A Marriage Made in Heaven?

While the Class of 2008 was preparing to walk across the graduation stage to their future, a couple of weeks ago the California Supreme Court ruled, 4-3, to legalize same sex marriages. Gay couples can begin the marriage application process next week.

This wedge issue in the culture wars gives us an opportunity to review some terms as we reflect on our values. Article IV of the Constitution states that "full faith and credit" must be given to the laws, records and court decisions of other states.

However, for more than a decade, conservative activists have erected a series of legal barriers to prevent one state's move toward recognizing gay marriages from setting in motion a national wave. In 1996 they won passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which said that same-sex marriages performed in states that allow them do not have to be honored by the federal government or other states.

Bans on gay marriages are expected to face legal challenges

And they won laws in 42 states to limit marriage to a man and a woman. In 27 of them, these are constitutional amendments that cannot be overridden by judges or lawmakers.

Marriage is also a reserved power of the states (10th Amendment). Both by court decisions, now California and previously ruled Massachusetts, legalize same sex marriage. Massachusetts' ruling limited marriage rights to that state, California's ruling is more broad. That may make this a ruling a center piece in the 2008 presidential election.

Should we get fired up over this issue again? A new poll finds that for the first time in the state's history, a slim majority of voters supports same-sex marriage, which the state Supreme Court declared legal this month.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080528-9999-1n28field.html

In 2004, George W. Bush won 11 states that also passed "Protection of Marriage" referendums. It was one of karl Rove's winning strategies. One wonders whether if this change election will wind up being more of the same.

Opponents in California are pondering a constitutional amendment to counter the court’s decision. Gay and lesbian activists are now setting their sights onto a larger platform. Prepare yourself for an onslaught of talking heads, each with their own authoritative angle. Richard Kim, in The Nation, suggestions that rational thought will disarm culture war.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080609/kim

The 2 Regular Guys at CBS2School offer a primer on marriage here:

"Marriage as we know it in the United States is based on the model established by Protestant reformer John Calvin in Geneva in the year 1546. Geneva was to be the model city. This model would later be used by Puritans coming to the New World. In 1546 Geneva officials passed the Marriage Ordinance, a comprehensive policy explaining the purpose and affect of marriage on a civil society.

The Ordinance, written by Calvin, began by establishing “God as the founder” of marriage. Marriage was seen as a covenant, built not only upon the laws of God but the laws of nature. Therefore, marriage was to be between a man and a women. For our purposes the more interesting point is the fusion between church and state. In the Ordinance Calvin discussed “ . . . the dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage.” It is this point which snags our debate today.

Some would argue that a solution to our current debate may be found when we remember that a marriage is made in heaven and not inside a government building.

It would seem that we have resolved the issue over the distribution of rights as it relates to monogamous couples, gay or straight. The issue today is over the word “marriage.” Who is its protector?

History suggests this is a church - state issue. A consensus has been built separating these two important spheres. "

Graduates and seniors to be chime in, when you get married will marriage still be exclusively between a man and a women? Or is the institution about to change? Should it change?

McCain Passes, But GI-Bill Passes Senate

"The GI Bill gives emphatic notice to the men and women in our armed forces that the American people do not intend to let them down."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1944

Yesterday, the Senate overwhelmingly, 75-22, passed the 2008 GI-Bill. The House has already passed a version of the bill. We could be headed to a veto fight between Congress and the President. And the debate over the bill also was highlighted by a War of Words from the two presumtive presidential candidates -- Barack Obama who voted for the Bill -- and John McCain -- who was absent, at a California fund-raiser. Obama criticized McCain's lack of support for the bill, McCain shot back that he was not going to take any lectures for someone who never served.

The Politico reports:

"The Senate approved a $194.1 billion wartime spending bill Thursday that as a rider promises a greatly expanded GI education benefit for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The pivotal 75-22 roll call triggered a late scramble of Republicans who switched their votes as the outcome became clearly in favor of the new education benefit as well as billions more in domestic spending for the jobless and Gulf Coast states.

Republicans leaders, working in the well of the chamber, first tried to hold the line below 60 votes, then 67, a veto-proof margin. But when this also collapsed, individual senators were released to vote for the measure.

