The Ethics of Primate Experimentation

[Picture source:Gorilla Haven © 2003The Dewar Wildlife Trust Inc.]

Animal experimentation is a topic about which I, frankly, knew very little before I started researching for this post, which is unlikely to be the last on this topic. I will pose the question thus: Is there a moral and ethical basis for animal experimentation and how does each side of the debate answer that question? I will go on record at the outset as saying that I recognize a difference between testing done to further medicine and biology versus testing done for consumer product safety. The former is the topic I choose to discuss. The latter I find morally and ethically abhorrent and believe it should be discontinued immediately. It is impossible to justify the suffering of any living thing for human vanity and convenience.

Having clarified which kind of animal experimentation I'm discussing, I choose to start locally with a look at primate experimentation via the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center of The University of Wisconsin - Madison, as that was original focus posed to me by the reader that suggested this topic.

According to the Center's website:

[I]ts policies adhere to the U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training.

It's noteworthy that the Center does not spend any time on its site or in its mission statement speaking to the ethics or morality of the experiments that it performs, other than to mention its policies above. This implies, to me, an assertion of a positive moral and ethical stance inherent in the Center's existence.

Numerous animal rights groups disagree, including Alliance for Animals and Primate Freedom Project, both of which have gone on record as being very critical of the activities of the Center.

From Primate Freedom Project:

The public must be taught that monkeys and apes have minds and emotions very similar to our own. They must learn what is actually happening in laboratories right now. Once they know these things they will begin to understand that the experiments being performed on primates are as horrible as they would be if they were being performed on human children.

The conflict essentially comes down to one of advancing scientific study versus the visceral, emotional repugnance of harming other living things. Does the value of lives and well-being of the primates involved outweigh the actual and potential benefits of the experiments being performed?

According to the advocacy group Americans For Medical Progress:

A survey conducted in 1996 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the death of Alfred Nobel found universal support for animal research in medicine among responding Nobel Prize winners in physiology or medicine. Asked to judge the statement "Animal experiments have been vital to the discovery and development of many advances in physiology and medicine," 97% of the 39 responding laureates said they strongly agreed, while the other 3% said they agreed. Given the statement "Animal experiments are still crucial to the investigation and development of many medical treatments," 92% strongly agreed and 8% agreed.

Clearly, the Nobel Prize winners polled by AMP believe that animal experimentation was and remains necessary to the field of medicine, though it should be disclosed that AMP is a business-advocacy group. The commercial angle of the discussion further muddies the water, as the businesses that AMP represents have a profit motivation that could compromise certain ethical considerations.

According to Richard Smith, editor for the British medical journal bmj.com, a more moderate approach is required that at least tries to reconcile a need for animal experimentation with the ethical and moral concerns of animal welfare. These principals are referred to as the "three R's of animal research: replacement, reduction and refinement.

From Smith:

We need more understanding of the complexities of animal research and a greater concentration on where we agree.
Can any of us imagine a world where animals were not used for food, clothing, or transport, where we had no pets, where rats and other vermin were not controlled, and where an ape, or even a fly, was regarded as the moral equal of the Archbishop of Canterbury? Most of us can't, and many people in Britain accept the need for some animal research Yet most of us would not tolerate a world where animals had no rights and could be exploited for whatever cause. We thus have to find some middle ground in our relationship with animals, and a world that tries to afford more rights to men and women will probably also try to give more to animals.

[snip]

Replacement is "any scientific method employing non-sentient material which may . . . replace methods which use conscious, living vertebrates." Reduction is lowering "the number of animals needed to obtain information of a given account and precision." Refinement is any development that leads to a "decrease in the incidence or severity of inhumane procedures applied to those animals which have to be used."

My belief is that this moderate view strikes closest to what must be a realistic approach to the issue. I confess my bias in that I am more likely to find common cause with science; I don't tend to be moved much by the emotional and visceral approach of many advocacy groups. I believe appealing to emotion instead of reason is a primary tactic of the social conservative Right, particularly in matters of life and death, and I believe it is a mistake for Leftist organizations to resort to those kinds of tactics. I am no more moved by pictures of mutilated apes shown on animal advocates' websites than I am by pictures of dismembered fetuses used by anti-abortion groups.

Having said that, I believe the real debate comes down to the moral standings of humans and animals; do humans and animals share the same moral ground? Certainly it is the primary directive of any organism to protect and propagate the species. Thus, it could be argued, that human beings are morally justified in using primates for medical research if it helps to protect and propagate the human species. I don't wholly agree with this.

On the other hand, given the human ability to rise above the call of instinct, and given that humans are almost globally overpopulated from an environmental perspective, it could also be argued that humans have moral obligation to cease all such activities on the grounds that humans hold a special place outside apart from all other species due to our superior reasoning ability. My problem with that argument is that it feeds right back into the "special creation" notion popularized by many religious groups; that humans were specially created to be separate from the animal kingdom and, thus, above it. I don't agree with that approach either.

In the end, I believe in a middle ground, similar to that outlined by Harris. Some animal testing is necessary to further biology and medical science and I find that morally acceptable only to the point that no other viable alternative exists. I believe that animal experimentation should only be for scientific and medical purposes, never commercial. Profit motive corrupts any moral stance and this one is no exception to that sad rule. I believe that entire scientific organizations should not be held as unethical because of the unethical actions of certain individuals. If a primate lab has a certain scientist that engages in animal cruelty, then that scientist should be reprimanded, terminated and, likely, prosecuted. There is no excuse for wanton cruelty. Finally, I believe that our laws must reflect that animal experimentation must always be the last option in scientific and medical research. In so much that other viable options are available, I believe we have a moral obligation to engage them.

I suspect that my view is not going to be in line with that of the reader that suggested this topic; I accept that as the cost of discussing controversial issues. But I also suspect (and hope) that this will get a good discussion going!
[Thanks to MZ for the stellar topic!]

What's On Your Beginner's Mind: Inaugural Edition

One of my goals in starting A Beginner's Mind was to get some discussion going, along with having a forum from which to spew my own cracked view of the world.

To further that end, I'm sending out a request to anyone reading along: Leave some comments! I know what I think. I want to know what you think, too. I know I have a few readers who choose not to comment: I'm asking you to un-choose that choice and speak up!

I also am going to start trying to do more posts that are open-ended questions that will hopefully get everyone talking. I'm shootin' for double-digit comment numbers!

