Last year, Megan and Amy got legally married in Massachusetts. As married couples sometimes do, they changed their names. All the documentation they needed was easily obtained, including new Social Security cards. All was easy, that is, until they tried to get new passports.

That’s when the newlyweds discovered the new marriage penalty. Citing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, the Passport Office will not accept a marriage certificate as proof of name change if the applicants are in a same-sex union. (This would have been sufficient evidence if one of them–and only one of them–were a man.)

Cost to Megan and Amy in additional fees paid to courts and government agencies? $283.

The time has come that we recognize that the various governments that rule the multiple peoples of the world are not all equal. Although it will certainly be a statement that will cause no little distress, it is nevertheless important for all Americans to cease referring to the other state-like entities of the world as nations. If one is to truly look around the globe, one will recognize that while many other sovereign statelike bodies may have positive qualities, it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of “Nation” could possibly be attributed to them. Consequently, continued use of the term “Nation” to describe these entities will only lead to confusion.

For example, there are many non-national entities that have shared cultures, guarded borders and stable governments. Many may provide for the common good, even with luxuries like education and healthcare. But only the One True Nation can make the claim of being one nation under God, having the quality of undeniable indivisibility, and offering liberty and justice for all, etc.

This assertion, while obviously true, should not be interpreted as an argument against constructive dialogue through diplomacy. While these other statelike regions may not currently ackowledge our singular status, nor yet wish to follow the one true President, we are committed to peaceful coexistence with the many peoples of the world.

More »

Just in case anybody needs any further proof of the clumsy, underhanded, and untrustworthy nature of the Delaware County Democratic Party boss Cliff Wilson and his flock of suck-ups, he gave us another prime example this week.

At the Democratic nominating convention, Wilson’s right-hand man Vice Chair Tony Campisi seconded the motion to have an open primary without endorsements in the County Council race. Furthermore, the six candidates for the three County Council seats agreed to run separately, instead of as slates.

This week, three candidates organized themselves as Democratic Victory Team 2007. And they’re fundraising together with a common treasurer. And who has endorsed them? Mr. “No Endorsements Motion” Tony Campisi.

Campisi should just resign. And the three candidates who broke their campaign pledges have seriously harmed their credibility.
If you’re a Delco Democrat, and you want to stop the nonsense, vote for David Landau, or Bob Dimond. (The Delco Times article linked above incorrectly refers to him as Bill. Good reporting guys!)

Landau had a good response to the news, though, and I don’t think it required even the slightest bit of false bravado:

“They’re free to do what they want,” he said. “I will win the primary. For the last two months I’ve been to almost every municipality, talked to a couple hundred committee people. I’m pushing my message out there to the rank and file. Every committee will be carrying me on their ballot, everywhere.”

Now that we have a woman Speaker of the House and the potential for a woman presidential nominee, it’s amazing that there is only one woman official/referree/umpire working at the top level of any professional U.S. sport. (That’d be NBA referee Violet Palmer.)

In the late 80’s, Baseball Commissioner Paul Giamatti gave umpire Pam Postema a near-chance to cross baseball’s gender barrier. As with the breaking of the color barrier in 1947, his efforts to give her a shot might have panned out with a little resolve from the top, even though she always had to deal with antagonistic players, managers, and fans. But Giamatti died in 1989, and Postema’s AAA contract was cancelled that same year.

Ria Cortesio has now risen to the same level that Postema had previoiusly achieved. And the mood around baseball has definitely matured. It’s heartening to hear a giant slugger like Derrick Lee say:

It’s awesome. I think it’s about time. Female eyes are as good as male eyes. Why can’t they be umpires?

Or pitcher Scott Eyre saying:

If she can call a game, she can call a game.

It remains to be seen if Cortesia will continue to advance through the minor league umpire ranks and someday end up in the Show. I hope she does, and I hope she’s followed by others.

I just read a few minutes ago of the Pope’s recent description of gay marriage advocacy as an “ideology of evil.” I’m in a Catholic family now, so I have to tread a delicate line in responding, but this kind of remark just begs for some angry liberal soapboxing. Ah, who am I kidding? I’m marching straight over that delicate line.

The word “evil” has been getting tossed around a lot lately. We’ve an Axis of Evil in the Middle and Far Easts. Interestingly enough, the Axis of Evil is not responsible for promoting this Ideology of Evil. Dr. Evil isn’t even responsible for championing it. Apparently I am. Got that? I’m evil. Evil!

I would never choose to argue other people’s theological beliefs. If your heart tells you that the world was created by a God who loathes homosexuality, I’m fairly powerless to respond. I find it an odd and curious notion, but what you practice in the privacy of your own pew is your business. (And you’re not alone, so you’ve got the whole strength in numbers thing going for you.) Furthermore, if the Pope wants to issue a public statement opposing gay marriage, the rest of us are entitled to disagree. The public sphere, open discourse, yadda-yadda-yadda.

But this is a dangerously thin line for the Catholic church, inasmuch as its (earthly) power is derived from the combination of increasing the number of practicing Catholics and improving the perception of Catholics that non-Catholics have. It’s one thing to say you believe I’m wrong. It’s another thing to call me and other people of conscience evil, when we’ve come by our own theological and ethical perspectives honestly. What’s next? Are you going to state that all non-Christians espouse an Ideology of Evil too? All non-Catholics? Just how anti-ecumenical a message are you willing to go on the record with?

That sort of ridiculous talk just demeans all the good and decent Catholics I have known. I have been trying to cultivate appreciation of the Church for what it means in the context of my own family. This message just creates cognitive dissonance; makes it very hard to see the good side in the faith my loved ones practice. It also makes me really twitchy about my child being raised Catholic.

For my money, intolerance and bigotry is an Ideology of Evil. Before today, I had no intention of casting such a severe label on the spiritual leader of the Catholic denomination, but then you threw down the gauntlet, Pope. If you treat people like enemies, they will think like enemies.

Don’t worry though. There isn’t a soul alive who thinks I’m infallible. Or even reads my stupid blog. Your evil beats my evil hands down, then runs over it with a speeding pope-mobile.

On the west coast, almost 8,000 people had their marriages invalidated by the state. On the east coast, the governor of one of the nation’s more tolerant states came out in a press conference, then promptly resigned.

To be sure, there’s more complexity to these stories than I just implied. McGreevey’s reported affair was with a high-ranking official with questionable qualifications for the position he held in New Jersey. I have no idea how far the mayor of San Francisco exceeded his legal authority under California code.

I do know this: our furors over public acknowledgements of homosexuality, whether they take place in a press conference or a wedding dress, are clear indications that discrimination against gays and lesbians is still a socially tolerated form of bigotry. Racists and sexists have at least gotten the message that there are consequences for letting slip with an epithet. Despite the continuing underrepresentation of women and people of color in our elected branches of government, there seems to be currency for political parties to at least make a show of their diversity. Our society may be a long way from racial justice and gender equality, but at least we’re developing the kind of shame that tells us that we should get there.

Homosexuality, though? Heck, you can grow up to be the president of the United States professing your bigotry in front of the cameras. No, you can’t use slurs. But you can play to perceptions that a group is perverse and threatens societal well-being. That you could put in your TV advertisement.

Most straight Americans still haven’t internalized the political issues of gays and lesbians in the terms of a civil rights struggle. Even our so-called progressive politicians pander to the biases of the Bible belt electorate by supporting such poor-spirited nonsense as the “Defense of Marriage Act” and the military “Don’t-ask-don’t-tell” policy. Somebody has to take a stand here. The 14th amendment to the constitution is supposed to protect all American citizens from discrimination under the law. Where are the guardians of the constitution, when they’re faced with such a clear case of discrimination that does not serve a legitimate government interest? Oh, that’s right…you can be a bigot who believes that “moral disapproval of homosexuality is an American tradition” while serving on the Supreme Court too. Dear Nino: Jim Crow laws were an American tradition too. They’ll be looked upon with contempt by history, as I suspect you will be.

Here’s a parting thought, I’ve devised a little measuring stick for tracking the state of prejudice in our country. Ask yourself, “who is least likely to be elected President of the United States during my lifetime?”

an African-American man
a woman
a Jewish man
an out gay man

I don’t even think it’s close. We’ve already had Ferraro and Lieberman as Veep nominees. Colin Powell probably would have been elected president if he had run. An openly homosexual man? I think his only shot would be if he were running against a confirmed atheist. But that’s a topic for another day.