Back of the Envelope

I've noticed something interesting among generally pro-Bush bloggers. Whenever he does something they agree with, he is principled and making the right decision (John Hawkins on gay marriage, Citizen Smash on immigration reform). Whenever, he's doing something they disagree with, it's pure political pandering (John Hawkins on immigration reform, Neal Boortz on the Federal Marriage Amendment). I'm curious about this. There's good evidence that Bush's principles make him for reforming immigration and against gay marriage (that whole Evangelical Christian thing). Is it really more important that we perceive Bush as being on our side than seeing him as principled? Perhaps Shannon Love was right, and it's all about having a president who agrees with us, in principle, on everything, even if he occasionally has to act differently for political reasons.

Of course, this isn't a problem for the anti-Bush bloggers, since from their perspective Bush has no principles and is always pandering for votes. In my personal opinion, Bush does have principles, but there are strong principles and weak principles. Strong principles include the defense of America, the right of the people to decide their laws rather than the courts, and the spread of democracy. Weak principles include balanced budgets and free trade. He's shown considerable willingness to take political risks based on the strong principles. Weak principles are more like good ideas, which can be compromised on.

Old Post: My last post on the Federal Marriage Amendment is here.

One of the arguments against gay marriage is that by redefining marriage you weaken the institution. Those in favor of gay marriage argue that gay marriage won't do any more harm to the institution of marriage than heterosexual divorce has already done. To which the response is that since marriage is already in such bad shape, why in the world whould you want to deliver the coup de grace?

I have two reasons to oppose gay marriage:

1. Religious: In the Bible, God clearly defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman, so that's what it is. You may call something else "marriage," but that doesn't make it one. That doesn't prevent the state from calling something else marriage (and indeed they do), but this is only a legal definition, and doesn't make it so in God's eyes or mine.

2. Process: It is up to the state legislatures to decide how to define legal marriage (this does not affect the spiritual truth one way or another), not the courts or city mayors. Since aside from the spiritual aspect, the social aspect of marriage is the main effect, it is important that the legal definition of marriage follow the social definition, and thus be decided by the elected representatives.

To be honest, the survival of marriage argument never did much for me. Orthodox churches will continue to define marriage by the Biblical definition, they will continue to encourage marriage within their congregations, and they will continue to marry only those who meet the religious definition. That doesn't mean that marriage can't be damaged in society as a whole, just that it can't be killed as long as Americans are a religious people.

Still, the idea is to strengthen, not weaken, marriage, and I think the most damaging thing to marriage today is no-fault divorce. It's hard to imagine that the existence of gay marriage will do more harm than that. I'll give you a couple of guesses as to who gave us no-fault divorce. Hint: it wasn't the religious or social conservatives. It was largely the same people and groups who are now pushing for gay marriage. A cynic might think they were trying to harm marriage or something, but assuming that's not the case, and that the gays who want to marry have a vested interest in making marriage a stronger institution, I have a proposal: If you'll help me repeal no-fault divorce, I'll help you get gay marriage. We'll put them both in the same bill before the state legislatures. Yes, from my perspective, changing the legal definition doesn't really make it marriage, but sure, you can call it that, and in the process we'll be cementing the marriages which meet the definition.

New Post: Thoughts on President Bush's tactics here.

Old Post: This seems silly, but it is policy. Look below for the previous post on this.

The blogosphere is afire with this topic. There are quite a few libertarian blogs out there who are generally in favor of Bush's policies when it comes to the war on terror, but are quite upset about this. I'm not saying too much before I see the text. I am personally against gay marriage for religious reasons. However, I believe that it is the responsibility of the state legislatures (not the state courts) to define this issue, and if Vermont decides to create gay marriage, fine. The trouble is the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution:

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

The second sentence should allow Congress to make an exception in the case of marriage, which it has in the Defense of Marriage Act. The problem is that sooner or later the DOMA will come up before the Supreme Court, and it will likely strike it down, if past decisions are any indication. So I can see a need for an Amendment, it's just not clear what it should be. My preference would be to curtail the power of the courts, which I think is the root problem here. As that is apparently too broad for most people, I guess we'll see something addressed to marriage. I might as well offer my suggestion, just in case W drops by this blog:

Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any couple or group aside from the union of one man and one woman unless explicitly defined otherwise in state law. No state shall be required to recognize the marital status or legal incidents thereof conferred by any other state aside from the union of one man and one woman.

This is adapted from one of the proposed amendments, and makes it clear that gay marriage would have to be explicitly enacted in state law, and no court can say otherwise. This is close to what Ramesh Ponnuru proposes.

New Post: More on gay marriage here.

Old Post: A discussion of an alternative to the FMA starts here.

Well, it looks like the president didn't take my advice and address the root cause of the problem. Instead, he's supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment:

Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

He hasn't said what exact wording he would want yet, at least that I could find. I'd like to see that before I comment too much. My preference would be something that prevented the courts from imposing gay marriage while still allowing the legislature to implement it if the people wanted, but from his statement above, it looks like he wants the actual definition of marriage within the amendment.

The irony is that gay and lesbian activists, attempting to circumvent popular will by seeking court action rather than the legislative process, may have managed to block their own path. Overturning a constitutional amendment will be a much more difficult undertaking than convincing a state legislature to redefine marriage to their liking.

