Economists David G. Blanchflower of Dartmouth College and Andrew J. Oswald of the University of Warwick in England have done a study which was reported by AIM. Evidently, you would need to give a single person $100,000 a year to buy the amount of happiness one gains through lasting marriage.

We all know the Founding Fathers thought the pursuit of happiness an unalienable right. Moreover, the US Supreme Court has recognized marriage as an unenumerated civil right. So, here is a modest proposal:

That should just about balance things out, right?

Last week I commented on the right to presumed parenthood when one’s spouse gives birth. I think most recognize that right as a major benefit of marriage. As couples marry, it’s also worth keeping track of the little things. Today, Newsday.com reports that Geico will recognize same sex marriage when issuing car insurance policies (at least in NY state.)

It’s even better though. I initially, Geico refused. That prompted David Hroncich to contact other companies. So, Allstate, and State Farm both will now follow the New York state attorney general’s interpretation of state law and recognize same sex marriage when issuing insurance.

Of course, getting better car insurance is hardly the main point of marriage, as Hroncich says:

So, felicitations to Hroncich and his husband. And applause to the NY state for extending recognition to marriages performed out of state.

I love these things: Red/Blue quiz.

I came out just to the red side of the center; the diagnosis was: “Time to get out of the sun, you’re looking a little Red.” (Although, this may surprise some, it is true. I am just to the right of the center. )
Read the rest of this entry »

Washington Blade quotes Lisa Rue, president and CEO of Friends First:

I guess there are some conservatives who believe same sex marriage is already here. And maybe that’s a good thing!

In “Presumed Maternity” I mentioned that, Dr. Susan Shell was under the impression gays and lesbians didn’t want presumed parenthood as part of marriage. She also suggested their desire to avoid presumed parenthood is a reason same sex marriage should not be enacted. That sounded wrong to me then; it still does.

The Boston Heraldreports:

Visit the paper, you’ll see the two women who look pretty darn happy! It seems they are very specifically happy with the right to presumed parenthood:

Yes. I still think this is an important marital benefit advocates of same sex marriage long for.

Good news from CBC news

Looks like yesterday was a good day for North America!

Appearing side by side at MarriageDebate.com, we see Maggie Gallagher’s and Ramesh Ponnuru’s separate takes on the 48 Yay- 50 Nay procedural vote regarding the FMA. Both Gallagher and Ponnuru have published articles on same sex marriage at NRO; let’s compare and contrast their takes on the following question.

Why didn’t the Democrats filibuster to prevent a vote?

Maggie Gallagher:

Well, I hadn’t read that reason in any other stories. She also suggests:

In contrast, Ramesh Ponnuru is under the impression

Ponnuru suggests three possible motives for the Republican’s decision to avoid the direct vote on the FMA. Reason number 2 is:

(Bold added.)

So, no, it wasn’t all those faxes and phone calls. The Democrats weren’t afraid of the various rewritten versions of the amendment the Republicans were frantically preparing during the wee hours of the night. The Democrats didn’t filibuster because no political party filibusters when they are going to win the vote.

Reading Maggie’s article, it seems Ramesh is correct about motive #2. Not only that, looks like Maggie is out of the loop and is still hoping voters haven’t read it was the Republicans who decided to avoid the vote. Ramesh, give Maggie a buzz and let her know the full story leaked.

Just in, email from Cheryl A. Jacques of the Human Rights Campaign:

To learn how your Senator voted, click here. (My Senators Durbin (D) and Fitzgerald (R) voted Nay and Yea respectively. )

Cheryl Jacques does warn the battle is not over. It is anticipated that next week the House will be discuss marriage equality. Naturally, y’all will be hearing more.

In a comment posted today, July 14, 2004, Rich Lowry complains about Andrew Sullivan’s language:

If I understand Lowry correctly, he is accusing Sullivan of using adjectives that favor his own point of view. Horrors!

