Restoring (Dis)Honor

I must write more about the inherently false assumptions of "restoration" movements such as the Tea Party. Yet for the moment this excerpt from Aldous Huxley's Island sums up my general opinion of the Tea Party (or at least what it threatens to become):

"...And then the faces of the assorted listeners. Huge, idiot faces, blankly receptive. Faces of the wide-eyed sleepwalkers. Faces of young, Nordic angels rapt in the Beatific Vision. Faces of the baroque saints going into ecstasy. Faces of the lovers on the brink of orgasm. One Folk, One Realm, One Leader. Union with the unity of an insect swarm. Knowledgeless understanding of nonsense and diabolism. And then the newsreel camera had cut back to the serried ranks, the swastikas, the brass bands, the yelling hypnotist on the rostrum. And here once again, in the glare of his inner light, was the brown insect-like column, marching endlessly to the tunes of this rococo horror-music. Onward Nazi soldiers, onward Christian soldiers, onward Marxists and Muslims, onward every chosen People, every Crusader and Holy War-maker. Onward into misery, into all wickedness, into death!"

Doesn't literature just do it better sometimes?

Mea Culpa...Ego Operor Non Reputo Sic!

It came out today that Ken Hehlman, well, came out. Coming out ought to be a joyous occasion like any other fundamental assertion of the self. Often it is, but not when the likes of Ken Hehlman publicly states that he's gay.

This homosexual was the chairman of the Republican National Committee. This queer was George W. Bush's re-election campaign manager. The election of 2004 will forever be remembered by gays as when the Republican Party used the prospect of increased rights for gays to scare the Religious Right into tipping the balance that gave Bush the presidency again. He was Bush's Director of the White House Office of Political Affairs.

In short, he was at one point one of the most influential people in the United States, not to mention among the most powerful Republicans of the time. One could even argue that he was the homosexual in the most unique position to try to make tomorrow better than today. Here is what he did with his power:

1) I already mentioned his role in the election of 2004, a great setback for gay rights and civil rights in general.

2) He pressed not one, but TWO, constitutional amendment to explicitly deny gays the right to marry.

3)Helped develop the strategy where George Bush threatened to veto any hate crime bill-this one is surely the most sinister use of his influence.

4) Going back to the 2004, he developed the "72 hour strategy." Specifically appealing to homophobic churches in the preceding days to election day to scare them into voting Republican.

He is even worse than the religious radicals who come out or are caught in a compromising position because his position gave him real influence over the top executives of our nation.
So he is a collaborator, and an incredibly damaging one. There is a lot of suffering the Gay Community is yet to endure while it fights to dismantle the homophobic climate he helped to sustain. He must be chastised, no censured by any homosexual who cares about civil rights and healthy living. There must be no accommodation for collaborators who are not contrite.

Is he contrite? This is the closest thing he made to an apology:

"I can’t change the fact that I wasn’t in this place personally when I was in politics, and I genuinely regret that. It was very hard, personally...What I do regret, and think a lot about, is that one of the things I talked a lot about in politics was how I tried to expand the party into neighborhoods where the message wasn’t always heard. I didn’t do this in the gay community at all"

To those who are inclined to doubt his sincerity, he added that “If they can’t offer support, at least offer understanding.”

I do not understand, stating your regrets is no act of contrition. How convenient for him to not be "in this place" when he was chairman of the RNC, a position that had real influence. Now that he is defanged, he comes out. Nothing other than enmity is appropriate between this individual and the Gay Community. I do not understand.

He claims that he will start fighting for marraige equality, and has donated money to the cause in various states. Yet until he publicly and loudly apologizes for his past action, holds himself accountable for the damage and heartache he caused the LGBT Community for years and notes just how much he was in error. Then, and only then, will his quaint charitable actions have any substance and meaning. Even the future St. Paul had to apologize to the Christian Community for persecuting them before they welcomed him as one of their own.

Thus far have his statements been a true mea culpa...I don't think so!

What's in a Name (Change)?

When many gay couples marry, one of them changes their last name and adopts the last name of their husband or wife. Is there anything wrong with this and does it even matter?

One clear advantage that I've come across is that it represents a precaution to the dreaded hospital-rejection scenario. For example, if Latisha Amoretta is dying of coma in the hospital that is not gay-friendly, her wife, Kira Amoretta, formerly Kira Vancouver, can simply say to the workers that she is Jane's sister. The convenience of a name-change is undeniable in that sort of situation.

Gay couples who change their name also add great symbolic weight to their situations. If Buddy Henderson adopts the last name of his husband, Gregor de Oliveira, their marriage seems to be formalized even more. Their union is even more like the majority of heterosexual marriages.

This may seem like a nice gesture on the surface, but the act of changing one's last name to his or her spouse's seems to me the wrong thing to do. It is a gesture that recalls the worst aspect of traditional heterosexual marriage-fundamental inequality based on gender.

