California courts uphold gay marriage ban

While this was an unexpected turn of events in many circles, this is exactly what I expected to see, but only because it was the logical conclusion to be reached based on the pertinent laws.

The California state constitution is written in a way that allows voter majority to create the kinds of idiosyncrasies that resulted in Proposition 8. The only thing a judge for their state court system can do is rule as to whether or not a law or statute adheres to the state constitution. Prop 8 was an amendment to California's state constitution, which means that the moment it went into effect, it became it's own exception to rules governing discrimination in that state.

Of course, the important words in that statement are in that state. The U.S. constitution includes a Bill of Rights, as well as several amendments that have upheld the full rights of citizenship and insured that they apply to everyone, no matter their circumstances. Discrimination against any one identifiable group made up of American citizens is unconstitutional on many, many levels.

Which brings us back to the California court ruling. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court will almost certainly result in Proposition 8 being struck down as unconstitutional (Federal law trumps state law). This means that we are looking at the end of this little trickle of state legislatures here and there legalizing gay marriage. By striking down Proposition 8, the Supreme Court will make gay marriage legal in EVERY state. The Social Conservatives and the Mormons in California who fought to get Proposition 8 passed will be remembered as the people who finally made legal acceptance of gay marriage across the U.S. possible.

And good luck trying to amend the U.S. constitution. We're not talking about a simply public majority vote here; amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not work the same way. Not only would it take a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress t pull this off, it would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Current polls only show a 50-50 split on this issue, not even close to what social conservatives would need to make their dogma the law of the land.

So let them enjoy today's little victory; it was only a skirmish. They're essentially cheering the lighting of a match that will last just long enough to allow them to see that their ship is sinking.

Inalienable rights and our social fabric

"...some rights, such as trial by jury, are social rights, arising neither from natural law nor from positive law but from the social contract from which a government derives its authority."

- James Madison, 4th. U.S. President

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have recently read several articles that seem to posit that there is no such thing as "inalienable rights", that people do not, by virtue of our society, gain any special protections other than those written into law. Based on this line of reasoning, there is no such thing as basic human rights.

The idea of inalienable rights, the basic rights all people are assumed to have by most rational people, is a construct designed to help maintain the fabric of our society. To say that they do not exist is to say that human beings are nothing more than animals. Yes, people can behave as animals do, living by the credo "might makes right", but they are also reasoned, artistic, philosophical beings capable of rational thought. As such, there is more at work in human society than base Darwinism. Humans can affect their own destinies; they are not slaves to chance.

And so it follows that human society is greater than the sum of its parts, not simply a herd comprised of a large group of animals. The inalienable rights implied by our social structure is simply, to use a Matrix reference: "the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation", a logical byproduct of that structure. To argue against this is to deny that any such structure exists, and to deny that society exists is a rank refusal to accept our own reality.

Higher Ground: the President drags the discussion on abortion out of the mud

Abortion continues to be a hot-button issue, especially these days with Social Conservatism on the decline (for now) and a big fight shaping up over the coming appointment of a new Supreme Court Associate Justice. It is against this backdrop that President Obama spoke at the graduation ceremony at one of the most prominent Catholic Universities in the United States.

As some of you may have heard, the President's visit to Notre Dame became a rallying point for the "pro-life" (read: "anti-choice") movement in recent months. Catholics in particular have denounced the visit, citing the President's support for the pro-choice (read: "don't tell me what to do") movement. Many had called for the University to withdraw its invitation to the president to speak, while others (such as Bishop John D'Arcy of the regional diocese) staged a variety of protest, such as round-the-clock prayer vigils, protests, letter-writing campaigns, and marches. The speech itself was interrupted by hecklers shouting at the President.

After all of that, you might be wondering where public discussion of this issue now stands in the US. After the President's speech, I would say that we may be looking at a more enlightened viewpoint and civil tone of discussion than has been the case in recent years. With his respectful tone and call for reconciliation among the various viewpoints, rather than separation from and the demonization of opposing opinions, the President met this issue head-on and managed to move our ability to address it forward.

Is the "Swine" Flu anti-hype worse than the hype?

I recently read yet another critique of the concern over the "Swine" Flu virus, this one by a Mr. Stephens of the Wall Street Journal, in which differences between our modern world and the world of the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic are highlighted in an attempt to show us all how silly we were for being so gullible as to buy into what they claim is nothing more than overblown hype.

As many of you will agree, there has been no shortage of people willing to take advantage of the worry caused by this newest version of the H1N1 Influenza. As is the case with any emergency situation, there will always be those who seek to turn these events to their advantage. However, I believe Mr. Stephens misrepresented some details of the 1918 pandemic and in doing so, undermined a central supporting point in many overall argument against the concern shown by governments and the medical community over this new strain of the H1N1 Influenza virus.

One example from his article is the contention that modern advances in medicine and hygiene greatly reduce, if not eliminate, the chance that a deadly pandemic could occur. Unfortunately, he neglected to include an obvious fact: these advances have not stopped the influenza virus. As he mentions in the article, over 30,000 US citizens die every year as a result of Influenza, while many millions of Americans contract the virus. The Influenza virus mutates every year, necessitating the creation of new vaccines every year to combat the emergence of new strains. Contrary to his contention here, there is nothing modern science has developed that might work to keep the Influenza virus new to any given flu season from mutating into something even more deadly than the Spanish Flu of 1918 and spreading just as quickly and easily as the more common Influenza viruses.

Another example is his use of an article written by author and anthropologist Wendy Orent for the magazine New Republic. Mr. Stephens uses this article to support his point, citing Dr. Orent's conclusions that the unique circumstances of World War I, with large masses of troops living together in squalid conditions, was some sort of “disease factory” that was perfect for the development of the Spanish Flu. He does not, however, note that this is not the prevailing view of the timeline for the appearance, mutation, and impact of the Spanish Flu.

John Barry of the Center for Bioenvironmental Research of Tulane and Xavier Universities published an article in a 2004 issue of the Journal of Translational Medicine in which he cites several well-supported studies that place the origin of the Spanish Flu in the United States, far away from the “disease factory” Dr. Orent claims as the source for the pandemic. The mutation of the virus as it made its way toward Europe from the United States into the deadlier strain that decimated populations there was the result of the nature of the virus, not living conditions in the theatre of war.

My concern at this point is the speed with which people have begun to dismiss the idea that the so-called “Swine” Flu could be dangerous. While the impact was low in March of 1918, it took only six months for the virus to mutate and explode into the virulent strain that killed half a million people in the United States and 20-30 million worldwide. The milder version of the Spanish Flu that struck the middle United States behaved in much the same way as our modern-day H1N1 Influenza virus: fast-spreading infection, with relatively few deaths. While this virus may not mutate into the kind of killer Spanish Flu was, it is premature to assume that it will not.

The troubling part of this new virus involves the circumstances of the relatively few deaths observed to date. The Spanish Flu of 1918 was marked by deaths that resulted from cytokine storms, or fatal immune system responses to the virus, a reaction that occurs primarily in those with strong, healthy immune systems. This has also occurred at this time in Mexico, where most victims do not fit the common flu victim profile (elderly/immune compromised/very young). Mortality resulting from these circumstances do not occur with the common influenza viruses.

The hype that is a side-effect of our modern 24-hour news cycle may be inescapable, but this does not automatically define the subject of the hype as unworthy of concern. Heap scorn and contempt on those who would engage in unwarranted fear-mongering, but please consider the reasoning behind the precautions recommended by scientist and other experts who have staked their careers and reputations on making sure we all do what is necessary to avoid a repeat of the horror the world experienced in 1918.