Let me pose this topic, an easy one to start with that garnered quite a few comments today at Eschaton:

Recent studies have shown that a greater percentage of women with advanced degrees are opting to take their husband's last name after marriage, even in spite of often having published works in their maiden names. This reverses an almost 30 year trend of professional women retaining their maiden names. What I want to know is: Why do you suppose that is so? What are your (or your spouse's) particular reasons for keeping or changing maiden names?

Let me know what you think. As I've said before, one of the reasons I started a blog is because I firmly believe that the polarization in the country has resulted in an environment where folks can't even discuss controversial issues anymore without tearing each other apart. I want to try, in my own small way, to change that trend.

So, let's get some discussion going!

Good Government? Must Be A Democrat.

But, of course, you knew that! It's so very easy to spend each and every post I write hammering away at the inaptitude and corruption of the Republican Party, both because the party is so dysfunctional and because it's wholly appropriate that the party in control of all three branches of the federal government as well as a majority of the state legislatures and governorships be under close scrutiny at all times. That makes for quite the negative weblog and I'd like to strike a more positive tone here, just to shake things up. Thus, I think it's a good idea to recognize when a public official does good work on behalf of the voters.

In the almost one year that I've been a resident of the lovely state of Wisconsin, I've grown a healthy respect and admiration for Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager. Lautenschlager has demonstrated little patience for the political malfeasance of the Republican party and has often been a vocal critic of the same's attempts at conservative social engineering, both stances I applaud.

In a press release today, Lautenschlager demonstrates her Democratic principals once again in launching an investigation into potential price gouging by big oil companies.

From WisPolitics:

Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager is moving forward with her investigation into possible market manipulation by the major oil companies in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Lautenschlager's office today issued civil investigative demands (CIDs) to 13 oil companies today requesting information related to the availability and sale of fuel in the weeks immediately prior to and after Hurricane Katrina.

"Something doesn't smell right when gasoline prices rise 20-40% while the price of oil is relatively stable," Lautenschlager said. "We need to find out who was profiting and by how much and why," she added.

I think it's about time that the oil companies came under more intense scrutiny, especially given the essential role that the petroleum industry plays in our economy. Plus, this is a group with a shady track record of questionable, if not illegal, activities. As I've noted in a previous post, the oil companies have a documented history of controlling supply to bolster their profit margins at the expense of American consumers.
Also, most anyone that drives (of which I do quite a bit) can add plenty of anecdotal evidence to the notion that when oil prices climb, gas prices climb right alongside. But when oil prices fall, gasoline takes a very slow, meandering path back down, if it decreases at all. In light of the gluttonous consumption of oil by the United States, the oil companies turn outsize profits selling on the margins between oil and gasoline costs.
I agree with Lautenschlager in that I don't believe so much that it is the owners of individual filling stations that are to blame. Similar to the weeks following 9/11/01, government officials have issued stern warning about the consequences to the business licenses of owner-operators caught price gouging. Thus, the real motivation to gouge consumers lies with the international suppliers that can afford to risk government sanctions and legal penalties for those aforementioned rich profits. Hopefully, the investigation by the Wisconsin Attorney General will, if nothing else, make Big Oil realize that they are being watched and their activities are being monitored.

What A.G. Lautenschlager is doing is a fine example of an elected government official acting as a true advocate for the people by whom she was elected and I think that is deserving of recognition. It is sadly lacking in these Republican-dominated days. Lautenschlager is bringing the power of public scrutiny to bear on an industry that, quite frankly, has gotten away with murder over the past 30 years. She is using her authority to demand answers, something that common folk like myself have no power to do effectively. That, I believe, is one of the primary purposes of government; not to give tax breaks and preferential treatment to this same industry!

Thanks, to A.G. Lautenschlager, for a job well done!

Deaths Ignored In The Ninth Ward

The Republicans have certainly been having their troubles with race relations lately. One would think that, after several very public, very questionable statements concerning the poor and black made by high-profile Republicans in the past month, the Republicans would realize the damage they're doing to race relations in the country.

Sadly, this is not the case.

From CNN, via Scout Prime:

Five weeks after Katrina, New Orleans is calling off the house- to-house search for bodies. Teams have pulled 964 corpses from storm- ravaged areas across southeastern Louisiana. Authorities admit more bodies are probably out there. They'll be handled on a case-by-case basis. The count is far short of the 10,000 dead once predicted by New Orleans mayor. As of today, the death toll from Hurricane Katrina stands at just under 1,200.

Searchers and residents insist there are still plenty of dead to find in New Orleans. Once again, they say the Ninth Ward is being ignored because it is poor and black. Here's CNN's Jeanne Meserve.

Scout Prime hits the nail firmly on the head with this statement:

We went to great pains to recover every little bit of human remains at Ground Zero but in Black America we won't even bother to pick up bodies.

So, essentially what we're being shown by our elected Republican leadership is that proper rescue and clean-up efforts are very necessary, so long as George W. Bush gets a handsome photo-op out of the ordeal.

I would like to say that, in the days since this story broke in the MSM, that steps have been taken to correct this grievous wrong. Again, sadly, tragically, this is not the case.

Perhaps this will finally send a wake-up call to the working poor and minorities in the country: the Republican party does not represent you! Do us all a favor and stop voting for them!

Republican "System For Extortion" in Illinois

As a liberal former resident of the Land of Lincoln, I admit to a more than passing interest in the local politics of the state of Illinois. Previously the Jack Ryan/Jerry Ryan (Star Trek: Voyager's 7 of 9) divorce debacle was the crowning achievement of Republican ineptitude in the state, especially given that it led to the U.S. Senate candidacy of social conservative wingnut Alan Keyes. Though I haven't been terribly thrilled at the performance of Barack Obama thus far, it was enjoyable watching him trounce Keyes by a record margin.

Still, that level of joy has been eclipsed by the grand spectacle that is the corruption trial of former Governor George Ryan. For those who think that George W. Bush is a cronyist, know that he's but a rank amateur compared to Ryan (no relation to Jack).

From the Rock River Times:

Several influential politicians, lawyers and a judge are among the locals that appear on Scott Fawell’s “master list” that he used to track political favors performed by the Illinois Secretary of State’s office during the 1990s. Fawell is the star witness in the corruption trial[.]

