1. I always seem to remember what I gave and to whom better than what I received and from whom.
2. It used to be that parents dreaded when "Some assembly required" was written on the box of a child's toy. Nowadays they should write "Some disassembly required," because opening the packaging is surprisingly difficult.
3. Its official, my daughter believes in Santa. The TV is more influential than I am.
4. Gifts are just a reason for people to get together and think about doing something for others.
5. Santa and gift giving make a good way to celebrate Christ's birth -- even though He probably wasn't born in the winter time.
6. Christmas in general is more family tradition than religion. I hope no one is offended if I tell them, "Happy Holidays". I don't believe that the war on Christmas deserves a counter-offensive. There really is something to this time of year that seems to be bigger than any particular religious expression.
7. The Book of Mormon story that runs parallel to the noel is very dramatic. It is a story of a literal war against Christmas -- the first Christmas. And I fear it has elements that parallel to what is happening today and are most foreboding. When people are unsure, that is when they argue and get in fights. When things are made pretty plain to where people no longer are unsure, then the arguments cease. At least for a few decades.
8. Christmas lights are awesome. Some communities are more alive and vital, and it shows especially brightly during this time of year.
9. Its amazing that the winter holidays are so oriented to the night before. Christmas feels like it is over at about 10:30am. Most of the festivities are the month coming up to it, and the anticipation of Christmas Eve. But that is better than New Years which is over around 2:00am, or Halloween which entirely eclipsed long ago the holiday it was the eve of.

Happy Holidays, and here is to hope and looking forward to a new year.

A friend of mine (a self proclaimed liberal democrat) put up a post on Opine about privatizing marriage. I know it is a popular refrain from many here on /. They feel that marriage should be "just a contract" that anyone can write up as they please.

Well, that seems to be like an Escher painting. Looks good on paper but is sevierly self-conflicting in real life. I underline that point in my comment to his post.

[Update: Check out XRLQ's absolute scewering of "Mass Marrier"]

I've said a few times that I've never seen desktops with the same grandeur and artistry that I saw ten years ago. At that time Rasterman was still young, optomistic and dreamy eyed about this emerging Linux desktop. A time before Redhat and corporate mentality eroded all of that unabashed glorious excess.

Luckily I was able to find some screenshots from back in the day. All I can say is check them out for yourself...

The Default desktop was often the best

One thing you miss in the screenshots is how everything would light up as you selected it, as if you were on a theatre stage directing a performance.

Remember this was running on your 486.

Back then #1 was more known for his desktop themes.

Recently in an on line discussion about marriage, someone took pause say this...

OnLawn mentioned that he used to be a libertarian in post #19:

I understand that there are a lot of former libertarians who find that ideology politically impractical, however, how does one make the philosophic 180 from libertarianism to ideological communitarianism? (Assuming that label fits).

You are obviously both rhetorically skilled, but I'm having trouble figuring out how your [marriage] position fits into your overall political philosophy. How do you view the proper role of government in society when you aren't arguing for it to regulate marriage?

I started writing an answer, and wound up writing the opinion piece I've had in my mind to finish for a long time. It is both why I am no longer libertarian and why I am so adamant about marriage.

But it isn't finished. I'll be working on this in this journal, but I could use your help. Grammatical fixes are appreciated but not needed as I will probably put this through my editor (who happens to be my mother-in-law) when it is done. Anything you wish me to fill in, or take out for flow and succinctness just let me know. I may not agree but I always appreciate the help. Now without further adieu,

_____________________________________

The *Proper* Role of Government in Society

How do you view the proper role of government in society when you aren't arguing for it to regulate marriage?

First, a moment on marriage. I argue that the definition and protection of marriage is important in order to protect family governance. It is my right of self-governance that I am fighting for when I demand government to respect it for what it is.

Calling any contract based on a romantic relationship a 'marriage' dilutes (if not completely abolishes) the recognition of the political family unit. Because of the baggage of considering it just as a love-contract, the role of marriage is becomes weak that it is difficult to hang on to self-governance in marriage. Really should the government be interested in the love business? Does marriage keep people from forming their own love contracts now? No. Should government be interested in the political unit where children are placed in the immediate governance of parents?

Now, pause for a bit. What is ironic about that argument is that parenting and governance is a real libertarian dilemma. While they should be deliberating the difference is between good governance (or parenting) to some meaningful conclusion they usually wind up simply driving a wedge between what governance is and what parenting is. This in effort to drive that which is parental as far away as they can.

However governance and parenting not two separate concepts to be driven apart. They are, instead, two applications of the same concept.

Lets take drugs for instance, it is a real major part of the libertarian ideology. I remember about four years ago I wrote up an honest proposal to legalize drugs. It placed much of the power of policing drug use away from the government and into the hands of professional drug dealers. Pharmacists, bar owners, shaman, etc... And it was up to them to decide to sell or not based on the condition of the person they were selling to. Much like doctors do today. These people were then mostly self-regulated by guilds that they were free to form or dissolve on their own. The guilds would be held responsible for the pharmacists under it, kicking out bad doctors and such.

