Series on Same-Sex Marriage: The “Tradition” Argument

by Carlos Diaz

     The issue of same-sex marriage is now more than ever in the public sphere. That is why I took the decision of focusing my posts, for a short period of time, on this issue. I will be writing several entries related to the topic over the upcoming days.

Same-Sex Marriage

     From the moment I became aware of the debate occurring around the question of whether to change the definition of marriage into a gender-neutral institution, I knew what side of the debate I was on. As most in my generation I chose to stand in the side of those who would like to see the right to marry extended to couples of the same sex. Most people who decide to take a position on this debate have no concrete argument to defend their opinion, I was no different. Listening to the oral arguments of the latest Supreme Court case dealing with same-sex marriage, Hollingsworth v. Perry, encouraged me to dig deeper into this most recent of the so called culture wars. In the following posts I will share my findings. During my research I encountered arguments from different parts of the political spectrum, both in favor and in opposition of same-sex marriage. It is not as right v. left as we might be led to believe. I will write a series of essays dealing with various aspects of this issue, including tradition, religion, purpose of marriage, the slippery slope argument, and most important of all to today’s debate, legality.

Tradition

     Some of the most common arguments used in opposition to same-sex marriage are, that it is somehow unprecedented, revolutionary, and that it will radically change the definition of the bedrock institution that marriage is. The first of the concerns is erroneous; same-sex marriage is not unprecedented. The second is somewhat true, the idea of allowing homosexuals to marry can be considered conservatively revolutionary. The third argument can only be accepted if one is not aware of the true history of marriage.

There is enough evidence to believe that same-sex marriages were held in societies of the past even Christian ones. In his book ,Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, Yale historian John Boswell describes rituals which were held in Medieval Europe during the 12^th and 13^th centuries with the purpose of creating a union between two men. There are many accounts that some Native American communities practiced same-sex marriages. One of the most well known accounts was written by the Spanish explorer Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca. There are also cases from places in China which were recorded by the historian Hu P’U-an. There is vast documentation of practices occurring in Africa in a book titled, A Note on Woman Marriage in Pahoney. I don’t use these examples as a justification for same-sex marriage, but simply to discredit the argument that such an idea is unprecedented.

Another criticism of same-sex marriage is that it is revolutionary. I am inclined to disagree with this argument. My disagreement stems from an obvious fact. Asking for permission to participate in a very traditional and conservative institution as marriage is not an utterly revolutionary thing to do. When talking about revolution it is best to quote Karl Marx, “man was not freed from religion, he received religious freedom. He was not freed from property, he received freedom to own property….” Using this same language it could be argued that homosexuals don’t want to be freed from marriage, they want to be given freedom to marry. In other words a revolutionary move is what many on the left argued for before the AIDS epidemic transformed the movement, emancipation from marriage for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. The current argument about this issue is better represented by conservatives like David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan. They argue that allowing people to enter an institution which promotes stability, fidelity, monogamy, and commitment should be a core conservative value which will strengthen the institution.

Marriage is a bedrock institution and it has been around in different forms for thousands of years. But what those who argue that allowing homosexuals to marry will signify a radical change don’t understand is that marriage is not a dead institution, it is alive and constantly changing. For most of history marriage was not about love or raising children. It was an institution whose main use was acquiring wealth, power, property, and creating alliances. Allowing homosexuals to marry will not be a revolutionary change to the institution. It will simply be another change in an institution which has gone through many changes since its inception. What I think is happening today is that marriage has arrived at a point in which the main concern is neither child rearing nor wealth accumulation. The institution today is much more tied to love than ever before, this argument is presented beautifully in a book, which does not deal at length with same-sex marriage, subtitled How Love Conquered Marriage. If marriage today is about love- I believe it is- then there is no excuse for not allowing homosexuals to enter the institution of marriage.

Supreme Court Listens to Arguments on First Same-Sex Marriage Case

Sandra Stier and Kristin Perry

by Carlos Diaz

Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard arguments on the case Hollingsworth v. Perry. Listening to the hour twenty minute long argument was a pleasant experience for me, but I am aware that most people will find a better use to those eighty minutes, that’s why I decided to make a wholesome summary of the oral arguments adding some analysis and background to put the case in perspective for those who don’t know a great deal about this specific case.