Update: It looks like Captain's Quarters has a similar view.

New Post: More here.

Old Post: My original Syria conspiracy theory is here.

There's lots of news coming out of Syria recently. On the bright side, it looks like they're interested in restarting negotiations with Israel. I'd cite that as evidence for my conspiracy theory, but I'd also have to deal with the counter-evidence that they seem to be providing aid to the terrorist forces in Iraq. So maybe my theory isn't so accurate after all. Or maybe it's more complicated than I thought. A true conspiracy theorist could work these bits of counter-evidence in.

In any case, conspiracy or not, there's evidence that there's a growing pro-democracy movement in Syria in this story:

More than half a million Syrians demanded political and economic reform in a petition to be handed to President Bashar Assad, a human rights group said Saturday.

Some 600,000 citizens, including intellectuals, lawyers and human rights activists, have already signed the document, the Committees for the Defense of Democratic Liberties and Human Rights in Syria said.

The group said it hoped for a million signatures by March. Syria has a population of around 18 million.

One million is a significant fraction (5.5%) when the population is 18 million. Even 600,000 (3.3%) is nothing to be sneezed at. That that many people are unafraid to put their names on a petition indicates a real possibility of positive reform.

(Thanks to Instapundit and Winds of Change for the links)

Old Post: My most recent mention of Dave Barry's Kerry DYKWIA story is here.

It looks like Dave Barry's Kerry story, which I dug up, is getting a lot of play on the Internet, including in a comic from Chris Muir's Day by Day. It makes me feel all warm inside.




Day By Day© by Chris Muir. Used with permission.


Update: I revised the post a bit to give clearer credit to Chris Muir.

It's always dangerous to talk about black issues when you're not black (as I'm not). However, I do think there are interesting forces at play here, and I think I can address them objectively. I'll do my best.

The black vote is one of the bedrock supporters of the Democratic party. Over 90% of it went to Al Gore in the 2000 election. This is not good for the Republicans, who have for the most part given up on winning these votes, nor is it good for the black community, who are taken for granted by the Democrats. It is assumed by some politicians in both parties that the black community is concerned only about "black" issues, and will tolerate any other policies important to the Democratic web of special issues. I don't believe that this is the case, and there are a number of reasons to believe that this important vote is in play this year.

Reasons why the black vote may be in play
War on Terror — The War on Terror affects everyone, and this includes the black community, whose view of this struggle is probably closer to President Bush's than John Kerry's.

Military — Blacks are a larger percentage of the military than of society as a whole. The military has a great deal of respect for Bush, a worldview which appreciates the necessity for the use of force, and a better knowledge of the facts on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq. This doesn't make every one of them a Republican, but they are more amenable to Bush himself. They still don't make up a huge portion of the black community, but considering the public's awareness and respect for the military right now, they have significant influence on their communities.

Vouchers — Many in the black community in Washington, DC, have come out in support of vouchers. The national Democrats, who are beholden to the teachers' unions, are strongly against them.

Gay Marriage — Black churches in Boston, MA, are opposing gay marriage (thanks to Donald Sensing for the link), and it looks like this may be a dividing line between them and the Democratic candidate. Kerry is now supporting it. Bush is looking for a way to prevent gay marriage from being imposed by judicial fiat.

Religion — Bush is an openly religious evangelical Christian. This makes him closer to most of the black community in spiritual matters than Kerry could hope to be.

Bush's Politics — Bush is a moderate, who has been slow to take a stance on hot button civil rights issues, such as affirmative action, even when we conservatives wish he would. This does provide an opening here, however.

Bush's Administration — Bush's administration contains a number of high-profile, moderate African-Americans, most noticeably Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice.

Actions to put the black vote in play
Bush isn't going to be getting the NAACP endorsement anytime soon. He may, however, be able to make an end-run around the national organizations which believe they can deliver the black vote to the Democrats.

Public Speaking — Black churches often invite Democratic politicians to speak. They're unlikely to invite Bush to speak to them, but if Bush were to ask for an opportunity, I think a lot of them would grant it. These talks would be good for Bush, as this is the sort of audience whose spiritual outlook he can strongly relate with. It is important not to use these talks to attack the Democratic candidates, and most certainly not Democrats in general (most of the audience have voted Democratic all their lives). He would need to talk positively about his vision for America and how it benefits them. This also gives him a chance to talk about his own spiritual life. The main purpose of these talks would be to give these communities a chance to get to know him as he is, not as the caricature which the Democrats are making him out to be.

Small Group Sessions — Bush does well meeting with small groups of people, and meeting with black community leaders, interacting with them and discussing their concerns, would give them both a chance to know one another.

Policy — As I've already pointed out, Bush is on the right side of many of the policy issues important to black voters. What about affirmative action? That's the ones that Republicans are, by definition, against, and blacks are, by definition, for, right? There may be some middle ground. Even conservatives can admit that affirmative action served a useful purpose (even if they think it was an unconstitutional way to bring it about). Even liberals will say that it should not continue forever (even if they don't really mean it). Extending affirmative action too far is patronizing to the beneficiaries, minimizing their accomplishments, and creating bitterness for those who are slighted by it, whether that slight is real or perceived, ultimately exacerbating racial tensions. At some point it will have to end, and it is reasonable to ask what criteria we can use to tell it is time. There may be a means to enact a sunset provision, hinted at but not required by O'Conner's Michigan decision.