Another attempt so honest and meticulous in proposing decriminalization of drugs I have not ever seen. But the key issue that it addressed turned out exposing the agenda of my fellow (at that time) libertarians. There was but one aspect that I introduced in compromise that apparently there was no compromising on.

You see my proposal was built on accountability. And even though the guilds and other associations were free to form as they wished, and be regulated only by lawsuit according to people who feel themselves harmed by the user's abuse or pharmacists neglect or guild stupidity, my fellow libertarians did not like it. They simply wanted to smoke their weed in peace, no accountability. The isolated garage drug user was not just a hypothetical case to thwart justification of drug law, it was indeed their ideal lifestyle they were protecting.

Well there is only one problem with that. Such a concept does not exist. Nature is a harsh inescapable judge, and will always exact what is due. Perhaps beating nature to the punch are vigilantes who would raise up and hold souls accountable for crimes against their person or property. And then we have children who have no political power pay personally for their parent's selfish decisions.

There is a payment, an economy all around us. And every action comes at a price. You can even draw up good and evil on this axis. Evil (to me) is when you make others pay the price for your actions. Good is when you get what you want at the price you want, paying for it yourself. Good and evil are more than this, but it is sufficient to show that this is a proper moral axis.

When I say price, I should say that I mean exclusively just the consequences of the actions. Not the monetary cost in doing something. Nature is a harsh extractor of consequences. Often it would sooner kill someone than let them learn and reform.

What government does is try to inhibit people from running into the harsh judgments of nature. I call this the doctrine of replaced consequences. Because government can't raise the dead it tries to intervene before that happens and exacts its own contrived set of consequences.

Now I use death here because it is the easy example, I fully admit to it. It is the simple and extreme example that avoids the gray area while I establish my point. But a replacement for any consequence that is beyond societies ability to repair, or even extremely costly to do so, is beneficial. This would include a worker losing an arm, a health care recipient losing a lung, or the emotional scarring incurred with child abuse.

So you get a speeding ticket, a drunk driving ticket, or any other number of citations instead.

Now the objection that libertarians have against this is that it seems too parental. Replacement consequences, to them, is removing their choice in the matter. They can't do drugs because there is a law against it.

Well, fundamental to anyone observing society is the understanding that laws do not make decisions for you. The large number of drug users that manage to accomplish their desires inspire of the law is just one of many examples that show this. People still speed, people still drive drunk, etc...

But what it does do is give cause for pause. It makes sure that people who really want to run off the cliff really, really, want to run off the cliff. Because there is no turning back and saying "oops I made a mistake" while plummeting to your death that these inhibitors make someone think about the consequences before they engage in the behavior.

And now we come to the importance that the family unit has in governance. It is the first, the most compassionate, and the most attentive and immediate unit that we belong to that provides the ability to replace consequences. A time out is easier than prison time. A grounding at a young age is more instructive than unemployment later.

But lets look at what is in it for the parents too, shall we? It allows everyone who wants to the capacity to practice and learn governance for themselves. And this is crucial! Because as a democracy we hold our government accountable. But the ability to practice governance (though not a requirement) enhances our ability to understand government and make a contribution to it.

Dealing with terrorists? A two year old is a terrorist. People stuck on welfare? A teenage loafer is sucking the money from Mom and Dad. As parents deal with these problems they learn principles. And they can in turn apply these principles to government.

Children benefit from instruction from people who understand them best. Parents have the advantage in understanding children because they sharing genetic code which has certain capacities and instincts built in that parents can recognize in their own lives. Parents also are advantaged from the experience of dealing with the same child their whole lives.

And children get representation by both women and men in that governance! A boy learns about women from his mom, and a girl is understood and needs represented by someone who went through the unique experiences of being a girl herself. And vice versa.

Its not the way it always happens, but its such a great way to do things that it must be preserved. All my arguments boil down to the belief that only such equal participation in family governance has the credibility to demand recognition from the state.

Many disagree pointing to the number of families already that do not live in this system. Well we know that the children are disadvantaged in those situations, yet there are those that do pretty well in any case. To bring in an analogy, do you change the requirement for tires to be inflated because not all tires can inflate? How about road debris that flattens tires? What do people do then if its against the law to drive on flat tires?

Well the law is there for everyones protection, the consequences are too great to turn a blind eye. Yet practicality demands an exception in the matter. But writing the exception into the law as equal does nothing but encourage danger.

Well, I hope that answered your question. Oh and I'm not big government. I think a streamlined government means putting more on the states, and the states putting more on the cities, and returning more governance to the families. And that won't happen while people think marriage is just a romantic contract.

There was a lot of interesting news yesterday. SQL*Kitten pointed out a story on how after a year the lesbian couple that changed everything in Canada is getting a divorce.

The one I take special note of is a little covered item. Apparently after the FMA failed to move to vote in the Senate, the House passed a bill excercising a power granted them in the Constitution. What it says is that the courts are limited in their rulings to not make one state accept another state's marriage (this signed into law by Clinton in 1996).

The power to limit judicial powers is discussed in this JE. It should be an open and shut case, but as the story points out some think that it comes in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's power of Judicial Review (the basis of which is not found in the constitution at all). Just how we got a notion of Judicial review out of thin air is discussed in this JE.