[snip]

[T]he following Republican Party members appear on Fawell’s clout list: State Sen. Dave Syverson (R-34); State Rep. Dave Winters (R-69); Winnebago County Board members John Sweeney (R-14), W. Timothy Simms (R-14) and Tom Owens(R-1). Also on the list are former Winnebago County Republican Central Committee chairmans Seven G. Vecchio and Mary J. Gaziano.

Vecchio is currently an associate judge in the 17th Judicial Circuit.

This level of corruption is especially ironic, given the protestations for years by the Republican party about corruption and cronyism in the Daley administration in Chicago. You have to hand it to these "big government" Republicans: they think big! Why stop with one city when you can extort taxpayers state wide?

More so on this than on many posts on A Beginner's Mind, I recommend perusing the article from The Rock River Times. The corruption of the Ryan Administration is like a fountain flowing deep and wide. It includes many, many fellow Republicans and even some prominent figures in the Chicago mob. Again, at least Republicans aren't small-time crooks; when they go corrupt, they go state and nation wide!

Bush Confused About The Real Enemies of America

President Bush this morning delivered what was advertised as a "major" speech at the National Endowment for Democracy. The speech really gave no further information about Bush's war than what is already common knowledge to most Americans and was clearly intended as red meat to his conservative base.

Upon closer inspection, it seems that the President is experiencing some confusion as to what ideology is really threatening America. Perhaps, if we look carefully, substitute a more nuanced understanding here and there, we can uncover the nature of the evil threatening the United States. First, from the speech:

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.

Now, I am utterly flabbergasted that the leader of our country would use a ridiculous propaganda term like "Islamo-fascist" (popularized by the happy-go-lucky racist nutjobs at LGF) in a speech to the American public. The term shows a complete lack of understanding about both Islam and fascism, things with which Bush really ought to be more familiar.

Perhaps the President had better take a closer look at some of the real, closer-to-home radicals opposing the American way of life and the ideology they espouse. I've compiled a quick primer for our Dear Leader:

Fred Phelps

"Rabbi Lawrence Karol is an apostate Jew, who denies the faith of his fathers, militantly promotes the anal-copulating agenda of Topeka's filthy fag community, and persecutes the Lord's people just as his vermin ancestors did in killing the Lord Jesus Christ and their own prophets and persecuting the apostles of Christ".

Pat Robertson

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if [Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."

Jerry Falwell

"[W]e must fight against those radical minorities who are trying to remove God from our textbooks, Christ from our nation. We must never allow our children to forget that this is a Christian nation. We must take back what is rightfully ours."

James Dobson

"The world of the Christian activist can be a very lonely place. War is always tough on those who are called to fight it."

D. James Kennedy

"God forbid that we who were born into the blessings of a Christian America should let our patrimony slip like sand through our fingers and leave to our children the bleached bones of a godless secular society. But whatever the outcome, one thing is certain: God has called us to engage the enemy in this culture war. That is our challenge today."

Randall Terry

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good ... if a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple. Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country."

Alas, but it seems that Iraq is not the only example of George W. Bush being unwilling to see the true danger to our country and way of life. I guess we tolerate religious extremism here so we don't have to tolerate it "over there".

Living With A Right To Die

Newly coronated anointed appointed Chief Justice John Roberts will sit today for his first case as a member of the Supreme Court. The case, Gonzalez vs. Oregon, represents the Bush Administration's displeasure with the State of Oregon's Death With Dignity law, which [via Medical News Today]:

...allows physicians to prescribe, but not administer, lethal prescription drugs to a terminally ill patient after two physicians agree that the patient has less than six months to live, has decided to die voluntarily and can make health care decisions. In 2001, [Former Attorney General] Ashcroft issued a directive that said assisted-suicide serves "no legitimate medical purpose" and warned physicians who prescribe controlled narcotics to assist in patient suicides under the Oregon law that they could face criminal penalties and license suspension or revocation. Ashcroft argued that the law violates the federal Controlled Substances Act.

This interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act is largely the same as that upheld by the Supreme Court earlier this year, in a decision that effectively allowed federal prosecution for medical marijuana use even in states where the use of such is legal. Isn't it interesting that the Bush Administration and its social conservative supporters are against the use of judicial power to curtail state's rights except in cases where such is in opposition to their rigid social agenda. Smells of hypocrisy to me...

Further, the Bush Administration is clearly not on the same side as the majority of the American people, which, again, is a litmus test conservatives often use to belittle their ideological opponents except in cases where the conservative opinion is in the minority. When the issue is Creationism, in which most Americans believe, the conservatives support the "voice of the people" but when it's Death With Dignity, suddenly they cry "tyranny of the majority!". But, I digress...

From Public Agenda:

Polls also show that over the past half century, the percentage of Americans who say that doctors should be allowed to help end an incurably ill patient's life painlessly when the patient and the patient's family request it has doubled to about 70 percent.

Though, in the interest of fairness:

[W]hen the question is posed in less abstract terms -- such as modifying the question to include the phrase "assisted suicide" -- support dwindles, and supporters only slightly outnumber opponents. There also seems to be a distinction in the public's mind between what they would choose for themselves and what they would choose for others[.]

The change in attitude, I believe, is due to the religious and moral connotations that are carried by words such as "suicide", and not due to any substantive inconsistencies in Americans' moral views.

As is true with most of the Bush Administration's social policy, opposition to the Death With Dignity Act has little to do with the public good and everything to do with throwing red meat to the religious social conservatives that support Bush. This case is just another facet of the so-called "Culture of Life (Except For Executions, Wars and Non-Humans)" that Bush likes to wax poetic about in his stump speeches. It's not any kind of firm public policy but rather Bush's belief that the American people are better off when their moral choices are made for them by the church and its advocates in the government. Very Straussian, very neo-conservative.

My hope is that the Supreme Court upholds a precedent of an implied Right to Privacy, which I believe does exist and does protect end-of-life issues from government interference. John Roberts claims to respect precedent but the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, after all.

[Thanks to reader MZ for the topic suggestion!]

Bush Throws a Curveball With Miers

[Picture via AFP/Mandel Ngan]

Voices from both sides of the political aisle have been raised in a resounding "Huh?" with the nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Bush has clearly demonstrated that the quality he is most interested in for his appointees is loyalty above all else. Miers, former Texas State Lottery Commissioner, is drawing fire from both sides for various reasons.