Result
It is unrealistic to expect Bush to win 60% of the black vote. The stated goal of the Bush campaign is 15%. I think it may be possible to get higher, perhaps as high as 25%. The ultimate goal is to get black voters to seriously consider the Republican party as friendly to their community, rather than viewing it with distrust and supporting the Democrats as a bloc.

New Posts: More on Black churches and gay marriage here. More on how Kerry is his own worst enemy in winning the Black vote here.

You know, if this were not in direct defiance to California's laws, I wouldn't be so bothered by this. At least it's an elected official doing this, and San Francisco being San Francisco, I doubt he's acting against the public will. There is the problem of full faith and credit, and I'm not certain whether it applies to cities rather than just states. I think in order for a city to issue state-recognized documents, they need the permission of the state, so that part is problematic. Anyway, the state law clearly makes the whole thing illegal, so this isn't surprising (thanks to Donald Sensing for the link):

Many of the more than 3,000 same-sex couples who obtained marriage licenses from the city said getting married was among the most joyous events in their lives. But because of legal uncertainty and political controversy, the certificates don't appear to be worth much more than sentimental value at this point.

I'm sorry, I just don't have much sympathy for them. Unless they were terribly naive, they knew this was against California's laws. Heck, the news program they heard about this from probably told them that in the next sentence. They decided to risk the legal uncertainties, probably more to make a statement than because they were expecting it to stick. If the gamble fails, well then, it was their choice to put up the stakes.

New Post: Some unrelated thoughts by Captain Ed force me to rethink my leading concession above.

I wasn't planning on saying anything more tonight, but when I read this, I felt my gorge rising. It first occurred to me that Kerry wasn't as smart as he thought he was when he claimed that it was good to see that the White House had finally tried diplomacy rather than force to get a deal with Gaddafi, as if the use of force in Iraq had no influence on Gaddafi's decision to give up his WMDs. Now I'm certain of it (thanks to Captain's Quarters for the link):

In a letter to Bush, Kerry wrote: "As you well know, Vietnam was a very difficult and painful period in our nation's history, and the struggle for our veterans continues. So, it has been hard to believe that you would choose to reopen these wounds for your personal political gain. But, that is what you have chosen to do."

Kerry was reacting to criticism earlier in the day from a leading Georgia Republican who, speaking for Bush's re-election campaign, predicted trouble for Kerry in the state's primary.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss said during a conference call arranged by the Bush campaign that Kerry has a "32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense systems."

First, can someone please show me where President Bush said anything at all? Second, can someone please show me where Chambliss said anything about Vietnam? Third, who has attacked whose Vietnam service? You know, it's not as if Kerry returned from Vietnam yesterday. It might just be that his voting record for the last thirty years is more revealing of his position on national defense than his service in Vietnam. If Kerry wants to pretend that the last 30 years of his life did not happen [Better make that 34, you don't want to include that Congressional testimony. -ed.], then, well, he is no smarter than he claims Bush is. Not for believing it has no bearing on his national defense positions, because I'm sure he's not stupid enough to believe that, but for believing the American people will buy his argument that it doesn't.

In the debates, I would love to see Bush ask Kerry, "Senator, are you saying that your votes in the Senate do not reflect your positions on national defense?" Or, "Senator, which do you believe is more revealing of our national defense positions, our actions thirty years ago, or our actions since September 11th, 2001? I won two wars, what did you do?" Or, "Senator, if you wish to run this campaign based on our actions in the 1970s, then I'll gladly comply. Let's start with your 1971 Congressional testimony. Here, I have a clip..."

Update: Sometimes, when I look back on what I wrote the night before, I wish I had slept on it. I don't like calling anyone an idiot, even Democratic presidential candidates who make me want to tear my hair out when they talk. I've toned the post down. Some.

Update: I couldn't resist. I added a bit more sarcasm to my hypothetical debate.

Old Post: This is a continuation of the discussion here.

Doc Rampage lists his answers to my objections. He makes some good points, although I don't think his response to the political question of the Brown test is as strong as he thinks. Yes, it is probably possible to make a case that the Brown decision is solid on Constitutional grounds even with this amendment in place, but politically that matters less than the public perception, and I think that those who will oppose this amendment can raise serious enough doubts about what the Brown ruling would have been if the justices had been constrained by this amendment that it will have a hard time passing.

He also says he's uncomfortable discussing this matter too much where real experts on the law such as Glenn Reynolds and Eugene Volokh can comment on our ignorance. Heh, I thought that was the point. To get them to comment, that is.

It's a legitimate question to ask. Why did we go after Iraq rather than, say, Iran, which recently has been showing signs of being much further along the WMD path? Well, when making the case for war, the White House considered a number of reasons, which Wolfowitz elucidates:

The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but . . . there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two...