As an anonymous coward raised the very valid question of just how far the Supreme Court powers go, it would be interesting if they feel they have the ability to place precidence over what is in the constitution with something that isn't. I for one would be very happy if defending marriage also winds up helping reset the constitution back to what it was designed to do.

UPDATE:

It turns out folks that this is not a new constitutional crisis. It has happened before. Thanks to "grouse" from K5 for pointing this out...

n Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506, Congress had actually removed the appelate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the case even after arguments had already been heard. Here's part of the opinion of the Court, delivered by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase:

It is quite clear, therefore, that this court cannot proceed to pronounce judgment in this case, for it has no longer jurisdiction of the appeal; and judicial duty is not less fitly performed by declining ungranted jurisdiction than in exercising firmly that which the Constitution and the laws confer...

The appeal of the petitioner in this case must be

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

Congress removed original jurisdiction of a lower court in a case sub judice in District of Columbia v. Eslin, 183 U.S. 62. The Supreme Court upheld the Congressional action there as well.

Now, the Supreme Court does change its mind and this was 135 years ago, so it might feel that it can if the jurisdiction-removing clauses, such as this one, that the Republicans have been pushing in recent years are enacted and tested in the courts. In fact, in Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, the Court tries to say that the appellate jurisdiction was only removable in McCardle because there was somewhere else for the same questions to be raised. That if Congress tried to say you can't try habeas corpus cases anywhere, that could be overruled by the courts.

UPDATE: Sep 29, 2004
The Washington Times has a larger review of legislation where Congress has used this power.

Much of my recent Slashdot discussions have centered on one salient point --the debate over marriage is one of definition. At the legal root of the fight is simply two definitions of marriage to choose from. And everyonce in a while a good writer gets right to the point...

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives a lucid definition of what marriage is:

Marriage:

• the mutual relation of husband and wife. the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
• an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities;
• an intimate or close union

As clearly defined, marriage is between a husband and hiswife. However, if marriage is so easily defined, then why are homosexuals and gay sympathizers turning it into such a deceiving issue? Why do they want something that does not belong to them? The answer: There is no logical explanation other than selfishness. They can't have it, so they want it. [This is very true as valid equal rights arguments are suspiciously absent or ignored, and the equal rights argument often touted really amounts to government equalization i.e. an oppressive subsidy --ed]

No one can stop people from being homosexuals. They should have rights like any other person without discrimination, but when homosexuals threaten important institutions such as marriage, a line must be drawn...

A few months ago in my own state, Governor Bob Taft signed into law Ohio's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), making it clear that marriage was between one man and one woman and that gay marriage licenseswould not be issued. This law was approved by the will of the people.

However, sooner or later, gay married couples will come to Ohio and will expect their "marriages" to be honored, but it will be denied because of the DOMA. Because of this, the ACLUwill challenge the DOMA for being unconditional and will attempt to make gay marriage legal in Ohio, differing from the will of the people.

If this will happen in Ohio as it did in Massachusetts, expect it to happen everywhere else. This is why a federal amendment must be put in place so that our government and the people can protect the good name of marriage before homosexualsruin its meaning.

It is unfair and ignorant to change a definition to suit an alternative lifestyle, but sadly it is happening.

I'd like to add that there is often presented a third option which to me is a red herring, and that is to not have the government define marriage at all. While I should argue this is a bad idea in and of itself it is probably easier to put across that defining marriage as a love bond between two people and not defining marriage at all is really the same option.

"Love" is an arbitrary term, and just imagion for a second any kind of law with that word in the qualification. Really it is nothing the government can or ought to judge, I doubt it can even find a way to define it. I've seen that how this argument is both for and against defining marriage causes much confusion. I'll point to the famous sidekick of this crime fighting duo, the Anonymous Coward again...

Why define marriage? Does a state have an obligation to the product of a procreative union. Does the state have a burden to, at a minimum, protect the rights of the newly born citizen? If a union potentially obligates a state, then the state has an interest in that union and so should recognize it.

Why not define marriage?

1. Take your pick:The state has no interest in marriage. This requires engineering a society in which newly born members are not citizens and so in no way obligate the state.
2. Religious entities have expressed a similar interest in marriage. This argument requires a statement that the state must back down whenever religions or at least religious concensus expresses an interest in a topic. This would be tantamount to religion dictating to the state and would also require abandoning government interest in other activities with religious significance like theft and murder.

Assuming you don't buy either of these arguments, you agree the government should define marriage. Let's go to the next step in the argument. Should the state define marriage such that same-sex unions are included?

Why change the definition?

1. Again, choose from the following: Same sex unions are identical to male-female unions. This requires one to assume children are meaningless to the state, which requires the above scenario where children aren't citizens.
2. Same sex unions should be identical to male-female unions. This is an argument to be taken up with Whomoever made the two unions different in the first place, which I'm sure we all agree was not the government.
3. In that case, homosexuality at the root of a same-sex relationship should be considered a handicap. It is an immutable condition imposed on the poor sufferers by accident of birth, therefore, the government should do its best to overlook and overcome any resulting differences. This would be an expensive proposition, but if you believe homosexuals are suffering a handicap, then considerations about cost should take second seat. There is currently no evidence supporting the immutability theory of homosexuality, hence defining it as a handicap is problematic.
4. The state's definition seems similar to religious definitions. See the argument above about religions dictating the state's interests. Marriage is definied similarly (though not identically) because both religion and state have similar interests in the union, i.e., its impact on potential offspring. Religion and state both also define murder similarly because they both have the same interest in the activity.
5. But marriage should only be about love.