Yet in an article, published just yesterday, Rich Lowery described John Edwards using these words:

Tendentious. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

From the paper I read when I eat my morning Cheerios , The Wall Street Journal, advising a “No” vote on the Allard-Musgrave amendment.

So, the major point: leave it to the states.

Now a minor point:

I’m assume this means the Senate isn’t voting both versions I mentioned in my previous article. It sounds like the Dem’s forced the Rep’s to stick to the original two line version they worked so hard to bring forward– and then edit when they found even some Republicans don’t like it.

One of the most interesting things about the proposed FMA act is that there are two versions, and supporters can’t even decide which one they want to propose.

Should the amendment consist of this sentence only:

Or should they add this:

According to Dallas/Fort Worth CBS11 news:

Doesn’t it at least sound like the amendment would also prohibit voters from modifying their state constitutions to permit civil unions or domestic partnerships? Or if they modified them to permit these, those amendment must be set aside? If it reads that way, isn’t it possible a court would interpret it that way?

No matter what the answer to that question, I think Cheryl Jacques is correct when she says:

==== Afterward!
When I first posted, I failed to mention why there are two versions. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the two sentence version, which the Republicans were pushing might fail to musters even a simple majority.

I can help but notice the vigorous debate about religion and ethics precipitated by Amp’s articles Is abortion a religious question? (78 comments so far) and Making Distinctions Between the Distinctions We Make (107 comments to date). Clearly, we all have different opinions about the correct way to make moral judgments.

Now, by way of Procrastination, I learn we can quantify our differences of opinion by taking this quiz. (I am, of course, a big fan of quantification. It permits me to spew forth statistics at some later time.)

My results:

1. John Stuart Mill (100%)
2. Epicureans (96%)
3. Aristotle (92%)
4. Aquinas (81%)
5. Kant (78%)
6. Jeremy Bentham (77%)
7. Ayn Rand (73%)
8. Spinoza (60%)
9. Prescriptivism (54%)
10. Stoics (54%)
11. Ockham (52%)
12. Jean-Paul Sartre (50%)
13. St. Augustine (41%)
14. Nietzsche (38%)
15. Cynics (36%)
16. David Hume (36%)
17. Plato (34%)
18. Thomas Hobbes (28%)
19. Nel Noddings (24%)

I am surprised to learn I am not a Cynic. I’m glad to see I agree with the Epicureans; I can now continue my diet of chocolate chip cookies and wine. As an apostate Roman Catholic, I was sort of hoping St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas would fall to the bottom of my list. Alas, no.

Well, I can’t help it. Once again, I’m going to discuss the Senate Race in Illinois. People may recall that everyone in the world, including me, commented on Candidate Jack Ryan’s little snafu. Ryan bowed out of the race.

Evidently, the GOP is having a trouble finding a replacement candidate. The rumor mill reports that they may draft Mike “Da Bears” Ditka as replacement candidate.

The story provides no hint about Ditka’s stands on any issues, but indicates he is a stalwart Republican and sees himself as very conservative.

I love the final two paragraphs in a Chicago Tribune article:

Read the rest of this entry »

Andrew Sullivan and the Washington Post quote John Cornyn (R-Texas) speaking about the FMA:

Later, Senator Corwyn’s press secretary denied that Senator Corwyn used the box turtle quote. The quote was included in his prepared speech but he skipped it.

This is, in some way, old news. Still, it’s always worth celebrating approaching milestones and this one’s just around the corner.

New Jersey’s domestic partner program will go into effect on Saturday, providing some marital benefits to partners. These include the right to make medical decisions, the right to file joint state tax returns, and the right to inherit property from a spouse tax free. The $28 registration fee is the same as for a marriage license.

It’s definitely marriage lite. Partners won’t be presumed parents of children born to their spouses during the partnership. They also don’t have the full inheritance rights that come with marriage and they won’t have standing to sue for injury or death of their spouse. As The Star Ledger reports:

Interestingly, both same sex couples and heterosexual couples over the age of 62 qualify.