Now all these things are true concerns. While the WMD reasoning has come under a lot of fire recently, there's no doubt about Saddam Hussein's barbaric treatment of his own people. His ties to terrorists are well-known, and there's good evidence, if not absolute proof, of his ties to al Qaeda. As for the WMDs, it's true that no large stockpiles have been found. That they existed at one point is not in doubt; he used them in the war against Iran and against the Kurds. Whether they've been destroyed by US attacks against Saddam through the years, destroyed by Saddam in secret (the least likely, I think), buried in the sand, or shipped to Syria, I don't know. The programs, however, were certainly there--Kay reported on many of them. None of them involved large scale manufacturing, but when it comes right down to it, we were never as worried about large scale manufacturing as we were about producing just enough to contribute to a terrorist attack. It does not take a large quantity of chemical or biological weapons to mount a terrorist attack--remember the anthrax letters? They involved an absurdly small quantity of anthrax. Imagine what could have happened with larger, but hardly massive, quantities.

These are not the only reasons, however. Another reason, largely unstated, is that we are embarking on a mission to change the whole of the Middle East, and that could not happen with Saddam Hussein in the way. Contrary to what Edward Said would have had us believe, the biggest problems in the Middle East are not due to poverty and ignorance, but to tyranny and oppression. To deal with that, we have to bring democracy to the Middle East. Now, since a large number of people in the Middle East already want democracy, it's not as if we're forcing it upon them, but they are currently living under oppressive regimes who are uninterested in the idea, or use it just for show. See Iran's recent "election." The way to start that change happening is to show support for these native movements, to demonstrate that democracy can work in the Middle East, and to demonstrate our own determination to follow through. Aside from being a strong candidate of where to first establish democracy in the Middle East, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a living example of US impotence. While we beat Saddam in 1991, he had routinely thumbed his nose at US and UN demands. What is probably worst of all, when a popular uprising occurred in response to his defeat in the first Gulf War, he crushed it ruthlessly, while the US did too little, too late. In doing this, the US failed to show support for the democratic forces in Iraq, and as long as the US did nothing, this was taken as a continuing sign that the US either could not or would not do anything against the tyrants of the Middle East who oppressed their people.

There were other reasons to go after Iraq first, the main one being that the American people were willing. They saw Iraq as unfinished business, and believed that we would have to deal with Saddam sooner or later, so that when President Bush said that the time was here, they agreed. While the President can attempt to start a war without the support of the US people, Congress can very effectively stymie those attempts. Thus, while it was fairly easy for the President to gain popular support for a war to remove Saddam Hussein, the same could not be said for a war against Iran or North Korea, arguably as dangerous if not moreso. (There are probably other ways to deal with these countries, however. I may discuss them later.)

Finally, there was the international law. That may surprise those of you who call the Iraq War a violation of international law, but the truth is it was an open and shut case. Saddam Hussein had signed a ceasefire agreement at the end of the first Gulf War. He had violated it: time and time again. It was no longer valid, therefore the war continued. I'm surprised that people really have to argue about this one. That, I think, was the final reason to go after Iraq. Weapons of Mass Destruction gave the issue an urgency, possibly a false one, but the case for removing Saddam Hussein never needed them.

Update: Welcome to readers from Captain's Quarters. It seems that shamelesslly selling myself in his comments section worked. I'd direct you to other posts of interest, but I really hate it when other bloggers do that (I did add a few links to the post if you're interested, however). My blog is archived by week rather than post, anyway, and since it's only a week old, pretty much everything is on this page.

New Post: And to be fair and balanced, I make the case against the war in Iraq above.

Lileks points to a disturbing attitude among conservatives towards Bush:

Woe and gloom have befallen some on the right. Bush has failed to act according to The Reagan Ideal.
...
And if a Democrat takes office, and the Michael Moores and Rob Reiners and Martin Sheens crowd the airwaves on Nov. 3 to shout their howls of vindication? If the inevitable renaissance of Iraq happens on Kerry's watch, and the economy truly picks up steam in the first few years before the business cycle and Kerry's tax hikes kick in? If emboldened Islamist terrorists smell blood and strike again? Fine. Maybe the next Republican president will do everything they want.

Now I could understand this attitude if these conservatives felt as many Liberals seem to feel, that Bush is another Hitler and the concentration camps and the end of democracy are right around the corner. I could even understand it if they believed that Bush's path in the War against Terror is no more effective than John Kerry's. I don't believe that is the case.

Kerry's stance on the War against Terror is the same failed policy we tried in the 90s: treat terrorism as a crime and rely on the cooperation of our recalcitrant friends and our outright enemies to fight it. This may net a few terrorists, who can be indicted, tried, and sentenced to life in prison (assuming our anti-death penalty allies would extradite them even if we promised not to seek the death penalty), but it would not destroy or even significantly damage the terrorist organization which seeks to kill us. During the Nineties there was a steady increase in the boldness and effectiveness of terrorism attacks, including the first World Trade Center bombing, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, until it finally culminated in 9/11. Al Qaeda is not destroyed, and even if Osama bin Laden were caught tomorrow, it would still be a threat. Right now it is on the run, under pressure, with many of their commanders caught by our military forces, but if we let the pressure drop for four years, they will be able to rebuild, and they will certainly attack again.

