The Bronx: Center of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

On January 14, 1963, Governor George Wallace, of Alabama, delivered his inaugural address, which contained the famous line "Ignorance and prejudice now, ignorance and prejudice tomorrow, ignorance and prejudice forever!" to resounding applause.

No, those were not his precise words. If he had said that, many people--including those who were for prejudice--would have thought it reflected poorly on him as a person and as a leader. Invoking images of slavery, what Governor Wallace actually said was "Let us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. . . . I say segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

It was as if the governor did not think of himself as also being the governor of the African-American citizens of the state, which was not far wrong, considering how his policies were aimed at preventing them from having the rights that their citizenship conferred on them. (To give the governor credit, he ultimately outlived his ignorance and prejudice. There was no way for him to undo the past harm he fought to institute "forever," but he lived to see that he was wrong and apologized.)

Yesterday New York Governor Paterson re-introduced a gay-marriage bill. My state senator--I live in Bronx County, New York

--called a press conference, announcing "It's a slap in the face" for the governor to have chosen now, of all times, to reintroduce this bill. Why a slap? As you probably know this is an important time for baseball in New York. The Mets opened their new stadium in Queens and played their first game, and on the very day that the Yankees played their first game in *their* new stadium, the governor announced the bill.

I don't assume that religion is anti civil rights any more than I accept State Senator Rubén Díaz Sr.'s leap of logic that Governor Paterson timed his action to insult baseball. Sen. Díaz, a Pentecostal minister, told reporters that "during the month of May, we will bring out thousands and thousands of Hispanic evangelical Christians in the city of New York to ask Governor Paterson to step aside."

The constitutionality of same-sex marriage in New York is in limbo. In 2005 State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that same-sex marriage was allowable because it fell under the equal protection clause of the state's constitution. In a narrow decision, New York’s top court overruled her.

Eleven months ago Governor Paterson directed New York state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. There was a lawsuit, of course; however, the suit was dismissed in State Supreme Court in the Bronx, which found that Governor Paterson acted within his powers. Another slap? You bet! The State Supreme Court in the Bronx is within walking distance of Yankee Stadium!

Yesterday State Senator Rubén Díaz--or should I call him Reverend Rubén Díaz--met with close to 100 Hispanic ministers. "It's a challenge the governor is sending to every religious person in New York, and the time for us has come for us to accept the challenge," said Diaz.

I'd like to think that New York is not a theocracy. Whether the marriages that the bill would legalize would be a marriages in the eyes of God is not for me to speculate on, although I do know that God probably does not base His choices on the decisions of the New York State legislature as much as we New Yorkers might hope. And as for a being of infinite power, He could have done a little more to support the Yankees yesterday, who lost--the first official game played at their new stadium. But perhaps God is wiser than me about these things. Or perhaps he supports people who play for the other team.

Laws that support segregation, do not last forever. As Governor Paterson said, the marriage bill will give gay couples 1,324 rights that they are currently denied. That's what this bill does, it changes the law. The legislature can't make laws about religion or spirituality or decide who your soul mate is.

"As long as you need me, there will be no gay marriage," Sen. Díaz said.

Mr. Díaz, we no longer need you.

The Basics

How To Remove a Blagojevich
Nothing can ruin your day like having a Blagojevich explode all over you. Removing Blagojevich messes from clothing (or other surfaces in the office) is not easy. But don’t despair--you don’t have to throw out your favorite shirt. There are some ways you can learn about removing Blagojevich problems for good.

Types of Blagojevich
The first step to removing a Blagojevich is to know what kind of Blagojevich it was. Blagojevich typically falls into one of two categories; water based and permanent. As you may think from the names, the water-based Blagojevichs are easier to remove and the permanent can be very difficult.

Water Based Blagojevich
This includes:

• Certain hard (or soft) cylindrical Blagojevich (e.g. dicks)
• Possibly some liquid or other slippery Blagojeviches

Removing water based Blagojevich is much easier than other types of Blagojevich. One method definitely worth trying is to place the ruined area on a clean white towel.

