Weekend Roundup

Here are some interesting stories from this weekend. The first is from the Times (London):

ZIMBABWE’S leading cleric has called on Britan to invade the country and topple President Robert Mugabe. Pius Ncube, the Archbishop of Bulawayo, warned that millions were facing death from famine, unable to survive amid inflation believed to have soared to 15,000%.

Mugabe, 83, had proved intransigent despite the “massive risk to life”, said Ncube, the head of Zimbabwe’s 1m Catholics. “I think it is justified for Britain to raid Zimbabwe and remove Mugabe,” he said. “We should do it ourselves but there’s too much fear. I’m ready to lead the people, guns blazing, but the people are not ready.”

Some parts of Zimbabwe have seen 95% of crops fail, leaving families with only two or three weeks’ food supply to last a year. Prices in the shops are more than doubling every week and Christopher Dell, the American ambassador, predicts that by the end of the year inflation could hit 1.5m%.

Yes, that's when you know things are bad: when people actually want an invasion. The second article is a Guardian report on the sad situation of Alan Johnston, kidnapped by Jaish al-Islam in the Gaza Strip:

The arrest of two militants from the radical group holding BBC correspondent Alan Johnston hostage has put the journalist's life in great danger, according to sources in Gaza and within the group itself. Johnston, who was kidnapped on 12 March, today endures his 111th day in captivity. On Monday a video of him wearing what seemed to be an explosives vest was released by his captors.
...

Hamas security forces snatched two members of Jaish al-Islam on their way from dawn prayers on Tuesday and held them at the former Fatah military intelligence HQ. According to a Jaish member, one of the arrested men was given a mobile phone to call his comrades as a start of negotiations to swap them for Johnston, but instead the man told them not to bargain for their freedom.
...

Moderates in the Dogmosh family say that Jaish al-Islam, while always devoutly religious, has become more radicalised and closer to al-Qaeda in the past year with the arrival of veterans of wars in Chechnya and Iraq, and they fear their relative Mumtaz has fallen under the sway of al-Qaeda's brand of global jihad, rather than resisting Israeli operations and occupation. These new members have brought with them experience, both military and religious. It also explains demands for the release of Islamic militants not linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

You also know things are bad when there's a hostage situation and Hamas is your best hope. Third, check out this article from the Economist:

A NEW disease is abroad in eastern Germany: Frauenmangel, lack of women. In some towns there are only 75 young women for every 100 young men. In one or two there are as few as 40. The effects are worrying, not only because populations may shrink but also because of the existence of a growing underclass of young men who are partnerless, underqualified and jobless.
...

The few women who stay prefer single parenthood to hitching themselves to useless partners—benefits for single mothers are generous. It is women who are now masters of their destinies. The study, which combines reportage with figures, tells of frustrated gangs of youths drinking outside supermarkets and sleeping on their loading ramps.

Thank goodness I attend a small liberal arts college, where the girls outnumber the men! Finally, an article from the Los Angeles Times entitled "In Iowa, 6 GOP hopefuls, 1 party line":

One by one, half a dozen Republican presidential hopefuls auditioned Saturday before an Iowa audience of economic and social conservatives, pledging lower taxes, tougher border enforcement and a tighter-fisted approach to federal spending.

The candidates also echoed one another in reiterating their opposition to abortion and to legalizing same-sex marriage.

"One man. One woman. Lifetime relationship," said former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who joined former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in advocating a constitutional amendment spelling out that domestic arrangement.

Of course, they don't support an amendment that would spell out that domestic arrangement; last time I checked, the proposed amendment didn't outlaw divorce.

That's all for now. Stay tuned!

Gay Marriage Still Legal in Massachusetts

Perhaps I am stepping on toes, as DC is from that great state of Massachusetts, but I wanted to comment on the state's vote to block the proposed "marriage is between a man and a woman" amendment from going to referendum in 2008.

