About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Wednesday, February 11, 2004

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. 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 unmarried couples or groups.

-- current version of the proposed 28th Amendment the President supports

I spell out my objections here, but the power grab from the states seems particularly ironic, except that current [neo-]conservatives believe in power grabs, if it furthers their views. Some, though they need to in effect avoid reality to do so, see this as mainly a matter of judicial restraint. If so, as I noted in a useful email exchange with one such individual, it's rather counterproductive in the long run. The means and clear anti-homosexual bias taints the neutral principle involved, even if the amendment turns out to be more narrow than its current version. You also have to basically accept that the problem is even worse than it actually is, thus the need for an amendment, and thus help the other side! Is this really smart?

[The value of the Internet to allow the exchange of ideas is ever clear to me, especially when I have the chance to have email exchanges with law professors. I'm currently addicted to message boards, but it is especially useful when you have concrete evidence that you are reaching authors you formerly only had conversations with in your head.]

---

Politics: One thing that upset me about the current presidential campaign was that some interesting and exciting candidates lost out because they were unable to play the political game. I realize in the end that this is life, since the office is political, and our system elects people via political campaigns. Thus, perhaps a candidate like Clark's failure suggests his problems with a major part of the office he wished to fill, and a role such as Secretary of State would fit his skills better.

Still, flawed campaigns also hurt the race overall, since no one candidate can do it all. For instance, Clark indirectly (via Michael Moore) raised the "Bush AWOL" issue in such a way Kerry could not because he had to be less controversial as frontrunner. Likewise, Dean (lousy campaigner or not) brought great things to the race, and I find it sad many write him off as a joke without giving him the credit he deserves. And, other candidates serve a vetting function ... they strengthen the frontrunner and make him face uncomfortable facts. Thus, Clark's fear that Democrats will have "buyer's remorse," if Kerry just glides in. Thus, aside from the fact I still have some problems with him, I hope Edwards (and perhaps Dean) can still be credible candidates. It might even be argued that Edwards is an ideal candidate.

Just letting Kerry be the de facto nominee seems misguided and might come back to haunt the party.