Next, apply plain water. Blot the Blagojevich with another clean, white towel. Do not rub. This should remove the Blagojevich as you are blotting.

Another idea to try is to put a little bit of your normal laundry detergent directly onto the Blagojevich. Let this sit for a few minutes and then wash the ruined area in the warmest water you can (depending on fabric). When you pull it out of the wash, look to see if the Blagojevich is gone before drying. If not, repeat the steps.

Permanent Blagojeviches
This Includes:

• Crooks
• Buffoons
• State governors

One of the first things you might want to try to remove permanent Blagojevich from office is rubbing alcohol. Place the article on a clean white towel and pour the rubbing alcohol on the Blagojevich. Blot the offending Blagojevich and it should go through to the towel beneath. Continue this until the Blagojevich is completely gone, but remember to move the clothing to a clean part of the towel so you don’t get the Blagojevich right back on it.

Another trick to try is using fingernail polish remover. Non-acetone type is best. Test it on an inconspicuous spot in the capitol building first to make sure it doesn’t merely spread the Blagojevich. Do it the same way you would with the alcohol. Anti-Blagojevich sticks, gels, and other Blagojevich remover products can also be tried, and some Illinoisans find them successful, especially if the Blagojevich is fresh. Simply voting for impeachment can also be successful.

A thought for today

They can put a man in a space station and have him circling the globe at 17,000 miles per hour happily drinking his own pee, but they can't cure the common cold. Discuss.

Now comes the hard part

After eight years of an administration devoted to fumbling its way back to the past, today America decided to have a future again. Our president elect is a man with vision. What a contrast from President Bush, whose sense of vision seemed to extend no further than whatever might be written on a crib sheet tucked up his sleeve. And for the most important problems, there was no crib sheet for him to follow.

In just one day we have gone from quite probably our worst president to one of our best. I know President Bush compares his legacy with that of Harry S Truman. Truman actually had lower public opinion numbers than Bush. But Bush's comparison has the ring of excuses made by failing students ("Bill Gates didn't finish college" and the like). President Truman was unpopular because he made hard decisions that were unpopular--which is what a leader must do sometimes. The Bush record is a long string of inept decisions and obliviousness to their consequences. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said "The buck stops here." President Bush was not a leader, and his administration worked hard to shield him and its other members from being held accountable for their decisions (secret torture memos and so on).

But enough of the past, this election is about our future and the future of the world.

I heard man-on-the-street interviews with voters who said they were afraid that a President Obama would raise spending and taxes. President Bush has already raised spending, and a major cause of the ongoing financial crisis is that he misspent the money in ways that don't add to the productivity of our economy. This waste adds up to a couple of trillion dollars in lost opportunity. And Bush has already raised taxes because these vast sums of money were borrowed and have to be paid back.

So, President Obama inherits a colossal mess. If ever we need a leader, it is now, and I have confidence him. Wars, recession, world financial collapse, global warming, nuclear threats from rogue nations, the potential for pandemics. I know people are concerned about Obama's experience. This world is a different place from the one I grew up in. I respect John McCain's experience, but this is a different world from the one he grew up in, too. Yes, some old problems exist. Russia can--and does--behave like the old Soviet Union used to. But this is a new world, and Obama can see it in ways McCain can't. This is a world where Obama's leadership qualities, intelligence, and vision will serve us better than McCain's long view.

The age issue was important in the election, and as the baby boom generation ages we are seeing the passing of the torch. This is the first time I will be older than the president--Obama is at the very tail end of the baby boom, and I am one year older than him.

It's not easy to pass the torch. It's a little like the first time you go to a doctor who is younger than you. All your life older, wiser people were your doctor--and then there comes that day when, sitting naked in a flimsy paper smock, your life is in the hands of someone young enough that you might have told them to look both ways before crossing the street just a few years before.

