text:
D.C. Dispatches
Confusion reigns as Congress tries to move farm bill
By Devin Henry | 07/31/2012
WASHINGTON — With Congress set to recess for the next month, House Republicans are trying to vote on a short-term extension of federal farm programs and funding this week, in lieu of a long-term bill the chamber is unlikely to consider.
The bill would extend current funding for all federal farm and food stamp programs through next September but slightly decrease spending on direct farm subsidies in order to pay for disaster relief funding meant to lessen the impact the current drought.
But as precarious as it was to get a bipartisan five-year farm bill through the House Agriculture Committee, Minnesota Democrat Collin Peterson said it will be harder for Republicans trying to pass the one-year bill this week.
The problem is this: Peterson, the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, opposes the bill, and said his fellow House Democrats are going to do the same, unless Republicans agree to send the House's version of the five-year bill to a conference committee with the Senate. At that point, the bills' differences (on a crop price guarantee program and, more notably, food stamp funding) would be resolved, allowing a clean congressional vote on a five-year farm bill.
Republican House leaders have given no indication they're willing to take up the five-year bill, given the ideological and regional battles it would start during an election year.
Conservative House Republicans oppose the chamber's bill because it doesn't cut enough from the food stamps program, though Peterson, who wrote the bill with Ag Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, said he can get at least 40 Democratic votes for that bill, even as liberal members oppose it because of the food stamp cuts.
But that's not so for the one-year extension. Peterson said he won't support a short-term bill unless it leads to progress on the long-term one, and the Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Debbie Stabenow, has said the same. That's what Peterson told House Republican leadership when they called him over the weekend.
"They boxed themselves into a corner," he said Monday. "A lot of these members don't know what they're getting into. They're going to get a lot of heat in August," during the month-long recess Congress that starts this week. During that time, lawmakers in rural districts are likely to hear from farmers hit hard by the nationwide drought.
The Senate passed a nearly $500 billion five-year farm bill in June, and the House Agriculture Committee passed its version on July 11. Both end the program that directly subsidizes farmers while increasing funding to federally backed crop insurance. The major difference between the bills lie in the food stamps section, where the House cut $16.5 billion over 10 years, and the Senate, $4.5 billion.
Drought relief likely
Political wrangling aside, John Mages, president of the Minnesota Corn Growers Association, said his group would support a one-year extension of current farm law, even if farms would prefer a long-term bill.
REUTERSRep. Collin Peterson
Most farmers have supported Congress' plan to end direct payments if it meant expanding crop insurance, but Mages said he'd be open to keeping the current system for a year. Current crop insurance coverage is acceptable, at least for Minnesota farmers, though those in more drought-stricken areas of the county might favor a stronger safety net to boost profits in the face of low crop yields.
Even if the House's one-year bill stumbles this week, lawmakers seem to generally agree to pass an emergency disaster relief bill to help areas struggling with drought conditions. House Speaker John Boehner backed such a plan last week, and Peterson said he could support a stand-alone disaster aid bill, provided it's paid for.
"I would think as long as they can get something settled, I think an extension would probably be OK," Mages said. But, "we prefer to see the [long-term] farm bill done this year because … it's always good to know what the policy would be for the next five years."
Even if Mages and the corn growers are ambivalent, major national lobbying groups have slammed the House's one-year plan. Two groups, the American Farmland Trust and the American Farm Bureau Association, came out against the plan within hours of each other Monday morning.
No bipartisan work done
The House Rules Committee is scheduled to take up the one-year bill on Tuesday, setting up a potential vote in the full House later in the week.
Peterson said he has no idea if Republicans have the votes to pass the bill, and he wouldn't commit to getting the necessary Democratic support unless there is a conference committee agreement.
Breaking from the traditionally bipartisan spirit of the Agriculture Committee, Peterson said Republicans didn't consult him before introducing the one-year extension on Friday afternoon. That's to blame for the confusion over the path forward, he said.
"It's not a good situation. This is what happens when you don't work together."
Devin Henry can be reached at dhenry@minnpost.com. Follow him on Twitter: @dhenry
Washington Bureau
Devin Henry
Devin Henry covers Minnesota's congressional delegation and reports on developments out of Washington that are important to Minnesota readers.
From Trump's better self: Let's lose the 'Send her back' chant
Eric Black Ink
'The Point' on why Trump needs to brand Dems with the S-word
Community Sketchbook
New podcast spotlights Native American stories
Klobuchar at National Press Club: substantive, likable, full of good ideas
Minnesota to go red in 2020? Color me skeptical. (88)
Lindsey Graham both ups the name-calling and advises Trump to 'knock it down a notch' (35)
Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and one incredibly predictable Twitter tantrum (20)
NRCC credibility plunges with identical, serial charges of 29 Dems being 'deranged' (16)
'The Point' on why Trump needs to brand Dems with the S-word (12)
Blacks arrested for pot possession at four times the rate of whites in Wisconsin
With fundraising results, third Democratic debate is in reach for Klobuchar
Amazon strike highlights strikingly different takes on working conditions inside Shakopee facility
Lindsey Graham both ups the name-calling and advises Trump to 'knock it down a notch'
Science deniers can be effectively rebutted, study finds
Minnesota to go red in 2020? Color me skeptical.
Arboretum sports new sculpture; Cantus offers 'Unrequited' at several venues


text:
Microsoft releases Windows out-of-band emergency fixes for Win Server, VPN issues
Critical Infrastructure, hackers targeted public utility SCADA
Cyber attacks could pose a potentially huge risk to US critical infrastructure, state-sponsored hackers and cyber criminals are increasing their activity.
Governments are even more alarmed by the possibility of cyber attacks against critical infrastructure, hackers could pose a potentially huge risk to the helpless population.
In a recent US Government exercise, a team of hackers has caused an electrical generator's motor self-destruction with a cyber attack, it is an alarming circumstance that could be real soon.
The attackers accessed computer network at American public utility causing the destructive arrest of the electrical generator's motor, The Department of Homeland Security hasn't provided further information on company hit by the attack, the affected system neither the type of utility targeted by the cyber attack.
A recent report published by The Federal Government's Track Record onCybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure, provides a scaring picture on the nation's defense situation.
Over 48,000 successfully cyber attacks breached the US defense, they were caused by the failure to employ very basic security measures, weak passwords, unpatched software and inadequate controls are the principal causes of the incidents observed in US government infrastructure.
An official revealed to the CNN the Department of Homeland Security worked with the company to repel the hack and no operations were disrupted, but the risks for such type of offensives is concrete.
Telecomunication systems, satellite systems, water-treatment plants, energy production plants, or a power station could be targeted by cyber attacks that could knock out their control systems.
"When you look at this particular utility, multiply that by many orders of magnitude and, yes, have you taken a substation out, which we don't have here, that would have massive disruption in a community and potentially in a much broader region," Frank Cilluffo, Cybersecurity Initiative Director at George Washington University said.
Let's remember that this type of threat that can wreak havoc on a country, it can cause a massive power-outage.
"I mean the sugar daddy of all, the most critical of our critical infrastructure, is electric, and energy and our grid. Because everything else to one extent or another, is dependent upon that," Cilluffo said.
If you think that this is a sci-fi scenario you are wrong, last summer the Comment Crew group of hackers has been identified during an attack to a fake US control system of a water facility. The researchers deployed a honeypot to collect evidence on the attackers that resulted linked to the popular group of Chinese hackers also described by the Mandiant Intelligence firm in the APT1 report.
Security expert Frank Cilluffo declared that foreign state-sponsored hackers and alleged terrorists are continuously probing critical infrastructure and the probability of a cyber attack is not negligible.
Foreign state-hackers have necessary knowledge and cyber capabilities to hit US infrastructure with a cyber attack.
"My biggest concern is actually an insider threat: someone who works for a particular company and then can share information with those on the outside to get more precise in their targeting," Cilluffo said.
Cilluffo expressed all his concerns on the impossibility of the government to stop all these attacks, he also remarked that it is necessary a joint effort between government entities and private companies to mitigate the cyber threats.
Homeland security officials stated that last year US experts responded to 256 'cyber-incident' reports to critical infrastructure , more than half of them in the energy sector, and I fear that in the next months the situation could worsen.
(Security Affairs – Critical infrastructure, hacking)
APT1critical infrastructurecyber securityHackingSCADAstate sponsored hackers
Twitter spam campaign 'US Gov trying to shut down Bitcoin'
UPDATED - Ex LulzSec Sabu helped feds foil 300+ cyberattacks
US Government was working on taking down Bitcoin, this is the theme of a new spam campaign via Twitter to spread malicious...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
VIDEO: Imam Zaid Shakir Offers Eid Al-Adha Sermon, Signs Memorandum of Understanding
September 23rd, 2015 @ 7:28pm
Patience was one of the main themes in an Eid Al-Adha sermon delivered at Hartford Seminary by Imam Zaid Shakir, an influential Islamic scholar and one of the founders of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, CA.
Imam Shakir led prayers on the Muslim holy day honoring the prophet Ibrahim's willingness to sacrifice his son and the end of the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. He then focused his sermon on Ibrahim, also known as Abraham, who is a spiritual father to Muslims, Christians and Jews.
Sometimes, he said, we are so obsessed with the "pursuit of reason" that we fail to see the miraculous. "One way we remind ourselves as Muslims is looking at Hajj and the meaning associated with it and the miraculous events associated with it."
Imam Shakir also talked about patience as a virtue to which we need to pay special attention.
"Patience is one of the ways we come to know God," he said. "It requires transforming our very nature. It's not something that happens overnight."
Imam Shakir spoke further about the Hajj and its message of seeking a deeper understanding of our relationship to God.
He also mentioned the Pope and his encyclical concerning the environment as a reminder that, "especially at Hartford Seminary, we're all in this together."
After the sermon, Imam Shakir and Hartford Seminary President Heidi Hadsell signed a memorandum of understanding. Also participating in the signing were Academic Dean Uriah Kim and Prof. Feryal Salem, who co-directs the Seminary's Islamic Chaplaincy Program and was recently appointed to Zaytuna College's Board of Trustees.
The full video of Imam Shakir's sermon can be viewed here:


We have a new terrible idea: rank every video game ever made.
We like video games. We like them a lot. So now, we decided to rank them all from best to worst. We're starting with 8, and we'll soon have them all.
THANKS TO THE FREE MUSIC ARCHIVE FOR: "The White" and "The Black Frame" by Rolemusic. It's dying. Please help it.
BUILT TO PLAY IS A PRODUCT OF CJRU IN THE HEART OF DOWNTOWN TORONTO. IT WAS PRODUCED BY ARMAN AGHBALI AND DANIEL ROSEN.