Why do wives change their last names to their husbands anyway? They do it because the act is a throwback to the time when wives left their families upon marriage to begin their lives as a member of their husband's family-til' death do they part I should add. She no longer belonged to her father's family and now she belongs to her husband's family. The justification for this action is the underlying assumption that women are inferior (or at least must defer) to men. This is the true symbolism of the last name-change: family unity through deference to the man.

The concept of ownership in a relationship ought to be dead by now. Human beings don't belong to one another no matter what the circumstance. Marriage is an emotional investment, it is no longer viewed as an ownership contract.

Modern couples, and explicitly Homosexual couples, have the luxury of choosing which traditions they will accept in their marriage and which they will not. This luxury must not be wasted by retaining the vestiges of oppression and inequality. Yes it seems nice, yes it is romantic. But last name changing is also antiquated and symbolic of the wrong ideas. How can the thinking person accept it in the long term?

If you want to make a symbolic statement, yet still be romantic, hyphenate your last names in alphabetical order. For example, our couples from before should be known in their married lives as Latisha and Kira Amoretta-Vancouver and Buddy and Gregor DeOliveira-Henderson. It's not as traditionally romantic as one of them completely changing their last names, but it is healthier and fair.

Where's Athena When America Needs Her??

The Spartans, no not the steroid movie crazies, the real ones, had institutionalized homosexuality (or what we modern people would call homosexuality) as an important aspect of their army. Basically all we remember Sparta by is their fabulous army-for Zeus's sake they were the "elephant" in the War Between the "Elephant" and the "Whale." If they don't need "Don't Ask Don't Tell" we sure as Hades certainly do not.

Today Justice Vaughn Walker of the US District Court of Northern California has reached a decision deeming Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that nullified gay marriage in California, unconstitutional.

This is truly a victory for marriage equality, but merely a small battle in a struggle that has no end in sight. The decision will be appealed by supporters of the unconstitutional measure. Since our judicial system is divided into geographic zones (kind of like county level -state level -federal level but the geographical organization is different), the case decision will be appealed by the supporters of Prop 8 to the 9^th circuit.

Then the decision that the 9th makes has the possibility to be appealed as well. If that happens then the highest court in the land will weigh in, the Supreme Court, and make a final decision on the matter. Therefore, this will prove to be a long, hard campaign that has an uncertain course.

However, one thing is for certain, if the case were to go to the Supreme Court tomorrow, it would fall apart and Proposition (H)8 would be the law of the land in California. Besides the fact that the members of the Court aren’t very socially progressive, the strongest indication that the law would be upheld is that the Court rarely, if ever, makes decisions that the overwhelming majority of American would not endorse. Unfortunately, most Americans still do not support gay marriage. So it really is an uphill battle from here.

This victory had been long predicted and the Gay Community must not let it cloud their judgment of the two lawyers who took up the marriage equality position. Most gay rights organizations only reluctantly agreed to support the stubborn lawyers in their bid. Ted Olsen and David Boies have taken a great risk with this case that has and will gather much publicity (not to mention considerable historical prestige for the courtroom victors).

They have taken possibly too great a risk. While I guess I should not presume to know their true underlying motivations for initiating Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the truth of the matter remains that the cards are definitely stacked against Olsen and Boies. The risk is probably too great because it would be disastrous for the Supreme Court to rule against marriage equality, since any unjust court decision takes agonizingly long to fix. The prospect of waiting decades for a future court to overturn a bad ruling would be utterly tragic for gays and the integrity of the United States as a whole. At this point, the Gay Rights Movement cannot afford a legal defeat of that magnitude. It would set everything back decades at least.

The opponents of marriage equality have used many tricks in the past, including scare tactics, they have monetary resources that regularly surpass the resources of those who fight for equality, and they have well entrenched political allies-especially on the Supreme Court. Yet they lack the one special weapon that is the most important factor in any campaign: time.

Attitudes in the US are changing towards Gays and Gay Marriage. The younger generations are already greatly accepting of gay marriage and as the “Greatest Generation” and older “Baby Boomers” slip into senility or die out, their political influence will also. Yet the political influence of the younger generations will only increase. Hopefully by the time the Supreme Court hears this case, if it indeed gets that far, public opinion will have decisively turned towards marriage equality. So the key is not how fast things go for homosexuals and their families, but rather how slowly.

Whatever their underlying motivations, Ted Olsen and David Boies are now the true defenders of marriage in all its forms. Today’s victory in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger was a limited one, but one that made tomorrow, Aug 5, a better day than today.

"Ground Zero Mosque"

A New York City panel is set to vote on the status of the 9/11 site on Tuesday. This vote should only be based on the need preserve the city’s heritage because there are indeed historic buildings in the area. The vote should unite people through common historical remembrance, not divide.

But it is dividing because the real reason behind the vote has more to do with the possibility of a mosque and Islamic center being constructed two blocks north of Ground Zero (the commission in charge of the vote says otherwise, of course, but the public understanding of this has realistically changed the meaning of the vote). If the panel grants the 9/11 site “landmark status,” then the buildings currently occupying the site cannot be torn down, effectively killing the plans to build the new Islamic Center.