For those of us old enough to vote--and older--the election of an African American to the presidency is an amazing development. Most transitions into the future are incremental, nearly unnoticed. Not this one. This is something new for us. We now live in a world in which ex-president Mandela sent a telegram of congratulations to President-Elect Obama. But for the little kids I saw holding their mothers' skirts at the polling station this morning, this is normal. By the way, those of you who could have voted in the past and simply never bothered to till today, you have had the power to make this change all along. It is perhaps President-Elect Obama's first act as a leader to have shown you this.

Don't ask me the question if you won't let me tell the truth and nothing but the truth

OMAHA, Nebraska (TP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal involving a case in which a Nebraska judge banned anyone from saying "robbery" in a bank robbery trial.

Lawyers for the First National Bank had argued that Lancaster County District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront violated their client's constitutional rights by barring witnesses from using such words as "held at gunpoint" and "victim" during their testimony in the trial.

The judge said he banned the language because was concerned about the accused's right to a fair trial.

While restricting First National Bank's testimony, Cheuvront allowed attorneys for John Smith to use such words as "withdrawal" and "bank transaction" to describe the encounter between Smith and the bank.

The teller for the bank says Smith took money from her in October 2004 while she was too frightened by the handheld projectile acceleration device he was pointing at her to deny consent. Smith maintains the bank withdrawal was consensual.

The Associated Press usually does not identify accusers in bank robbery cases, but the First National Bank has allowed its name to be used publicly because of the issue over the judge's language restrictions.

Bank attorney Wendy Murphy said in an e-mail Monday that she was disappointed but not surprised by the high court's decision.

"The First National Bank and this case will forever be known as the beginning of reform on this important issue, because we laid the groundwork for the inevitable day when judges will stop making such ridiculous rulings," Murphy said.

A mistrial was declared in Smith's first trial in November 2006 when the jury deadlocked. The bank said afterward that the judge's ban had a negative effect on its teller's testimony, causing her to pause to ensure her words didn't violate the order.

Cheuvront declared a second mistrial in July 2007 during jury selection, citing news coverage and public protests on the bank's behalf.

The First National Bank sued Cheuvront over the language ban. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the bank failed to prove that he should intervene. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, saying the federal court didn't have jurisdiction.

The case was listed Monday among those the Supreme Court declined to hear. Prosecutors previously said they decided not to pursue a third trial.

[With apologies to The Associated Press.]

Another fine mess

Here is a picture of Congressman Laurel and Congressman Hardy. You might know them. They once tried to deliver a piano to a house and ended up destroying the house.

You might even be in their congressional district and voted for them.

You probably heard about Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson getting down on one knee and pleading with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He needed her. Clearly he picked a bad moment to leave his wife and propose to someone else's, but now is not the time to dwell on that. Let's leave their personal lives out of this for a moment and focus.

Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, certainly focused on the key issue when he said "This legislation is giving us a choice between bankrupting our children and bankrupting a few of these big financial institutions on Wall Street that made bad decisions." Yeah, who are these Wall Street fat cats anyway? I'm sure hauling sacks of money from one big financial institution to the next pays well--for them--but what about the rest of America?

We asked them for funding to keep credit from freezing up throughout this nation, and Congressman Laurel and Congressman Hardy took this as their cue to deliver a piano.

O.K., I don't understand it. The good news is we have nothing to fear, as is clearly evident on President Alfred E. Newman’s face.

Today's silver lining

It was another slightly bad day on Wall St. today. Some people are calling today's 449 point drop the "second worst day of the year." But to me it is the second worst day of the week.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, professor at Columbia University and winner of the Nobel Prize for economics, offered some commonsense suggestions today for preventing another Wall St. crisis. I think he has a point.

However, if I may take a moment to reflect, it is at times like this that I think of the following words of The Yellow Emperor's Classic on Medicine:

treating a disease that has alredy developed . . . is like digging a well after you've become thirsty or making weapons after the battle is over.

So wrote Chinese scholars in the third millenium BCE.

This is true of so many things in life, but after all these thousands of years how many of us are wise enough to understand something this obvious? Or at least wise enough to ascertain which of our potential leaders might be wise enough to understand this and nominate financial regulators accordingly?