The distressed jeans feature slashed knees, raw hems and light distressing with each pair being distressed by hand, for an authentic, well-worn look.
The jeans are cut from strong but soft 12oz denim with just enough give to ensure comfort and flexibility in the skinny fit. The Desert Wash finishes these jeans with a subtle warmer hue.


text:
Jan Dołęga-Zakrzewski (pronunciation: Dolenga Zakshevski) (7 November 1866 in Białyszewo – 3 December 1936 in Ostrów Mazowiecka) was a Polish surveyor, political and social activist, publicist. He was a member of the Association of the Polish Youth "Zet" and of the National League as well as mayor of Ostrów Mazowiecka (1930–1933).

Family
Jan Dołęga-Zakrzewski was born on 7 November 1866 in the locality Białyszewo, Sierpc county, in the landed estate belonging to his parents Szczepan (Stephen) and Józefa née Smoleńska.
He came from a very old noble family. The house of Dołęga-Zakrzewski is a line of the medieval Dołęga (Dolenga) clan, who descended from a knight, who came from the Netherlands to Poland in XII century – Hugo van Arkel called Butyr (about 1096-before 1166), komes, the castellan of Chełmno and the commander of the army of the Duke of Mazovia and the supreme prince of Poland – Bolesław IV the Curly. His family ruled over numerous landed estates in northern Mazovia. Grandfather – Jan (1803–1869) – was the heir of Sokołowo, Kosmaczewo and Petrykozy, (over 750 ha), father – Szczepan (1825–1892) – Białyszewo, Szczepanki, Ważyno Kmiece, Piaski Białyszewskie and Mlice Kostery (about 960 ha). Grandfather resided in the manor house in Kosmaczewo, father in the manor in Białyszewo. Szczepan Dołęga-Zakrzewski took part in the January Uprising 1863. Mother conducted social and educational activities in the Sierpc county.

Education
He received his first education from tutors employed at the Białyszewo court. Then he started education at the Classic Gymnasium in Płock, which he graduated in 1884. As a student of this school, and also a member of the secret Youth Circle of History and Native Literature Lovers, he organized self-education circles in the Białyszewo commune. In 1885 he began studies at the Agricultural Surveying Institute in Pskov (Russia). He graduated in 1889 receiving a diploma of surveyor. At the end of his studies, he joined the Association of the Polish Youth "Zet", an organization that prepares activists for the National League.

Social and political activity
After returning to Poland, he first worked as a surveyor in Ciechanów, and in April 1892 he took the position of a district surveyor in Ostrów Mazowiecka. At the same time, as a sworn surveyor, he opened his own surveying office. From the moment of his arrival in Ostrów, he was an active social activist. He belonged, among others, to the circle of the Polish School Society, the Volunteer Fire Brigade, the Charity Society and the Theater Circle. Jan Dołęga-Zakrzewski was a specialist in the amalgamation of the Polish countryside. He wrote several articles and books about it, among them the book "On amalgamation of rural land, or abolition of chessboard patterns" (Warsaw 1913). His articles were published, among others, by in "Gazeta Ostrowska" and in Warsaw magazines: "Gazeta Rolnicza", "Ognisko" and "Gazeta Warszawska". He played an important role in the development of the peasant movement for land amalgamation, which was born in Mazovia.

In addition to public activity, he also conducted secret national work. Around 1905 he joined the National League. For a long time he was a permanent deputy of Dr. Jan Harusewicz, the League's commissioner for the Łomża region. He took part in the Revolution in the Kingdom of Poland (1905–07).
In mid 1913, he started working as the chief appraiser-instructor for amalgamation of the Polish countryside at the Central Agricultural Society in Warsaw. The area of his activity then became the entire Kingdom of Poland. After the outbreak of World War I, he became an activist of the Central Citizen's Committee. Evacuated with his family to Russia, he was tasked with establishing a committee in Rahachow, Mogilev Province. As the Branch Manager (he was popularly known as the president), he made a great contribution in organizing help and care for thousands of families of Polish refugees. In this arena he collaborated with Władysław Grabski, Jan Harusewicz, Stanisław Wojciechowski, Jan Załuska and Prince Seweryn Franciszek Światopełk-Czetwertyński.

He returned to Ostrów Mazowiecka with his family in June 1918. In October 1918 he was appointed a sub-commissioner, and in December a land commissar for the Ostrów county. He took an active part in disarming German soldiers stationed in the town (11 November 1918). The military action was led by the captain (later general and historian) Marian Kukiel, and the civilian population by Jan Dołęga-Zakrzewski and Dr. Wacław Szaykowski. In the years 1920–1921, he participated in the plebiscite activity for Poland to obtain the territory of Upper Silesia. During the presidency of Stanisław Wojciechowski, he rejected the proposal to become the minister of agriculture. His health deteriorated significantly.

In 1930 he became the last elected mayor of Ostrów Mazowiecka. He held this office until 1933. His term in office fell on a catastrophic period in the urban economy. The town was heavily indebted. Jan Dołęga-Zakrzewski tried to save Ostrów by not collecting the salary due to him for official activities. He gave the town nearly 20,000 zlotys. He also conducted research on the past of Ostrów Mazowiecka, the name and coat of arms of the town. He collected a lot of materials that he was unable to publish before his death. Those that survived World War II were included in the book: Jan Zakrzewski "Collected material for the monograph of the town of Ostrów Mazowiecka" (Municipal Office of Ostrów Mazowiecka, Warszawa-Ostrów Mazowiecka 2004; the collection was prepared by son Adam Wiesław Dołęga-Zakrzewski; prepared for printing and wrote a preface great-grandson Dr. Leszek Dołęga-Zakrzewski).

He died on 3 December 1936.

Jan Dołęga-Zakrzewski entered into a marriage with Janina Henryka Humięcka, daughter of Jakub, the owner of the Bielino estate, and Maria née Bojanowska. They had three sons, Marek, Adam and Leszek. Janina Henryka Zakrzewska née Humięcka was the cousin of prof. Ignacy Mościcki, President of the Republic of Poland.

Zakrzewski wrote the following:
 O scalaniu gruntów czyli znoszeniu szachownic (Warsaw, 1913)
 Zbiór materiałów do monografii miasta Ostrowi Mazowieckiej (Urząd Miasta Ostrów Mazowiecka, Warszawa-Ostrów Mazowiecka, 2004; collection of works published posthumously)
 Jan Harusewicz. Lekarz i polityk (Warsaw, 1935, co-author)

He wrote numerous articles which were published in newspapers and journals such as Gazeta Ostrowska, Gazeta Rolnicza, Ognisko, and Gazeta Warszawska.

Legacy
In Ostrów Mazowiecka there is a street named after him.

Sources
M. Bartniczak, Jan Dołęga-Zakrzewski. 7. XI. 1866 – 3. XII. 1936, [in:] Zapiski Ciechanowskie, t. III (1977), pp. 104–113;
A. Cz. Dobroński, Dzieje Ostrowi Mazowieckiej do 1914 roku, Ostrów Mazowiecka 2007;
Aleksander Gieysztor, Trzy stulecia najdawniejszego Mazowsza (połowa X-połowa XIII w.), (in:) Dzieje Mazowsza do 1526 roku, Warszawa 1994;
Warszawski Dziennik Narodowy, czwartek, 10 grudnia 1936 r. – Nr 339-B-Rok II, p. 5;
A. Kołodziejczyk, Odzyskanie niepodległości w 1918 roku – przebieg wydarzeń na Mazowszu, [in:] Warszawa i Mazowsze w walce o niepodległość kraju w latach 1794–1920, LSW, Warszawa 2001;
S. Kozicki, Historia Ligi Narodowej (okres 1887–1907), Myśl Polska, Londyn 1964;
Z. Lasocki, Dołęga czy do Łęga? O powstaniu nazwy rodu i herbu Dołęga i rozsiedleniu Dołęgów w okolicach Łęga, oraz legenda o rycerzu Dołędze, Cieszyn 1932;
E. Lewandowski, Ciechanowski słownik biograficzny, Ciechanów 2008, pp. 82–83;
Ostrów Mazowiecka. Z dziejów miasta i powiatu, ed. S. Russocki, KiW, Warszawa 1975;
J. Powierski, Hugo Butyr. Fragment stosunków polsko-niderlandzkich w XII wieku, (in:) Zapiski Historyczne, t. 37, Toruń 1972, zeszyt 2, pp. 9–41;
E. Zielińska, Wpisani w historię. Słownik biograficzny województwa ostrołęckiego, TPO, Ostrołęka 1990;
Zorza, czwartek, 18 lutego 1937 r. – Nr 14, p. 8;
Leszek S. Zakrzewski, House of Dołęga-Zakrzewski. A brief compendium, Warsaw 2014.