The opposition to this proposed construction has taken a disturbing turn. Sarah Palin herself tweeted, "Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing." Her sentiment is echoed by many conservatives. Not only are they completely misunderstanding Islam (again), they are twisting an established legal procedure in order to infringe upon the rights of a minority group (again)-in this case preventing Muslims from freely and publicly expressing their faith.

How does building a Mosque, a house of worship, amount to stabbing hearts? Islamic fundamentalists attacked our nation on 9/11, not mainstream Muslims. It is only logical to make a clear distinction between those who practice the generally accepted tenants of a religion from the lunatic fringe since they are so unlike one another. Now, building an Islamic Fundamentalist Mosque would rightly cause victims more pain, but there is a difference between fundamentalists and mainstream adherence in any faith-a big one. These opponents are letting their perceptions of Islamic Fundamentalism color their entire opinion of Islam in general. Is it okay to treat Christianity in this manner as well?

Mainstream Muslims are exactly the people who are trying to build this mosque. Oz Sultan of the Cordoba Initiative, the Islamic group behind the building proposal notes that the Muslims organizing this initiative are “committed to promoting positive interaction between the Muslim world and the West.” This statement is clearly not what Palin describes as “UNNECESSARY provocation,” but her words are clearly so. While those like Palin are using divisive rhetoric, the victims of their rhetoric instead respond with unifying language. That should say it all, but the bigoted have more supporters in surprising places.

The Anti-Defamation League, a group that fights Antisemitism and bigotry in general, would like the Muslims to build their mosque further away from Ground Zero because “building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain - unnecessarily - and that is not right.” Strange statement coming from an anti-defamation organization.

The result of all this is very unnerving and insidious; the calls to prevent the center from being built will no doubt influence members of the panel. If this “landmark” vote is used to prevent Muslims from freely and openly expressing their religion in public, once again New York will prove that it still doesn’t quite get it. It’s a shame that the opponents can’t recall a time when Americans opposed the construction of too many Jewish and Mormon Temples or Catholic Churches.

A Fistful of Anarchy

When reading about foreign affairs, it is essential to note that the word “anarchy” in international politics describes the current world political order: there is no higher authority than the state government. It would be incorrect to accept the meaning of the word “anarchy” in the international context as synonymous to “chaos.” It merely defines the condition where there is a lack of authority above the state level.

This definition of the word within the field of international studies is radically different from the domestic-political understanding of the exact same word. In that much more widely known context, it describes a coherent political philosophy. You can read about anarchy as it relates to domestic politics here. Unfortunately, this confusing aspect of international politics occurs with the word “liberal” as well, but not so much for the word “realism.”

That said, I’ll get to the point: how should the United States conduct itself on the anarchic international scene? The following is a political philosophy of international politics, realism.

That everlasting question cannot be answered before reiterating the purpose of the democratic government. Who is it there for?

The democratic government (roughly) exists to protect its citizens from harm and ensure that they all enjoy the preconditions necessary in order to live satisfactory lives. To these ends, the democratic government is supposed to serve its citizens and its citizens alone. Any governmental action abroad must reflect this existential mission. Why would the state make decisions that are in the best interests of foreign people over the interests of its citizens?

After reiterating the reason why a democratic government exists, the next step is to understand how that government can achieve its mission in an anarchic world political order.

The solution is clear: power. When there is no rule-of-law the only important possession is raw power. Simply put, the stronger you are, the safer you will be. Conversely, the weaker you are, the more vulnerable you will be. The democratic government would not be able to protect its citizens from harm and ensure prosperity for them if it is constantly threatened by a foreign state. Thus, in a world that has no definitive international police, judge, or senate, power is the closest thing to safety.

Since power is a nation’s best (only?) hope to ensure that its citizens are protected from the outside world, the state must do all it can to maximize its power vis-à-vis its rivals. Power can take on many forms-most notably military or economic-but the truth of the matter remains that if a state is powerful enough; it will not be easily taken advantage of by other international actors. Therefore, such security then is obviously in the best interests of the state’s citizens.

If only we could live in a world where nations respect some international rule-of-law without exception. Yet the reality is clear, in an atmosphere of anarchy, power is the only thing that commands. A state must maximize its power relative to its rivals in the world in order to prosper. All other objectives concerning a democratic government’s international actions, including humanitarian concerns, must be subjugated to this essential need.

Here is the most classic real-world example:

During the Cold War, the only thing that stopped the USSR from waging war on the US was the power of the American military and economy. It wasn’t the UN and it certainly wasn’t morality. It was that the US had nuclear weapons, aircraft, ships, tanks and factories that would go to use if attacked. All of the foreign policies of nations within this period reflected this state of affairs.

This is why international politics has a different set of rules than any other political realm. It has no room for morality, no room for good for Good’s sake, no room for trust.

That said, who does international realism make tomorrow better than today for?