Much to the chagrin of liberals like myself, she definitely appears to be yet another Bush crony political appointment. Miers, who worked drafting White House legal strategy along with now-A.G. Alberto Gonzalez, seems likely to support Bush's stance on the expanded powers of the executive branch. As challenges to Bush's stance on "enemy combatants" and the refusal of the White House to obey the Supreme Court's ruling on the rights of U.S. detainees gain the attention of the Supreme Court, it makes sense that Bush would choose as a potential Justice on that court one of the lawyers that helped craft his office's policy on those controversial issues. Loyalty trumping experience or competency is certainly nothing new in the Bush Administration, and liberals are taking notice:

From Tennessee Guerilla Women:

Bush has picked an intensely loyal "pit bull" with "no experience" to serve on the Supreme Court. As Brownie taught us, the most important qualifications for high office in this administration are no experience and intense loyalty.

The social conservatives on the right certainly don't seem to have gotten the staunch ally they were hoping for either.

From The Evangelical Outpost:

Make no mistake, if Miers is appointed to the bench and refuses to overturn Roe we will have only ourselves to blame. If after spending a quarter of a century in the church, a Christian woman can uphold the most unjust ruling since Dred Scott, then we have failed as a church.

[snip]

Bush is no conservative; he is a cronyist – a believer in the divine right to give all your friends cool jobs.

Given Miers' apparent stance on homosexual rights [via Aravosis], it would seem that Bush may have neatly cleaved his conservative base in twain.

However, I disagree with The Evangelical Outpost in that I'm sure Miers is a staunch conservative evangelical Christian, an ideologue of the same stripe as the President. I can say with near perfect confidence that there is not a true liberal alive that could work within the weak ethical framework of the Bush Administration. Clearly only a neo-conservative and Christian "true believer" would feel at home in such an environment.

What I think the social conservatives have failed to realize, and what may now become all too apparent to them, is that Bush never has had any intention of honestly working to implement their draconian social programs. Bush, and, more importantly, Karl Rove, understand that unresolved social issues like abortion and homosexual rights act as the most powerful "get-out-and-vote" lever for which any Republican political machine could ask. Roe vs. Wade will likely not be overturned by Roberts orMierss because the Republicans know they can use abortion as a whip to bring the social conservatives to the polls.

I also think Bush may have side-stepped a potential showdown with Democrats in the Senate with his nomination of Miers. Clearly, the Democrats were not going to block the nomination of Roberts; the confirmation hearings were nothing but panem et circenses for the masses. The conventional wisdom on the Hill was that Democrats were keeping their powder dry for a ferocious battle over O'Connor's replacement. Given Miers lack of experience and questionable social leanings, Bush may have taken the fight away from the Democrats before the opening salvos were even fired. In light of the Republican penchant for voting in lockstep, the Democrats are left to ponder a filibuster of a nominee that may not be the great conservative threat they were expecting.

The bottom line is that Bush did as Bush does most often: rewarded loyalty, potentially at the expense of competency. The CEO President, indeed!

A More Sinister Southern Strategy

In the wake of the Katrina disaster, race relations in the United States have once again come to the forefront of the public consciousness. Sadly, the State of Georgia has struck a blow against the improvement of those relations.

From the NAACP:

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has joined a consortium of voting rights advocates and private attorneys in filing a federal lawsuit challenging the Georgia law (House Bill 244) that requires voters to present state issued photo identification at the polls. The plaintiffs charge the law violates the state and federal constitutions, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

[snip]

The Georgia voter identification law reduces the various forms of identification that voters can use from 17 to six, and makes government issued photo identification absolutely required in order to vote. People without a driver license, may purchase a five-year identification card for a $20 fee. The measure was signed into law in April by Governor Sonny Perdue.

House Bill 244 is little more than a modern day incarnation of the poll tax, a common feature in the post-Reconstruction South. It's estimated that in some voting districts where poll taxes were enacted, African-American voter turnout dropped to less than 1%. They remain a black mark on our nation's history and the return of such a law is a travesty that cannot be allowed to go unresolved.

House Bill 244 leaves no doubt that the Republican "Southern Strategy" is alive and well.

[Update from NPR: The state ID cards required can only be purchased at certain county offices in Georgia, less than half of which actually sell the ID cards. Atlanta is one of the counties where you cannot buy a state ID. Anyone care to guess where the largest concentration of minority Democratic voters are located?]

Philosophy Friday: A Liberal Look At Neoconservatism

I can't say whether this will become any sort of regular feature, but I was in a pensive mood this morning and thus was inspired to take a look at the writings of Shadia Drury, Canada Research Chair in Social Justice and Professor in the Departments of Political Science and Philosophy at the University of Regina. Dr. Drury is giving a lecture tomorrow (according to WPR, at the behest of the Wisconsin Historical Society, though I couldn't find it on their site) on the Neoconservative political movement and its representation by the Iraq war. Many of the points she made this morning on WPR are taken directly from her essay Saving America: Leo Strauss and the neoconservatives, and I think it's worth looking at some of those points in the context of where the Bush Administration, fueled by this Straussian philosophy, is taking the United States.
The first point Drury makes describing the governing philosophy of the neoconservatives is their love of secrecy within the ruling institutions, fueled by Strauss's belief in using information to control the "vulgar masses":

Strauss was very pre-occupied with secrecy because he was convinced that the truth is too harsh for any society to bear; and that the truth-bearers are likely to be persecuted by society - specially a liberal society - because liberal democracy is about as far as one can get from the truth as Strauss understood it.

The Bush Administration has a well-deserved reputation for its secrecy; a fact recognized by members of both political parties. This control of information and political message is especially relevant given the wide availability of information these days. The Bush Administration has been long on political rhetoric and short on the dissemination of actual data concerning the operations of the government. One only has to look at the stonewalling the White House engaged in when confronted with demands for certain documents, concerning the nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and U.N. Diplomat John Bolton, and the court-ordered release of the Abu Ghraib prison pictures. Clearly this is an administration which understands that blocking the release of vital information is essential to maintaining and even forwarding its political positions.

The second aspect of neoconservatism that informs Bush Administration policy is the Straussian belief in the rulership of the elite over the subordinate masses, expressed by Strauss as the contrast of ancient philosophic beliefs in a natural order over more modern philosophies of liberal humanism:

The wise ancients thought that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty; and giving them these sublime treasures was like throwing pearls before swine. Accordingly, they believed that society needs an elite of philosophers or intellectuals to manufacture "noble lies" for the consumption of the masses. Not surprisingly, the ancients had no use for democracy.