References

1866 births
1936 deaths
People from Sierpc County
National League (Poland) members
Association of the Polish Youth "Zet" members
Polish publicists
Polish male writers
Surveyors

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


The Small Business Credit ShareSM program is a consortium of companies that share expanded payment performance data on products like lines of credit; credit cards; loans; leases; and first creditors for emerging businesses such as utilities and telecommunications. As a member, you get access to reports, scores and special offers that are exclusive to the program. Experian® also can provide access to consumer data for a complete picture of a small-business owner or guarantor.
The exclusive data on millions of small businesses gives you a competitive advantage, with information and the latest scores that improve risk decisions on small businesses by 40 percent.
To ensure small businesses receive the credit they deserve, a summarized version of this data is provided to nonmembers. Members include some of the largest small-business creditors in the United States.
Access member-only comprehensive credit reports with expanded payment performance data and benchmarking.
Powerful score performance, with the new Small Business Credit Share acquisition model 2.0 providing 40 percent greater performance than standard credit scores.
Gain powerful portfolio scoring by three portfolio model types (all financial model, commercial credit card model or commercial retail credit card model).
Learn more about Small Business Credit Share from this product sheet.
Small business credit share helps businesses get the credit they deserve.
To request more information, call us at 1 877 565 8153 or complete the form below.
- Select - AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY Non U.S.
A representative will be in contact with you. If you would like to speak to someone right away, please call us at 1 877 565 8153.