For those wondering, the act was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor in January.
For more details, visit Findlaw

The Senate is debating the FMA; a vote is expected in early July. Please write your senator! For more information on methods to express your opinion visit Take Action!

I believe in “The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage, Dr. Susan Shell suggested that:

Somehow, when I read that, it sounded simply wrong. Maybe that’s because so often, I read articles like this one in Law.com which discusses a lesbian non-biological co-mother who is suing for the right to be automatically recognized as the legal parent of the child she nurtured with her partner. Numerous gay and lesbian groups field amici curiae in favor of the non-biological co-mom, suggesting that Dr. Shell’s assumption that “few” supporters of gay marriage insist on the presumed parental rights that accompany marriage is seriously flawed.

In the linked article, a Los Angeles appeals court indicated a co-mom could be the presumed parent under California law.

The court also mentions that granting presumptive parenthood is in the interest of children:

So, at least in California, one need not be a male to be a presumed parent. One big reason for presumptive parenthood? The interest of the child. Can we say: Child-centered?

I always like new words, especially words named after people. Let’s face it, the word “Cheney-esque” has a certain “Je ne sais quoi” and it has been seeking a definition for some time. I think the correct definition has been found!

From Walter Dellinger at Slate:

For comparison purposes, I will list some previous attempts.

From ScrappleFAce at Jewish World Review:

From Cyberalert:

From Joshua Marshall at Talking Points Memo

From Los Angeles magazine

Dellinger has succeeded where others have failed. Cheney-esque! Or shall we spell it Cheneyesque?

In a peculiarly odd article, Susan M. Shell presents “The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage”. Referring to the article as “flawed but fascinating”, Eve Tushnet asks if we agree or disagree.

On the whole, I cannot answer Eve’s question; I can only read Dr. Shell’s article and repeat “huh”?

However, I thank Eve for suggesting we read this article. I recommend it highly; do not skip the part about not turning dead people into human lampshades!

It seems Dr. Shell tries to make a liberal case against same sex marriage. She ultimately proposes that we enact some sort of civil unions. These unions would be nearly indistinguishable from civil marriage. The proposed differences would be:

1. There is no presumption of parenthood when a lesbian has a baby. If her wife wants to be the legal mother, she’ll have to adopt the baby formally. (I learn from Dr. Shell, that, evidently, homosexuals don’t want presumed parenthood of their spouse’s baby.)
2. The unions might not have all the benefits of marriage. We aren’t told which they might lack.
3. These unions would be available to anyone who wishes to enter them, including two sisters, homosexual couples, and evidently heterosexual couples. The couple is not required to have sexual relations.

Dr. Shell does mention a disadvantage of her proposal:

Yes. I suspect civil unions would leave many on both sides dissatisfied.

I know most Alas readers are not following the Illinois race for the US Senate. Still, it’s an awfully fun race, and I don’t think anyone should miss this story in The Chicago Tribune and The Chicago Sun Times.

Now, some obvious questions. You’re Jack Ryan. You presumably have an IQ greater than 10. So:

• You know the media will learn your divorce papers were sealed to hide juicy sexually oriented accusations. Whether the accusations are true or false, do you think the story isn’t going to come out if you run for the US Senate?
• You originally requested that your divorce papers be sealed to protect your son from hearing juicy sexually oriented accusations. You want to continue to protect him. Do you run for Senator?
• The Republican Party Chairwoman for the State of Illinois asks you directly whether the sealed divorce files contain anything embarrassing. Why do you answer “No”?
• For that matter, you are Party Chairwoman Judy Baar Topinka. Do you believe files sealed to protect the Ryan’s son don’t contain embarrassing information?

Call me a cynic. But, why do I think Ryan wants to be Senator more than he wants to protect his son? Not that there is anything wrong with that.