[snip]

In contrast to the ancients, the moderns were the foolish lovers of truth and liberty; they believed in the natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They believed that human beings were born free and could be legitimately ruled only by their own consent.

While on its face this idea seem counter to Bush's rhetoric about "spreading democracy"; however, it begins to make more sense when the elite become not philosophers and intellectuals, but leaders of industry and commercial endeavors. The Bush Administration's neoconservative belief in this area is well illustrated by both its social and tax policies. Industry, and the capitalists that control it, are given preferential tax treatment far beyond that which the working class enjoys. The Administration also makes no bones about pushing a social agenda that marginalizes the common people, such as the proposed ban on homosexual marriage or the criminalization of abortion. These social issues are used as a confining framework to keep the "underclass's" attention fixed away from the substantive uses of power by the government that is not in the peoples' best interests.

Given the role of the "elite" to rule over the masses, what then framework would be used to build and maintain that social order:

The goal of the wise is to ennoble the vulgar. But what could possibly ennoble the vulgar? Only weeping, worshipping, and sacrificing could ennoble the masses. Religion and war - perpetual war - would lift the masses from the animality of bourgeois consumption and the pre-occupation with "creature comforts." Instead of personal happiness, they would live their lives in perpetual sacrifice to God and the nation.

This, more than any other tenet of the neoconservative philosophy, informs the politics of the Bush Administration. Both President Bush's open advocacy for a greater religiosity in the nation, informed, naturally, by the conservative evangelical Christianity in which Bush claims to believe, as well as Bush's preference for military solutions to foreign policy issues, clearly illustrate Strauss's "goal of the wise".

Finally, Drury hits on just what the cornerstone of neoconservatism policy is:

[U]se democracy to defeat liberty. Turn the people against their own liberty. Convince them that liberty is licentiousness - that liberty undermines piety, leads to crime, drugs, rampant homosexuality, children out of wedlock, and family breakdown. And worse of all, liberalism is soft on communism or terrorism - whatever happens to be the enemy of the moment. And if you can convince the people that liberty undermines their security, then, you will not have to take away their liberty; they will gladly renounce it.

The above is the Bush Administration's entire platform, stripped of all its misleading rhetoric. It's the Patriot Act, The Marriage Amendment and the War on Terror all broken down to their driving philosophy. This is the brand of democracy that the Bush Administration wishes to implement here and to impose on other nations at the point of the world's most powerful gun. Democracy stripped of liberty, encouched in repressive social ideals and excessive religiosity, funded by government-supported capitalism and sustained by the fear of an ever-present and shadowy "enemy".

Fortunately, only half of the country has bought into the Bush Administration's neoconservative policies, and those numbers are shrinking everyday. The nobility of the human spirit can never be fully quenched by tyranny, even tyranny disguised with the language of liberal democracy.

The Baseless Fabric of This Vision

OUR revels are now ended. These our actors
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air;
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,
And, like the insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made of, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.

From The Tempest
by
William Shakespeare

I've had this bit of The Bard poking around in my head for the past week. Seems a good post idea for a blogger dealing with a fussy newborn tonight!

Cleaning Up Congress With No DeLay

At last, some good news! Finally, a glimmer of hope that, just maybe, the Republican Party will be held accountable for its complete lack of ethics.

From AMERICAblog:

A Travis County grand jury today indicted U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on one count of criminal conspiracy, jeopardizing the Sugar Land Republican's leadership role as the second most powerful Texan in Washington, D.C.

The charge, a state jail felony punishable by up to two years incarceration, stems from his role with his political committee, Texans for a Republican Majority, a now-defunct organization that already had been indicted on charges of illegally using corporate money during the 2002 legislative elections.

As a liberal, it's been a long time since I've had some good news about Washington politics. Hopefully this is only the beginning.

Karl Rove and Bill Frist should be awfully nervous right about now!

To Catch the Conscience of the Right

A vile cadre of Assembly and Senate bills designed to gut various family planning initiatives was scheduled for debate today in the Wisconsin State Senate. Among these onerous bills is yet another incarnation of the so-called Conscience Clause, Assembly Bill 307, the actual text of which can be found at consciencelaws.org.

Essentially what the Conscience Clause legislation does is allow medical personnel and institutions to refuse to perform procedures or dispense medication that said personnel or institutions believe may be used to end a human life. The provider cannot be held liable for the consequences of the refusal nor can an individual be denied employment because of their intention to exercise their rights under the clause. In this current iteration of the bill in Wisconsin, the provider is also not required to transfer a prescription or refer the patient to another provider.

The first problem I have with this bill is that it does not clearly define terms like "euthanasia" or "abortion" as medical science does; instead the definitions are left to the beliefs and "creed" of the individual. The Anti-Choice lobby has re-defined (again) the term abortion to now mean anything which prevents a fertilized egg from implanting, a clear deviation from accepted medical science. Given that many forms of chemical contraceptives, including Plan B and Ortho-Tricyclene, can cause a fertilized egg not to implant, this bill essentially gives doctors and pharmacists the green light to deny birth control to women if said doctors or pharmacists choose to believe the Anti-Choice lobby's definition of abortion. This is an egregious violation of women's rights; rights which were fought for and won in the Supreme Court.

The second problem I have with this legislation is its failure to require a pharmacist or doctor to refer the patient to another provider. This effectively allows the doctor or pharmacist to completely force their moral views onto their patient, with no recourse! Such utter contempt for American values is breathtaking, though not surprising coming from the Anti-Choice crowd. Now, perhaps in more urban areas like Milwaukee or Madison, where clinics and pharmacies are plentiful, this refusal to transfer the prescription or refer the patient is not so much of a practical hardship. But out here, in rural Wisconsin, there may only be 1 pharmacy in a given town, if any at all. The patient is, at best, inconvenienced by a potentially lengthy drive to another town to receive their prescription or treatment. A patient lacking transportation could, in effect, have their medicine or medical care utterly denied them, again with no recourse.

