I hadn’t really thought about “gender profiling,” but this article is pretty interesting. My favorite bit was the argument that gender profiling shares the disadvantages of racial profiling:

Read the whole thing.

Just added Rad Geek People’s Daily to the blogroll, and I highly recommend y’all check it out. It’s so nice to see a genuinely leftist blog.

I particular liked his critique of Christina Hoff Sommers (and of Salon’s weird dedication to anti-feminism), not because it’s better than his other material, but because it dovetailed with my interests really well. I’m definitely gonna spend some time reading through the archives there.

Oh, and if anyone can tell me the MT code for that cool thing Rad Geek does at the bottom of his blog - where there’s a list of recent posts that aren’t quite recent enough to be on the front page - I’d be grateful.

The Fifty Minute Hour approvingly quotes from this New York Post columnist:

Really, though, what’s happening is a version of the prisoner’s dilemma.

It’s not that Kerry, as a rich person, is unwilling to pay high taxes. It’s that he’s unwilling to pay high taxes unless all the other rich people pay high taxes, too.

This is a perfectly consistant position on Kerry’s part. He doesn’t want to pay higher taxes for their own sake; he wants to pay higher taxes for the sake of having more and better government services. If every rich person in Massachusetts paid higher taxes, then Massachusetts would be able to afford more and better services. So raising taxes on everyone in Kerry’s bracket makes sense - and Kerry is willing to pay a higher tax in that circumstance.

However, it doesn’t make sense for an individual rich person to voluntarily pay a higher tax rate, when it’s clear that almost no one else (not even other rich people) will do the same. For Kerry and a handful of other wealthy folks to pay 5.85 percent rather than 5.3 percent just won’t make enough of a difference to be worthwhile.

What The Fifty Minute Hour is saying is that because Kerry is willing to raise taxes on all rich folks (himself included) in exchange for a gain in services, he’s a hypocrite because he’s not willing to personally pay more in exchange for no significant gain in services. Could there be a more ridiculous critique of Kerry?

The Lieter Report compares free speech in Canada (where “hate speech” is often banned) with free speech in the USA:

The whole thing is worth reading. And there’s a followup post as well.

From IPS News Serivce:

There’s more….

As dedicated “Alas” readers will recall, my nephew Silas was born October 16, 2002 and his sister Jemma two weeks ago. It’s long past time I posted more pictures, don’t you think?

My family is lucky in that my brother-in-law Tim is an outstanding photographer, so the kiddie photos we get are really good. Click below to see the pictures.
Read the rest of this entry »

All these posts, and it’s only the lower court ruling, which could be overturned.

Typically, The One True b!X has the best coverage (here and here). B!X is calling this a victory for marriage equality opponants.

He’s got a point; separate is not equal.

But then again… Just a year or two ago, a court ruling requiring Civil Unions (flawed as they are) in Oregon would have been seen by everyone as a stunning victory for gay rights.

Also, Oregon is not Massachusetts… it’s very easy to amend the Oregon Constitution with a ballot measure. I’m pretty certain that Oregon voters would amend the Constitution to prevent gay marriage. However, it’s not as clear to me that a majority will be willing to amend the Constitution just to prevent Civil Unions.

I oppose Civil Unions in the long run, because I think they’re a degrading concession to anti-gay sentiment. Separate is not equal, nor is it fair. Nonetheless, in the short term, it’s possible that Civil Unions will be a better strategic route to eventual equality; it’s certainly better than a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. (Which might happen anyway, but is more likely to happen if an Oregon Court rules that our constitution requires marriage equality).

UPDATE: Issac Laquedem and Worldwide Pablo also have comments on this case.

The newspaper article I read had me downcast, but finding out more about the ruling has cheered me up quite a bit. A comment from Basic Rights Oregon sets today’s ruling in a more positive perspective:

The Oregon ACLU shares B.R.O.’s outlook.

So it’s better than I had initially thought. Basic Rights Oregon also provided a pdf link to the ruling, which I’m still going through.