   This definition does nothing to secure the state's interest in responsibility in procreation. Further, it warrants a massive intrusion by the government into our privacy as the government begins monitoring our feelings of love to see if we qualify for married status.

Why leave the definition the same? Same-sex "marriage" requires removing the procreativity inherent in the current definition of marriage because same-sex unions aren't procreative. It is the procreative potential of the male-female union that warrants societal interest and removing that potential from the definition of marriage means the state no longer has an interest in marriage and that the state's interest in procreativity is now neglected. The state must maintain its current definition of marriage.

So then really, someone tell me why all the fuss. There are two different definitions of marriage here so why not just use two different words and assign a definition to each? If someone has a union with a natural (as in handicapps don't count for exclusion) ability to have kids, then it is a marriage. Its already there we know what it means and why and it has worked as a legal definition for many millenia. If they don't have a natural ability to have kids, and as such don't have a de-facto responsibility outside their interpersonal relationship we can call them, oh I don't know, lovers? Partners?

For me I really dislike words that mean many different things.

Below is going to be my continuing collection of warning from prominent US figures about trusting the courts with ultimate authority in politics. This is designed to answer the question of whether or not we need the courts to legislate for us, a pre-emminent question in the debate over marriage.

Feel free to check back often, suggest quotes.

________________________

(This one was provided by The Tibetan Traveler, a poster on another forum).

When founded the Supreme Court, unlike today, actually tried cases. It wasn't until Madison, over twenty years after the constitution was adopted, that they actually made a ruling based on constitutionality. In Madison v Marbury, the court claimed more then the power to interpet the constitution. It claimed the exclusive right. I found this link, giving the background and the issues involved in the court ruling.

"Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.

"But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804.

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825.

"My construction of the Constitution is . . . that each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819

(credit to LandmarkCases.org)

_____________________________

I've often heard it said that slavery wasn't abolished by election. Well, it wasn't abolished by the Court either. Remember that at the time when Abe Lincoln came to office the Supreme Court thought slavery was constitutional. Abe disagreed, but even though he was later painted as someone who rushed to war (sound familiar?) he was a keen advocate of getting the legislature and populace to fix the situation. In fact, he wouldn't have wanted it fixed by the Supreme Court even if they could...

If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court ... the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side ..., that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. ... If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.

The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend it.' -- Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

_______________________

Another good essay on the subject is found here. It was written by Orrin Hatch ((R) Utah and chair of the Judiciary Committee) and Jim Talent ((R) Missouri)..

In the debate over traditional marriage, the cultural dominoes are falling in the wrong direction. Activist judges, who specialize in taking issues away from the people and deciding those issues instead, intend to make traditional marriage a thing of the past. Their decisions, like the one that will allow Massachusetts clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples this week, and the aggressive political and legal strategy driving them, make clear that protecting traditional marriage will require amending the Constitution.

America's founders believed, as James Madison put it, that the legislative branch "necessarily predominates" in a representative democracy. We all learned in civics class that the legislative branch makes the law, which means the judicial branch doesn't. Most state constitutions go beyond separating the branches, and two-thirds explicitly prohibit judges from legislating. With only the power to interpret the law, the judiciary is supposed to be, in AlexanderHamilton's words, the "least dangerous" branch.

Times have changed. Judges have become the most dangerous branch by following former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes' view that the law is "whatever the judges say it is." Judges cannot change the literal words of the Constitution or a statute, so they make law by changing the meaning of those words. The obvious danger is that if the law means whatever judges say it means, judges control the law, run the country and define the culture.

Since before the founding of the republic, legislatures enshrined the traditional view that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Only in the last decade have judges attempted to substitute their own views, effectively amending state constitutions by judicial fiat and imposing new marriage policies. Neither the people nor their legislatures chose any such thing.

In addition to judges acting like legislatures, some rogue public officials are acting like judges. Although California law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, for example, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom simply declared it unconstitutional, and same-sex couples from at least 46 states have obtained a marriage license there. Similarly, same-sex residents of more than 30 states have obtained marriage licenses in Multnomah County, Ore. Litigation is inevitable as they challenge their home states to recognize these same-sex unions.

This crisis requires a constitutional solution for at least three reasons. First, amending the Constitution is the only way of reining in the activist judges who will otherwise undermine traditional marriage. Neither judicial self-restraint nor the separation of judicial from legislative power is enough. Nor, it appears, are explicit bans on legislation by judges in state charters. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision that same-sex couples may wed, which goes into effect this week, is a legislative act openly defying the Massachusetts Constitution's edict that judges "shall never exercise the legislative" power.