The final problem I have with the Conscience Clause is the elevation of the moral beliefs of the individual over the service they have been paid to provide. Remember, a pharmacy not only cannot, for example, fire a pharmacist for refusing to dispense birth control but they cannot even ask that pharmacist in an interview whether or not he or she would dispense birth control if required. It is wrong to give one select group of people preferential treatment so that they may impose a certain moral guideline on others. By way of personal example, I find it immoral that corporations get such bountiful tax breaks. However, I don't have the option of refusing to take advantage of those tax breaks on behalf of my employer, nor should I. I am free to find another line of work if my conscience bothers me, and so are these few doctors and pharmacists that might wish to abuse their patients with this so-called Conscience Clause.

[It is worth noting that, as of today, not one, single physician's or pharmacist's advocacy group had registered its support for this bill. In fact, the one and only registered supporter of AB307 was Wisconsin Right To Life. Funny, in a "there goes the country" sort of way...]

Some Heated Words on Global Warming

Could it be that the destruction wrought by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita may finally change some Republican minds about global warming? Sir John Lawton, chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, hopes so:

"The increased intensity of these kinds of extreme storms is very likely to be due to global warming," Lawton told the newspaper in an interview.

"If this makes the climate loonies in the States realise we've got a problem, some good will come out of a truly awful situation," said Lawton.

It has become crystal clear in recent years that the trend in the United States is away from scientific knowledge and the debate over global warming is no exception. Conservative business leaders, along with the Republican party they own, have only recently begun to admit that global warming even exists. However, they largely still refuse to acknowledge the role of industrial pollution in exacerbating the problem.

The most frightening part is that Rita and Katrina may be just a taste of things to come. Sir John Lawton again:

Lawton said hurricanes were getting more intense, just as computer models predicted they would, because of the rising temperature of the sea.

"Increasingly it looks like a smoking gun," he said.

"It's a fair conclusion to draw that global warming, caused to a substantial extent by people, is driving increased sea surface temperatures and increasing the violence of hurricanes."

How much further storm-related damage can the United States withstand? We are only mid-way through the 2005 hurricane season and the chance for at least one more storm is quite significant. How can the U.S. economy, already weakened by the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush Administration and the disastrous war in Iraq, withstand another major blow to its infrastructure?

I don't know the answer to these questions but I do know that they are questions to which the Bush Administration will likely have to find some answers and soon.

I am not overwhelmed with confidence...

[From the Progressive Bloggers Union]

Media Complicity Fuels the Phony Intelligent Design Debate

I have a good friend who is a conservative Evangelical Christian and he and I have spent much time and printer ink debating the theory of evolution against his belief in intelligent design creationism. One of the points he made to me was that the scientists in the United States have been very lax in properly presenting evolution to the public, which, in his opinion, is why fewer people don't see the obvious shortcomings of the theory. Now, obviously I don't believe for one moment that there is any legitimate question as to the validity of the theory of evolution; it is one of the foundational scientific theories and has been proven time and again for over 150 years.

However, the point about evolution being properly presented to the masses is a fair point. A big part of the problem, both with the explanation of the theory and with the presentation of the so-called "debate" between evolution and creationism, is the media's failure to adequately present the facts of the theory of evolution.

From Chris Mooney and Matthew C. Nisbet of the Columbia Journalism Review:

As evolution, driven by such events[The Dover, PA, Federal Court Case.], shifts out of scientific realms and into political and legal ones, it ceases to be covered by context-oriented science reporters and is instead bounced to political pages, opinion pages, and television news. And all these venues, in their various ways, tend to deemphasize the strong scientific case in favor of evolution and instead lend credence to the notion that a growing "controversy" exists over evolutionary science. This notion may be politically convenient, but it is false.

The reason the idea of a debate between evolution and intelligent design has gained traction with the public, aside from our country's strong religious culture, is the media's lack of in-depth coverage on the issue. The very idea that the theory of evolution is full of holes and is, in essence, debatable, is just not true. It's a clear example of the sensationalism of the media; hard science doesn't have the pop culture allure of a good ideological controversy.

A big part of the blame lies with the lack of specialization in the media, particularly among the major TV news providers. A general beat reporter may not have the scientific background to accurately report on the facts of evolution and the falsehoods of intelligent design. This tends to result in a "Side A says X" while "Side B says Y" style of reporting, thus perpetuating the illusion of a legitimate debate. What is needed are more journalists with specializations in scienceparticularlyry those disciplines for which the theory of evolution is a foundational theory.

Another part of the problem is the complexity of the theory of evolution. The mechanisms by which evolution works can get extremely complicated, especially when framed within the study of genetics. It's hard science that requires much study and contemplation to get a good understanding of thintricacieses of the theory. Unfortunately, this tends to lead to the over-generalizations and simplifications that the debate relies upon.

This complexity is, in my opinion, one of the most important reasons why intelligent design has no place being taught in the science classroom. Sadly, our children are already not receiving adequate teaching of the theory of evolution. As a country, we cannot afford to further dilute science education in the name of religious ideology. If our children are given a comprehensive treatment of evolution in school, then I am confident that this fraudulent debate will disappear.

The theory of evolution is a foundational scientific theory, every bit as concrete as the theory of gravity (possibly more so!). Intelligent design, a new and, frankly, dull iteration ocreationismim, is nothing more than metaphysics; a religious belief couched in pseudo-scientific language. There is no debate, except that which is perpetrated by the un-informed media and conservative political organizations.

Email From Outer Wingnuttia: Katrina Edition

As we all know, nothing brings out the bile in the Hard Right like a poor minority getting uppity. It's fascinating how very differently the two sides of the political spectrum viewed the catastrophe in New Orleans. The Left expressed our concern about the failure of the federal government's response and the revelation to the entire country of the grinding poverty that a large of chunk of Americans live with every day. The Right was outraged most by the looting and by the implication that their Boy King might finally have to take responsibility for something that happened in the government he leads.

Reasonable people on either side can disagree on where the blame lies. Sadly, reasonable has nothing to do with this email. From the mouthiest of the mouth-breathers, the most knuckle-headed of the knuckle-draggers, comes Email from Outer Wingnuttia: Katrina Edition:

Been sitting here with my ass in a wad, wanting to speak out about the bullshit going on in New Orleans.

Thanks for updating me on the body part out of which you'll now be speaking.

For the people of New Orleans... First we would like to say, Sorry for your loss.

All the warmth of a 3-for-a-dollar sympathy card.

With that said, Lets go through a few hurricane rules: (Unlike an earthquake, we know it's coming)

All right! Time to get down to the business of telling other people how to live, a Wingnut specialty.