text:
« Bills of Attainder and Equal Protection | Main | Read for Yourself »
The decision of the SJC will go into effect Monday, May 17, 2004, at which time marriage as universally understood for millenia of human history will be forever changed. Chaos will ensue. Marriage has always been between opposite-sex couples, and for good reason. The incredible upheaval in Massachusetts is inevitable. - Appellant's Memo in Largess v. Massachusetts.
I thought I would write a wonderful post in honor of the one year anniversary of marriage equality in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, I'm a little short on time, so instead I provide links. From today's Boston Globe editorial:
Another opportunity to measure the effects of gay marriage in Massachusetts will come this fall, when legislators again take up the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -- but allowing parallel civil unions -- that they initially approved in March 2004. We are optimistic that the state's elected representatives will accept the thousands of individual commitments made in the past year and vote down the proposal. The legislators need not fear constituent anger: Every one of the legislators who voted against the ban last year was reelected; and three additional supporters of gay marriage won special House elections this spring.
It strains the imagination to see how a year of gay marriage has caused the state any discernible harm. Supporters even point to a modest economic boost due to tourism and other local spending on gay weddings. But the reason to toast today's wedding anniversaries has little to do with tax revenues and everything to do with the riches that come from extending civil rights to every citizen.
For more on the prospects of that amendment see this Globe article:
The erosion of support for the amendment, which won preliminary approval by four votes in March 2004, is caused by several factors, including the considerable clout of new House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, a supporter of gay marriage; a net gain of four gay-marriage supporters in recent legislative elections; and increasing acceptance of gay marriage among the public....
A Boston Globe poll in March indicated that 56 percent of those surveyed supported gay marriage, 37 percent were opposed, and 7 percent were unsure. By comparison, a Globe poll conducted in spring 2004 indicated that 40 percent of those surveyed supported gay marriage. Those who either wanted to ban gay marriage and replace it with civil unions, or who wanted neither, represented 45 percent of those queried.
Like the majority of those surveyed, Lees, the state Senate's ranking Republican, said the relative lack of apparent societal damage caused by the onset of same-sex marriage has given him pause -- even though he was a coauthor of the amendment before the Legislature.
An even more recent poll (pdf) was comissioned by MassEquality and the results are great:
By a margin of 62% to 35%, voters say that gay or lesbian couples should have the right to enter into a legal marriage...fully 61% approve, and only 37% disapprove of the court's decision to permit same-sex couples to marry...Fully 36% say legalized "gay marriage" has had a positive impact on Massachusetts, while compared to only 13% who say it has had a negative impact...with 68% saying that gay marriage has had a positive impact on gays and lesbians in Massachusetts (10% say it has had a negative impact), and 53% say it has had a positive impact on children being raised by gay and lesbian couples, compared to 17% who say it has had a negative impact...When asked about whether it is better for marriage or civil unions to be available to gay or lesbian couples, a majority of voters opt for marriage over civil unions by a margin of 50% to 32%, with 12% saying neither. This is substantial increase in support for marriage from the 38% to 23% margin (with 32% saying neither) in 2003.
The best thing I can leave you with today is a must read op-ed in the Globe by Anne and Chad Gifford who finally had the great joy of seeing their son marry the man he loves. Please read it, but I will leave you with this brief excerpt:
Our initial period of concern and confusion and the subsequent learning has, at times, been tumultuous. But how could we as parents not do all we could to embrace our child? How could we not do all we could to strengthen our family? Many object to equal marriage because it represents an attack on family. This is tragic and wrong. Family means love and support for all, not the marginalization of one member of the family.
We have now had one year of legal same-sex marriage in our state. Despite predictions, we have not witnessed any threat to so-called ''traditional marriage." There has not been an attack on family, and almost all would admit that very little has changed. In fact, however, something has changed. Many of our citizens have experienced the joy of marriage for the first time where the laws of our state have said, ''You are equal." We have seen that joy in our son. To take that away would be an injustice. It would be devastating for our family and the real values we believe family should represent.
11:19 PM in Massachusetts: Goodridge | Permalink
Op-ed:
First let me say that while I do support giving legal acknowledgment to same-sex couples, I do not happen to believe the denial of such is a result of gender discrimination.
Now … you wrote: "Finally, stick this ruling in your "nothing bad has happened yet" pipe and smoke it. Really, one would expect someone who touts their math abilities not to be so easily swayed by the argument from ignorance fallacy anyway."
------ To use this ruling as an reference to a bad consequence of the Mass SSM ruling not to mention your obnoxious response is a staggering example of ignorance on your part. The ruling basically says that stepparents do not fall under the laws against incest. Are you attempting to infer that due to the SSM ruling, someone will get away with rape? Please. No such thing happened. The rape will be prosecuted. Ironically, this is the same tactic used by SSM advocates when a domestic abuse situation occurred for an Ohio same-sex couple and because of the amendment passed denying any legal acknowledgment to same-sex couples, the abuser could not be prosecuted under domestic abuse laws. Some SSM advocates argued that people lost legal protections against getting abused due to the amendment. And based on your stellar logic, I guess they must be right. Also, the case you mentioned referred to stepparents – therefore, a divorce must have occurred and the relationships between the parents and children were not biological but custodial. Therefore, you are saying that a ruling that results in step-parenthood being treated legally different than kinship is a bad consequence of the SSM ruling. This seems to me to be inconsistent with your view that same-sex couples don't deserve legal acknowledgment because they cannot create children on their own.
How is that pipe now?
Posted by: Mark Miller | May 21, 2005 at 09:39 PM
Whatever definition of "gender discriminatory" you are using to claim marriage is "gender discriminatory" applies equally to same-sex marriage as both are defined in terms of their gender content. Thus if your goal is to remove all forms of gender discrimination from the law, SSM is an inconsistent answer.
Well, if I were to advocate only recognizing same-sex marriages and not opposite-sex marraiges that would be true, but I am not doing so. I do not want the law to use gender to determine the validity of a marriage. There is nothing inconsistent in that.
While you are free to wallow in your own inconsistencies, trying to pass them off as reasoned position won't fly. Not that you've ever mentioned what goal is served by your simple-minded forced equality of the sexes to begin with.
I'm wallowing? I never noticed. In any case, my views are only unreasonable under your mistaken belieft that I advocate prohibiting opposite-sex marraiges. There was an onion article along those lines, but they weren't serious. And I have indeed mentioned why I support gender equality in a number of posts. A good place to start would be a series of three posts I wrote last summer beginning with "What Bugs Me About Discrimination."
Not to belabor your inconsistencies further, but for that matter you have yet to explain why "gender discrimination" is bad, but number discimination (your devotion to the number two) is good, or for that matter why species discrimination is good.
Please, belabor away. I have explained this. You apparently have not bothered to read through my blog. In short, gender discrimination is problematic because of my belief in our common humanity. Gender discrimination generally places the importance of gender above the importance of the individual human being. I believe that as human beings we should all be equally protected by the laws. Drawing distinctions between an individual human being and more than one human being, or between a human being and something else is not troubling. These do nothing to deny our common humanity. In fact they reinforce it. These ideas are not uncommon. The law in Massachusetts and elsewhere guarantees that equal protection should not be denied on account of sex. It says nothing--nor should it--about denial of equal protection on account of number or account of humanity. That would be ridiculous.
In general, your position that judicial activism, or any other form of government influence, should be involved in dictating social attitudes is putting the cart before the horse. Government is of, not at, the people.
That is not my position. The people enshrined their belief that the government should guarantee all the equal protection of the laws and that should not be denied on account of sex. The SJC said that even without the extra line about denial on account of sex, the marriage laws were not guaratnteeing all the equal protection of the laws and thus they must become more inclusive. The court did its job, and the people support this decision.
Finally, stick this ruling in your "nothing bad has happened yet" pipe and smoke it. Really, one would expect someone who touts their math abilities not to be so easily swayed by the argument from ignorance fallacy anyway.
Mark already made a few comments about this obnoxious statement. I am curious, though. What in the world does this ruling have to do with same-sex marriage? I did not know that I've been touting my math abilities. I never published my CV on the blog. Perhaps my English abilities aren't up to par, though. I have no idea what ignorance fallacy is. And how do you know I was easily swayed? Maybe it was quite difficult.
And finally as for your attack on Trey, you don't know what you're talking about. Marty has referred quite explicitly and quite often to adoption. Most recently, he had a snide remark for the couple mentioned in my post who experienced the joy of seeing their son married. He said "one can only wonder at the sense of loyalty that child will show towards his grandparents who may or may not be his kin at all." He is once again talking about adoption. Marty seems to believe that one who is adopted isn't fully a part of the family and is less loyal to the family because they aren't "kin". One can only wonder at his basis for this belief.
Posted by: Galois | May 22, 2005 at 12:51 AM
On Lawn, well we seem to be talking past each other. You claim I am not responding to your points, and you do not seem to be responding to mine. What are we to do? I will try better to understand your position and see if there are actually any areas of disagreement between the two of us.
With regards to women's suffrage, is it your claim that marriage was responsible for this?
With regards to discrimination, is it your claim that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples is gender discrimination but that the discrimination in this case is a good thing? Or is your claim that it is not gender discrimination?
Is it your claim that eliminating gender references in the definition of marriage is itself gender discrimination? If so, do you mean discrimination by the government or the individual? Whom, if anyone, do we deny the equal protection of the laws by this discrimination?
Is it your position that allowing two people in the same class to marry is discrimination on the basis of that classification? If so, when is this discrimination justified, and when is it unjustified?
Let us start with these questions. If there is anything that you are unclear on with regards to my own positions, please ask me. I agree with you that not all discrimination is bad. I just feel that when are to dicriminate on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, or faith (to name just a few classifications) the discrimination needs extra justificaiton, because far too often those classifications have been used unjustly.
What in the world does this ruling have to do with same-sex marriage?
Only that it was a predicted consequence.
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; - Scalia, for the dissent, Lawrence v. Texas
The ruling basically says that stepparents do not fall under the laws against incest.
To reach that conclusion the MSJC had to overrule itself. In Commonwealth v. Smith, a pre-Lawrence incest case, the court found exactly the opposite:
Moreover, the "[p]ersons within the degrees of consanguinity" to whom the statute's prohibitions of intermarriage and sexual intercourse apply are not limited to blood relations, but include also certain affinal kin as well as stepparents. [emphasis added]
Telling that the same court that ruled in favor of same-sex marriage ruled in favor of incest by step-parents. Telling, too, that supporters of SSM also line up in defense of the relaxed incest standard.
The rape will be prosecuted.
By this view we need no incest laws at all, since all incests could be prosecuted as rapes anyway. While this whole journal is based on the notion that less distinction is better, the fact is, the impact of incest goes well beyond just the rape.
Gender discrimination generally places the importance of gender above the importance of the individual human being.
In your quest to tear down the wall between the men's and women's dressing rooms, have you ever considered that actual differences exist between the sexes? The current legal "strict scrutiny" standard is significantly more enlightened than your simplistic notion that we should simply pretend these differences away. Gender based laws need to be confined as reasonably as possible to actual, rather than incidental differences between the sexes.
I believe that as human beings we should all be equally protected by the laws.
Back to wallowing in incosistency. Apparently groups of three humans don't have the same humanity nor deserve the same protections that groups of two humans do. Simply saying that discrimination based on numbers is not sex discrimination and therefore is acceptable is begging the question. It is this numeric confusion that causes you to assign individual traits like gender to couples of individuals and concepts of individual rights to groupings of individuals. The fact is, any individual can become part of a marriage regardless of sex. Your appeal to our "common humanity" and our individual rights, therefore, is already met.
I did not know that I've been touting my math abilities. ... Perhaps my English abilities aren't up to par, though.
Either your English abilities or your ability to scroll. From the header of your web page:
Galois A mathematician's thoughts on same-sex marriage [Emphasis added]
I have no idea what ignorance fallacy is.
Interesting defense...
And finally as for your attack on Trey, you don't know what you're talking about. Marty has referred quite explicitly and quite often to adoption.
Not in this thread. Even if what you say about Marty were true, you'd still simply be endorsing the "Hey, look over there" exit tactic. Comments Marty makes elsewhere should be dealt with elsewhere. Comments Marty makes here should be dealt with here.
Posted by: op-ed | May 22, 2005 at 10:47 AM
"By this view we need no incest laws at all, since all incests could be prosecuted as rapes anyway. While this whole journal is based on the notion that less distinction is better, the fact is, the impact of incest goes well beyond just the rape"
------ Yes, and the impact of domestic abuse goes well beyond the physical assault also - as I referenced in my earlier comment. Must be nice to pick and choose which inconsistencies you'll wallow in.
Posted by: Mark Miller | May 22, 2005 at 11:38 AM
Only that it was a predicted consequence...
Your quote from Scalia seems entirely irrelevant. First of all it was from a dissent in Lawrence, not Goodridge. Even if your claim were that Lawrence led to Rahim, it is unfounded. The quote does not mention the situation of Rahim at all, so it can hardly be called a prediciton of it. Thirldy the decision in Rahim was neither based on Lawrence or Goodridge. You might as well as say Rahim was a predicted consequence of Brown v. Board of Education.
To reach that conclusion the MSJC had to overrule itself.
Actually they did not overrule Smith, and in fact relied on Smith in the Rahim decision. They ruled that the references to affinal relationships in Smith were dicta and evidently incorrect based on the wording of the law. Just as in Smith they ruled that if the legislature wanted to cover other sexual acts in the statute they must specify that, the court in Rahim ruled that if the legislature wanted to include affinal relationships they had to do so. The fact that the legislature specifically refered to consanguinity and not affinity prohibited the state form charging Rahim with incest (although they did charge him with many other offenses).
And how telling it is. J. Marshall who signed onto and is beleived to have written the majority Goodridge decision dissented in Rahim. Likewise J. Greaney who signed onto the majority in Goodridge and wrote a concurring opinion in Goodridge likewise dissented in Rahim. In fact, the decision in Rahim which you condemn was written by J. Cordy who had dissented in Goodridge. So contrary to your assertion that the supporters of SSM lined up in defense of the narrow reading of the incest statutes in Rahim, it was the other way around. Telling indeed.
In your quest to tear down the wall between the men's and women's dressing rooms, have you ever considered that actual differences exist between the sexes?
I am not trying to tear down any dressing room walls. Do NOT attribute claims to me that I do not make. I am warning you once. I do, in fact believe there are actual differences between the sexes. I have never claimed otherwise.
The current legal "strict scrutiny" standard is significantly more enlightened than your simplistic notion that we should simply pretend these differences away.
Again I have never claimed we should pretend differences away. I have merely argued that (1) these cases should be decided under strict scrutiny (I'm glad we agree on that) and (2) It cannot pass that test. Under strict scrutiny the burden is on those that wish to use sex as a basis for denying the marriage. I have yet to hear a compelling reason for doing so.
Back to wallowing in incosistency. Apparently groups of three humans don't have the same humanity nor deserve the same protections that groups of two humans do.
Well, you know me. I'm a wallower. If you remove one from a group of three humans you have two humans. If you remove one from a group of two humans you have one human. The difference between one human and two should be and is recognized. I am treating each individual with the same humanity, but I am noting that the law must treat two and one differently. If we take two adult citizens with the right to vote. One human gets to vote once, and two humans each get to vote once for a total of two votes. I find nothing wrong with that and honestly can't believe you do.
The fact is, any individual can become part of a marriage regardless of sex.
And interracial marriage prohibitions allowed any individual to beome part of a marriage regardless of race. So what? I am claiming it is problematic to use one's sex to determine whether one's marriage is valid. My marriage is valid because I am a man. If I were a woman it would be invalid. The issue is not whether one can become "part of a marriage".
Either your English abilities or your ability to scroll. From the header of your web page..
I am a mathmematician. I never said I was a good one. (I'll say it now. I believe I am a good mathematician.) Still I don't know what an ignorance fallacy is, and you have yet to explain what it is.
Not in this thread...Comments Marty makes elsewhere should be dealt with elsewhere. Comments Marty makes here should be dealt with here.
Once again you are absolutely wrong about Marty's comments. Marty talked about the grandchild not having loyalty to his or her grandparents because they were not "kin". That was a comment in this thread. (Perhaps you are the one who needs to work on your ability to scroll).
Your quote from Scalia seems entirely irrelevant...You might as well as say Rahim was a predicted consequence of Brown v. Board of Education.
Brown does not mention incest, let alone make any predictions about it. Therefore, equating Brown and Lawrence on the subject of incest is completely unwarranted and visibly desperate.
Even if your claim were that ...
By the very statement, you acknowledge you are chasing a strawman here. No further comment is necessary.
Actually they did not overrule Smith... They ruled that the references to affinal relationships in Smith were dicta and evidently incorrect
Ah. So they didn't overrule themselves, they ruled that they were incorrect. Thanks for the clarification.
So contrary to your assertion that the supporters of SSM lined up in defense of the narrow reading of the incest statutes in Rahim, it was the other way around. Telling indeed.
Actually, you supply all the ammunition necessary for that assertion. You and your cronies in support of SSM are the ones who, with the barest of provocation, lined up in defense of liberalizing incest by a step-parent. Feel free to break that down into which neurons were involved, but the fact remains.
Again I have never claimed we should pretend differences away.
I'll take you at your word on that one.
I have merely argued that (1) these cases should be decided under strict scrutiny (I'm glad we agree on that) and (2) It cannot pass that test.
Ah, but it can. Society is impacted by and incurs liability from the procreative potential of a couple. There may be no good reason that procreative potential exists only between members of the opposite sex, but that is the case nevertheless, and the MSJC has failed to change that fact with Gooding.
If you remove one from a group of three humans you have two humans.
You may have intended counting backward from three to one as a dazzling mathematical tour de force, but you still fail to point out why gender mentions need to be eliminated from marriage, but numeric mentions need not. Surely you wouldn't want to deny domestic abuse protections from consenting adults simply because there are three of them.
I am claiming it is problematic to use one's sex to determine whether one's marriage is valid.
Give me an example. Given the couple (J,K), which individual and which sex means the couple cannot marry?
a) J-male
b) J-female
c) K-male
d) K-female
So as not to stress your mathematical abilities, I'll remind you that one's sex would mean making one selection from the above. Your pretended example of you and your wife involved choosing both sexes, which is actually two selections.
Regardless of whether it makes sense to you, the capacity of a couple to procreate does depend on the presence of both genders. It is even restricted to two people.
The issue is not whether one can become "part of a marriage".
'Nuff said.
I am a mathmematician. I never said I was a good one.
Claiming you are a mathematician certainly "touts [your] math abilities," as I said. What you fail to realize in constructing this clintonian defense is that I never said you were touting your "good" mathematical abilities, either.
(I'll say it now. I believe I am a good mathematician.)
Based on...?
Still I don't know what an ignorance fallacy is, and you have yet to explain what it is.
True, true. Rather than Googling for "appeal to ignorance" you could simply assert that since you don't know what an appeal to ignorance is, it must not exist. But then, that would be an appeal to ignorance. Need more? Saying you are a good mathematician because you do not know what an appeal to ignorance is would be another example.
Once again you are absolutely wrong about Marty's comments. Marty talked about the grandchild not having loyalty to his or her grandparents because they were not "kin".
Did he? Reread it for yourself. Marty never says a grandchild will not have loyalty to his or her grandparents because they were not "kin." Further, even if Marty said exactly that, it still says nothing about what he thinks about adoption.
Finally, this one's for Mark, who also believes in changing the subject to escape a contradiction:
Yes, and the impact of domestic abuse goes well beyond the physical assault also - as I referenced in my earlier comment. Must be nice to pick and choose which inconsistencies you'll wallow in.
Either produce a quote where I even talked about domestic abuse, let alone two contradicting quotes or simply continue on in your role as the comic relief in this whole discussion.
Posted by: op-ed | May 22, 2005 at 09:32 PM
Therefore, equating Brown and Lawrence on the subject of incest is completely unwarranted and visibly desperate.
About as desparate as your claim. Scalia specfically referred to adult incest, which was not the issue of Rahim. Further Scalia was talking about striking down such laws. Rahim did not strike down any law and made clear that the legislature could it if wished extend the incest laws to cover stepparent relationships. Still, as you seem to note by your reference to strawmwen none of this has anything to do with Goodridge which was what this post was about. So what in the world is your point?
Thanks for the clarification.
You and your cronies in support of SSM are the ones who, with the barest of provocation, lined up in defense of liberalizing incest by a step-parent.
I have cronies now? Cool. But as we noted before it was those opposed to same-sex marriage that supported the Rahim decision. Those who supported same-sex marriage opposed the decision. Why do opponents of SSM condone incest?
As for the gender classification passing strict scrutiny your gorilla link provides no compelling interest. At most it exlains an interest in having opposite-sex couples marry, not in limiting marriage only to couples who can reproduce sexually. The general procreation argument I have dealt with extensively in this category.
You may have intended counting backward from three to one as a dazzling mathematical tour de force, but you still fail to point out why gender mentions need to be eliminated from marriage, but numeric mentions need not.
I have explained it. You just choose to ignore it. You admit that the gender requirements subject it to strict scrutiny, thus the burden is on those who would keep the gender requirements to justify it. No such justificaiton is needed for "numerical" discrimination. I have explained in detail in this in this category. If you insist on some justification, here's but one example (more is given in the linked category). Suppose a person dies. The surviving widow is responsible for making all post-mortem decisions. With two (or more) spouses there are conflicts as to who make the decision.
If you insist on doing this mathematically, it would go something like this. Claim: The validity of the marriag depends on the sex of J. Proof: Fix K. Without loss of generality we may assume that K is female. If J is male, the marriage is valid. If J is female the marriage is invalid. (The proof would be similar if we assumed instead that K was male). QED. But again this is irrelevant as you admit there must be a compelling interest for the classification. Whether the classification is necessary to achieve that interst is the core of our disagreement.
Regardless of whether it makes sense to you, the capacity of a couple to procreate does depend on the presence of both genders.
But there is no explanation as to why the validity of the marriage must depend on the capacity to procreate.
Why do I think I'm a good mathematician? I got my PhD from Columbia University. Among other things I proved that any uniform tree which contains a nonuniform lattice must contain a nonuniform lattice of any real covolume and any uniform tree whose automorphism group is not discrete contains an infinite tower of uniform tree lattices. My work is well respected in the field. Why do you care, though?
Actually I agree that just because there is no evidence of a compelling interest to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples it does not necessarily follow that no such compelling interset exists. Still, until such time as I see such evidence I am going to work under the assumpion that it does not exist and support extending marriage to all couples regardless of gender.
Did he? Reread it for yourself. Marty never says a grandchild will not have loyalty to his or her grandparents because they were not "kin."
What he said was:
one can only wonder at the sense of loyalty that child will show towards his grandparents who may or may not be his kin at all.
I honestly don't know how you're reading that.
Posted by: Galois | May 22, 2005 at 10:55 PM
As for the gender classification passing strict scrutiny your gorilla link provides no compelling interest.
Do tell...
At most it exlains an interest in having opposite-sex couples marry, not in limiting marriage only to couples who can reproduce sexually.
So let's summarize. The state has a compelling interest in procreation, specifically responsible procreation. To that end, it can recognize a relationship based on its procreative potential, which it does with marriage. This meets the strict scrutiny test you proposed. Strict scrutiny requires the treatment in question address a compelling interest, not a proof there are no alternative treatments. Your "only to couples who can reproduce sexually" attempt is dealt with specifically in the gorilla reference.
No such justificaiton is needed for "numerical" discrimination.
Why not? Your appeal to the "humanity" of the situation supports strict scrutiny of "numerical" discrimination the same as discrimination on gender. That darn consistency bug-a-boo again!
With two (or more) spouses there are conflicts as to who make the decision.
The potential for conflict does not prevent society from acting. Courts, legislatures all deal with conflict on a regular basis. For example, a child is allowed to have two parents even though the parents may not agree on the child's post-mortem arrangements.
Claim: The validity of the marriag depends on the sex of J. Proof: Fix K. Without loss of generality we may assume that K is female.
Tsk, tsk. Math abilities again. The claim was the sex of one nullifies the marriage. Your proof deals with the sex of two, which does nothing to establish the claim about one. Don't worry, I'm sure lots of mathematicians mistake one for two these days.
Come now! You've admitted society's interest in defining a relationship based on its procreative potential. True, that relationship need not be marriage. I suppose it could be some other relationship, but the fact is, it is marriage. What relationship are you proposing should be defined by that potential? Without its procreative potential, what compelling interest would society have in recognizing marriage at all?
Why do you care, though?
My bad. Didn't mean to make you think I did. Not that you're looking needy or anything, but I'm sure your Ph.D. thesis makes up for the whole one vs. two difficulty.
Still, until such time as I see such evidence I am going to work under the assumpion that it does not exist...
So, you're wedded to the argument from ignorance. I get that. You don't understand marriage. You don't understand why all societies throughout all time and across culture and religion have defined it in terms of its procreative potential, and your lack of understanding means we should change it. I'm sure there are some circles where that amounts to a compelling argument for change, but for some reason it just doesn't do it for me.
Let's try a less emotion driven example. Say you took your car to the mechanic. When you go to pick it up, the mechanic presents you with a box of parts and says, "When I put everything back together there were all these extra pieces. I have no idea what they do, so I just left them off." Are you going to drive that car home, let alone are you ever coming back to that mechanic again? What if he turns the key and the engine starts up? Are you convinced now?
