjSED6q_KBRS3FPOjWpFwLJvaA8F
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/12/georgia.us/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia;_ylt=AlFdKa7AexyZX3mKVcKSU8xvaA8F
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/13/us.russia.diplomacy/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia;_ylt=AuP4rxAHFFjSEZOPqkRiIjhvaA8F
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/14/georgia.russia.war/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_re_eu/poland_us_missile_defense;_ylt=Asf3TdtshgRtaYvc8SEccplvaA8F
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/06/then.now/
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Russia invades Georgia, divide nation in two
On August 8, as the world watched the Olympic Opening Ceremonies in Beijing, China, Russian tanks rumbled into the former Soviet Republic of Georgia in Central Asia, breaking that tiny country beneath the behemoth that is Russia.
However, to understand the full story behind this situation, a brief history listen is required. Georgia is a Central Asian country wedged between the Black and Caspian Seas that borders Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. The Russian Empire annexed Georgia and the controversial provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, in the early and mid 1800s. Amidst the chaos that World War I brought to Russia, Georgia gained independence from Russia in 1918. However, in 1921 the Soviet Red Army invaded and retook Georgia, making it a Soviet Republic. Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin later ordered Abkhazia to consolidate with Georgia in 1931. Later, in 1991, as the Soviet Union was dissolving, Georgia voted to leave the USSR by popular referendum (a vote of the people). With the yoke of the strict Communist system gone, nationalism drove Ossetians and Abkhazians to fight for Independence from Georgia. Georgian forces were forced out of both regions in 1992 although most of the world, including the West, continued to recognize them as part of Georgia while the provinces wished for a return to Russia. Tensions remained high throughout the 1990s and early 2000s as peace talks often break down and small conflicts erupt. However, into this picture came a resurgent Russia. Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia took a nationalistic and authoritarian turn as high oil prices pour billions into the Russian treasury and Putin begins to modernize the military, decaying since the fall of the Soviet Union. Russian policy is bolder, as Russian bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons begin to make Cold War era practice runs in the direction of Europe and Japan as well American military targets throughout Asia and Europe. Wishing to restore Russia to its former Soviet glory, Putin laid claim to “all former Soviet property” as well as taking strategic positions to aid pro-Moscow factions, in this case extending Russian citizenship to Ossetians and Abkhazians, as well as curbing civil liberties and silencing dissent--the Russian government was accused of involvement in the fatal radiation poisoning of a critical journalist in Britain as well as the dioxin poisoning of a Ukrainian Presidential candidate critical of Moscow.
Back to 2008, tensions between South Ossetia and Georgia escalate through the year, and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Putin, now Prime Minister, reserve the right to defend “Russians” in the provinces, who had been given citizenship by Russia. Tensions boil over in early August, with each side claiming the other fired first. On August 6, Georgian troops entered South Ossetia and made large gains. In response, the Russians move their military to the defense of South Ossetia. The Georgian Army was quickly overwhelmed and in retreat. Abkhazians, seeing their chance, engage Georgian troops on their border in combat, and Russia expands their military action to aid Abkhazia. The Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili, declared a state of emergency and of war with war with Russia. Georgia called up all her reserves and pulled it’s entire contingent out of Iraq.
By Sunday, August 10, Georgian troops submitted to the Russian demand of withdrawal from South Ossetia and called for a ceasefire. The Russians rejected their request and that of the Western world including President Bush, the Presidential candidates, and Pope Benedict XVI for a cease to hostilities. Going beyond their original demands, the Russian Army invaded Georgia proper, taking the city of Gori, just south of South Ossetia. On Monday, August 11, Russia invaded Georgian controlled territory from Abkhazia, opening a second front in the war while Russian troops used the central city of Gori to take crucial highways, dividing Georgia in two as Georgian troops retreat to defensive positions around the capital city of Tbilisi.
Russia maintains that she has not started or intends to start an offensive despite Russian troops occupying Gori, the Senaki Georgian Army base, invading with their Black Sea fleet, and using air dominance to target radar stations and infrastructure around the Georgian capital, allegedly including a civilian airport. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin maintains that Russia is in the right, accusing Georgia of genocide while the Georgian government accuses the Russian Army of ethnic cleansing of ethnic Georgians within the provinces. The Russian aggression has been criticized by many Western leaders. Particular disgust and worry has come from Eastern European countries that were in the Soviet sphere of influence during the Cold War. Ukraine has reserved the right to bar the Russian Navy from returning to their Crimean bases due to their deployment to Georgia--the Russian Navy has a lease on those bases until 2017. Meanwhile, Poland and the three Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, condemned Russia and urge NATO and the West to take a firmer stance. The Presidents of those four nations are planning to travel to Georgia to stand with the Georgian President while French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
My Take
It is interesting to note that this come amid efforts by Georgia and the Ukraine to enter NATO, and that Georgia provides a pipeline for oil for Western Europe, bypassing Russia--the largest supplier of oil and natural gas to Europe. Also, Georgia was a rumored sight of radar bases for the proposed missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Coincidence?