Second, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will no longer effectively protect traditional marriage. While the Constitution requires that states give each other's judicial proceedings "full faith and credit," it also lets Congress make exceptions. Supported by 79 percent of House members, 85 percent of senators and signed by Bill Clinton, DOMA guarantees that one state need not recognize another's non-traditional union. Even so, federal and state court decisions since DOMA have made legal analysts, enthusiastically or grudgingly, concur that DOMA itself likely will not survive a court challenge before activist judges.

Third, amending the Constitution of the United States is the only way for the people of the United States to take this issue back. "We the people" established the Constitution, and only we can rightfully amend it by the single process outlined in the charter, a process that excludes the judicial branch. No amendment on any subject becomes part of the Constitution unless supported by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states. Amendments by judges, by contrast, defy the people and lack their consent.

The first right of the people is to govern themselves. Activist judges take away that right, sapping democracy's legitimacy and vitality. When courts deny the people the right to decide cultural issues for themselves, they undermine both the freedom and the opportunity to form consensus provided by self-government. Americans on both sides of the marriage debate deserve to have their voice heard and the potential to make it effective. Such civic participation in elections, through legislatures, or in amending the Constitution, is an antidote to judicial activism. Defending the people's right to govern themselves generally and protecting traditional marriage specifically require responding to this judicial activism by amending the U.S. Constitution.

This may be suprising to some, but I actually view equality to be a primary consideration in defining marriage. Too often we pit ideologies against each other that are not mutually exclusive or incompatible, in this case it is equality and marriage. Marriage is perfectly equal already.

So far I've established how the act of re-defining marriage is oppressive, and creates an unequal burden to the state to sponser the homosexual lifestyle. I've pointed out how government officials are abusing their authority for an unjust cause.

But in my recent discussions its dawned on me that the same-sex marriage advocates simply do not know just how equal and fair marriage is. They say that marriage like slavery needs to be altered by the courts. They simply do not understand the philisophical, political, physical and emotional diversity that goes into creating a marriage is the key to its equality. They do not understand that advocating same-sex marriages undermines the equity in marriage, it does not increase it.

Philisophically we see that in most creation epics that God starts the creative process by making distinctions; day and night, land and water, even waters from the waters! This shows is literarily what we understand intuitively, that distinction and creativity go hand in hand.

Physically and emotionaly we can turn to evolution to understand the beauty of marriage. For even if we look at the two forces evolution typically puts in competition; genetic or environment, we come up with a simular conclusion --distiction gives health and a certain breadth of experience and domain. Without distinction we cannot have choice, without diversity (a product of distinction) we fall prey as a whole to the same environmental factors.

Marriage is a creative process, and interestingly enough its also built on distinction. It is built on the very physical and emotional differences between a mother and a father. Both bring something unique and beneficial to the family they create. That is why the word "Marriage", which means two different things combine to create a new thing, describes this relationship so well. Indeed this diversity could account for why marriage is healthier not only for the children produced by it but it is healthier for the participants as well.

Politically we see that when it all boils down, the fact that marriage has representation from both sexes is an inexcapable benefit. How more equal can you get! Our federal government gets representation from every state, the UN gets representation from every country. the words of the founding fathers show they understood how distinction and diversity in government are a defence against oppression. And with marriage the way it is, a family gets equal representation and diversity in its conception.

So if there is nothing about marriage we need to change it is our appreciation of it. Marriage already is a fair and equitable institution. Its as fair and equitable as it gets.

Thank you in advance for participating in this loosley formated survey where it is hoped the most noble values expressed wins, not plurality. The phraseology was too big for the subject line so here is the real question in full.

Question: What more is marriage to you than is covered in this definition of domestic partnership?

A few guidelines:

In fairness, defenders of marriage and same sex marriage advocates alike should answer the question.

Please keep criticism of others' answers to yourself. Focus on publicly expressing your values while you keep private the judgements you make on what others have shared. "Me too, I like that" is a welcome response. "That is crap becuase I believe..." is not. If you don't have anything positive to say, well you know the rest. Plenty of places to beat each other up, lets keep this one blood free.

Also, I'm sure we can all agree that the definition enumerated by the ACLU is common among DP's Civil Unions and Marriages. So please leave items that are already covered by the ACLU to yourself, confident that we all share and understand them already. If someone shares something you feel is covered in DP's feel free to politely point that out to them and ask if there is something they meant to say that DP's do not cover.

And I assure you that if you answer the poll question properly there will be no reason you need to say, "they have it so we should to" or "why not". While it is true that the ideal of equality has great value, it does not display the personal value in marriage that this poll searches for. So if you feel the need to argue for something becuase "they have it to" or "why not", do so by simply stating the value you see in what "they" have. As you do you will find that you will be making a far more powerful claim on marriage.

Thank you again for reading this and participating. I especially look forward to hearing from the lurkers so we can have a database that represents more than just the passionate extremes. It is only through multiple data points that we can draw a trend. Its only with multiple ideas that we can compare values and find just what definition of marriage is worth state recognition (if any).

This just crossed my desk. After my last journal entry about Congressional Authorities being yay or nay on FMA, I've found there is a second alternative. I'm all for options here, and this one seems to be a solid comprimise...

U.S. Rep Fred Upton said Monday that he wants to clarify his position on attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriages...