Wow. Another appeal to ignorance. Not that your honesty isn't touching. I can tell you I'm still not reading the word adoption in there.
I wonder what you had for breakfast. Must mean you didn't have any. Must mean I think diner operators should be shot on sight. Let's talk about gun control. Hey, look over there!
Galois wrote:
"Again I have never claimed we should pretend differences away. I have merely argued that (1) these cases should be decided under strict scrutiny (I'm glad we agree on that) and (2) It cannot pass that test. Under strict scrutiny the burden is on those that wish to use sex as a basis for denying the marriage. I have yet to hear a compelling reason for doing so."
Just a reminder-- that if gay marriage is decided under equal protection with gender as the suspect classification-- it would not be subjected to "strict scrutiny". Gender classifications get "intermediate scrutiny". The state interest must be an important one but not a compelling one. And I don't think it must be as narrowly tailored. Under a fair application of intermediate scrutiny, I don't think that defining marriage as between a man and a woman would fail. Of course, it failed in Massachusetts under the rational basis test-- so who knows. But the fact that it failed rational basis is what is so disturbing about the Goodridge opinion. It is why Goodridge is such a perfect example of judicial activism in my opinion. Given how rarely laws fail to pass muster under the rational basis test it was shocking that a traditional marriage statute failed. Moreover, it is shocking to me that the court (4 out of 7) had the audacity to hold that the marriage law was "absurd". And in essence that is what they said when they concluded that there was no rational basis whatsoever for marriage to be defined as between a man and a woman. It boggles the mind.
Posted by: Hayleyanne | May 23, 2005 at 08:00 AM
Hayleyanne -
Galois wrote: "...these cases should be decided under strict scrutiny..."
...Gender classifications get "intermediate scrutiny".
Thanks for the correction. I knew about "intermediate scrutiny," but I never understood what the difference between strict and intermediate was. Thanks for explaining that. Frankly I never understood why there were different levels of "scrutiny" to begin with. Seems if a law is worth looking into it is worth looking into all the way.
"Strict scrutiny," as both he and you have defined it, is an essential tenet to Galois's position because it enables his second and most fundamental point, the fallacial argument from ignorance. He may now either abandon his position or rest it on the ignorance appeal entirely unsupported by "strict scrutiny."
So let's summarize. The state has a compelling interest in procreation, specifically responsible procreation. To that end, it can recognize a relationship based on its procreative potential, which it does with marriage. This meets the strict scrutiny test you proposed. Strict scrutiny requires the treatment in question address a compelling interest, not a proof there are no alternative treatments.
It does not meet the strict scrutiny test. You have argued for a compelling interest in doing X. It does not follow that there is a compelling interest in not doing Y. You need a compelling interest for not recongizing same-sex marriages. So far you have presented none. Repeating your interest in recognizing oppposite-sex marriage does not create an interest in not recognizing same-sex marriages. Since opposite-sex couples could still marry without resorting to gender classifiation the use of the classification has yet to be justified.
Why not? [require strict scrutiny for numerical discrimination]
I assume your question is why shouldn't the law require strict scrutiny for numerical discrimination. For the fact of the matter is the law does not. As to why it shouldn't, I thought I had explained. If we have worth as an individual human being, then the law should recognize two individual human beings as two people. They should have two votes. They should each have the right to own property. They should each be able to make decisions for themselves. This was one problem with the notion of coverture where a wife's legal identity was subsumed into the husband's. It denied the individual worth and humanity of the wife which is not forfeited by her marriage to her husband.
Exactly. But I'm not arguing that the state could not create some system to deal with it. I have offered, however, a legitiamte reason why the state may not want to do so. A state is not required to do everything it can do. In this case it may decide that the harms outweigh the benefits.
Tsk, tsk. Math abilities again. The claim was the sex of one nullifies the marriage. Your proof deals with the sex of two, which does nothing to establish the claim about one.
The claim was the validity of the marriage depended on the sex of J. That claim was proven. That the sex of K was also relevant does nothing to invalidate the proof. I could also claim that the parity (whether a number is even or odd) of a sum depends on the parity of a summand. This is true and any mathematician would tell you it is true. That the parity cannot be determined without also knowing the parity of the other summand does not mean it does not depend on the parity of the one.
Come now! You've admitted society's interest in defining a relationship based on its procreative potential. True, that relationship need not be marriage. I suppose it could be some other relationship, but the fact is, it is marriage.
I have not claimed society has an interest in defining the relationship based on its procreative potential, nor have you demonstrated one. We have agreed that there should be a relationship, marriage, which is important for responsible procreation. I see no need to base the validity of the marriage on the procreative potenetial of the couple.
Without its procreative potential, what compelling interest would society have in recognizing marriage at all?
Jonathan Rauch's book, Gay Marriage, does a great job of answering that question in detail. I have answered it at some length elsewhere on this blog. (See this category). Here's three short answers. (1) Even couples who cannot procreate may have children, and society has an interest in governing the relationship between those parents (2) Marriage, and even the prospect of marriage, has a stablilizing influence on society. As Rauch puts it, it "settles" young adults. (3) Society has a great interst in individuals having someone to care for them in times of need. Marriage provides the best first line of care in a variety of situations. (This is part of the reason society has an interest in the marriage of the elderly). Still, the question remains not what interest society has in the marriage of those couples who cannot reproduce, but rather what interest does it have in not recognizing such relationships. I have yet to see one.
Are you convinced now?
No. Your car analogy was pointless. There can be (and is) more than one purpose to marriage. To say that marriage is only about creating children would be ludicrous. Marriage obviously has other purposes including the raising of children. So it makes sense for the marriage laws to include couples other than those who can procreate.
Just a reminder-- that if gay marriage is decided under equal protection with gender as the suspect classification-- it would not be subjected to "strict scrutiny". Gender classifications get "intermediate scrutiny".
That is under federal law. We were discussing Massachusetts law in this thread (except when op-ed drifted into talking about Lawrence). Massachusetts and many other states subject gender classifications to strict scrutiny. You are correct, Hayleyanne, that the court in Goodridge ruled that it failed even to pass the rational basis test. That does not mean the marriage law was "absurd" or even that there was no rational basis for defining it in gendered terms. It means that the state failed to present any legitimate interest that was furthered by using the gender classifications. Since opposite-sex couples could still marry even if same-sex couples were also allowed to marry, it was not enough to say that marriage was important for opposite-sex couples. There had to be some reason why it was important to restrict it to such couples.
I knew about "intermediate scrutiny," but I never understood what the difference between strict and intermediate was. Thanks for explaining that. Frankly I never understood why there were different levels of "scrutiny" to begin with.
I could tell. Interestingly in New Jersey they do not use this three-tiered system of review. Instead they subject the law to a balancing test which weighs the state's interests against the individual's.
By the way, op-ed, where do you believe I used an appeal to ignorance. In a number of cases I pointed out that I have not seen evidence of a claim, but I never claimed that as proof that the claim was not true. I'm simply not going to be convinced of some claim without some reason to believe it is true. For example, we have seen no harm in Massachusetts from allowing same-sex couples to marry. Can I be sure there was no harm? No, but without evidence to the contrary I will continue to believe that no harm was done, and as noted above a great deal of good was done.
I accept your proposition for a what I see as a reboot of this conversation. They were very good questions. As this discussion has branched in a slightly different direction, I took the liberty of responding in a new thread created on Opine.
But while gender discrimination remains as a disputed topic, I'll catalog those that you've dropped:
-- Much like ol' Sharkey's program of sharing meant the shire was shafted in the last part of "Lord of the Rings", so does this notion of equality smack of cover-smoke for nefarious goals. Rhetoric turned up just a little to hot there? Maybe, but I've been looking into this issue for a while and find the cover-screen of equality to have echoes in the past as well as litterature.
-- One thing is for sure, across the US and other nations the trend has been that in the areas where the debate is allowed to flourish amongh the populace the self-evident truths of marriage have become manifest. The danger of supreme court rulings is that they can quelch debate, remove power from the people and lead to tyranny. That you celebrate such a move because it furthers your own agenda is, well, deplorable. Much like how the court ruled that blacks and white relationships were infertile, or the Supreme court ruled that a tomato is a vegetable. Well, once that happens what are you going to do about it? In your surveys, the answer seems to be to just acknowledge and move on.
-- why exactly is it that you are the only one hear unclear of your agenda?
And I'll only add that whether intermediate or strict scrutiny, I'm still anxious to hear how you justify endorsing gender preference in marriage. An "important" reason will do.
Posted by: On Lawn | May 23, 2005 at 02:29 PM
Thanks for your answers On Lawn. I will try to continue the conversation over there shortly (in the next few days). I'll address your loose ends/dropped topics here.
As for the ROTK reference, I did not feel there was anything to respond to. You suspect nefarious goals. That's a bit insulting, but I don't care all that much what you think of me or my goals, so I have no desire to press the issue.
As for my deplorable celebration of the court's decision, we almost certainly disagree with whether the court was doing its duty to uphold the law in reaching that decision. Even those who believe the court's decision was wrong, though, can still be happy for the couple's involved and wish them the best. I don't believe the decision quelched debate. On the contrary the decision has brought the debate to the forefront in Massachusetts.
Finally you ask why I am the only one unclear on my agenda. I had thought my agenda was to help more families gain the protections of marriage. I don't find that deplorable. I doubt you would find that idea deplorable, ergo you must believe me to have some other agenda. I still do not know what this is and I tend to doubt that everyone else here knows what that is.
As long as I understand your rules – you can refer to a non-SSM related ruling as an example of a bad consequence of the Goodridge ruling. But when someone refers to another ruling as a bad consequence of a state marriage amendment passed for purposes of making an analogy, the response is to plead ignorance.
Keeping up with your lead, will you produce a quote when anyone mentioned the incest ruling? Because obviously you feel it is not appropriate to use an argument in a discussion that hasn't been specifically referred to previously.
My point was this: You use the Mass SJC ruling of treating kinship differently than step-parents in the context of incest laws as a bad consequence of Goodridge. Yet this seems inconsistent with your view that legal acknowledgment of relationships which are not based on kinship should be treated differently than kinship relationships. Wouldn't any ruling that resulted in treating kinship differently than custody be a good consequence in your view ?
But the response of 'you changed the subject' does seem to work well for you.
Let me also say that being referred to as 'comic relief' by someone as reasoned, articulate and intelligent as you have shown here hurts more than you could ever know.
As for the ROTK reference, I did not feel there was anything to respond to ... I had thought my agenda was to help more families gain the protections of marriage.
*sigh* Nothing to respond to except that you wish to do the same thing.
Its like saying you hate looking at the consequences of your actions and determining just what they might bring. You say that in another place as well...
Even those who believe the court's decision was wrong, though, can still be happy for the couple's involved and wish them the best.
But the main point, "[your] deplorable celebration of the court's decision" is puposefully glossing over its problems. You can air out your reasoning for liking the decision, but to duck under their robes in some tautological legal defence its-legal-because-they-say-it-is is a dangerous tyrannical appologist cop-out. Justice Marshall seems to wish the same defence by emminance, "I worry when judicial independence is seen as a problem to be solved and not a value to be cherished."
Gottlieb (who is a good mathematician) is so afraid of the consequences of their over-reaching that he proposes that some sort of panel should review and let the people over-rule such vain re-definitions as the Mass. Court employed.
-- Now if the Massachussets Supreme Court can change the milleniums old meaning of the word marriage, it can change the meanings of other words such as Freedom of Speech, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Man, Women, or any language written in the Constitution to reestablish the traditional meaning of marriage. Most of those words do not appear from the beginning of mankind in some form and are not found in most present day cultures. This is a very frightening development and requires a new check and balance. I propose a Constitutional amendment to the effect that a jury of scholars be appointed yearly, people who know the history of words, and science and statistics and mathematics, and when they see hijackings of common words such as marriage, they can nullify the courts decision subject to a popular referendum of the people. And if the decision of the Court is over ruled by the people, then the court must resign and a new one be appointed. --
Seventeen of the eighteen Harvard law professors who wrote a friend of the court brief in favor of same-sex marriage disagree with it as, "self-intoxicating narcissism and arrogance right on the surface" and it was "as sloppy of an opinion as you could want to read".
But you are just going to sit there and celebrate it? Oh, and hope the best for the people in the case in spite of everything else.
In the end you only see what you wish to see, and your participation and where it leads seems to be immaterial as long as it allows same-sex marriage. I don't think you know or care what you are doing here, assuming it is the onus of those defending the equity of marriage to meet your demands.
You have argued for a compelling interest in doing X. It does not follow that there is a compelling interest in not doing Y.
Well, before you change the subject, let's recap. There is a compelling societal interest in marriage as an institution with the potential to procreate. For whatever reason, that potential requires the presence of each sex, so it contradicts your point that marriage should be "gender neutral" and therefore not necessarily procreative. I have argued X, you have argued not X. To your credit, rather than taking up the clearly unsupportable position that society does not have an interest in the fundamentally procreative union, you now choose to shift the discussion to Y. Fine.
What is Y? Well, it could be societal recognition of fundamentally non-procreative unions. In that case, the statement is trivially true and empirically so. Society's interest in marriage does not preclude its interest in any other type of union. Society recognizes all kinds of non-procreative unions each under a different theory of interest. Hospitals are not procreative, yet receive specific treatments under the law. Same with law firms, limited partnerships, corporations, and universities. Notice society is able to take notice of these institutions without calling them "marriage." But then, I am putting words in your mouth. Do tell, what is Y?
(1) Even couples who cannot procreate may have children, and society has an interest in governing the relationship between those parents
Society already safeguards this interest by recognizing the parent-child relationship and regulating it.
(2) Marriage, and even the prospect of marriage, has a stablilizing influence on society.
Lots of things "stabilize" society even without being called marriage. The theory behind the mortgage deduction is that home ownership stabilizes society. That is no argument that home ownership should be called marriage.
(3) Society has a great interst in individuals having someone to care for them in times of need.
See (2), above. But let's deal with this from a proof by contradiction point of view. A similar contradiction argument exists for (2). Let's assume that society has a sufficiently compelling interest in having individuals take care of each other that it abandoned its compelling interest in responsible procreation and defined marriage as individuals taking care of each other. But then, three individuals can take care of each other at least as well as two, and four at least as well as three. Thus promoting taking care of each other would argue for a treatment that allows, if not encourages, groups larger than two. Yet, you argue that marriage should be restricted to only two, which is a contradiction.
No. Your car analogy was pointless.
Those two statements contradict. That you are unconvinced that the car will still accomplish its purpose after turning it over to the self-confessed ignorant mechanic is exactly the point. That even after hearing the engine run you remain unconvinced in the mechanic's argument from ignorance shows the impotence of your own argument from ignorance.
There can be (and is) more than one purpose to marriage.
This does not argue for the removal of any one of those purposes.
That is under federal law. We were discussing Massachusetts law...
Well, I have to admit I didn't think you'd actually abandon your claim just because it was wrong. Rather than flagrantly rest unaided on your argument from ignorance you rush quickly to stuff the "strict scrutiny" crutch back under it. You are not arguing that location should determine the validity of a marriage.
...where do you believe I used an appeal to ignorance.
You argue marriage should be gender neutral because you see no reason it should not. Your desperate reach for "strict scrutiny" shows you know this.
As long as I understand your rules...
You don't, and it took you way too many words to admit you don't have the quotes. See you in the funny papers.
"Seventeen of the eighteen Harvard law professors who wrote a friend of the court brief in favor of same-sex marriage disagree with it as, "self-intoxicating narcissism and arrogance right on the surface" and it was "as sloppy of an opinion as you could want to read"."
Absolutely correct. The Goodridge opinion represents true judicial hubris. And Galois, if you have any doubts about its political/agenda driven nature-- consider how the court set an artificial date on which the legislature had to respond. That date just happened to be the 50 year anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. If that is not a political statement, I don't know what is. Also, as I understand it, the chief judge is a friend of the attorney for the plaintiffs. Why did she not recuse herself?
Second point: the level of scrutiny that federal law would apply is still very relevant as it is federal constitutional law that will dictate whether a state must recognize a gay marriage recognized in a sister state under the full faith and credit clause.
Oped raises an interesting point. What is the important state purpose behind a state defining marriage as between a man and a woman? Assuming that the interest in procreation is not an "important" one and the courts mandate gay marriage-- what then is the interest in limiting it to two people? Does the answer boil down to a strictly mechanical application of constitutional law? I.E. The level of scrutiny shifts to rational basis because we are looking at "number" instead of "gender"-- and a "number" limitation is tested under rational basis?
In any case, I have a real problem with a court holding that the government does not have an important interest in defining marriage the way it has been defined throughout history.
Posted by: | May 24, 2005 at 06:23 AM
My post above-- I forgot to put in my name! Hayleyanne
You misread your link; it doesn't support your statement at all. The article you linked to establishes that three Harvard law profs disagree with the Goodridge decision; none of those three, however, were among the 18 who signed onto Tribe's brief.
Posted by: Ampersand | May 24, 2005 at 08:37 AM
Ampersand-- I was agreeing with the thrust of the statement that the opinion amounts to "self-intoxicating" narcissism and "arrogance". It is an awful opinion. It not only thumbs its nose at the democratic process -- it flagrantly misapplies the rational basis test. It is the worst kind of judicial opinion. And there were political repercussions across the nation, as well there should have been, when four state supreme court judges ignore democratic principles and forget that they are not the Legislature.
The Goodridge opinion represents true judicial hubris. And Galois, if you have any doubts about its political/agenda driven nature-- consider how the court set an artificial date on which the legislature had to respond. That date just happened to be the 50 year anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. If that is not a political statement, I don't know what is.
This is a completely ad hom attack on Goodridge. The reasoning of Goodridge is good enough to stand, or it is flawed and cannot stand. That is all that matters; what alleged agenda the judges had or didn't have is logically irrelevant.
Regarding failure to recuse: A criticism similar to yours was leveled against Scalia when he ruled on a case that his hunting buddy Vice-President Cheney was a party to. I thought the criticism of Scalia was misguided; merely being friends with someone doesn't make it impossible to rule fairly on their case, and it's unreasonable to expect judges to not associate with other government officials or with other lawyers. Similarly, I think your criticism in this case is misguided.
What is the important state purpose behind a state defining marriage as between a man and a woman? Assuming that the interest in procreation is not an "important" one and the courts mandate gay marriage-- what then is the interest in limiting it to two people?
As I understand it, nothing in Galios' argument assumes that the interest in procreation is not "important." However, even though the interest in procreation is indeed important, it doesn't follow that it's the sole and exclusive important interest; it is more accurate to say that marriage is justified by several important interests, of which procreation is one, but not the only one.
As for the slippery slope argument, I don't think it's relevant to same-sex marriage. If you oppose polygamy, then you must have independent arguments showing why polygamy is harmful or wrong; you should rely on those arguments to prevent polygamy.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it is a grave injustice to same-sex couples to forbid them to marry. Does the possibility of a slippery slope make it okay to commit injustice? It's not clear that it does. To commit an injustice to same-sex couples in order to protect society from polygamy is not justifiable, any more than committing an injustice to Jews or women or blacks would be justifiable if the injustice prevented polygamy.
However, as a matter of legal logic, what you wrote is correct; numeretic discrimination is scrutinized at a lower level than sex discrimination, and is furthermore much easier to justify.
Historically, the definition of marriage has changed significantly. To claim that it's had a unitary definition throughout history is inaccurate.
In any case, I'm not aware of anyplace in the Massachusetts Constitution (or the US constitution) in which it is stated that the government has a compelling interest in legally mandating tradition for its own sake.
Hayleyanne - When I said "You misread your link," I was intending to address On Lawn's post, not yours. Sorry for the mix-up.
As for the Goodridge decision, I disagree with you on virtually all counts. It is the legitimate purpose of the MSC to ask if the laws as applied are legitimate under the Massachusetts Constitution, and that's what they did. And rational basis was correctly applied, as far as I can tell; at the least, this is clearly a question that people of good will can disagree on.
As for the political backlash, so what? I don't want judges taking account of extra-legal questions like that when they make decisions.
Furthermore, I don't think the backlash has actually been very harmful, from a pro-queer-rights perspective. A bunch of states that were decades away from civil unions have banned SSM and/or civil unions; that's ugly and regrettable, but it doesn't make much practical difference. Meanwhile, queers in Massachusetts are finally equal citizens, and in two other states (CT and Oregon) will almost certainly get civil unions. Overall, I think it's a step forward.
Advancement without backlash is impossible. So unless we want to give up on advancing queer rights forever, we cannot accept the logic that says that backlash makes gains illegitimate and regrettable.
Whoops, sorry. The previous post is written by me, Ampersand.
For whatever reason, that potential requires the presence of each sex, so it contradicts your point that marriage should be "gender neutral" and therefore not necessarily procreative.
It certainly does not contradict that position. The marriage laws can (and do) include couples who cannot procreate. The gender neutral marrigae defintion does not preclude procreative couples from marrying, so once again you fail to provide any interest whatsoever in having a gendered definition of marriage. I agree with you that couples who are going to have children should marry (although I would include same-sex couples in that category), but I also think some couples who will not have children should marry as well.
Do tell, what is Y?
Recognizing same-sex marriage.
(1) Society already safeguards this interest by recognizing the parent-child relationship and regulating it.
Well if that were enough we wouldn't need marriage. It is not enough that each parent has a relationship to the child, but also that they have a commitment to each other. Parents are still related to their children after divorce, but that does not mean divorce has no effect on the children. So I strongly disagree with you that marriage is unimportant in this regards.
(2) Lots of things "stabilize" society even without being called marriage. The theory behind the mortgage deduction is that home ownership stabilizes society.
Your arguments go from stranger to stranger. I never claimed that any stabilizing thing should be called marriage. I claimed that marriage stablilizes society and society has an interest in this even if that marriage never produces children. I take it you agree with this statement.
(3) See (2), above.
I agree. See (2) above.
Let's assume that society has a sufficiently compelling interest in having individuals take care of each other that it abandoned its compelling interest in responsible procreation...
Those two interests are not mutually exclusive. In fact one supports the other. One of the ways marriage promotes responsible procreation is that the parents will have an obligation and the support to care for one another.
But then, three individuals can take care of each other at least as well as two, and four at least as well as three.
I disagree. Rauch explains this quite well. One reason he gives for why this is not true is what he calls the "freeloader" effect. If others are also in charge of support some people will be less likely to do all that is necessary figuring that the others will take up the slack. I'll tell you what, though. You provide a detailed plan for how marriage between 27 people would work, I'll look at it closely. By the way, a person can procreate with more than one other individual. Why should you not allow them to marry more than one?
I'm not removing any purposes. This is the biggest (of many) problems in all of your responses. Marriage would still continue to serve its purpsoses with regards to procreation.
Well, I have to admit I didn't think you'd actually abandon your claim just because it was wrong.
What was wrong? I claimed (and you agreed earlier) that gender classifications should be subject to strict scrutiny. Hayleyanne pointed out that under federal law gender classifications got intermediate scrutiny. I agreed with her. I had assumed we were discussing Massachusetts, the topic of this post. I know you seem fond of chaning the subject, (Lawrence, Rahim, etc.) but don't get upset when I try to keep it focused.
You are not arguing that location should determine the validity of a marriage.
Indeed it does. Each state sets its own marrige laws. The general rule (with some exceptions) is that a marriage valid where performed is recognized elsewhere, but it matters very much where the marriage is performed. Which marriages are valid varies quite a bit from state to state. Constitutions also vary from state to state. What may be constitutional in one state, may be unconstitutional in another.
You argue marriage should be gender neutral because you see no reason it should not.
I see. You completely misunderstand the appeal to ignorance fallacy. The linked site gives a good explanation:
An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.
I have given throughout this blog and even in this comment thread reasons why marriage should be gender neutral. (It would allow same-sex couples to marry thus protecting them, their children, and benefiting society in a number of ways). When I weigh this reasons for making it gender neutral against the lack of reasons for not making it gender neutral (as procreative couples could still marry) I tend to believe that gender nuetral marriage would be good. Those are policy reasons. When it comes to legal arguments, the gender classification requires justification. If no justification is given the classification must be stricken. That is to say the burden of proof is on those wishing to use the gender classification. This is not an appeal to ignorance fallacy, as the above site also notes:
There are a few types of reasoning which resemble the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance, and need to be distinguished from it:
1. Sometimes it is reasonable to argue from a lack of evidence for a proposition to the falsity of that proposition, when there is a presumption that the proposition is false. For instance, in American criminal law there is a presumption of innocence, which means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and if the prosecution fails to provide evidence of guilt then the jury must conclude that the defendant is innocent.
Under strict scrutiny, interrmediate scrutiny, or even rational scrutiny, equal protection doctrine puts the burden of proof on the state when it uses a classification (how great a burden it is depends on the level of scrutiny). So noting the lack of justification for the classification is not an appeal to ignorance, but a demand that the state meet its burden of proof.