UPDATE: Having read the ruling, it’s good but not great. It does say that Oregon can’t constitutionally deny same-sex couples the legal benefits of marriage; but it also endorses the “separate but equal” solution of having “civil unions” for same-sex couples providing full legal rights (on the state level, anyway) while only op-sex couples are permitted to get married. The judge didn’t address the question of if separate is really equal; he just hid behind the civil unions concept.

Exactly what the legal solution will be is up to the legislature, which will have ninety days starting from the next time they convene to come up with something. However, given the makeup of the Oregon legislature, we can depend on them to choose “civil unions” rather than real marriage equality. (Assuming they don’t find a legal way to avoid even giving gays civil unions, that is.)

The ruling also requires the state to record those Oregon same-sex marriage licenses which have already been solomized, so Oregon is the first in the nation on that. Yay us!

If the legislature doesn’t give same-sexers “equal legal rights” within ninety days of their next meeting, then Multnomah will resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, which (under the terms of this ruling) the state will have to recognize. So that’s a pretty big stick forcing the legislature to pay attention to this ruling.

Assuming this ruling isn’t stayed or overturned, of course; this is only the lowest court decision.

Here’s a bit of good news: A committee in the California Legislature today endorsed a bill which would create gay marriage in California. I’m not sure if it has a chance of getting through the full California legislature or not; this goes against a voter initiative in California which defined marriage as opposite-sex only, so it could be a hard bill for politicians to support.

Remember when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that lesbians and gays have an equal protection right to marriage? All we heard for months was “this has to be decided in the legislature!” But when a legislature votes for marriage equality, what do equality opponents say?

I know, I’m being unfair. But it just amuses me. While there are individual exceptions, I don’t think there’s a chance in hell that most SSM opponents are prepared to respect a legislative vote in favor of gay marriage.

UPDATE: Actually, the ruling is better than I initially thought, so this post is more negative than it needed to be. See this post for more information.

Oh, well, it was nice while it lasted…

Read the whole story here.

It’s disappointing, but it didn’t really matter what this judge decides; what matters is what the Oregon Supreme Court decides.

And in the longer run, even if the Supremes decide against marriage equality, that won’t matter either. The fight for marriage equality will never be defeated; the only question is if it’ll take a year, ten years or fifty for us to win. Our eventual victory is inevitable.

For a minor consolation prize, we should remember that this judge’s decision - which seems to say that, at a minimum, same-sex couples must be given civil uinons - would have been seen as radically pro-gay-rights only a year ago.

• “The moment has finally arrived to end once and for all the intolerable discrimination which many Spaniards suffer because of their sexual preferences… Homosexuals and transsexuals deserve the same public consideration as heterosexuals.” –Incoming Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, announcing that Spain will recognize equal marriage rights.

• Gabriel Rosenberg responds to Elizabeth Marquardt’s “if gays marry, we won’t be able to say that mothers and fathers have children” line of argument. To me, the least credible part of Elizabeth’s argument is the supposition that heterosexuals worry about if gays can get married when deciding to wed or not. I’m sure that a few straights do consider the question - I know some straights who refuse to get married while marriage is a bigoted institution - but it seems self-evident that the vast majority of straight marriages don’t happen (or not happen) depending on the status of SSM.

  Speaking as a wedding coordinator in Multnomah County, Oregon (the only place in the USA still issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples), I haven’t noticed any slowdown in business here since marriage equality began.

• Speaking of Elizabeth, mazil tov to her on the birth of her son James!
• Some Massachusetts Justices of the Peace are thinking of resigning rather than having to perform gay marriages. (Being a Justice of the Peace isn’t like being a minister - as a representative of the state, they might have to officiate over any legal marriage, not just the ones they approve of).
• Young straights in France are more and more using France’s “civil union” law as a way of having “marriage-light.” It’s interesting how this “compromise,” forced on same-sex couples by anti-gay-equality folks who want to “preserve” marriage, ends up weakening marriage among straights. They would have been far better off just supporting marriage equality. Link via Family Scholars.
• From the Baptist Standard, and again via Family Scholars blog.
  A landmark study of American evangelical Christians released this month determined, among several findings, that evangelicals oppose gay marriage but are lukewarm in their support for a constitutional amendment to ban it. The survey of more than 1,600 respondents found that, while 85 percent of evangelical Christians oppose gay marriage, only 41 percent of those who oppose the practice felt the Constitution should be amended to do so.
• Speaking of which, isn’t it ironic that Bush is supporting a Federal Marriage amendment which has next-to-no chance of passing; while Kerry opposes the Federal version, but supports an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution that has a good chance of passing; and yet Kerry, who is going to wind up doing more damage, is seen as the pro-gay candidate?