"It would let states retain their own procedures," Upton said of Hatch's proposal. "I'm for letting states decide. Michigan law allows only a male and a female to get a certificate of marriage.

"I don't see that changing," he said.

The Kalamazoo Gazette last week ran an Associated Press story saying Upton did not support a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

A little more from the National Review on the wording of the constitutional ammendment proposed...

We are therefore pleased to learn that Sen. Orrin Hatch is introducing his own constitutional amendment. His version reads as follows: "Civil marriage shall be defined in each state by the legislature or the citizens thereof. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require that marriage or its benefits be extended to any union other than that of a man and a woman." This amendment would not only clearly allow civil unions to be enacted by legislatures; it would even allow legislatures to enact full-fledged same-sex marriage. But it would bar federal or state courts from imposing either.

Some conservatives will object that this amendment does not go far enough. But what it does is meet the challenge that actually inspired an amendment in the first place: the threat that judges will impose same-sex marriage or its equivalent in disregard of the public will. Hatch's language has the additional advantage of being clear and understandable to the layman. For most people, the notion that legislators should be making these decisions will seem like simple common sense.

We would be delighted if the marriage amendment, as currently proposed, were to pass. If it cannot pass, however, we hope conservatives will have the wisdom and maturity to change course -- and take a look at Senator Hatch's proposal.

So write your senators with your feelings on these two ammendments (re: last journal entry). It does not matter where you stand on the issue, they need our support in doing the right thing.

On the subject of St Serge and Baccus, I listened to a very interesting report on NPR's All Things Considered. The relevant part of the transcript is provided below. The interviewer is Margot Adler, the air date is February 23, 2004. Daniel Mendelsohn is a lecturer on the classics at Princeton University.

.ADLER: Many other examples of gay unions in history are contested. A controversial historian, the late John Boswell, claimed liturgical ceremonies in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches sanctioned gay unions, but many historians dispute his scholarship.

Mr. DANIEL MENDELSOHN (Princeton University): I thought that Boswell's book was extremely problematic.

ADLER: Daniel Mendelsohn is a writer who also teaches classics at Princeton University. He says the ceremony that Boswell describes, called the Adelphopoiesis, the making of brothers, was never meant as a marriage.

Mr. MENDELSOHN: People have always known about this ceremony, which he presented as this spectacular, new, earth-shaking find. It had always been satisfactorily explained as a sort of official blood-brother ceremony used to reconcile, say, the heads of warring clans.

ADLER: Mendelsohn says Boswell and others have also attempted to find gay marriage in the classical world. Ancient Greece and Rome are often seen as models of societies that accepted homosexuality. Mendelsohn says although there was one satirical ceremony in Rome where an emperor married a slave during a banquet, and in classical Athens there were clearly homosexual bonds...

Mr. MENDELSOHN: There was nothing like a marriage between men, which would have been looked on really with horror by most Athenians. You know, you had at some point this sort of boyfriend, but you were always supposed to be married to a woman, to procreate, to make babies who would grow up to be good Athenians.

I've been contemplating what angle to give Chapter 10 for a month now. Its just dry geneology. Important but dry.

But there is something interesting here. Where did we all come from? I did not attend, but a friend of mine listened to a talk given in a nearby town. He complained that it went (litteraly, not physicaly) to China and back for fourty minutes just to come to the conclusion that even though we are different races, we are all brothers. A point my friend thought could have been made more succcinctly I suppose.

But I'm interested. Where did the races come from?

I'm in the understanding that the decendents of Ham became the Africans, and Japeth's seed wondered their way up to Asia. If not because "Japan" sounds so close to Japeth. Okay, that is entirely wrong I admit. But for a long time that is what I worked off of.

Shem became the Semites, and worked their way eventually up to Europe. I also think that the descendents of Japeth are the native, ancient first inhabitants of the Americas. However, other migrations of Semites probably happened to the Americas during the three thousand years since Babel.

I've researched this on Google, and found groups of Africans, and Native Americans who hold themselves as Isralite tribes. I think it was Chacham who pointed me to a group of Indians (as in the nation India) who consider themselves Manassaites.

But while I'm interested, these would all be from the dispersion of Israel into the four quarters of the earth. For this discussion I'd appreciate anyone's information on the first dispersion, the one after the flood.

This one is going to be a bit of a fast forward of points of interest in Chapters 8 and 9. Each of these worth a journal topic of their own, I invite you to tell me what you think...

Genesis 8:21 for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;

I'll note that it says "from his youth", not birth. Theres other scripture that notes that evil is concieved in someone in their youth. Theres much commentary and discussion on whether or not people are born evil or not. My particular view is that people are born innocent, and evil is something that comes during childhood. (When that happens is beyond me, I have a two year old).

Genisis 9:2-4 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

This shows a law other than the law of cleanliness given to Moses at the mount. Here any animal is game, but you have to drain the blood. But its interesting that God here explicitely allows people to eat meat. Does that mean that before they only ate fruit? If so why then was Abel a shepard?

Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Here the wording strikes me as odd, maybe its a translation thing (Chacham you around?) But it seems to me that the promise to not destroy the earth again by flood is an additional to "my covenant" or as we may say "God's covenant". Its like God is saying "I'll establish my covenent with you, and I won't destroy anything anymore either."