If you disagree with the above paragraph, then I'm not addressing you. If you do agree, and yet don't plan on voting for Bush because he's not conservative enough, then I'd like to know how many lives you are willing to sacrifice for ideological purity.

Some have said that if it were a choice between Bush and a more conservative candidate with the same plans for the war on terror, they'd vote for the more conservative candidate. I disagree. If Bush were a Liberal Democrat (while retaining his current foreign policy views and actions) and his opponent were the second coming of Ronald Reagan who said the same things about terrorism as Bush, it would make me sick to my stomach, but I'd probably still vote for Bush. The reason is that it's not just what he says about terrorism, but what he has done and continues to do about it, despite the hardship and despite the criticism from both the Left and the Right, that wins my trust. That's something that any other candidate would have a hard time proving without actually having held the Office.

The fact that Bush is a center-right candidate and an Evangelical Republican settles my stomach, and makes it an easy choice. I might wish his views were closer to mine, but I don't know of anyone alive whom I'd rather have as president right now.

Update: A bit of judicious editing to make it read better. Nothing substantive.

I said I might comment on this at some point, and now (as I monitor the temperature of a He-3 probe and not much else) might be as good a time as any. I'm not an expert on the subject, only having read a few articles, some positive, some negative. I am somewhat biased in the matter, as two of my grandparents are immigrants, so I am, broadly speaking, pro-immigration. Pro-immigration doesn't mean pro-illegal immigration, however. I'll admit that I've never given detailed thought to the matter before, but whenever faced with the problem of illegal immigration, my first instinct is enforce immigration laws, but make legal immigration easier.

So let's look at the Bush proposal for what it is and what it is not. It's not a straightforward amnesty, although it does deal lightly with current illegal immigrants. They would only have to pay a fine before they could join the program. The important point, however, is that when they joined the program, they would not be given green cards and a quick path to US citizenship. They would instead be classified as guest workers, who could stay in the US for a limited duration of employment, and would have to apply through the normal channels to become US citizens. The program is not intended as a means of exploiting workers, since, by keeping track of the workers and their employers, it could enforce minimal benefits for them, including minimum wage, health and safety standards, and taxation. One of the things that peeves many of those who oppose the plan is talk of "jobs Americans will not do." They make the legitimate point that with the right wages and benefits, Americans will do the jobs. That is certainly true, but I would point out that with the program in place, the cost benefit of hiring cheap migrant workers will be decreased, to zero as opposed to hiring an American worker at minimum wage and benefits. Thus there will be less demand for foreign workers if there is indeed a ready supply of American labor for the job.

There is a very legitimate concern here. What about those who don't sign onto the plan? Businesses who want the cheapest possible labor, which can only be had sans the legal worker protections, and workers who can't get into the beneficial plan. There will still be a demand and supply of illegal labor. The question then becomes whether it is more possible, and there exists a greater political will, to enforce the new immigration plan than the old immigration plan. That is a question I don't have an answer to.

As you can see, I'm not arguing strongly for this plan. I think it is reasonable, however, and worth discussing, and I'm tired of hearing critics say the plan is mercenary political pandering. It was clear when he was elected that Bush was a moderate, and while he didn't push this particular plan, he made it clear that he was pro-immigration and seeking a compromise solution to illegal Mexican immigration. Moreover, there's plenty of evidence that Bush's views on Mexican immigrants are consistent with his Texan outlook and that he personally has a lot of empathy for the Hispanic community, especially given his behavior in this low-publicity visit.

Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost has a list of studies supporting his contention that homosexual men are less interested in long-term monogamous relationships than heterosexual men. These studies are consistent with statistics I've seen before, but I don't think they get to the heart of the gay marriage issue, which is what Joe is addressing.

Let's say that Joe is right and as a group homosexual men are uninterested in monogamous relationships. What about those who are? Those advocating gay marriage are arguing that those homosexual couples who do want to marry want a monogamous relationship. This may or may not be the case, and Joe points to some statistics that suggest that what they want are open marriages. However, this is not easily proven, and those advocating gay marriage will argue strenuously that while some may want that, that is not what they themselves are asking for when they argue for gay marriage. They will continue to argue that once the ideal of gay marriage is in place, monogamous norms will become more common among homosexual couples. Ideally, marriage licenses could be denied to anyone who was asking for an open marriage, regardless of sexual orientation, but there is no way to determine that beforehand, and no way to enforce it afterwards. (This might have been possible in a society where adultery was treated more seriously, with actual penalties on the adulterer for breach of contract, but that idea's just so puritanical nowadays. That's not so out of line as it may seem, however, as marriage is a contract, not only between the individuals, but, arguably, with the state.) And since, as a group, lesbians are less promiscuous, this sort of argument only addresses half of the equation.

The long and short of it is that while Joe Carter may be right, it won't affect gay marriage arguments unless he can show that gay marriage proponents are advocating open marriages. Otherwise, the statistics are just statistics, and don't prove that homosexual men are unsuited for marriage any more than the 60% divorce rate proves that heterosexual men and women are unsuited for marriage.