This case is about California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative to include a ban on same-sex marriage in the California Constitution. The ballot initiative was approved by a majority of California voters in 2008, effectively banning same sex-marriage in the nation’s most populous state. After the ban was enacted, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier were denied a marriage license in California because they were a same-sex couple. They decided to sue the State of California in federal district court in San Francisco because they considered that their rights had been violated. The district court overturned Proposition 8, stating that the referendum was unconstitutional because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. The case ended up in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision on Equal Protection grounds. Supporters of the proposition then asked the SCOTUS to review the case and the court granted certiorari.

The first ten minutes of yesterday’s oral arguments were spent discussing whether or not the defendants, led by Dennis Hollingsworth, had standing to argue this case in front of the Court. The reason so much time was spent on this question is simple. The State of California was supposed to be the defendant in this case since it was the one who denied the marriage license. The problem was that neither the Governor nor the Attorney General of California believed the law in question was constitutional so they refused to defend it. Mr. Hollingsworth, who was a main proponent of the law, then decided to take the role of the state. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reminded Charles Cooper, counsel for the defendant, that the SCOTUS had never granted standing to proponents of ballot measures, to this Mr. Cooper replied that this was a special case.

Mr. Cooper expressed what he believed to be the essential question of this case: Whether the SCOTUS should put an end to the democratic process of each state deciding to allow same-sex marriage or not?

Cooper then went on to argue that the state’s principal interest in marriage is “regulating” procreation. Turning the institution of marriage into a genderless institution could harm the use society has “always” given marriage, argued Cooper. When questioned by Justice Elena Kagan, Cooper answered by saying that changing the legal definition of marriage will have real-world consequences and some of the consequences would be “adverse.” Cooper proceeded to say that this issue is too new to know what the consequences of it could be and that California should not act until it can assess what the consequences have been in Massachusetts –the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in the Union. These ambiguous responses by Cooper caused Justice Antonin Scalia to comment that there are concrete facts regarding this issue, such as the disagreement which exists among sociologists on whether raising a child with two parents of the same sex is harmful to the child. Justice Ginsburg then addressed Justice Scalia directly saying the raising of children by same-sex couples is already legal. Justice Scalia called her comment “irrelevant” because of the national scope of this case. Justice Stephen Breyer attacked Cooper’s argument about procreation head on by saying that in California people who are sterile, but not gay get married all the time. Cooper then said that allowing gays to marry would change the focus of marriage from procreation to the “emotional needs and desires of adult couples.” Justice Kagan showed how this already happens, for example when two people over the age of 55 get married. Cooper made a rather bizarre comment, saying that it was very rare that both parties to such a marriage would be sterile, this produced audible laughter in the court.

Almost ten minutes were also spent when it came time for the plaintiff’s counsel to present. Ted Olson was counsel for the plaintiffs, but he did not seem particularly interested in the issue of standing.

When Chief Justice John Roberts allowed him to move to the merits of the case he said that marriage is an individual right and therefore cannot be denied to consenting adults. Justice Scalia then asked Olson: When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?  Olson replied with two questions of his own. “When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?” Justice Scalia did not enjoy the questions, but answered “when the Equal Protection Clause was adopted.” Justice Samuel Alito asked Olson if the court should decide for all fifty states on this issue. Olson, with the help of Justice Sotomayor, explained that the court could decide only for California or for the whole country.

Then came the turn of United States Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, who participated as amicus curiae–friend of the court. Mr. Verrilli’s main argument was that the court should impose same-sex marriages in states, like California, that have taken significant steps in the area of gay rights, but not in those states which have not done anything about gay rights. Some justices were not happy with this approach, Justice Alito asked Verrilli: “why should the court allow same-sex marriage in some states, but not in others?” Verilli answered, “because in states were gay couples can adopt children, but can’t marry the government is denying those children the “stabilizing” effect provided by marriage.”

When time for rebuttal arrived, something strange happened, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Mr. Cooper: Why should the court decide this case now? Justice Scalia then jumped and said it was too late for that since the court had already granted certiorari.

Oral arguments can be misleading in forecasting how the SCOTUS will rule, but judging by everything surrounding this case it seems like the outcome will be positive for supporters of same-sex marriage.

Two outcomes seem most likely. First, the court will declare that the defendants have no standing, leaving the district court’s ruling in place. The other scenario is that the court will drop the case if they can’t find enough consensus to render a decision. What will most likely happen with any decision is that the court will limit this ruling to California only. This will be a victory for advocates of gay rights and will not cause widespread indignation in the public, something which could happen if the court extended its decision to all fifty states.

P.S: Today the court heard another case related to gay rights. I believe Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case will be much easier for the court to decide because of its homophobic roots. 

