Michael not Mike

Not surprisingly, the judge that issued the ruling that gay marriage was legal in Iowa has now issued an order staying that ruling. In the brief window of legality, a few couples managed to obtain licenses and get hitched.

On the backlash front: Republican House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, said the ruling illustrates the need for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

I’m shocked that he would say that.

Wish I could get married.

CNN is reporting:

An Iowa district court ruled Thursday that same-sex couples can marry based on the state constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment . . ..

I’ve never been in favor the the litigation strategy to achieve equal marriage rights for same-sex couples as it feeds the fear of those that believe the “gay agenda” will be pushed on them by so-called activist courts. Voter backlash often follows.

Aside: A local activist once bitched my out at an HRC event when I referred to gay marriage. My second attempt – same-sex marriage – was met with the same scorn. He insisted I refer only to marriage equality. Problem is, that phrase doesn’t immediately communicate what you’re talking about like the other two.

Second aside: Just about 2 months ago I was at dinner with an ultra-liberal lesbian friend (she would gladly own that whole reference) when she complained that she shouldn’t have to make a case for why she should be treated equally. While empathizing with her, having the make the case, repeatedly, is simply what we have to do. Just not a court case.

Way back in the fall of 1981, my mother took the only surviving copy of her parents’ wedding photo from 1922 to Strauss Peyton photo gallery on the Country Club Plaza to have it reproduced. It [the copy] has hung in her home every since. Another relative recently decided he wanted a copy. We went back to Strauss Peyton and they told us they probably would have the negative they made way back then [1981] and would be able to make us another copy from it. If that works out, it’ll be pretty durn cool.

It must have been idiot free in Nashville and other parts of the country today. All of them seemed to have been on the interstate between Nashville and Kansas City where I was driving to visit my mother for a few days. Lucky you.

By now, everyone knows that Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct for his actions in the restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The police documents are here.

Sen. Craig was an idiot to have pled guilty without first obtaining and consulting an attorney well versed in criminal law.

Sen. Craig should not have been arrested in the first place. He did not have sex in the restroom. He did not improperly expose himself in the restroom. He is accused of signaling that he wanted to have sex in the restroom.

If Sen. Craig had walked up to the officer and said, “Do you want to have sex with me in that stall over there?” I still would not support his arrest. Without more, the appropriate response to a come-on is a declination, not an arrest. Yes, such behavior is vulgar, but it should not be a law enforcement issue.

People who actually have sex in the public restrooms at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport should be arrested, regardless of gender, sexual orientation or political affiliation.

I don’t support involuntary outings, regardless of the reason.

Update:  After posting this, I saw that Dale Carpenter over at The Volokh Conspiracy had some thoughts along the same line.

Mayoral candidate Bob Clement has been attacking his opponent for being a lawyer, saying in a recent debate that he, and not Karl Dean, was being straight forward about his intentions.  “That’s the difference between being a lawyer and being a leader.”  Odd thing for a man whose father was a lawyer and governor of Tennessee from 1953 to 1959 to say.  Or maybe it isn’t since Gov. Clement initially ran on a platform that opposed a 2% sales tax.  Once in office, he changed his position and supported a 3% sales tax.

Of course, this may just signal more of former Rep. Clements’ lack of understanding of what lawyers do, as evidenced by his bizarre statements that Mr. Dean, while public defender, should have colluded with prosecutors to ensure that certain people were jailed.

And, Bob Clement’s brother is a judge on the Tennessee Court of Appeals.   I wonder who Judge Clement should collude with?

What follows is very much off the cuff, incomplete and subject to revision or deletion.

Kate O’ over at High Holy Mass of Contradiction asks an interesting question about libertarians:

Why does it seem that so many of the people who get most passionate when it comes to matters of personal financial responsibility and conservation of fiscal resources are not equally passionate when it comes to environmental responsibility and conservation of natural resources?

I haven’t really given this a great deal of thought before, but must also confess that I’m not much of a tree hugger. My initial thought is – free markets. Libertarians are free market believers. As something becomes scarce, it become more valuable. It’s high cost cuts down on consumption and generates incentives to either protect the remaining portion of that resource, increase the available supply or find suitable substitutes, see, e.g. oil.

One problem I see with that is it does not account for certain resources not traded in the free market. For example, the market can create little incentive to protect or foster the growth of a rare, endangered species of plant or animal. A small plant that lives only in an isolated corner of the Kansas prairie may have little or no resale value. Limited supply is met with limited demand leading to limited market value. A person living under a strict market view would not care about the lose of a rare endangered species under these circumstances. But that ignores two things.

First, this free market approach ignores potential undiscovered value in now extinct organism. Extracts from that plant might have held the key to a fantastic medical break through, have been a phenomenal new energy source or a potential miracle food that could cheaply nourish millions. The market cannot appreciate what it does not know.

Second, libertarians are fond of saying that “Your rights end where my nose begins” or some formulation thereof. I don’t throw trash out my car window because I recognize that I share this earth with everyone else. I don’t have the right to pollute their earth any more than they have the right to pollute mine. But, following that line of thought to its logical conclusion would lead to utter paralysis. Nearly every action I take has an impact on someone else in some way. A compromise is necessary.

A possible corollary to number two, is that somethings have value just by being. That endangered plant or animal may be completely worthless in the commercial market place. But, it’s part of our natural treasure. If I destroy the last snail darter, no future generation will ever be able to enjoy seeing one. Once lost, it is lost forever.

A man and his wife want to attend the University of Phoenix so he can get a master’s degree in counseling.  His wife will be studying psychology.  They have two kids.  In order to fund their education and lifestyle, the couple have decided to send out a mass email looking for people who will provide monthly support for two years while they study.

It might be a bit surprising that they need this help since they own a home, currently on the market for $715,051.  When he left his last job his severance package included one year’s salary of $138,000 and he retained royalty rights to numerous books he had written.

Yet, his desire to further his education and help those less fortunate tugs at the heart strings.  Especially since this man is Ted Haggard.

According to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, for guns used in crimes in Tennessee and traced by the Bureau, the average amount of time between purchase and use in a crime is 10.87 years.  Nationally, that average is 10.17 years.  Of the guns the Bureau was able to trace, 3.9% were used in a crime within 3 months of purchase.

I thought we needed instant background checks because criminals were walking into guns stores to purchase weapons for use in their next crime.

Also note that for the vast majority of the traced weapons, the “crime” was non-violent, such as possession, health and safety (the BATFE does not provide definitions for their terms) and “dangerous drugs.”

When walking with a female on the sidewalk, I walk on the side nearest the street. I open and hold doors for women. Guests are always offered a beverage; females get special attention when their drinks are low. Women get dropped off and picked up at the door. To the extent possible, I carry the packages instead of the female I am with. Simply put, in social situations, I am deferential to women.

All of this behavior was programed into me by my mother. By the time I reached adolescence, my mother would walk to a door and wait for me to get there to open it. I was taught, and the lessons were reinforced, to be polite. Now I consider all of these things to be just basic courtesy. Why are other men not aware of these simple actions? Why don’t more parents teach manners? They aren’t that difficult.