I mean, if God were making a covenant wouldn't he just say "I'll establish *a* covenant with you". A covenant is a two way deal, so at least it would be referred to as "our covenant" or "a covenant between me and you" as is used elsewhere in scripture.

But instead its "my" covenant, like a trademark or signature God's covenant. Later in talking with Abraham (Gen 17:7), God again uses the words "my covenant" and "everlasting covenant" (cf Gen 9:16). And once again its associated in the timeline with a cataclismic event, namely the destruction of Sodam and Gomorah.

I bet that God's covenant has something to do with salvation, since both parties are saved from the events, and promised to have great posterity all over the earth. I bet that "my covenant" is something that people just understood back then when Genesis was written. "Oh that covenant," they would say. But in time its commonly understood meaning was lost.

Genesis 9:18-27 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

So someone tell me why the only person not present at the event, Canaan, was the one cursed? In fact its not even clear from the story that anyone did anything wrong (except maybe Noah for getting drunk).

And how did Shem and Japeth clothe their dad with their backs turned to him?

Well its time for one of the largest history altering events of all time. An event that is largely remembered in cultures around the world. An event that, like the creation, is very contraversial. Creation has its "alt.origions.talk" but don't know where a simular discussion is happening over the flood. Just bits and pieces of sporadic discussion of believers surmounting hurdles, people who want to believe but can't get past certain hurdles, and those throwing up those hurdles as fast as they can.

If anyone has a good overview of that discussion, I'd appreciate the post. But here as is my nature I focus in on the scripture. It usually answers a lot of questions in and of itself.

I think the first and foremost question that needs to be answered is...

Why did the flood happen?

So where do you stand? Especially for the Christians out there, why did God who desires his people repent and follow him, who sent his son to die for our sins, wiped out the whole world? Being a Christian my self I have my own views, but I've come to appreciate the views of the people that wrote those passages origionally, the Jews. Often they have the insight that just makes it click.

Perhaps a few of you can come from simular backgrounds in flood-lore as Buddists, Hindu's or another religion with a simular story to explain why God does such a thing.

Throughout a majority of cultures is a story of a world wide flood with their answer to this question, and I'm interested in the diversity of answers you may provide. For me, of all the commentary on why the flood happened, probably the best reasoning is preserved in the holy writ we have today (Gen 6:5).

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Maybe some of our hebrew scholars can answer me this, should I take it that the phrase "it repenteth me" is different then "I repent that"? Note how the subject and the subjunctives are reversed, and makes for a sentence that is awkward to understand.

Lets contrast this with a simular situation that happened to Moses...

And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

The simularities are obvious, the carrying on of the covenant through them and the destruction of the wicked people who have violated their covenants. A cleansing.

The differences are slight, one is a world destruction and one is a destruction of the covenant people. There are many ready reasons for this in scripture. First, God covenanted with Noah that the earth would no longer be destroyed by fire. Second, God established a new covenant with Abraham to be a might nation in the midst of gentiles rather then the anti-deluvian covenant of rule through patriarchal order, mentioned briefly when Able was killed and Seth took his place.

Another difference is what had happened to the righteous people. Before the flood, Enoch took the righteous people to heaven. After the flood at Sinai, the people who were supposed to be righteous had fallen.

Also before the flood watchers and giants threatened Enoch and Noah, as well as the other righteous people. Something very threatening though, as God chose to remove his people from them by both taking them up to heaven and drowning them.

I submit that the fear, the threat to the righteous was in the very corruption itself. The golden calf might best be described as a corruption of the covenant God had just established with his people. The corruption itself being the physical idol "copy" of God. Note it wasn't a replacing of God in the people's minds, but trying to make God into something they were used to having lived with the idols in Egypt for so long. They still had every intention of keeping their covenants but with the idol representation.

No doubt though they attempted to hijack the religion for their own purposes. In Genesis chapter 6 we find that previous to the flood "all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." I take this to mean something very much like the golden calf, a false replacement religion had arisen that was a copy and a corruption. Perhaps the watchers had something to do with this, or perhaps the patriarchal leaders had simply degraded into apostacy. Maybe both. Its certainly possible that a simular hijacking was attempted, Enoch's people were taken for protection and the hijackers drowned.

Another hijacking happened with Saul the king, whom it is recorded that "it repenteth God that he should have made Saul King". A king is someone that is to be trusted. A position of authority that God instituted over Israel for leadership and safety, but it was not corrupted when Saul took the position for his own way.

Remember that odd little sentence "it repented God that he created man"? The one that seems kind of backward of how we might say "God repented for creating man?" Well, perhaps when we disect it the meaning will be made more clear. Lets replace "it" with its antecedant "the corruption of His way", and see.

And while we are at it, lets figure out what this word is that is being translated so awkwardly. According to Strong's concordance that word is "nacham" which appears in a few verses of scripture. Not the least of which involved in a prophecy about Noah himself (Gen 5:29)...