  The perception is that Kerry isn’t really anti-gay, but just a gutless coward giving in to political pressure; whereas Bush is sincerely a bigot. But even if that’s true, it’s quite possible that gutlessness in our allies might do more damage in the long run.

• Once again via Family Scholars, a good article on Black ministers both for and against marriage equality, and relating the question to the black civil rights movement. Personally, I feel it’s a mistake to assume that “is the issue at hand closely analogous to the black civil rights struggle?” and “is this a civil rights issue?” are questions that must have the same answer.
• A good article in the Florida Sun-Sentinel: Lack of Legal Protections Leads to Hardships for Gay Couples. (Via MarriageDebate). The article touches on an issue discussed in this post by Armed Liberal: individual contracts drawn up by lawyers are not an adequate substitute for the legal protections of marriage.
• San Jose Mercury News: Transsexuals A New Test of Marriage. Another reason to remove gender-requirements from marriage altogether, in my view. Via MarriageDebate.
• Speaking of which, what about intersexuals (people who are not male or female, biologically) - in states which have laws defining marriage as opposite-sex only, are intersexuals not legally allowed to marry anyone at all?
• The first trial about same-sex marriage in Oregon has begun. Although the Oregonian had a good article, the best trial coverage, unsurprisingly, comes from blogger The One True b!X. Interestingly, there are three sides to this trial: Multnomah county is arguing for marriage equality, the homophobes are arguing against it, and Oregon is arguing that the legislature should be given time to institute Vermont-style civil unions.

  Whatever the court decides, it’ll be appealed and appealed again until it reaches the Oregon Supreme Court. Still, it’ll be interesting to see what the lower court decides (the decision will probably come within a week).

• Even better, The One True b!X links to a pdf transcript of the oral arguments in the Oregon same-sex marriage trial. Really interesting reading, if you’re into this sort of stuff.

• Long Story: Short Pier critiques Paul Erdős. Well, sort of. Not really. Anyway, it’s a terrific post, and I’ve been meaning to link to it for ages now, so you should go read it. Especially if you’re interested in gender and household labor. Or mathematicians.

• Jack Bog provides an entertaining analysis of John Kerry’s tax return, and also at Bush’s and Cheney’s tax returns. Cheney’s is the most fun.
• Also via Jack Bog, Nine Reasons Not To Get Drunk. (Probably not utterly work-safe).
• An “Alas” reader emailed to ask me to link to Wildfire Jo, a blog by an English human rights activist living in Iraq. I’m doing so, not only because I mindlessly obey every whim of my readers, but because it’s a pretty amazing blog. Not good reading if you want to feel good about America’s foreign policy, though. Here’s a sample:
  This time we walk away from the hospital towards the marines, just us and the loudspeaker, no ambulance, to try and talk to them properly. Slowly, slowly, we take steps, shouting that we’re unarmed, that we’re a relief team, that we’re trying to get supplies to the hospital.

  Another two shots dissuade us. I’m furious. From behind the wall I inform them that their actions are in breach of the Geneva Conventions. “How would you feel if it was your sister in that hospital unable to get treated because some man with a gun wouldn’t let the medical supplies through.” David takes me away as I’m about to call down a plague of warts on their trigger fingers.