text:
Family therapy service could help 400 Norfolk children and save £7m, say council bosses
Stuart Dark, chairman of Norfolk County Council's children's services committee. Pic: Norfolk Conservatives.
Norfolk Conservatives
A new service offering therapy to families in need has been launched, with council bosses saying it could save £7m over the next five years.
Norfolk County Council says its Stronger Families project is one of the first of its kind in the country and will help more children to live safely at home with their families - supporting about 400 children aged eight to 15.
The service will be provided by an organisation called Family Psychology Mutual, which will use a therapy called Functional Family Therapy Child Welfare within families' homes, providing therapy to whole families.
It aims to repair relationships, help families to communicate better and help parents to better support and influence their children.
Stuart Dark, chairman of the children's services committee at Norfolk County Council, said: "We know that children do better when they can live safely at home with their families, and this is one of several ways we are working to help families to be resilient and stay together.
"By providing therapy directly to families, the project can help to heal and build relationships that give children a much brighter future.
"We want to help families as early as possible, developing their strengths and giving them the support that they need to prevent problems from escalating."
Tom Jefford, business development director for Family Psychology Mutual said: "We are building and training a dedicated team to deliver this in Norfolk and are confident that we can create sustainable change for families and young people with high needs.
Norfolk County Council is keen to reduce the number of its looked after children. In August last year, there was a high of 1,204 children in care, which had dropped to 1,193 as of the end of November.
The high numbers had been putting pressure on social workers. As of the end of September last year, 36.5pc of social workers had caseloads over recommended policies, although that had dropped to 32pc as of the end of November after changes were brought in.
Spending on children's services was highlighted as one of the key pressures on the county council's budget when leader Andrew Proctor recently revealed the budget gap has widened to a 'cliff edge' £70m.