Now that he's dropped out of the race, it hardly seems worthwhile to comment on Wesley Clark, but I will anyway. I always thought that Clark's biggest problem was that he wasn't a real Democrat, but he played one on TV. Thus whenever Clark was asked about his positions, he always came across as a caricature of a Democrat. The best example is when he was asked about abortion and said that "Life begins with the choice of the mother." This is not a position that can be defended on either scientific or religious grounds, the only ones which are truly convincing in this debate, so most pro-abortion rights politicians don't talk about life at all, and instead talk about the right of a woman to decide what to do with her own body. The best Democratic politicians can talk about how abortion is not a good thing (very, very few people believe that it is), but it must be protected since the alternatives to abortion rights (unsafe illegal abortions, unwanted and abused children) are worse.

There are other examples, but ultimately what did Clark in was that he wasn't a Democrat, he was just pretending to be one.

Evangelical Outpost reports that Larry Flynt is planning to print a story revealing that Bush paid for a girlfriend's abortion in the mid-70s. Curiously, most of the news stories I've seen are presuming that the story is false and based on Moby's suggestion that liberals attack the President where it will drive away his core constituencies. Now I'm not claiming the story's true, and I think that if Larry Flynt truly had the goods on Bush, he wouldn't be dropping hints about it, he'd wait until late summer and drop the bomb so Bush didn't have time to react. Dropping hints and promising to publish the story later indicates to me that he probably doesn't have the goods and is simply floating rumors.

However, what these stories show is that neither Moby nor Larry Flynt understand the constituency they're trying to drive away. Perhaps they should read more Mark Steyn:

More to the point, whatever Bush did or didn't do back in those days is consistent with who he is. As horrified European commentators are fond of pointing out, Mr Bush is a "born-again" Christian. We don't need to see grainy home movies of a soused goofball in a Mexican bar face down in the beer nuts to know more or less the kind of guy he was 30 years ago. But he changed; he was born again. If you found some video of Bush rat-arsed (as the British say) in 1974, how relevant is that to the abstemious tucked-in-by-nine family man of 2004?

Pro-life evangelical Christians, the core group whom Flynt and Moby are trying to keep at home, can sometimes be legalistic and harshly judgemental (and I'm speaking as one), but if there's one thing we understand, it's repentance and forgiveness. We're the ones who took in Jane Roe. We can certainly forgive the President.

What do I think? If there's any truth to the rumors, any at all, then the best thing for President Bush to do is go public, confess his mistakes, and ask for forgiveness. I think his testimony would not only be good for him, but also would benefit the pro-life movement. And if there's nothing to the rumors? Well, then Bush doesn't have to do anything at all. Even the press isn't buying this one.

Old Post: Dave Barry's Kerry story is quoted below.

Dave Barry's Research Department, Judi Smith, replied to my e-mail to tell me that (1) the Kerry story below matches Dave Barry's high standards of journalistic integrity, at least in the sense that he didn't make this one up, and (2) he won't be sending his high priced lawyers after me, for which we can all be grateful.

Update: Dan McLaughlin of The Baseball Crank e-mailed to let me know that the New York Daily News still has the complete column available with no fee.

New Post: More above.

Old Post: This is a continuation of the discussion below.

Dave of Doc Rampage has published a more thorough explanation of what an amendment to enforce constitutional literalism would look like. Here is the key paragraph of his response:

This problem, obviously, is not one that you can fix with a procedural change. I think the only chance we have of effecting the issue in a positive way is by social change. And the kind of constitutional amendment I propose is intended to bring about that change. What I have in mind is something that says (1) Each part of the constitution is to be interpreted according to its clear and literal meaning as it was understood at the time of writing. (2) Neither precedent, nor cultural norms, nor foreign courts, nor religious doctrine, nor science, nor any other influence may be used to modify the clear and literal meaning of the constitution. This means (2a) Rulings may not drift away from the meaning over time through precedent and (2b) The only way to change the constitution is by those processes set out in the constitution. (3) All three branches are equally responsible to uphold the constitution and to refuse to cooperate with any branch that seeks to violate it. And maybe something like (4) the citizens are responsible to refuse to vote for any elected official who has violated the constitution, even if they agreed with the results of the action. And just for safety, (5) The current state of precedent and interpretation of the constitution is not the baseline from which we start, we start with the original document.

While I think his idea has much to recommend it, there are some difficulties with it.

Political: Any proposed amendment will have to pass the Brown test. If people can look at this amendment and say that it would have prevented the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, it will not pass. That ruling is almost universally accepted as good and just and necessary, and any amendment for which someone can make a strong case that it would have prevented the Brown ruling will not have enough support to pass. Any amendment to rein in the judiciary will face this criticism, but I think some amendments will weather it easier than others. There are other rulings which have strong constituencies defending them (Roe v. Wade, for example), but that is the one which has the most universal appeal.

Judicial: The fifth provision will be problematic as it will immediately invalidate a great deal of not only judicial precedent but also federal legislation. It would take years to sort out the chaos. It may be possible to ameliorate this by setting the date it takes effect to occur several years after its approval. That will allow the courts and Congress some time to work out the details.

Interpretation: I think provision (1) is problematic as there is always some room for interpretation. Someone needs to decide what the intentions of the founders were, and not everyone who approved the constitution agreed with the Federalist Papers. If we insist on staying with their intentions, then someone has to decide what they were, and that person or group will have a great deal of power.