• Although it’s a little bit dated (i.e., 1996), there’s a lot of fascinating reading in this collection of essays about the most extreme pro-life activists. Frightening stuff.
• You know, before Bean told me about it, I was totally unfamiliar with Neurotically Yours, an animated series about a squirrel with an irritating high-pitched voice. So far my favorite is the Matrix parody.
• The Decembrist rips apart the idea of “Sex and the City Voters.” A sample:
  This term is the most misleading phony-demographic since “NASCAR Dads,” for a very simple reason: The median income of never-married women 18-64 is $15,872. And that’s not $15,000 as in, an editorial assistant at a publishing house living with three roommates in a one-bedroom apartment in the West 80s, accumulating zany dating stories that they’ll all laugh about in five years. That’s $15,000 as in working two jobs that pay $6.50 an hour and driving a ten-year-old car. I never watched much of “Sex and the City” because we don’t have HBO, but I recall one episode where Carrie figured out how much she spent on shoes, and I believe it was that very same $15,000.
• While you’re visiting The Decembrist, be sure to read his explanation of why welfare policy is no longer very relevant. (Still damn useful for my friends on welfare, though.)
• As my friend Rob says, you think you got geek chops? You don’t have geek chops. This guy - he has geek chops.
• The Head Heeb argues, persuasively, that Bush’s support of Sharon shouldn’t be seen as that big a deal; it really does not represent any major change in US policy. Furthermore, given the choice between a Sharon-centrist coalition and a Sharon-far right coalition, we should prefer the former to win, and that’s what Bush’s support helped bring about.

In the comments to an earlier post, “Alas” reader Joe M wrote:

Joe’s link leads to “The Cover-Up: Why U.S. Abortion Mortality Statistics are Meaningless,” by David Reardon, an article that’s frequently cited by pro-life websites and publications. The four women who died of abortion-related complications were Erica Richardson, Gladys Estanislao, Debra Gray, and Susanne Logan (although Ms. Logan didn’t die until 1992, so it’s a bit odd of Joe to speculate about including her death in 1989 mortality statistics).

These deaths are tragic. But are they evidence of a current, nationwide pattern of the federal goverment (which runs the CDC) massively undercounting deaths caused by botched abortions, as Joe suggests?

There are some odd things about Reardon’s article. If such “hidden abortion deaths” form an ongoing pattern, then why include only decade-old examples (the article was published in 2000)? If “hidden abortion deaths” are a national problem, why use only examples from Maryland? And why - in an article that is fairly well footnoted - is there no footnote indicating where the information about Richardson, Estanislao, or Gray was found?

It turns out that Gray and Logan were both killed by the malpractice of the Hillview Abortion Clinic, run by a woman who pretended to be, but wasn’t, a doctor (source: 60 Minutes broadcast 4/21/91). An actual doctor who was associated with the Hillview clinic wound up losing his license to practice medicine over the Gray and Lofan cases (AP story, 12/19/91). It’s not every day that an abortion clinic is so flagrantly awful that it winds up on 60 Minutes; how Hillview was run doesn’t tell us anything about ordinary clinics that perform abortions. So two of the 1989 Maryland cases are exceptions, rather than typical examples of an ongoing national pattern.

It was harder to find information about Erica Richardson and Gladys Estanislao; a lexus search didn’t turn up any mention of their deaths in a legitimate news source. However, they and the other two women were mentioned in press release after press release issued by Father Paul Marx, head of the Population Research Institute (PRI).

Since I can’t locate any other pre-Reardon source of information about these cases - and since Reardon’s article doesn’t provide a single fact about these four deaths that wasn’t previously in Marx’s press releases - it seems likely that Reardon got his information from Marx. If so, I can see why Reardon would choose not to cite Paul Marx as a source. Marx’s PRI is probably best known for spearheading the smear campaign against the UN Population Fund; this campaign (and the unwillingness of mainstream pro-lifers to ever criticize one of their own, even an anti-Semitic liar like Marx) has probably killed thousands of third-world woman and infants and led to tens of thousands more abortions being performed.