But unless adjustments are made, the entire wartime bill faces an almost certain veto fight with the president. The question is whether cooler heads will prevail and Congress and the White House will begin some negotiation to avoid another veto fight, which is not necessarily to the advantage of either side."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10561.html

The bill author, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) said recently on "Meet the Press" that if President Bush vetoes the measure, he would be the first president to reject benefits to those who have served in a time of war:

"No president in history has vetoed a benefits bill for those who served. … The Republican party is on the block here, to clearly demonstrate that they value military service or suffer the consequences of losing the support of people who’ve served. … The president has a choice here to show how much he values military service," Webb said.

Watch it here:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/18/webb-gi-bill-veto/

More on the GI-Bill 2008 here:

http://www.gibill2008.org/about.html

More on the McCain-Obama War of Words here:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MCCAIN_GI_BILL?SITE=FLDAY&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Our two senators voted for the bill. Our House Rep. Judy Biggert voted against.

The questions are: Will the President veto, even though there are apparently enough votes to override his rejection? Will my former student, Tim B. write me back a response letter to explain why my member of Congress is supporting the President and NOT the Troops? And, what does it really mean (besides putting a bumper sticker on your car or a flag pin in your lapel) TO SUPPORT the TROOPS?

Comic Relief for those with some Nigerian knowledge

On his blog, Ken Wedding found this clip from the Onion News Network. I'm posting it here for any of you who felt unsure about anything about Nigeria, know that you are not alone.

I hope you enjoy the humor, and understand that they are more knowledgeable than most Americans -- at least about one topic.

It's a satire of Sunday morning panel discussion shows where the panelists who have no idea what's going on in Nigeria, are expected to carry on a discussion anyway. One of the panelists quickly looks up Niger on his Blackberry and proceeds to describe Nigeria as a country whose economy is dependent on cattle exports. Later, panelists begin to argue about the merits of Nigerian leaders they've never heard of. (The moderator isn't always much more knowledgeable than the panelists.)

"Situation in Nigeria Seems Pretty Complex".

Recall Recap

Two weeks ago, the Illinois Senate rejected a proposal to add a recall amendment provision to the state constitution. The provision had passed overwhelmingly in the House, but while gettting a majority vote in the Senate (33 votes) it fell three votes short of the super-majority of 36 it needed to pass.

This is an interesting issue to consider. Should citizens have the power to recall their elected officials or could that have the effective of officials not be able to govern with hard decisions. Many argued that the integrity of Illinois government was at stake. How can you govern when at the whim of the people, your rightfully elected officers can be removed? With the help of the 2 Regular Guys at CBS2 School, here's a closer look:

Find out more.

A majority of state constitutions have recall provisions. More importantly, our founding fathers openly debated recall elections. A number of colonial governments had similar practices. Anti - Federalist 53 argued the merits of recall elections:

“For our own sakes we shall keep in power those persons whose conduct pleases us as long as we can, and shall perhaps sometimes wish (when we meet with a person of an extra worthy character and abilities) that we could keep him in power for life. On the other hand, we shall dismiss from our employ as soon as possible, such persons as do not consult our interest and will not follow our instructions.”

Though fearful of a tyranny of the majority, many founders understood that the best way to keep a democracy healthy is to infuse the system with more democracy. Many favored recall provisions as another means of holding elected officials accountable.Two hundred years later, the residents of Illinois will not even be given the chance to debate such an idea.

State Senator Bill Haine (D-Alton) who voted against the measure provided this rationale, “When an election is over, it’s time to govern.”And what if they don’t govern?

Frankly, in Illinois I can’t recall.

Stake Your Final Presentation Claim Here

In the comment section here, post your topic and group memembers for your final exam project. Your group will need to present a power point presenation to either 1) a Senate; or 2) a United Nations sub-committee to take action on some doemestic or international issue.

Each group will also have a fact sheet for every member of class, and an annotated bibliography for me. Schedules for presenations will be made on Wednesday, presenations will be given in class on Friday, Monday and Tuesday.

A Tale of Two Disasters: Are Governments Helping?