Details regarding the compilation can be found here (http://www.wf.com.au/forum/index.php?topic=7772.msg124123#new).
PSYCHONAUT (http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/pages/Psychonaut/111926684927?sk=app_2405167945) have been confirmed for the line-up!
Next addition to the line-up is MEMORIA (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Medusa-tattoo-and-apparel/314313995256765?sk=info#!/pages/MEMORIA/316839766561)!
Oh, and be sure to share the FaceBook event (http://www.facebook.com/events/364286660254707/) and invite your mates.
With this third revelation, we announce HUMAN EXTINCTION PROJECT (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Human-Extinction-Project/114619805239193?sk=app_2405167945) will feature in the line-up!
MISERY DILATION (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Misery-Dilation/234701169878251?sk=app_2405167945) will now complete this line-up!
Thanks again to all the bands...look forward to seeing everyone down there with their horns out in support and enjoying a night of WA metal!
With everything being finalized behind-the-scenes, the next stage of the campaign kicks off THIS WEEKEND as we take over the Charles Hotel!
Hope those who turned up enjoyed their night, and to everyone that didn't...WEAK.
Unfortunately HUMAN EXTINCTION PROJECT had to pull out at the last minute due to their drummer being involved in a car accident, although thankfully he is ok and just a bit sore. Thanks to PSYCHONAUT and MEMORIA for performing extended sets, plus MISERY DILATION for playing also.
Appreciate everyone making the effort to come down...please "share" and "invite" your mates to the FaceBook event (http://www.facebook.com/supremelegion?ref=tn_tnmn#!/events/251052024964557/) and drag them along to the next FUNDRAISING show THIS FRIDAY (http://www.wf.com.au/forum/index.php?topic=7782.0) at the Civic Hotel with NAILS OF IMPOSITION, KHARIOT, EMPIRES LAID WASTE & REAPER'S RIDDLE!