#1. A mandatory evacuation means just that... Get the hell out. Don't blame the Government after they tell you to go. If they hadn't said anything, I can see the argument. They said get out... if you didn't, it's your fault, not theirs. (We don't want to hear it, even if you don't have a car, you can get out.)

Yes, because of course some Wingnut, probably from rural Kansas (they're thick there), knows so much better how to react to a hurricane than the folks who've lived their entire lives on the Gulf Coast. With no car, what were they to do? Walk? Radio to Scotty to beam them up? Many of the people that stayed behind were sick and/or elderly or had family and friends that were. Of course, that squares just fine with the Wingnuts; taking care of yourself first is their Golden Rule. Moreover, where were they to go? The impoverished don't tend to have nice vacation homes or the funds to pay premium hotel rates for a few days away from home. It's the government's fault for not being prepared to deal with such an obvious problem. It is all Americans' faults for allowing this sort of abject poverty to exist in the wealthiest country on Earth. Shame on all of us!

#2. If there is an emergency, stock up on water and non-perishables. If you didn't do this, it's not the governments fault you're starving.

Yeah, having your food and water submerged in 20 feet of brackish, toxic filth for a few days is no reason to waste it.

#2a. If you run out of food and water, find a store that has some. (Remember, shoes, TV's, DVD's and CD's are not edible. Leave them alone.)

So it's OK to loot as long as it's food and water? That's pretty progressive for a Wingnut. May be time for a little "evacuation" to Gitmo for re-education.

#2b. If the local store is too looted of food or water, leave your neighbor's tv and stereo alone. (See # 2a) They worked hard to get their stuff. Just because they were smart enough to leave during a mandatory evacuation, doesn't give you the right to take their stuff... it's theirs, not yours.

Looting your neighbor's house is wrong. Looting Wal-Mart? Well, Wal-Mart can afford it, especially given that all that flood-damaged merchandise would be written off as a casualty loss anyway. See, unlike the poor of New Orleans, large business owners can actually afford flood insurance without having to give up other things, like food and clothing. Besides, the looting of New Orleans was way, WAY over-exaggerated , mostly by Fox News. It was young hoodlums acting out during a time of great upheaval, not the decline of Western morality. In any case, the Wingnuts know it's only looting when it's done by poor minorities. When it's done by companies like Enron, WorldCom and United Airlines, it's called "free market capitalism".

#3. If someone comes in to help you, don't shoot at them and then complain no one is helping you. I'm not getting shot to help save some dumbass who didn't leave when told to do so.

None of the cases of aid personnel being shot at panned out. Just nervous aid workers over-reacting. Completely understandable, except to the Wingnuts, who expect violence from poor blacks.

#4. If you are in your house that is completely under water, your belongings are probably too far gone for anyone to want them. If someone does want them, Let them have them and hopefully they'll die in the filth. Just leave! (For goodness sakes, it's New Orleans, find a voodoo warrior and put a curse on them)

Ironic advice coming from the same group that thinks it must be lawful to have an M-16 to protect their homes from hordes of burglars wandering the suburbs. And, please, no talk of Voudun. If there's anything Wingnuts don't understand, it's religion.

#5. My tax money s hould not pay to rebuild a 2 million dollar house, a sports stadium or a floating casino. Also, my tax money shouldn't go to rebuild a city that is under sea level. You wouldn't build your house on quicksand would you? You want to live below sea-level, do your country some good and join the Navy.

Hey, I actually agree with that first sentiment. The wealthy and businesses already have the economy and government grossly tilted in their favor. They need no further help. Alas, then he ruins the ride. New Orleans is the busiest port in North America, especially for petroleum and natural gas imports. Ports have to be built on the water; makes it easier to dock ships that way. New Orleans wasn't built by thrill-seekers wanting to dare the business end of a natural disaster. It was built by commerce, something Wingnuts are supposed to worship as Most High. Perhaps if the Republicans would stop stripping the teeth out of environmental regulations, then it wouldn't be legal for real estate developers to drain protected wetlands and build cheap homes on them.

#6. Regardless what the Poverty Pimps Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton want you to believe, The US Government didn't create the Hurricane as a way to eradicate the black people of New Orleans; (Neither did Russia as a way to destroy America). The US Government didn't cause global warming that caused the hurricane (We've been coming out of an ice age for over a million years).

I've met Jesse Jackson; very decent fellow. He and Al Sharpton are no angels but they've dedicated their lives to higher causes and have done much more good than ill. U.S. Industry has contributed more to global warming than any other single factor on Earth and we continue to do more damage every day. Along with religion, science is the other thing Wingnuts can't seem to get their heads around.

#7. The government isn't responsible for giving you anything. This is the land of the free and the home of the brave, but you gotta work for what you want. McDonalds and Walmart are always hiring, get a damn job and stop spooning off the people who are actually working for a living.

Now THAT'S some classic Conservative pap right there. "All poor people are lazy!" "It's a proven fact that blacks always carry weapons!" "Poor minorities prefer social welfare to an honest day's work!" Racist bullshit, all of it. Everyone knows that those welfare queens try to get minimum wage jobs at McDonald's but they can't get their Cadillacs into the parking lot. This is the Land of the Free to Get Mine and Screw All of You and the Home of the Bravery of Sending Poor People's Kids to Fight Needless Wars.

President Kennedy said it best... "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

I prefer this quote from JFK:

For in the final analysis, our most basic common link, is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal.
John F. Kennedy, Speech at The American University, Washington, D.C., June 10, 1963
US Democratic politician (1917 - 1963)

Thank you for allowing me to rant.

YourYou're welcome. Now, please, go away and take your white hood and burning cross with you.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Not That There Is Anything Wrong With This...

As a follow up to my last post I give you: Wendell and Cass

Wendell and Cass, two penguins at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island, Brooklyn, live in a soap opera world of seduction and intrigue. Among the 22 male and 10 female African black-footed penguins in the aquarium's exhibit, tales of love, lust and betrayal are the norm. These birds mate for life. But given the disproportionate male-female ratio at the aquarium, some of the females flirt profusely and dump their partners for single males with better nests.

Wendell and Cass, however, take no part in these cunning schemes. They have been completely devoted to each other for the last eight years. In fact, neither one of them has ever been with anyone else, says their keeper, Stephanie Mitchell.

But the partnership of Wendell and Cass adds drama in another way. They're both male. That is to say, they're gay penguins.