I know next to nothing about Massachusetts politics, so I will comment on the broader issue here. I have yet to hear a convincing non-religious argument for banning same-sex marriage. The overwhelming majority of gay-bashers will point to Christianity or some vague notion of "tradition" as condemning homosexuality. Oddly enough, the cultures that formed the "tradition" of Western civilization (primarily the Greeks and the Romans) hardly looked down upon homosexuality, but I suppose that is beside the point. So, people argue "the Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman," which I'm pretty sure it doesn't, but let's go with it for the time being. For any political figure to use religion as primary reasoning for any piece of legislation is to blow a gaping hole in the "high wall of separation" that Thomas Jefferson described as existing between religion and government. Indeed, the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In other words, Congress cannot establish a religion or make any laws that suggest an establishment of religion (for instance, while Congress may not establish Christianity, passing a law requiring compulsive Bible-reading would clearly imply an establishment of Christianity). So, if the only source of defense for a law is the Bible, doesn't that suggest that it is establishing a religion? After all, if we ask, "Why is gay marriage still illegal in this country?" one answer would certainly be "because America is still largely populated by bigots who try to hide behind Jesus," but a more useful answer for our purposes here would be "because Christianity says so."

Hmm. A law based solely on religion (and quite possibly a skewed reading of religion). This, to me at least, seems blatantly unconstitutional (and this is without even diving into "equal protection" considerations!). I would be curious to see how a Constitutional challenge to such laws would fare in the Supreme Court. I am inclined to think that such a law would be overturned, even given the current make-up of the Court. After all, unlike Scalia and Co., Justice Kennedy is no enemy of the "homosexual agenda." After all, in Lawrence v. Texas, he authored the opinion that deemed unconstitutional a law banning homosexual sodomy. Of course, the decision did not reach as far as marriage rights, but it certainly paved the way for such a case. With the precedents in Lawrence and Loving v. Virginia (deeming unconstitutional a law banning inter-racial marriage), I simply do not see how a reasonable Court could uphold such a law.

I anticipate a case challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act within the next few Supreme Court terms. The law does not require any state to recognize a gay marriage done in any other state. So, now that Massachusetts is allowing gay marriages, it seems fully possible that a couple married in Massachusetts will sue another state for not recognizing its marriage.

Firing gay Arab linguists

Nowhere is the damage wrought by the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy more apparent than in the continued firing of gay Arab linguists. It's good to see some pushback from Congress on the matter:

Seizing on the latest discharges, involving three specialists, members of the House of Representatives wrote the House Armed Services Committee chairman that the continued loss of such "capable, highly skilled Arabic linguists continues to compromise our national security during time of war."

One sailor discharged in the latest incident, former Petty Officer 2nd Class Stephen Benjamin, said his supervisor tried to keep him on the job, urging him to sign a statement denying that he was gay. He said his lawyer advised him not to sign it, because it could be used against him later if other evidence ever surfaced.

The US government has a desperate shortage of Arab linguists. This is not the time to aggressively seek out and fire gay employees with these critical skills. Particularly ironic is that the armed forces of many of our European allies, like Britain, are happy to accept gay soldiers:

Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a nonissue.

In fact, the integration of gay soldiers has gone so well that the British military has to be careful to be quiet about it to avoid embarrassing us:

Nonetheless, the issue is extremely delicate now. The military does not want to be seen bragging about the success of its policy when the issue can still cause so much anguished debate in the United States.

...

For this article, the Defense Ministry refused to give permission for any member of the forces to be interviewed, either on or off the record. Those who spoke did so before the ministry made its position clear.

“We’re not looking to have quotes taken out of context in a way to imply that we’re trying to influence the debate in the United States,” the British official said. “There are some sensitivities over the timing of this. We have had communications from our counterparts in the United States, and they have asked us questions about how we’ve handled it and how it’s gone on the ground. There does seem to be some debate going on over how long the current policy will be sustainable.”

Maybe the British should be a bit more assertive and make it clear to our government that our policy is deeply flawed. On a more general note, I'm completely unsurprised by the benign presence of gays in the British military. As a Massachussetts native, I witnessed the most sensible people convincing themselves that the sky would fall when gay marriage was permitted. Three years later, the most noticeable thing about gay marriage has been its complete nonimpact on anybody who isn't gay.