Everything happens in the feature branches and when it's ready is merged in master. Each commit on master branch is uploaded on the staging machine reachable at wikitolearn.vodka.
When the features chosen for the current development cycle are ready, they are merged in master and then the new release branch is created. The freeze period starts. A pre-production server loads automatically the commits on this branch. Only bugfix commits are allowed directly on WTL_x.y release branch. New development in other branches can continue without interruption, but nothing can be merged again in the WTL_x.y branch.
Each maintainer performs a checklist on the pre-production machine on http://tuttorotto.org. Once green light is given by all the maintainers, the release happens and the branch WTL_x.y is tagged with a minor release index z like x.y.z. Every Unbreak It Now! task not completed BLOCKS the release.
Bugfixs usually should not wait for new release to be published. They have to be committed directly on release branch. After tests on the pre-production server that loads automatically the commits, a minor release occurs with a new tag and the code goes to production.
All hotfix commits must be included then in the main development cycle. To do so cherry-pick them onto master.
UNBREAK IT NOW: these task are extremely urgent and they must be resolved as hotfix if possible, directly on the current release branch. These tasks are security issues or big bugs.
HIGH : these tasks must be completed before the next release. They have to enter the freeze phase and they can't be delayed.
NORMAL: these tasks are normal work. If they are ready they can be merged in master, waiting for next release. If they are not completed they can be delayed to the next release, not merging in master, and remaining in their feature-branch.
LOW: these tasks can be inserted in wishlist for next release but they are likely to be delayed.
WISHLIST: these tasks are not inserted in the Features Plan.


How Exactly Do Export Controls Impact UVA?
Where Can I Learn More About Export Controls?
How Do I Determine if My Project is Export Controlled?
What You Need to Know About Restricted Party Screening?
What is the Fundamental Research Exclusion?
What Do I Need to Know About US Sanctions Programs?
What Do I Do if I Suspect an Export Violation Has Occurred?
How Do I Determine the Export Classification of My Item?
How do I Determine Export Requirements for My Upcoming International Travel?