In all, while I think Dave's proposal is closer to the ideal than mine, mine offers more flexibility and a better chance of passing, where it can at least stop the tide of judicial tyranny, even if it won't fully roll it back.

Update: Oops. I meant "federal legislation," not "legislature." It's fixed now.

Update: Implementing "old post, new post" scheme here.

New post: I talk about Doc Rampage's response to this above.

Kerry is infamous in Massachusetts for using his status as a Senator to pull rank on unfortunate civilians, and is well known for using the DYKWIA (Do You Know Who I Am?) phrase. I don't have any stories myself, but you've got to figure that it's pretty bad if even Dave Barry has a Kerry DYKWIA story:

In conclusion, I want to extend my sincere best wishes to all of my opponents, Republican and Democrat, and to state that, in the unlikely event I am not elected, I will support whoever is, even if it is Sen. John Kerry, who once came, with his entourage, into a ski-rental shop in Ketchum, Idaho, where I was waiting patiently with my family to rent snowboards, and Sen. Kerry used one of his lackeys to flagrantly barge in line ahead of us and everybody else, as if he had some urgent senatorial need for a snowboard, like there was about to be an emergency meeting, out on the slopes, of the Joint Halfpipe Committee. I say it's time for us, as a nation, to put this unpleasant incident behind us. I know that I, for one, have forgotten all about it. That is how fair and balanced I am.

This story is from Dave Barry's September 14, 2003 column, "Staying Fair and Unbalanced in the Election Season," which unfortunately is only available for pay.

Update: In case you missed it, I mentioned Dave Barry's own presidential candidacy below.

Update: Welcome, Corner readers. Although you're just here for the Dave Barry story, you may want to check out the FMA alternative debate between myself and Doc Rampage.

New Post: Dave Barry's Research Assistant responded to my e-mail, and I pass on the facts above. Plus, I share where the column is still available for free.

Old Post: I mentioned the Winter Soldier Investigation below.

I mentioned this when I was discussing John Kerry's testimony before Congress. A more thorough discussion of it can be found on QandO. (Thanks to Evangelical Outpost for the pointer.)

Update: I had to do a quick rewrite to implement the "old post, new post" scheme. No substantive changes.

I've joined the blogroll at Blogs for Bush. Since I have, I think it's appropriate that I explain why. [Aside from the free publicity?--Ed.] [Yes, aside from that.--DSC] Yes, I do support Bush for re-election in 2004. I am, as my description says, an Evangelical Republican, so you might think it's obvious that I would. However, I did not vote for him in 2000, or vote for anyone at all. Part of the reason was that I was living in Massachusetts but my residency was in Louisiana, and I didn't want to go through the absentee ballot mess, but the main reason was that I wasn't excited about either candidate. Both Bush and Gore were running as moderates, and I didn't think it would make much difference who won. Since that time, however, Bush has shown himself to be a strong wartime President, capable of making tough decisions and, most importantly, following through when the going gets tough. Gore has transformed himself into a shrill, angry far-Left liberal. Looking back, I am glad that the election turned out the way it did, and I'm sorry that I didn't do my part.

I still think Bush is too moderate. While he's a social conservative, he only pushes on those issues when forced to. He doesn't even pretend to be a fiscal conservative. However, the most important issue right now is the War on Terror, and I think Bush's "forward strategy of freedom" is exactly right, even if forty years ago it would sound more like a Democrat's foreign policy than a Republican's. On the big issues where conservatives depart from Bush, immigration reform and the Medicare drug benefit, I'm nowhere near as bothered as some other conservatives. (I may touch on them in some later post.) I don't consider either a betrayal or pandering, as they are consistent with his 2000 campaign and with his general attitude. While I don't agree with him on everything, I like Bush personally, and I am impressed by his faith and integrity.

The Democrats have based their entire campaign on hatred of Bush, on representing him as dishonest and partisan. I think he's been honest and open to compromise (sometimes a little too open), and I'll do my best to point that out in the year ahead.


New Post: I finally talk about the immigration plan above.

Old Post: Original post concerning an anti-judicial activism amendment.

A couple of days ago I pointed out that a constitutional amendment to rein in judicial activism may be a better way to go than a constitutional amendment to define marriage. Dave at Doc Rampage e-mailed me to let me know he had proposed the same thing, and scooped me by two days in the process. As this blog did not exist two days--or even two hours--before my post, this was not a hard thing for him to do, but I'll grant him that. My question for him, though, now that I've got his attention, is what form that amendment should take. My thinking, at least in this early phase, is to grant Congress limited power to overrule the court similar to its power to overrule a presidential veto. This has the danger of putting too much power in one branch and fails to provide defense against the tyranny of the majority, but at least the body making that decision is the one most representative of the people. Doc Rampage suggests what seems to be simply re-emphasizing the already existing limits on the court in the Constitution, but I'm not certain what that looks like as an amendment. I don't think I can get behind an amendment whose text is "This time we really mean it."

Update: Dave clarifies what he means. He prefers enshrining constitutional literalism in an amendment over a procedural change. I'll hold my thoughts on this for another post, and I'll just ignore his snarky response to my non-existence defense against his scooping me.