 

Cyprus’ Banking Crisis

Cyprus Prime Minister Nicos Anastasiades and German Chancellor Angela Merkel

by Carlos Diaz

            In September of this year the world will be commemorating the 5^th anniversary of the Great Financial Crisis which sparked the Great Recession, which, in case you don’t remember, we are still recovering from. Now another financial catastrophe is on the horizon and it threatens to be very destructive, especially for the people of Cyprus and the Eurozone to which they belong. Today the leaders of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Union (EU), European Central Bank (ECB), and Cyprus are meeting in Brussels to craft a plan which will allow Cyprus to receive a €10 billion bailout. In order to receive this aid Cyprus needs to come up with €5.8 by Tuesday. If it can’t come up with this amount by Tuesday then the ECB will cut the emergency funding it has been providing, this will lead to the collapse of its banking system along with its government. If this does indeed occur then the small Mediterranean island could be forced out of the Eurozone, something which the EU lead by Germany has prevented in the cases of Italy, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece. The impact of a Cyprus exit could be devastating to the Eurozone as a whole and the euro as a currency according to some economists.

The situation has been very tense since the past week in Cyprus, a nation of around 1 million citizens. Banks have been closed since Monday and some businesses are only accepting cash as a form of payment. There are also reports that banks are limiting the amount which customers can withdraw from ATM’s to €100 a day.

There are various reasons which explain how Cyprus ended up in this situation. Cyprus as mentioned before is a small island, but it has an extremely large financial sector which amounts to 700% of its Gross Domestic Product. Michelle Caruso-Cabrera of CNBC put it in perspective, if the United States’ banking system were that large it would consist of 45 banks the size of JP Morgan Chase, America’s largest bank. The reason why the banking industry has reached such an astronomical size is because it functions as a tax haven for rich individuals and corporations especially Russian ones, similar to the Cayman Islands role in the western hemisphere. In other words people who have a lot of money and wish to hide it from tax authorities in their country for any reason could take it to a place like Cyprus. This process is epitomized by the fact that Cyprus is a bigger investor in Russia than Germany, the world’s fourth largest economy. All this Cypriot investment actually comes from Russians who make money in Russia, hide it in Cyprus, and then take it back to Russia to commence the process all over again. The Cypriot banks decided to fund some very bad investments with this money like Greek sovereign debt.

All throughout last week the leaders of Cyprus have been trying to come up with a plan to raise the almost €6 billion they need. The most talked about idea was that of taxing bank’s depositors regardless of the amount they had in the bank. This was faced with fierce opposition from the citizens of Cyprus who took out to the streets in protest of this measure. This measure was defeated by the country’s parliament. Cyprus then went to Russia for help, but its call was denied there.  The latest measure is also taxing depositors, but in this case the tax or levy would be 20% on depositors at the Bank of Cyprus with a €100,000 or more- €100,000 is the amount insured by the government, similar to the way the FDIC insures deposits in the United States-, a 4% tax on deposits over the insured amount at other banks, including foreign ones is also part of this plan. This new plan reportedly has parliamentary support.

I think the EU is pushing Cyprus to accept this deal as if there was no other alternative, when in fact there is. Iceland is a country very similar to Cyprus in several ways .They are both small islands with banking systems much larger than they should be and funded by foreign deposits. A few years ago Iceland went through a banking crisis which resembled the one Cyprus is facing now. The way Iceland dealt with its crisis was much different than the apparent route Cyprus will take. Iceland decided to let its banks fail while protecting domestic depositors, thereby leaving foreigners with the biggest burden. Today Iceland’s unemployment rate is much lower than that of Europe and the United States. Cyprus cannot even consider this option because it is part of the Eurozone which means it does not control its currency and the EU has fought to maintain banks afloat since the 2008 financial crisis. The EU’s threats and apparent bullying towards member nations will be an obstacle in the road to the political and economic unification of Europe. This attitude is giving indirect support to the nationalist and fascist ideas which were thought to be dead after World War II.

Dirty Warriors Played an Important Role in Iraq

James Steele meeting with Adnam Thabit (Head of Iraqi militias)

by Carlos Diaz

The Iraq War was officially culminated more than a year ago. As in other conflicts, this is the time when the truth about violations of human rights and other form of misconduct should be sought. The United States government is currently prosecuting Bradley Manning for the release of classified material while he was in Iraq. Since the government is prosecuting Manning for a crime which I consider victimless, it should be prosecuting, or at least investigating, some grave accusations against people like former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and one of his closest advisers in Iraq, retired Colonel James Steele.