What will we tell the children? Anyone who watches Oswald on Noggin knows that gay penguins abide.

At the Central Park Zoo, Silo and Roy, two male Chinstrap penguins, have been in an exclusive relationship for four years. Last mating season, they even fostered an egg together.

"They got all excited when we gave them the egg," said Rob Gramzay, senior keeper for polar birds at the zoo. He took the egg from a young, inexperienced couple that hatched an extra and gave it to Silo and Roy. "And they did a really great job of taking care of the chick and feeding it."

And James Dobson's head just exploded.

I'm thinking the fundamentalist Conservative Christians need to stick with the Bible. Biology doesn't seem to be their strong suit.

[Thank to anonymous and Charlotte Smith for the tip!]

And Tennessee Tuxedo Shall Lead Them

I've often speculated at the inspiration for Conservative ideas here in America. Where do they come from? What clandestine think tank, what fundamentalist religious scholars ponder the great unanswered questions of modern Conservatism? What holy symbol rises proudly as the representation of Conservative Christian ideals? The Crucifix? Heavens, no! The Bible? Nay, sir. Dare I say, the Constitution? It is to laugh!

Friends, it is the penguin. Specifically, those found in the documentary March of the Penguins, currently the second-highest grossing documentary of all time.

From Sarah Gilbert at BloggingBaby:

Conservatives are insisting that the penguins illustrate their talking points, whether it be monogamy, or intelligent design, or the Christian walk of life that sometimes includes backsliding (the penguins falling behind the group) and having difficulty finding the "good" path (things change, you have to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit). One pundit even claims the film is anti-gay marriage.

Yes, fellow liberals, the mystery is solved. While mice and dolphins may be the smartest creatures on Earth, penguins are clearly the most righteous.

And, lest you think I'm picking on the Conservative Christians because I'm mean, here is a study guide on March of the Penguins, courtesy of the United Methodist Church. See if you can tackle a few of these ponderables:

What Christian values are illustrated in the actions of the penguins? Can God use animals to teach us?

Were you surprised by the strong role the male penguin played in parenting?

Do you believe they are capable of love, trust and courage? Does it matter to you?

This is a study guide for adults, I might add.

Now, I don't mean to be too hard on the Conservative Christians; there are plenty of blogs out there for that. But this whole line of thought is absurd. Morality is a uniquely human creation and the idea that we can learn about marital relations and gay civil rights from a bunch of flightless birds in the Antarctic is just plain ridiculous.

Besides, everyone knows penguins are liberal anyway...

Gay Marriage Ban Out of "Focus"

The nationwide campaign by conservative religious fundamentalists to forbid equal marriage rights to homosexuals reared its ugly head again in Wisconsin this week. Glenn Stanton, Director of Social Research and Cultural Affairs for Focus on the Family, is set to debate Evan Wolfson, renowned gay rights advocate and executive director of Freedom to Marry, at UW-Madison on September 21st. Wisconsin Public Radio featured both guests for a half-hour each this morning to preview each side of the debate.

The debate is in preparation for what is likely to be a showdown in 2006 over a state constitutional amendment banning all but heterosexual marriages. From Tom Scharbach at PurpleScarf blog:

In November 2006, Wisconsin may be at ground zero in the battle for civil rights for gays and lesbians, when a proposed state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships may be on the ballot.

[snip]

A large voter turnout is expected in that election, a general election in which Governor Jim Doyle, Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager, and Senator Herb Kohl will be up for re-election, as well as all state Assembly representatives and half the state Senate. Political observers say Gard and other Republicans are attempting to leverage the amendment fight in a bid to help defeat Democratic candidates in 2006.

Wisconsin has tended to lean more socially conservative in recent years, which leaves the 2006 election as a big concern for those, like myself, who support equal rights for homosexuals. The good news is that when examples like Massachusettes are considered, it appears that the right of gays to marry is gaining more acceptance with the everday people of the country. Marriage has been legal there for over a year and Boston has yet to be smote by a pillar of fire. However, organizations like Focus on the Family, whose "primary reason for existence is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ", have made discrimination against homosexuals one of the core pillars of their political platform.

Let's look at some of Mr. Stanton's less-than-compelling reasons for wanting to deny equal rights to his fellow Americans.

Marriage in the United States has traditionally always been between one man and one woman.

True, but misleading. Yes, the civic institution of marriage has been between one man and one woman in the United States. But the implication of the above statement is that, because marriage has an aspect of "tradition", it should not be changed. The true history of marriage in the United States has been one of frequent revision. The right of women to end a marriage has been added, as has the right to marry those of other races. Women are no longer considered the legal property of men and married couples have gained the right to use birth control. A plethora of legal rights and protections have been enacted concurrent to the understanding of a basic right to privacy within a marriage. Clearly, whatever marriage may be in the United States today, it has changed significantly when compared to the same institution of 20, 50 or 100 years ago.

Gay marriage creates a motherless or fatherless environment which is detrimental to a child.

Patently false. As I've written about in a previous post there is not one shred of evidence that having homosexuals for parents has any ill effects on the development of children. This is a bald-faced lie; ironic, given the contents of the Ten Commandments with which one would expect an executive of Focus on the Family to be familiar. As any parent knows, there is an entire spectrum of qualities that make one a mother or father. What Stanton argues here is nothing but pointless gender stereotyping.

Homosexuals already have the same rights to marry as heterosexuals. They just choose not to exercise them.

I have to confess that this was a new argument I hadn't heard before. It's basically predicated on the notion that living a homosexual lifestyle is a choice, regardless of sexual orientation. A gay man has the right to marry a woman the same as a heterosexual man, but the gay man chooses not to because of his lifestyle. This seems to me a particularly cruel and unjust expression of bigotry; reminiscent of the treatment of blacks in the South during the Jim Crow era. A right constrained by a loss of liberty is no right at all! Perhaps we should change marriage so that everyone must have a Druidic wedding ceremony by law. Would Mr. Stanton be offended at being forced to engage in a pagan ritual in order to marry? By his own reasoning, he shouldn't be, as he still has the right to marry as long as he sets aside his Christian lifestyle.

Sadly, I suspect that the religious conservatives will likely win this battle, though I also expect a vigorous series of court battles to follow. This level of cultural tyranny will not sit well with liberal Madison. It's my sincere hope that one day, so-called Christian organizations like Focus on the Family will actually read and follow some of the teachings of the man whose name they so casually toss about.