New Post: More on this subject above.

John Kerry's Vietnam record consists not only of his honorable service in the war, but also of his activities afterward, when he testified before Congress about the "war crimes committed in Southeast Asia." (Thanks to Hugh Hewitt) He was quite adamant about the barbarity of US soldiers, describing the testimony of soldiers in the Winter Soldier Investigation:

I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

This does raise a number of interesting questions that I would like to ask John Kerry.

• Do you stand by the accusations you made before Congress in your 1971 testimony?
• Were these accusations consistent with your own experiences in Vietnam?
• If so,
• Did you witness war crimes?
• Did you report those war crimes as required by the Uniform Code of Military Justice?
• If not,
• Why were you so convinced that these crimes were "committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command"?
• Why repeatedly include yourself by saying things such as "we feel because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out"?
• According to your own words, you interacted with upwards of one hundred and fifty self-proclaimed war criminals. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. Do you intend to prosecute these criminals? Why or why not?
• Since you claimed that these crimes were committed with "full awareness of officers at all levels of command," who else do you intend to prosecute?

Hugh Hewitt has asked whether Kerry's past has anything to do with the present. In response, James Lileks has said "I don't care what John Kerry said when he was 25. I care about what John Kerry says today ...about what he said when he was 25." Since I'm only 29, I don't have Lileks's experience of a radical change of my own opinions in my 30s. But I do believe that people can change, so I won't make an argument that Kerry's past statements condemn him as long as he can explain that he has changed since the time he made those statements. I would like to know whether he still stands by the discredited Winter Soldier Investigation. The best path for him to take is to claim that he believed it then, but later realized his error. This makes him look gullible, and he should explain how experience has made him more skeptical. If he never believed it, then he was a liar, and he needs to explain how experience has made him more honest. If he still believes it, then he should be pressing for war crime charges against not only the people he met in Detroit, but against hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people currently and formerly in the military, and he needs to explain how experience has made him more tolerant of war crimes.

New Post: I've posted more on the Winter Soldier Investigation above.

Dave Barry has published an important position paper, also known as his weekly humor column. I think we can all support his political efforts, knowing that his views, whatever they are, are just like ours.

New Post: It's not quite in the same vein, but a Barry/Kerry story up above.

I don't usually go in for conspiracy theories, but I've come up with one I'd like to share. As is expected for any proper conspiracy theory, my only evidence is plausibility and there's no way to disprove it. That said, I'd like to offer two pieces of plausibility evidence:

1. The US and Britain negotiated secretly for at least 8 months with Libya before striking a deal with Gaddafi to get rid of his WMD programs.
2. David Kay has said that he believes that some material related to Iraq's weapon programs was transported to Syria prior to the war. (Thanks to Instapundit.)

So what's the theory? Let's say Gaddafi wasn't the only one made nervous by the sudden collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by the capture of a thoroughly humiliated Hussein. Assad, after all, is much closer to the action, and is more closely associated with Hussein. It is then plausible that Assad would be interested in pursuing the same sort of deal offered to Gaddafi, may in fact be in negotiations now. This presents the possibility that Bush may know a bit more about Iraq's WMDs than Kay, which may explain his reluctance to back down from earlier statements.

This is by no means proof, or even evidence. I'm just pointing out a possibility.

New Post: More on happenings in Syria above.

I am a conservative--on social, fiscal, and national defense issues--and like most conservatives, I am not a big fan of the Federal Marriage Amendment. If you're a liberal, that "most" probably surprises you, but I believe it to be true. The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and its purpose as such is to create the guidelines by which the many and diverse other laws are enacted. Defining marriage within the Constitution stretches it beyond its purpose in the same way that the Eighteenth Amendment (beginning Prohibition) was outside the proper scope of the Constitution. On the other hand, I believe, like Donald Sensing, that the courts have long been overreaching their authority. They are certainly doing this on the matter of gay marriage. I am not in favor of gay marriage in general (to paraphrase Mark Steyn, changing over 5000 years of tradition based on 50 years of social progress strikes me as a tad shortsighted), but it wouldn't perturb me quite so much if a state legislature, elected by the people with full knowledge of their intentions, were to decide to enact gay marriage within its own state. Having it rammed down the throat of a unwilling populace by an unelected court is another matter entirely. If it takes a Constitutional amendment to prevent that, so be it.

However, I would prefer it if the amendment were not quite so specific to marriage, but addressed the problem which allowed the courts to make these decisions for us in the first place. The American system of checks and balances seems to be sorely lacking when it comes to balancing the court. Thus, I would prefer it if the amendment were to attempt to address this issue. I think it is right to worry about compromising the court's independence, about weakening the power of what is supposed to be the last defense of our freedoms. Unfortunately, the court seems less interested in our freedoms these days (see Campaign Finance Reform), so maybe it won't hurt. I'm not an expert on constitutional law, so I couldn't come up with the proper wording, but I can think of some requirements:

1. Congress would need to be able to overrule the precedent which the court sets, but not the actual ruling itself.
2. This would require at the least a supermajority in both houses of Congress to pass.


New post: I have a new post on this subject here.