The British newspaper The Guardian recently released a documentary it produced with the BBC titled “James Steele: America’s Mystery Man in Iraq”[i]. The aim of this short documentary is to show how the United States funded a deadly paramilitary force in Iraq which was largely responsible for a civil war that, at its peak, was leaving 3,000 bodies in the streets each month. The American government not only funded this force but it provided it with trainers and advisers, chief among them was civilian retired Colonel James Steele. The story of Mr. Steele is relevant because he was one of the American soldiers training the army of El Salvador on counterinsurgency (COIN) tactics during that country’s bloody civil war in the 1980’s, a war which took more than 75,000 lives and became known as a dirty war due to the tactics employed by what became known as death squads trained by Steele. He became the chief American COIN expert on the ground in El Salvador, this allowed him to meet many people who later would seek his expertise. One of these people was the man in charge of COIN strategy in Iraq David Petraeus who stayed at Steele’s house in El Salvador during the 1980’s.

The connection to the dirty and brutal war in El Salvador is no secret. In a debate before the 2004 election vice president Dick Cheney touted El Salvador as a success story that should be applied in both Afghanistan and Iraq[ii]. A few months later journalist Peter Maas wrote an article which appeared in The New York Times Magazine titled “The Salvadorization of Iraq?”[iii]The article mentions Mr. Steele in particular.

Mr. Steele was aware of the violations being committed by the militias he and General Petraeus deemed necessary and helped fund. According to documents released by Wikileaks, James Steele had a direct channel of communication defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The militias were accused of the torture and killing of many, including innocent people. In some cases the American forces transferred prisoners to these militias who answered only to the Iraqi interior ministry. Army medic Neil Smith said “everybody knew and nobody cared” referring to the treatment of prisoners by the Iraqi militias.

Some people had hoped that the Obama administration would investigate this and other allegations. But these charges have been ignored in the same way that in the past violations committed by Henry Kissinger and the Nixon White House were ignored by the subsequent presidents. President Obama said this soon after being inaugurated for the first time, “nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.” This is an extremely despicable statement from someone as smart and knowledgeable as the president is believed to be. If we follow this reasoning we will arrive at the conclusion that the Nuremberg Trials were a waste of time, also the current military style trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his associates, and, for that matter, any other case that seeks to offer clarification to events in the past.

The Pentagon says it is investigating these allegations, although it is hard to believe it is looking into the matter unless the president changed his mind. Trying American officials in the International Criminal Court (ICC) is next to impossible because the “world’s greatest country” is not a party to the International Criminal Court. The reason the United States refuses to join the ICC or dig deeper into accusations of Americans violating human rights is simple. Every administration is protecting its own interests. If the Obama administration prosecutes or allows people like Steele to be prosecuted, what will stop a foreign country or a future administration to do the same to one of its members? For example, John Brennan could be tried for his participation in the use of drones which have killed many people, including innocent civilians.

---

[i] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/mar/06/james-steele-america-iraq-video

[ii] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nkIF6WHlek

[iii] http://www.petermaass.com/articles/the_salvadorization_of_iraq/

The Importance of Bradley Manning’s Case

By Carlos Diaz

  Private Bradley Manning has been held in a military prison in Virginia for more than 1,000 days. His crime was releasing classified documents to Julian Assange’s organization, Wikileaks. He had a hearing last week, which gives us an insight into how the case might be decided. The actual trial has been postponed until June of this year. Manning’s case raises many important questions about our government’s respect for freedom of the press and protection of whistle-blowers.

  There was an article published in The New Republic[i] past Friday by Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler which warns about the dangerous conclusions which might emanate from the Manning case. Professor Benkler begins by recalling a scene from the hearing Thursday in which the Judge asked the prosecutor “Would you have pressed the same charges if Manning had given the documents not to Wikileaks but directly to the New York Times?” to which the prosecutor answered “Yes Ma’am”. This raises the issue of the role and protection of whistle-blowers in an open society like the one Americans claim to live in. This answer settles two questions, one that Wikileaks is a news organization and secondly that Manning does not deserve any protection as a whistleblower.

  The most serious charge Manning is facing is that of “aiding the enemy” if convicted of this charge he could face the death penalty, something which the prosecution is not seeking but which the judge could opt for. This begs the question of: Who is the enemy? Manning provided the information to Julian Assange who until then was not an enemy of the United States. Does this mean that if any government employee civilian or military blows the whistle on what he/she considers to be government misconduct, they should be charged with “aiding the enemy? Some might claim that Bradley Manning’s case is exceptional because he was an active member of the armed forces and is therefore brought to trial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The weak spot of this argument is that Section 104 of this act which deals with “aiding the enemy” applies to “any person”.