And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

This seems to make this a janis-faced word, something that means both opposites (like the word "cleave"). It seems to mean both comfort when something goes wrong outside your control, or regret when something goes wrong that you had a part in. Perhaps we can take that at the root of both these meanings is a desire for change and reconciliation.

So "it repenteth the Lord" sounds like the corruption caused regret and a need for reconciliation for the safety of those that followed Him. Something they were meant to trust had been hijacked, and God had seen that it was being used against his purpose rather then for it.

Nephtillum, tsohar, arc, and ben'elohiym. There have been a few discussions break out on these terms already in this discussions on Genesis series. I find them as curious as any nouns found in the Old Testament.

What makes them have power is their ability to be tangible forms of intangible interactions in our lives, especially those that choose to keep themselves from the wickedness of the world. Its no wonder why Genesis is probably the most enduring story we have today.

Look at the drama --its the end of the world! And these are the final players. I realize that Noah and his family and zoo survive the flood, but it was the end of the world as they knew it and their entire civilization.

So lets look at the props put in play in this end game. Note how they don't really describe a civilization like a history would. In the minimalistic descriptions you know that they aren't there for show. These are as much of the meaning of the story as the rope in "Waiting for Godot", or the billboard in "The Great Gastby". They also hold for foreshadowing of simular objects to come in Exodus and later Old Testament works.

"Tsohar" is translated as "window" by the KJV, but I have mention that many Rabbi's think the tsohar was a shining stone. A stone illuminating the arc through very rough days ahead. The Urim and Thummim were stones that are placed on the breastplates of the priests. Urim and Thummim (if I understand it correctly) means "lights and perfections" held up in status for leadership of Israel.

Chacham in the previous chapter discussion just means box. The Arc of the Covenant then is the box holding the recorded covenant through Israel's journey in the widerness. This Arc is preserving humanity through Noah. But Noah and his family is preserving even more. Remember Eve's recorded words in the Bible when Abel was killed and Seth was born?

Ben'elohim was of great discussion already in some of Chacham's journals. They are interpreted in the KJV as "sons of God". Well its not difficult to believe that we are all sons and daughters of God so what makes this significant?

To the Jehovah Witnesses, it makes a significant difference as they were litterally sons of God. They were "watchers" sent from God's throne who joined in with the corruption of the earth, making the giants. Some significant ancient research puts credence to this possibility. The only other direct reference in the Old Testament to "Sons of God" is in Job (which I think lends credence to my theory that Job is an anti-deluvian work) as the people in council with God when Satan arrives.

The reference to Nephtillum is in verse six, where King James translates it as "Giants". Later in the Old Testament I believe Gath is mentioned as another home of Giants after the flood.

Note that they are not directly mentioned as the seed of the watchers as I can tell in the Old Testament. In fact it seems to spell out quite literally that Giants were around before and after the sons of God married the daughters of men. All it says of the outcome of that marriage are " the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Count me weird, but this sounds suspicously like some of the legend of Atlantis. Suppose that a truely great and advanced society was produced in the pre-flood days. An almost Tolkein like age of giants, and renowned people.

I note that men of renown may not even be a sign of evil forces at work. The Israelites that were set apart in Numbers were also called "men of renown".

The Bible of course only lends us to speculate. These objects are mearly to set up a scene before our eyes. A scene set against a backdrop of condmemning commentary from the creator of it all, "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his dheart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

Noah was a perfect and just man though, the Bible points that out quickly. To see what a remarkable man he was, look at what he had to go up against. Giants are never (maybe only just rarely) a good thing in the Bible. They are always put there as objects you can't fight with brawn, dispair oh ye warriors. Goliath is probably the best example of that.

I suppose that the mention of Giants here is a simular thing. Life was pretty dangerous for Noah with Giants running around. In other writings not in the Bible, Enoch had to worry about Giants also, his solution was to drop mountains on them.

These Giants were evil, and lets just say that if God had such a dim view of the world even the men of renown may have become corrupted. The corruption of the men of renown is a scenario I will use in the next installment to discuss what brought about the flood in the first place.

With all these truely powerful adversaries, God does not tell Noah to fight the Giants or hide from the men of renown. God tells Noah to fashion an arc, and probably provides the stone for illumination in the arc. The arc will carry him through the eventual judgment into a new, cleansed (we could say baptized) world.

While one may simply move past the chapter as "yeah God destroys wicked, preserves righteous" there is much more litterature here. Litterature through simple objects and their interactions that is powerful and beautiful.

Those that have read the Sillmarillion may note some striking simularities. From the Sillmaril itself and its use to make it past the darkness to the western lands, to the Lord of the Rings with Giants and passing of ages of men of renown. Tolkien, as I understand it, admitted frankly and freely to the use of these litterary constructs of Genesis in his works.

Next installment we will ponder more fully the question, "Why did the flood happen"? That question encompases much of the good vs evil discussion that is illuminated by the bible. To understand the answer to that question is to understand much of God, his purpose for us. Its ramifications reach deep into the doctrines of just about every sect. Its probably why I found myself debating it with a Jehovah's Witness for an hour or so on my doorstep some time ago.

And in the next installment we'll discuss the reclaiming mission of Noah and look to see if the old addage is true that he converted no-one in his 400(?) years of preaching.