Marx is also an anti-Semitic barker who believes that abortion is a Jewish conspiracy. In this day and age, I usually take accusations of anti-Semitism with a grain of salt. It’s become a too-common tactic to unfairly accuse political opponents of anti-Semitism, based on indirect evidence rather than on anything they’ve said. So here’s a few actual quotes from Paul Marx, and you can decide for yourself if he’s got an unhealthy obsession with Jews. (Source: U.S. Newswire, 10/30/98).

Even folks in the Catholic Church have criticized Marx’s anti-Semitism; one Bishop said, of one of Marx’s newsletters, “It evokes, I think, the medieval imagery of Jews as devils, complete with horns. Such anti-Semitic imagery has been clearly condemned by the church.” (ADL press release, 3/10/95).

So what, you may ask? Just because Marx is a Jew-hater who propagated vicious lies about the UN Population Fund, that doesn’t prove he’s lying about Erica Richardson and Gladys Estanislao’s death. Personally, I think Marx isn’t a very credible source. However, even if we take Marx at his word, that doesn’t provide much support for Reardon’s case. Marx’s press releases make it clear that he’s accusing the Maryland government of outstanding corruption and incompetence; his press releases don’t claim, or support the claim, that Maryland in 1989 represents an ongoing national norm of unreported abortion deaths.

So what are Reardon’s sources? Two deaths from a single astoundingly corrupt clinic; and two more deaths reported on only by nutcase/liar Paul Marx, who uses these four deaths to argue that the local government is corrupt. To take these cases and assume they represent a norm in unreported abortion deaths nationwide seems unwarranted.

If this is the norm, then why aren’t there any examples that aren’t a decade or more old; or that aren’t from a single tragic year in Maryland? Unless Reardon can present a few recent cases from a variety of states, it seems likely that Maryland in 1989 was a statistical exception, not the statistical norm. If pro-lifers want to prove that the CDC systematically undercounts abortion deaths, they’ll have to do much better than this.

Reardon does mention one other source: a book called Victims of Choice, self-published by Kevin Sherlock. I have no idea how reliable Sherlock’s reporting is. However, that he also wrote The Abortion Buster’s Manual - a how-to guide to harassing abortion providers, which often stops a gnat’s wing away from calling for violence against abortion doctors - lessens his credibility as an objective reporter. Here’s a sample from Sherlock’s writing (capitalization is his):

Not exactly 60 Minutes, is it?

If the CDC is systematically undercounting abortion deaths, I’d expect there to be some more objective and reasonable source criticizing them for it. Furthermore, if the CDC is really so biased (Kevin Sherlock suggests that there’s a pro-choice conspiracy to underreport among CDC employees), why didn’t the Reagan administration or either Bush administration - none of whom could be accused of being pro-choice - act to solve the problem? (The CDC operates under the authority of the White House).

Nothing I’ve written here proves that the CDC isn’t undercounting abortion deaths by a huge degree - but then, it’s impossible to prove a negative. All I can say is that Reardon’s evidence against the CDC isn’t very persuasive. If Reardon’s article is the best case pro-lifers can make against the CDC, then probably the CDC’s doing a reasonably good job.

In the comments of an earlier post, arguing that abortion may be more dangerous than childbirth, “Alas” reader Joe M. has pointed to the abstract of “Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion,” from The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Feb 2004).

The abstract, based on medical records from Finland (due to socialized medicine, Finland has exceptionally accurate medical statistics), reports that “mortality was lower after a birth (28.2/100,000) than after a spontaneous (51.9/100,000) or induced abortion (83.1/100,000).”

Joe’s not alone; many pro-life organizations have cited this article, pretty much to make the same point Joe does.

I’m neutral in the “which causes more deaths - legal abortion or childbirth?” debate. I don’t know which is safer; it seems clear that both procedures are pretty safe for the average American. And the abortion question is, in the end, about civil rights, not about safety.

Nonetheless, since Joe brought it up - and since it’s been argued about endlessly in comments - I looked up the study. Joe’s point - which is, if I understand him, that abortion is more dangerous than childbirth - isn’t really supported by the Finland study. From the study’s text (no link available, sorry):

Having a late-term abortion for medical reasons is relatively dangerous - but it seems unjustified to assume that carrying these particular pregnancies to term would have been any less dangerous. You could just as easily use this study to argue that, for an ordinary pregnancy, it’s safer to abort than to give birth.