I think not. Tensions have escalated and eased for over 15 years in Georgia, but Russia is ready with a full invasion force of tens of thousands of men, hundreds of tanks, and precise air strikes NOW. This an obviously planned act of Russia flexing its reconstituted strength over its old sphere of dominance, peeved by Eastern expansion of NATO and the European Union into said sphere and NATO’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo, stripping that province from Serbia--an old Russian ally.
It is foolish to think that Russia ever had designs simply to aid “Russians” in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. One must only look at the history with dealing with states that begin to lean Western. Consider the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. As well as the historical echo of another authoritarian regime: Hitler’s Germany initially demanded the absorption of Sudetenland Germans before taking all of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Is Georgia marked by Russia for absorption? Will merely a blatantly pro-Moscow government be installed? No proof exists for either scenario, but Putin had ominous words directed at the pro-America Georgian President Saakashvili, alluding to the fate of the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein: "Of course, Saddam Hussein ought to have been hanged for destroying several Shiite villages," Putin said in Moscow. "And the incumbent Georgian leaders who razed ten Ossetian villages at once, who ran elderly people and children with tanks, who burned civilian alive in their sheds — these leaders must be taken under protection." Will another name be added to the list of people whose blood is already allegedly on Putin’s hands?
Verily, Russia stands most to gain from the annexation or at least the deposing of the current government. Greater control of European oil, denting U.S. plans for a defensive missile shield, regaining an old friend, insulating Georgia from NATO and EU expansion, a re-assertion of Russian power for the world to see, and, perhaps most importantly, the harming of American clout in foreign affairs. The United States left the Cold War the greatest power in the history of the world. No country had the ability to project power as the U.S. could. Grateful for aid in rolling back Communism by pressuring the Soviets, Eastern Europe has been especially loyal to the U.S., siding with the U.S. and supporting it when Western Europe has been skeptical. If Georgia, a de facto ally of the United States, is overrun by Russia and bent to Moscow’s desired position, what does that say of the U.S.? Its word? Its ability to protect other nations? If Russia sees the U.S. sit and don’t back up its talk, what do you think will be Russia’s designs for the former Soviet states not yet in NATO’s protective embrace? What will other countries, China in Asia, and others think of American threats? The deck is stacked in Russia’s favor. Russia holds a veto vote in the UN Security Council. The U.S. and NATO will not intervene and risk nuclear war. Russia can get away with whatever it wants in Georgia bar some “super solution,” but none existed in 1956 and 1968, and none exists now.
Although Georgia is essentially doomed militarily and has little hope of aid in that respect, there are measures that can be taken by the U.S. and the West. The immediate acceptance of the Ukraine into NATO would remove another target out of Russia’s reach, limiting their military scope and forcing Russia to take a new approach to its foreign policy. Baring Russia out of the WTO, GATT, and removal from the G-8 would isolate Russia in trade. Additionally, a heightened drive for energy independence: offshore drilling, exploration in natural gas rich Scandinavia, alternative fuels like hydrogen, nuclear power, wind power, and even properly inflating tires. In time, Russia’s great hold on the West, energy, will be diminished. Russia wants to return to the glory of the Soviet Empire. It will take the Cold War cooperation of America and the West to stop them.
Election ’08
Barack Obama has mostly echoed calls by the UN, the EU, NATO, and President Bush in calling for an immediate ceasefire as well as a return to diplomacy. John McCain has been more direct and forceful in his rhetoric against Russia, calling on the West to use leverage against Russia such as acceptance into international organizations as well as diplomatic pressure, saying "We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world." When the Obama campaign called his remarks needlessly belligerent, McCain declared Obama’s policy tantamount to appeasement. This crisis provides the candidates with a genuine foreign policy test, something that debate points can’t cover.
More pictures are available here.