Two natural disasters have put national governments, NGOs, and international organizations under the political microscope, even as rescure missions continue in Myanmar and China following deadly and distructive tradgedies. Forbes.com reports that while nationalism may be hindering rescue efforts in Myanmar (formerly Bhurma), the Times Online reports that international Olympic-focused pressure may have resulted in a quicker, more transparent response from the Chinese government.

"China scrambled the jets. Myanmar turned back planes bringing food.

Two natural disasters 1,100 miles apart have put a spotlight on the responses of the governments concerned. China is saving lives. Myanmar is adding to its already horrific death toll.

On Monday afternoon, a massive earthquake--the worst in three decades--hit southwestern China, leaving nearly 10,000 people dead, according to Xinhua, China’s government news agency. The killer quake had a magnitude of 7.9, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, and triggered a number of powerful aftershocks. Houses swayed in Chengdu, the nearest big city, just 55 miles away, and buildings shook hundreds of miles away in Beijing and Shanghai. (Pictured at right is a primary school that collapsed, killing 4 childred.)

The Chinese government--criticized for its slow responses to the recent heavy snowstorms, epidemics and water pollution disasters--immediately rushed to help earthquake victims. Just hours after the quake, President Hu Jintao told members of the Politburo Standing Committee that rescuing earthquake victims was their top priority. Premier Wen Jiabao flew to the stricken region, and the Chinese press displayed photographs of him planning the relief effort with other officials on his plane on the way there. “If there is a gleam of hope, we will do all the best to save the people,” Wen vowed, according to China Daily. (Pictured at right, Reuters reports In the first hint that the death toll could be serious, Wen Jiabao, the Chinese Premier, immediately set of for Sichuan).

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/05/13/china-myanmar-response-oped-cz_rm_0513china.html

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3920245.ece

Is Democratic nonimating race a done deal?

Barack Obama won a convincing victory over Hillary Clinton, 56% to 42% in North Carolina yesterday. She beat him in Indiana by just 2%, 51% to 49%, and that victory may be marred by the fact that the margin of victory may well be due to Republicans who voted for her at Rush Limbaugh's urging because he sees her as the weaker nominee against John McCain.



Given all the controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright the past weeks, Obama came out of May 6 in better shape than many had expected.



In the week where the Kentucky Derby had a tragic end of the horserace, is (or should) the Democratic Primary race be over. Pundits last night were projecting that, like a baseball team in September that is mathematically eliminated, there is no way Clinton can win. Obama got off the ropes last night, did he score a knockout blow? If so, who is going to the mound to get the ball from the Hill?



There are a million sports metaphors, take a shot at blogging your own here. Also, give your opinion on if this race should marathon on?

_____________



Some other election tidbits:

Indiana nuns lacking ID denied at poll by fellow sister

(AP) About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.
Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.

"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,'" Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.
They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. "You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts."

Nonetheless, she said, the convent will make a "very concerted effort" to get proper identification for the nuns in time for the general election. "We're going to take from now until November to get them out and get this done. You can't do this like school kids on a bus," she said. "I wish we could."

Elsewhere across the pivotal state, voting appeared to run smoothly, despite the fears of election experts that the Supreme Court's recent refusal to strike down Indian's controversial photo identification law could cause confusion at the polls.

Indiana's photo ID law is the strictest in the country. The Republican-led effort was designed to combat ballot fraud, said supporters, who also have acknowledged that no case involving someone impersonating a voter at the polls has ever been prosecuted in Indiana.

The state's American Civil Liberties Union sued, calling the law a poll tax that disproportionately affected minorities and elderly voters, those most likely to lack such identification. On April 28, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that the law did not violate the Constitution.

___________________

The 1966 SC case of Harper v. Virgina Board of Elections overturned a Virgina $1.50 poll tax on the grounds that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that making voter affluence an electoral standard violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that wealth or fee-paying had no relation to voting qualifications. The Court also noted that the Equal Protection Clause was not "shackled to the political theory of a particular era" and that notions of what constituted equal treatment under the Clause were subject to change.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_48/

See Voter Fraud or Poll Tax? blog of 4/30 for more. But case your voter here (at no cost) is the Indiana ID law a poll tax? It cost more than $1.50 to get a state ID card or driver's license.