  This administration in particular seems to have an obsession with punishing whistle-blowers. A recent New York Times article[ii] details how the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act to charge government officials who have spoken out about incidents, considered minor by some, but which contain information which could potentially embarrass the administration. In fact the Obama Justice Department has charged more people for leaking information than all previous administrations combined.

  In making a decision regarding Bradley Manning’s actions the judge should consider what kind of precedent her decision will create. Manning’s information exposed things like the government’s understating of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan and abuses made to the government by civilian contractors. Will this be considered “aiding the enemy”, even though it was given to an amateur news organization which in turn gave it to more professional organizations?

  The mere fact that an “enemy” has access to news sources should not allow the government to restrict what information can or cannot be published or to punish those who make the information available. I would agree with the government’s actions if it could be proven that information provided by Manning and other whistle-blowers did in fact produce any significant physical damage or helped the enemy in any material way.

  Maybe it is best to quote Orwell in this case “Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

---

[i] http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112554#

[ii] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/business/media/white-house-uses-espionage-act-to-pursue-leak-cases-media-equation.html?_r=0

Venezuela’s Next Leader

From left to right: Nicolas Maduro and Diosdado Cabello.

By Carlos L. Diaz

     There are many rumors floating around about the health, or lack thereof, of Venezuelan president/caudillo Hugo Rafael Chavez Frías. Recently, a Panamanian diplomat went on CNN Chile to proclaim the leader’s death which, according to him, occurred at the end of last year. Things have gotten so wild that even those in the caudillo’s inner circle are contradicting each other. This peculiar set of claims leads me to inquire about what is going on in Venezuela.

There are a few things which most observers agree on. First is the fact that Chavez has not been seen in public since December 11. The only evidence that he was alive came in the form of a picture, which showed the ailing elected dictator reading the February 14 edition of Granma–Cuba’s official Communist party newspaper–in the company of his two daughters. Second is the information provided by the Venezuelan government which states that Chavez traveled to Caracas and is being treated at a military hospital in the Venezuelan capital.

Due to his trip to Cuba, for health reasons stemming from his struggle with cancer, Chavez missed his inauguration which was scheduled for January 10. The critical reader might ask: Who is running Venezuela if nobody has been sworn in? The answer is Chavez’s Vice President, former bus driver, and designated heir Nicolas Maduro. Venezuela’s Supreme Court allowed Mr. Maduro to act in the function of president arguing that since Chavez had been reelected there was no major problem with prolonging the swearing in.

The solution to this crisis seems to lie in the Venezuelan constitution which stipulates that if the president dies, resigns, or is incapacitated to serve, elections must be held within thirty days. Why a group of qualified doctors have not been asked to determine if Chavez is able to continue as president is beyond my knowledge.

As of now, it looks as a question of when and not if Chavez will lose the presidency. His medical condition, as secret as it has been, seems to be critical if not terminal. The pressure from both critics and supporters for more transparency will not allow this to go on forever. What will happen after he steps down is a crucial question Venezuelans, and others interested in the region, are eager to know.

The person who will represent the Venezuelan opposition to Chavismo will clearly be Henrique Capriles who lost to Chavez in October of last year, but was nonetheless able to give Chavez the best fight he ever had in an election . But who will represent Chavismo? In a recent article in the New Yorker Magazine, Boris Munoz describes the differences and the rivalry between the two figures that seem likely to replace Chavez [i].

Nicolas Maduro represents the civilian wing of Chavez’s Bolivarian movement. He believes in socialism based on the very flawed Cuban model–this comes as no surprise since it is also known that the Vice President has a cozy relationship with the Castro brothers and the Cuban leadership in general. One of Maduro’s accomplishments was to finally lead Venezuela to join MERCOSUR- a trade bloc for South American nations.

On behalf of the military wing of Chavismo stands Diosdado Cabelllo who is the president of the National Assembly and a long time member of the armed forces. He is known as a tough guy who has helped “the boss” in closing several news outlets in Venezuela like RCTV. He is connected to the Venezuelan Socialist Party (PSUV). Some speculate that he will have a less close relationship with Cuba and will instead rely on the armed forces and the newly created upper class of Venezuela.

If either one of these men win the presidency–polls show they are favorite over Capriles–Venezuela might deviate a little from the course in which Captain Chavez placed it, but the dictatorial aspects will be as strong or even stronger than during Chavez’s reign.

---

[i] http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/02/chavezs-countdown-watched-by-a-team-of-rivals.html