Links
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080811/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_south_ossetia
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/11/georgia.russia/index.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/10/2330218.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/ap_on_re_eu/un_georgia_russia;_ylt=AlsrDrovDM7jxiIHeSLf3yp0bBAF
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080810/ap_on_re_eu/ukraine_russia_georgia;_ylt=AujWN3X6J0shGynjcB3O4OV0bBAF
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080811/ap_on_re_eu/eastern_europe_russia_georgia;_ylt=Atq9qa8kSFp2U0VpT6sParJ0bBAF
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/47174.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080811/wl_mcclatchy/3015456
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080809/pl_politico/12409
Sunday, July 27, 2008
100 Days!
Hello folks, just letting you know that today, July 27th, marks the 100 day point until the election.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
I'll take some pragmatism with my change, please!
Well, hello there blog reader! It's been a while... 4 months and 5 days to be exact. For that, allow me to apologize; the blog fell into a coinciding disrepair with all of our bloggers. Chris, Marco, Chelsea and I were busy preparing for AP exams, and with the end of the year pressures that go along with Senior year, none of us were particularly filled with energy or able to make posts any more. As summer began our project was forgotten, although in pretty much every conversation I've had with them (and I talk to Marco daily) the idea to restart the blog has been included. To do justice to that, I'll bat lead off once again.
Since our effort went into a hiatus, we have had a whole host of political stuff happen; gas climbed to over 4 dollars a gallon (the price of oil spiked to over $140 a barrel), Barack Obama and John McCain gained their respective party's presumptive nomination, the home mortgage crisis has pretty much drowned our already flailing economy and brought us dangerously close to a categorical recession, and the Supreme Court made a number of landmark decisions. Those issues and topics will be covered in the days and weeks ahead in our best possible detail, but my actual post has to deal with something that has inspired me personally to resuscitate the blog: the issue of "pragmatism."
Now, you're definitely cursing my "big vocabulary" and wondering exactly what pragmatism is. A dictionary.com definition of pragmatism: "a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value."
Okay, so now that the definition is cleared up for three of you, I'll explain the meaning of the definition applied to my posts for the rest of you. Pragmatism is the philosophy of practicality; that is, any solution to a problem should serve practical interests, and more specifically this series of posts will attempt to reconcile issues on both sides of the political spectrum with a practical solution for both sides. More specifically, this series of posts should be labeled "reconciled pragmatism" but that doesn't exactly do poetic justice, now does it?
Okay, and one more thing before I get into serious detail with this post. When you're reading these posts, please do read them from the first word to the last word without skipping parts you don't want to read. I'll be bashing and praising parts of both sides of any given issue, so if your well reasoned (and hijacked) argument is offended, please grind through it and hear me all the way out. So, without further adieu, I present the first in my series of "pragmatic" posts. The issue at hand is gay marriage.
First things first, why gay marriage? Well, recently this issue has been pressed to the top of the headlines on news websites and newspapers, and considering the point of this blog is to focus our youthful votes on issues that actually require deep thought and debate (economics, warfare and foreign policy, energy), the fact that gay marriage is being given our time has some importance for both moral figures and gays themselves, but the fact is that the vast majority of society could care less. That doesn't mean that this issue has no importance; basic facts about the issue state otherwise, but it is no doubt a second-hand issue when energy needs are slaughtering our economy while we're dumping $341 million dollars per day into Iraq.
So, we've established that gay marriage is an (although second-hand) issue that needs solving without (in my opinion) a great national debate.
The Right Wing's Opinion:
Yes, fiscal conservatives, I realize that the Christian Right does not speak for you, but for purposes of expediency we're going to lump you all into one category. (That applies to you, too, Catholic liberals.) Generally speaking, the right's moral argument on gay marriage says something like this: because 5,000 years of human tradition, from Lucy to the most recent religiously sanctioned marriages. establishes that the definition of marriage is one man plus one woman equals marriage, and that gays are trying to redefine the traditional and... basically logical definition of marriage. Okay, to this I say yes, yes yes yes. This is both reasoned, researched, and basically irrefutable. Morally. There is not and will never be a moral argument in favor of gay marriage that you will hear me or any other honest moralist make, because that argument simply does not exist. The part of the right's argument that I do not agree with is a ban on a national piece of policy that regulates "gay marriage" (or what I will refer to in this paragraph and later on in detail as a "union"). Sorry guys, you tried that one already. The battle over the legality of interracial marriage has a myriad of parallels to the current battle over the legality of same-sex marriage. "Each [person] has the right and the privilege of marrying withing his or her own group." This argument could easily be substituted for gays, to something like "Each gay can marry, legally, in any state to someone of the opposite gender." The first (incidentally quoted from the Justice Shenk's dissenting opinion in the 1948 California Supreme Court case, Perez v. Lippold) is from a the California case that overturned California's ban on interracial marriage in 1948. The second (which I invented) is a standard yet flimsy civil argument against gay marriage. With that presented, I will move on to the left's argument
The Left's Argument:
The left's typical civil (or legal) argument speaks as something like this: because marriage is an institution tied to insurance claims, emergency room visits, and other property issues, the fact that gays couples are denied equal access to the institution of marriage is an infringement of their equal protection under the laws (the "due process clause" spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment). To this I say yes, yes yes yes. Again, this is both reasoned, researched, and definitely irrefutable. The fact that gays can be together for decades without equal protection under the law as citizens is a serious injustice and breach of our Constitutional protection for all citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Further, the leftist argument spells out that a "civil union" is also unconstitutional, citing Brown v. Board as evidence of this. How could a civil rights case possibly apply to gay marriage? Well, Brown's majority opinion states that a "separate" institution (that is, civil union for marriage) is "inherently unequal." Again, yes yes yes. Without getting into too much detail, civil unions only confer local or state benefits at best and have no weight in federal law, making them legally speaking nothing more than a note on a page. What this means is, for example, Tom and Bob might have a legal civil union in Connecticut, but if Tom commits a federal offense, Bob can be forced to testify against him in federal court, whereas if they were married under the law they could not be forced to testify against each other. However, gays get this issue wrong on one major point: by calling it "marriage," they are fighting an uphill battle. The word marriage evokes one image for most people, religious marriage. The problem is that "most people" can also be defined as "most of the electorate" so fear tactics about the "preservation of marriage" are laughably easy to use in order to detract from gay marriage reform attempts. However, the right wing on this issue is totally focused on protection of religious marriage, not civil marriage. Sometimes I wonder if the strongest advocates of a prohibition on gay marriage even realize that. In any case, in the defense of religious marriage they are correct, religious marriage is a moral issue and therefore worth protecting.
Reconciliation:
Okay, so I have presented why the right is correct to protect the religious institution of marriage, and why the left is correct to assault the civil institution of marriage. My reconciliation on this issue comes in several forms. The first is that a federal piece of policy, whether it be an executive order, a law passed by Congress, or a Supreme Court decision, must be enacted which removes the word "marriage" from federal and state statutes that apply to marriage. The fact that marriage was written into our laws in the first place is a violation of the first clause of the First Amendment; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This is called the "exercise clause" and can be applied to this very issue in an active way. My belief on the practicality (pragmatism!) of this argument is simple: we required schools to desegregate with Brown, and I think with a new piece of policy we can require secretaries to edit "marriage" out of statutes and replace it with "union." Further, the definition of the term "union" is afforded to the states, so folks concerned about too much federal power are satisfied, and a de facto check to the states abridging gay unions is that anything that abridges same-sex marriage must also abridge straight marriages. Alas, by simply rewording the idea within the law, you detach all religious stigma from the issue and make it a simple civil issue. The second form of reconciliation is contained in the second clause of the First Amendment, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Religious marriage survives and is defended against a precedent less and illogical redefinition of the institution, while preserving the legal rights of gays. A side-benefit for moralists (at least in my view) comes in a different, sort of twisted way. For religious couples to claim they are married, as they most certainly will want to, they must attend their religious services and by doing so in fact strengthen religious ties in America! While this solution might lend itself to a bit too many practical benefits, I submit that it is the best solution available.
There, is basically, my exhaustive and detailed argument in reconciliation of the issue of gay marriage. For a quick and easy summary: Detractors of gay marriage are trying to defend religious marriage from intrusion by gay couples, and supporters are trying to receive equal protection under the laws guaranteed to them in the Constitution. To solve this problem, we redefine the legal definition of marriage as the states see fit, and the new definition must be termed "union". Also, states continue to recognize religious marriage, however religious marriage contains no special legal rights compared to a "union."
The fact is that we must recognize religious heritage while also recognizing common rights of all citizens. Both sides of this issue can be reconciled.
I appreciate any and all arguments against this post, as the free exchange of ideas is key to improving my own argument and changing any views I have presented here.
Pragmatic?
---
Phew. That was exhaustive. If you even got to this point, thank you. The comment button is below, use it! Idea exchange and questions are both seriously desired :)
PS, the blog hiatus at least worked for our blog authors; all four of us received fives on the AP Gov exam.
PPS, a quick google search for "civil argument gay marriage" yielded several articles; three of the top articles look dangerously similar to mine. I would like to note for the record that I share the ideas of these articles and no idea is original any more but I did not straight up steal any of the material posted in this post. This was a more pragmatic solution that I had envisioned in some discussion with good ol' Jillian on the topic at issue here. I just didn't write it down first!
Quick Bibliography:
http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/marriage_equality0905.pdf?docID=881
http://www.brownat50.org/brownCases/PreBrownCases/PerezvLippoldCal1948.html
Also, the US Constitution was referenced in physical form for the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Since our effort went into a hiatus, we have had a whole host of political stuff happen; gas climbed to over 4 dollars a gallon (the price of oil spiked to over $140 a barrel), Barack Obama and John McCain gained their respective party's presumptive nomination, the home mortgage crisis has pretty much drowned our already flailing economy and brought us dangerously close to a categorical recession, and the Supreme Court made a number of landmark decisions. Those issues and topics will be covered in the days and weeks ahead in our best possible detail, but my actual post has to deal with something that has inspired me personally to resuscitate the blog: the issue of "pragmatism."
Now, you're definitely cursing my "big vocabulary" and wondering exactly what pragmatism is. A dictionary.com definition of pragmatism: "a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value."
Okay, so now that the definition is cleared up for three of you, I'll explain the meaning of the definition applied to my posts for the rest of you. Pragmatism is the philosophy of practicality; that is, any solution to a problem should serve practical interests, and more specifically this series of posts will attempt to reconcile issues on both sides of the political spectrum with a practical solution for both sides. More specifically, this series of posts should be labeled "reconciled pragmatism" but that doesn't exactly do poetic justice, now does it?
Okay, and one more thing before I get into serious detail with this post. When you're reading these posts, please do read them from the first word to the last word without skipping parts you don't want to read. I'll be bashing and praising parts of both sides of any given issue, so if your well reasoned (and hijacked) argument is offended, please grind through it and hear me all the way out. So, without further adieu, I present the first in my series of "pragmatic" posts. The issue at hand is gay marriage.
First things first, why gay marriage? Well, recently this issue has been pressed to the top of the headlines on news websites and newspapers, and considering the point of this blog is to focus our youthful votes on issues that actually require deep thought and debate (economics, warfare and foreign policy, energy), the fact that gay marriage is being given our time has some importance for both moral figures and gays themselves, but the fact is that the vast majority of society could care less. That doesn't mean that this issue has no importance; basic facts about the issue state otherwise, but it is no doubt a second-hand issue when energy needs are slaughtering our economy while we're dumping $341 million dollars per day into Iraq.
So, we've established that gay marriage is an (although second-hand) issue that needs solving without (in my opinion) a great national debate.
The Right Wing's Opinion:
Yes, fiscal conservatives, I realize that the Christian Right does not speak for you, but for purposes of expediency we're going to lump you all into one category. (That applies to you, too, Catholic liberals.) Generally speaking, the right's moral argument on gay marriage says something like this: because 5,000 years of human tradition, from Lucy to the most recent religiously sanctioned marriages. establishes that the definition of marriage is one man plus one woman equals marriage, and that gays are trying to redefine the traditional and... basically logical definition of marriage. Okay, to this I say yes, yes yes yes. This is both reasoned, researched, and basically irrefutable. Morally. There is not and will never be a moral argument in favor of gay marriage that you will hear me or any other honest moralist make, because that argument simply does not exist. The part of the right's argument that I do not agree with is a ban on a national piece of policy that regulates "gay marriage" (or what I will refer to in this paragraph and later on in detail as a "union"). Sorry guys, you tried that one already. The battle over the legality of interracial marriage has a myriad of parallels to the current battle over the legality of same-sex marriage. "Each [person] has the right and the privilege of marrying withing his or her own group." This argument could easily be substituted for gays, to something like "Each gay can marry, legally, in any state to someone of the opposite gender." The first (incidentally quoted from the Justice Shenk's dissenting opinion in the 1948 California Supreme Court case, Perez v. Lippold) is from a the California case that overturned California's ban on interracial marriage in 1948. The second (which I invented) is a standard yet flimsy civil argument against gay marriage. With that presented, I will move on to the left's argument
The Left's Argument:
The left's typical civil (or legal) argument speaks as something like this: because marriage is an institution tied to insurance claims, emergency room visits, and other property issues, the fact that gays couples are denied equal access to the institution of marriage is an infringement of their equal protection under the laws (the "due process clause" spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment). To this I say yes, yes yes yes. Again, this is both reasoned, researched, and definitely irrefutable. The fact that gays can be together for decades without equal protection under the law as citizens is a serious injustice and breach of our Constitutional protection for all citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Further, the leftist argument spells out that a "civil union" is also unconstitutional, citing Brown v. Board as evidence of this. How could a civil rights case possibly apply to gay marriage? Well, Brown's majority opinion states that a "separate" institution (that is, civil union for marriage) is "inherently unequal." Again, yes yes yes. Without getting into too much detail, civil unions only confer local or state benefits at best and have no weight in federal law, making them legally speaking nothing more than a note on a page. What this means is, for example, Tom and Bob might have a legal civil union in Connecticut, but if Tom commits a federal offense, Bob can be forced to testify against him in federal court, whereas if they were married under the law they could not be forced to testify against each other. However, gays get this issue wrong on one major point: by calling it "marriage," they are fighting an uphill battle. The word marriage evokes one image for most people, religious marriage. The problem is that "most people" can also be defined as "most of the electorate" so fear tactics about the "preservation of marriage" are laughably easy to use in order to detract from gay marriage reform attempts. However, the right wing on this issue is totally focused on protection of religious marriage, not civil marriage. Sometimes I wonder if the strongest advocates of a prohibition on gay marriage even realize that. In any case, in the defense of religious marriage they are correct, religious marriage is a moral issue and therefore worth protecting.
Reconciliation:
Okay, so I have presented why the right is correct to protect the religious institution of marriage, and why the left is correct to assault the civil institution of marriage. My reconciliation on this issue comes in several forms. The first is that a federal piece of policy, whether it be an executive order, a law passed by Congress, or a Supreme Court decision, must be enacted which removes the word "marriage" from federal and state statutes that apply to marriage. The fact that marriage was written into our laws in the first place is a violation of the first clause of the First Amendment; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This is called the "exercise clause" and can be applied to this very issue in an active way. My belief on the practicality (pragmatism!) of this argument is simple: we required schools to desegregate with Brown, and I think with a new piece of policy we can require secretaries to edit "marriage" out of statutes and replace it with "union." Further, the definition of the term "union" is afforded to the states, so folks concerned about too much federal power are satisfied, and a de facto check to the states abridging gay unions is that anything that abridges same-sex marriage must also abridge straight marriages. Alas, by simply rewording the idea within the law, you detach all religious stigma from the issue and make it a simple civil issue. The second form of reconciliation is contained in the second clause of the First Amendment, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Religious marriage survives and is defended against a precedent less and illogical redefinition of the institution, while preserving the legal rights of gays. A side-benefit for moralists (at least in my view) comes in a different, sort of twisted way. For religious couples to claim they are married, as they most certainly will want to, they must attend their religious services and by doing so in fact strengthen religious ties in America! While this solution might lend itself to a bit too many practical benefits, I submit that it is the best solution available.
There, is basically, my exhaustive and detailed argument in reconciliation of the issue of gay marriage. For a quick and easy summary: Detractors of gay marriage are trying to defend religious marriage from intrusion by gay couples, and supporters are trying to receive equal protection under the laws guaranteed to them in the Constitution. To solve this problem, we redefine the legal definition of marriage as the states see fit, and the new definition must be termed "union". Also, states continue to recognize religious marriage, however religious marriage contains no special legal rights compared to a "union."
The fact is that we must recognize religious heritage while also recognizing common rights of all citizens. Both sides of this issue can be reconciled.
I appreciate any and all arguments against this post, as the free exchange of ideas is key to improving my own argument and changing any views I have presented here.
Pragmatic?
---
Phew. That was exhaustive. If you even got to this point, thank you. The comment button is below, use it! Idea exchange and questions are both seriously desired :)
PS, the blog hiatus at least worked for our blog authors; all four of us received fives on the AP Gov exam.
PPS, a quick google search for "civil argument gay marriage" yielded several articles; three of the top articles look dangerously similar to mine. I would like to note for the record that I share the ideas of these articles and no idea is original any more but I did not straight up steal any of the material posted in this post. This was a more pragmatic solution that I had envisioned in some discussion with good ol' Jillian on the topic at issue here. I just didn't write it down first!
Quick Bibliography:
http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/marriage_equality0905.pdf?docID=881
http://www.brownat50.org/brownCases/PreBrownCases/PerezvLippoldCal1948.html
Also, the US Constitution was referenced in physical form for the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)