However, I’m sure other studies could be (and will be) cited to show just the opposite. In the end, the studies seem to show that both childbirth and legal abortion, at least in the first world, are fairly safe. A more substantial debate about abortion would concentrate on different issues.

Odds are you haven’t heard of Ttile VI of the International Studies in Higher Education Act of 2003 - but if it passes the Senate, it’ll be an enourmous loss for academic freedom and free speech.

It already passed the House last fall (it’s bill number is H.R. 3077 - follow that link and then click on “printer friendly display” to read the bill’s text), and is expected to come up in the Senate soon. If it becomes law, what Title VI will do is creat an “International Higher Education Board,” which will review International Studies programs at universities and reccomend to the Secretary of Education and Congress which programs should continue getting grants.

According to Stanley Kurtz, a proponant of Title VI,

So goverment appointees will review academic programs to decide if they’re patriotic enough to continue recieving funding. So much for free speech.

Since this bill, if passed, is expected to come down hardest on academic critics of Israel, most of the American Jewish lobbying organizations are in favor of it. Even so, there’s been some opposition. From The Forward:

Further reading: op-ed in The Jewish Journal; comment from the ACLU.

But don’t bother looking for a comment from FIRE, the right-wing group that likes to pat itself on the back for protecting campus free speech. As of today, months after the House passed H.R. 3007, FIRE still hasn’t said a word about it. When they say they’re against censorship, they’re apparently not including censorship from the right.

UPDATE: Go read Juan Cole’s blog for a more detailed, informed anti-Title-VI post. Juan also has suggestions for writing or faxing your senator. (Link via Raznor in the comments.)

Same-sex marriage opponants often argue that the purpose of civic marriage is to provide an ideal environment to bear and raise children through heterosexual sex. However, this idea doesn’t stand up very well to evidence. As many people have pointed out, there is no law forbidding the infertile, the elderly, or stuck-in-prison, or the otherwise unlikely to breed from marrying. As “Alas” reader Lucia has pointed out, infertility was not generally grounds for fault-based divorce in the USA.

Now SK Elkins brings us more proof that civic marriage in the US has never been based on the ability to bear children through het sex. What about common-law marriage?

Elkins has many more details; go here to read the whole thing.

Re-enacted by bunnies.

Same-sex marriage opponents have said, over and over, that denying equal marriage rights to same-sex couples is justified because same-sex couples cannot naturally concieve children together. Legal marriage is based, according to this argument, on heterosexual fertility.

But here’s a question. According to Stephen Nock - a scholar often cited as an expert by SSM opponents - “the traditional fault-based grounds” for ending marriage in the United States include “felony life-or-death convictions, physical or sexual abuse of a child or of the spouse, adultery, and abandonment.” (See “Marriage Law: Obsolete or Cutting Edge?” in Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, 10 Mich. J. Gender & L. 21, 2003).

If fertility is the core of legal marriage in the US, then why was infertility not a traditional fault-based ground for divorce?

Abuse was - so clearly, treating each other decently, without violence, is a core legal requirement of marriage in the USA.

Adultry was - so clearly, fidelity is a core legal requirement of marriage in the USA.

But ability to bear children was not a traditional ground for fault-based divorce.

How on earth did the legislature and the courts overlook that, since - according to SSM opponants - bearing children is virtually the only legal justification for marriage?

(P.S. Yes, I know I posted this general line of thought before - but I didn’t get an answer then, plus I didn’t have the Stephen Nock reference then, so what the heck.)

The title of this post comes from this article from the Chicago Tribune, about homophobia in the South. And yes, the woman who said it was being serious.

From later on in the article:

Of course, the kind of “Christians” who shunned Nevels’ son don’t represent all Christians; not all Christians are assholes. But those who are assholes sure manage to make all the other Christians look bad, don’t they? It’s really unfair to the decent Christians out there.

Via Mouse Words.

From the Salt Lake Tribune: