Tom Friedman Lives In a Parallel Universe

I know, I know. It has become somewhat of a sport to mock the endless illogical musings of the New York Times's favorite intellectual bullshit artist, Tom Friedman. Matt Taibbi has perfected the art, actually. For example see his Ultimate Tom Friedman Porn Title contest , which had a surprise winner.

Friedman has become so bad, with each week's column being more illogical, vacuous, and non-sensical, that I actually at one point started to doubt that Tom Friedman actually existed. It appeared that he was simply an algorithm which spit out words and pithy phrases and arranged them into a column twice weekly. 

But today's article took the whole Friedman experience to an entirely new level. His column about Edward Snowden and Vladamir Putin's chance to make a second impression ("You only get one chance to make a second impression" starts the column in a typical Friedmanesque turn of phrase) is so full of factual errors and illogical conclusions that the only explanation I can come up with is that Tom Friedman lives in a parallel universe not accessible to the rest of us. You can read the article here if you must. However, I will dissect the second paragraph (just one paragraph) to show how different these parallel universes are. (I have to confess that after reading the second paragraph of the article my brain exploded rendering me incapable of taking in any more of the article).

First sentence. 

"Considering the breadth of reforms that President Obama is now proposing to prevent privacy abuses in intelligence gathering, in the wake of Snowden's disclosures, Snowden deserves a chance to make a second impression -- that he truly is a whistle-blower, not a traitor."

Whew! That first sentence is a whopper. I won't try to diagram it due to lack of space and out of respect to the English language, but I'm going to have to take the sentence apart just to analyse the myriad of untruths it contains.

First off, Friedman suggests that the reforms that Obama proposed are actually significant. I'm sure that there are many who share the Friedman Universe who would agree with him. For instance, fellow NYT columnist David Brooks would likely provide a sympathetic ear to this argument. However, outside of this Bizzarro Friedmanverse, or MSNBC, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees that Obama's proposals are more than window dressing. For instance, perhaps Friedman could have read the editorial published immediately after the President's speech by his own newspaper which assailed the proposals as "tinkering around the edges of the nation's abusive surveillance programs."

This leads to another incredibly frustrating thing that I have noticed. It seems that for the rabid loyalist Obama followers (I didn't call them Obamabots) for the President to say something is the same as the President doing something. This, of course, to anyone who has been conscious for the last five years is the opposite of reality. In fact, it has gotten to the point where if President Obama says something, you can rest assured that he is going to do the complete opposite (perhaps this is why he is so admiring of Larry Summers, but I digress).

The very idea that the President has proposed reforms that will prevent privacy abuses in intelligence gathering ignores the fact that it was the President who ordered the abuses in the first place. It's not like this happened by accident. It's not that the President didn't know this was going on. His Justice Department developed this plan, the President included these proposals in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act. He is the one who came up with the damn program, and now you are lauding him for trying to prevent the abuses that he caused?

OK. Deep breath. Next phrase.

Friedman slips in the phrase "in the wake of Snowden's disclosures." So I guess somewhere in the ether of the Friedmanverse there is some acknowledgement that Snowden deserves some credit for bringing about these wide-ranging (look at their breadth) reforms being proposed. However, this is completely blown away by the fact that he then says he "deserves chance to make a second impression -- that he truly is a whistleblower, not a traitor."

I assume by all of this second impression theme that Snowden's first impession on Friedman was not a good one. Apparently his first impression on Friedman was that Snowden was a traitor. This, despite the fact that his disclosures have led to the wonderful reforms that will protect all of our privacy. Apparently in the Friedmanverse, informing Americans that their government is collecting data on every phone call you make, every e-mail you send, and everywhere you go on the internet, means that you are a traitor. But, Friedman's a good guy and he'll give you a second chance to show you live up to the dictates of the Friedmanverse.

Next sentence.

"The fact is, he dumped his data and fled to countries that are hostile to us and to the very principles he espoused."

I didn't think it was possible to outdo the first sentence. However Tom Friedman never ducks from a challenge and he met this one with gusto. Whereas the first sentence was merely intellectually, if not factually, dishonest, the second sentence simply wrings the neck of logic until logic is left lying on the floor, unconscious with its last death rattle slowly escaping its body.

Apparently in the Friedmanverse, a fact is a fact simply if Friedman states it is a fact. Glenn Greenwald took issue with this "fact" in a tweet this morning, stating:

"Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald

6h

Tom Friedman says of Snowden: "The fact is, he dumped his data" - when did this "fact" happen?"

Greenwald's mistake is thinking that "facts" as we define them have anything to do with "facts" in the Friedmanverse. To Friedman, apparently carefully selecting documents that prove the mass surveillance of millions upon millions of Americans by their own government without probable cause or due process to two carefully selected reporters and doing so in such a way that these files were protected from being received by anyone other than those two carefully selected reporters is the definition of "dumping data."

Now, here is where logic really takes leave in the Friedmanverse. Friedman then says that Snowden fled to countries that are hostile to us and to the very principles he espoused. Let's think about that a second. Snowden as is well known fled to Hong Kong, which is in the People's Republic of China, and then to Russia where he was forced to remain by the fact that the U.S. revoked his passport and threatened every country which was offering Snowden safe haven (it is probable that Snowden was on his way to Ecuador when he stopped in Russia, but was unable to continue his journey due to the U.S. government's actions).

Friedman states that these countries are hostile to the U.S. and to the very principles he espoused. Let's think about that for a minute. There's no doubt that Russia and China are two of the world's "bad guys." They treat their people badly, their policies both domestically and internationally are in opposition to ours, and they support some of the world's worst groups. So, ok. Russia and China are bad. But, there is also no irony in the Friedmanverse. Because if there was, it would become clear rather quickly that saying that these countries, which allowed Snowden to remain free from the United States government and granted him political asylum were not actually acting in a way that was hostile to the principles Snowden espoused. The country that was seeking to arrest and imprison Snowden was actually the one that was acting against these principles.

Next sentence.

"To make a second impression, Snowden would need to come home, make his case and face his accusers."

OK. A quick aside. Does anyone else get tickled in the fact that Tom Friedman actually has thought about how Snowden's action personally affected him? I mean really. It seems that Snowden's worst crime in the  Friedmanverse was that he made a bad first impression on Tom Friedman. In the Friedmanverse, this makes Tom Friedman the benevolent dictator around whom the thanks of his grateful devotees lavish their thanks and praise. However, in the real universe this makes him the single biggest narcissist who has ever lived.

But in this sentence, Friedman picks up a theme that has played out endlessly among Democratic political operatives, and almost every MSNBC host. That in order to qualify as a whistleblower, Snowden should have to come back to the United States, be arrested, if he is not rendered to another country to be tortured, kept in solitary confinement, put on trial eventually, and sentenced to life in prison. Or perhaps he should just be droned. Here is MSNBC weekend host Melissa Harris-Perry's over the top open letter to Edward Snowden making the same point.

The fact that this theme has been discounted by meta whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and civil rights hero extraordinaire John Lewis , doesn't seem to make this argument go away, even when those making the argument use Daniel Ellsberg and John Lewis to make their argument. But moreover, the argument engages in a logical fallacy -- that in order to be a true whistleblower, Snowden has to come back and serve a lengthy prison sentence to pay for his "crimes." This is the exact opposite of what a whistleblower should have to do. This is why we have whistleblower protections, to encourage people who are in Snowden's position who see crimes being committed by their employers to come forward and disclose these crimes without the fear of prosecution.

Next sentence.

"It would mean risking a lengthy jail term, but also trusting the fair-mindedness of the American people, who, I believe, will not allow an authentic whistle-blower to be unfairly punished."

This is where my head exploded. I mean seriously. I didn't know Friedman was a comedian. I don't know. Perhaps he's just trolling us. I mean, really?

There is no explanation for this sentence other than Friedman actually lives in a parallel universe where the sky is green and the grass is pink. Because if he lived in this universe, especially being as intelligent and aware of current issues as he's always reminding us that he is, he would know that we are currently conducting a trial of Private Bradley Manning, an Army enlisted soldier who leaked a huge amount of classified cables to the website Wiki Leaks who in turn subsequently published many of these diplomatic cables, and other documents including videos which exposed alleged war crimes being committed by American servicemen. Manning was kept naked in solitary confinement for months on end, was subjected to horrific treatment prior to his trial and still faces up to 90 years in prison for the crimes for which he has been convicted. He would know of Thomas Drake, another NSA employee who actually did go through "proper channels" in exposing the illegal warrantless wiretapping program that was being conducted, only to have every avenue shut down until he finally exposed the program to journalists only to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, before the government's case literally fell apart during trial. He would know John Kiriakou, the only CIA employee to go to prison in connection to the torture program conducted by that agency, not because he conducted any torture himself, but because he confirmed the name of an agent who did conduct torture. He would know that the Obama administration has prosecuted four times the number of people under the Espionage Act that every administration before him combined.

But in the Friedmanverse, none of this matters. In this parallel universe known only to Tom Friedman and a few others, Americans would not sit back and allow a whistle-blower to be mistreated by their government. The fact is, that with pompous blowhards like Tom Friedman cheering them on, the American people have done this time, after time, after time, after time again.

The Friedmanverse is a scary place. Just catching a glimpse of it in this one paragraph of one column has been a horror show. I certainly wouldn't want to spend any time there myself. Unless, of course, I was Tom Friedman.

Legislature Seeks to Ban Arabic Numerals

In its ongoing fight against creeping Sharia law, and the influences of Islam, the state legislature today introduced a bill to ban Arabic numerals in the state's schools. Citing citizen complaints and the fear of the growing influence the imposition of such foreign teachings, bill sponsors said they will continue fighting to rid our schools of all Islamic teachings.

"I never would have thought that our teachers would have been taken in by such an insidious plot as the use of foreign, Islamic, Arabic numerals," bill sponsor Willie Bob Peckerwood said. "It's a slippery slope. First you introduce Arabic numerals, then you move on to Arabic language, before you know it our children are bowing five times a day to Mecca and reading from the Q'aran."

Peckerwood was surprised to find that all of the state's schools were already using Arabic numerals in their math classes, as well as several other classes. "I don't know how this got by us," he continued, "They already snuck in these God forsaken foreign influences trying to turn our children against us. We're behind in this fight, but we are catching up fast."

The bill is expected to receive bipartisan support in the legislature as members of both parties are lining up to get on the record as opposing anything that would be seen as supporting terror or being Anti-American.

Legislator Nancy Goodkind, usually seen as Peckerwood's political nemesis, joined in with praise for Peckerwood's bill. "When I first heard of this bill, I couldn't believe that our schools would be dumb enough to use Arabic numerals. But once I found out that Arabic numerals were already being found throughout our schools, I was quick to join on to support this bill and protect our children. Why can't we use the good old American numbers we all grew up with?" Goodkind added.

Early polls show that the measure is widely popular with the electorate with over 80% supporting the ban.

The bill is expected to sail through committee and could be up for a vote among the entire legislature within the week. There is no comment from the Governor's office as to whether the Governor will sign the measure or not. However, sources say that it would be hard to oppose such a popular measure.

What George Zimmerman Tells Us About Ourselves

"Which one of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" He said, "The one who showed him mercy." Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise." - Luke 10: 36-37 (New Revised Standard  Bible)

Every once in a while events happen that can best be explained, to me anyway, as happening only by God's Providence. That is why, I believe, that across this nation on the morning after the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial that millions of Americans attending their church services had as their Gospel reading the parable of the Good Samaritan.

We are all familiar with the story of the man beset by robbers and left bloodied and for dead, who is passed by both a Priest and a Levite who offer him no help. It is only the lowly Samaritan who saves the man, treats his wounds and cares for him until well. Jesus offers this as an example to a inquisitive lawyer (imagine that!) as to living the law of God to love one's neighbor as one's self.

It struck me as particularly poignant that this would be the Gospel lesson on the day after the conclusion of such a bitterly divisive and inflammatory trial. Throughout the night and into the morning, our airwaves were full of pundits offering opinions about the not guilty verdict, social media was exploding with outrage from those who understandably felt Zimmerman should be punished for killing an unarmed black minor, and less understandable celebrations for those who were rooting him on (whatever you feel about the evidence, celebrating the death of a child will never make sense to me).

My first reaction following the verdict, which to me personally was a disappointment because of what the case said about the state of our society and our laws, was to turn to prayer. I immediately opened the electronic kindle version of the Book of Common Prayer that I keep on my iPhone. During what has become my spiritual reawakening in the just more than a year I have spent in the Episcopal Church, the Book of Common Prayer has been an indispensable guide for faith and living. I looked for a prayer which would encapsulate my feelings and address the fears I had of violence that could come from this. Here's what I found:

Grant, O God, that your holy and life-giving Spirit may so move every human heart and especially the hearts of the people of this land, that barriers which divide us may crumble, suspicions disappear, and hatreds cease; that our divisions being healed, we may live in justice and peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. - Book of Common Prayer, p. 823

I prayed this prayer silently to myself, and shared it with my friends on social media. I prayed then for the family of Trayvon Martin whose life was once again shattered, I prayed for the family of George Zimmerman and for George Zimmerman himself, that his heart, hardened for whatever reason, could know peace and love and that his life could turn to one of serving his fellow man.

The next morning what struck me the most as I listened to the words of the Gospel read by my Deacon at Holy Eucharist, was how we as a society treat our neighbor. We are falling far short of living the law, not of self-defense or stand your ground, but the law which Christ gave for us. The law that the lawyer could recite as the key to eternal life -- "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."

Whatever your view of what transpired on the night Trayvon Martin was killed, love was certainly lacking. Love does not treat its neighbor with suspicion because of the color of his skin or the way that he is dressed. Love does not meet an encounter between strangers with violence and rage. Love does not refer to its neighbors with racial epithets and insults.  Love does not take a life.

There has been plenty said of the actions of both George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin on that fateful night, and there will be plenty more as our collective rage justifies more outrage, insult, and pain from all sides. But what there hasn't been talked about very much is what George Zimmerman tells us about ourselves.

From the little that is known about that night, what it appears that George Zimmerman did was to see a tall, young, black-skinned man, wearing a hooded sweatshirt, and based on his experience, prejudices, and beliefs, and the totality of the situation saw him as a threat. He felt so threatened that he called 9-1-1 and reported this suspicious person. He followed him, armed, and ready to use deadly force if it became necessary. And finally, for whatever reason, ended up in a physical confrontation during which he said he feared for his life, and shot and killed the young man.

At his trial on charges of Second Degree Murder, Zimmerman claimed self defense. The jury found him not guilty under this theory. And if we want to look at it objectively, the jury upheld the law in Florida as it is written.

But how many of us who condemn the actions of George Zimmerman excuse or even celebrate similar actions when they are taken on our behalf by our own government. Did George Zimmerman do anything different than our President, through his policy of drone warfare does every day? It is known that through "signature strikes" that American drone pilots target individuals based on circumstances that include their location, their sex, their clothing, etc. Isn't this exactly what George Zimmerman did that night in Florida? Our government brands these individuals based only on these external factors as "militants" even though, just like Zimmerman, they don't even know who the individual they are targeting is, or anything about their intentions. Just like Zimmerman, we Americans justify these actions through arguments of self defense and the prevention of harm to others.

I was struck by the words of an Arab American who tweeted Friday night, echoing or parodying the words of our President about Trayvon Martin, "If I had a son, he would look like Abdulrahman Awlaki" referring to the 16-year-old American citizen who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen two weeks after his father, also an American citizen, was killed similarly in a U.S. drone strike.

The fact of the matter is, that we as a nation, are failing to live up to the beliefs that a vast majority of us claim. We are failing to live up to the teachings of Jesus Christ. And despite the claims of the so-called Christians of our land, many of whom were all over social media this weekend fomenting the fires of hatred, it is not because of gays, or prayer in public schools, or the posting of the Ten Commandments in public squares, or whether we say "Merry Christmas" that our nation is failing to live up to our collective Faith. It is due to the lack of Love and the treatment of our neighbor.

As long as we accept policies and laws which result in the death of our fellow human beings without justification and without reason, we are failing to live up to the law that our Savior has given us. As long as we treat others with suspicion and disgust, we go against God's law. As long as we justify hatred, discrimination, and persecution based on race, religion, status, gender, sexual orientation, or difference, we fail as Christians.

In fact, as long as we do so, we can collectively say that we all are George Zimmerman.

Heroic Stands on Same Sex Marriage Could Hold Back Legalization

Stands like that of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane are courageous symbols for elected officials to take as the nation struggles ever so slowly to reach complete marriage equality nationwide. However, such heroic stands may actually end up delaying the ultimate nationwide recognition of same sex marriage.

In the recent Supreme Court decisions on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's voter initiative banning same sex marriage, Proposition 8, the issue of standing came up in both cases. In both the DOMA case and the Proposition 8 case, the normal appellants (the parties who were sued and lost the case at the trial level) refused to file appeals of their losses. In DOMA, this was the Attorney General Eric Holder, and in Proposition 8 it was the State of California represented by Attorney General Kamela Harris. Both of these decisions were historic and incredibly unusual in that it almost never happens that a representative of the sued party decides part way through the proceedings that the law they are charged with upholding is unconstitutional and therefore refuse to defend it.

In the two cases, different groups rose to the occasion to appeal the lower court decisions and thereby defend the laws as written. In DOMA, Congressional Republicans hired their own counsel and filed the appeal on behalf of the United States. In the Prop 8 case, it was citizens groups which had organized turnout and worked to get the amendment on the ballot in California. In each case, the outcome was different. In the DOMA case the Court found that the appellants had standing to appeal, while in the Prop 8 case the court found that the appellants did not.

Standing, or the right to bring an appeal, was a hard fought issue in both cases. If the court had reached a different consensus on the issue of standing in the DOMA case, and the lower court rulings were left in place, what would have happened was that we would have been left with a mish mash of lower court rulings, some upholding the constitutionality of DOMA and some not, leaving the issue unresolved.

But, what is more interesting is had the State of California decided to pursue the appeal in the Proposition 8 case, in which the court found that citizens groups had no standing to appeal challenges to the Constitutionality of a state statute, there would have been no issue of standing at all. California certainly had the right to defend its own laws against constitutional challenge. That would have forced the court to address the constitutionality of state bans on same sex marriage on the basis of violations of the guarantees of equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Looking at the court's holding on DOMA, finding that it did in fact violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee to equal protection on a Federal level, it is more than likely that the Court would have found that California's Proposition 8 also violated the imposition of this guarantee on the states, making same sex marriage legal nationwide.

There could be, depending on your point of view, arguments made that this was a fortunate decision on the part of the State of California not to defend this law. Because it allowed the court to move incrementally, essentially punting the decision on the application of the Constitutional issues on state law to a later date when the Supreme Court decision would have time to catch up to public opinion, some would argue that it is overall a good thing for the proponents of marriage equality and the nation as a whole. Some could also argue that the standing issue may have also prevented the court from striking down the 9th circuit's opinion finding Prop 8 unconstitutional, which would have been a big loss for the proponents of marriage equality.

However, at some point, a state is going to have to defend such Constitutional challenge in order for there to be a definitive answer on the application of these rights nationwide. By not defending the lawsuit brought against the State of Pennsylvania, the state Attorney General risks having at best a similar outcome to that of Proposition 8 -- a District Court decision which cannot be appealed due to the lack of standing of anyone to appeal it. This is great for folks in Pennsylvania, but doesn't really push the issue forward.

This also brings up another issue as it relates to the function of the law as a whole. Very often attorneys are faced with the question, "How can you defend someone like that?" or "How can you defend someone you know is guilty?" Spending many years as a criminal defense attorney, I am very familiar with those questions and I understand completely the answers. The fact is that our system of justice only works in both sides in an adversarial system are represented zealously and to the full extent of the law. Any failure to do so, results in legal error and injustice. For instance, if a criminal defense attorney were to fail to put forth all of the defenses that his or her client is due because he or she has come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty or should be put away, not only should that attorney lose their license, but the case will almost certainly be overturned on appeal (and should be), and the defendant who would have otherwise been convicted will likely walk free. The only way to ensure a conviction is to put forth every defense to which the defendant is entitled and make sure that the State proves their case against the Defendant. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but that is the way the law works in an adversarial system such as ours.

In the same way, the only way that the ultimate question in marriage equality -- the issue of whether the Court's holding that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, also applies through the Fourteenth Amendment to the states -- will make it before the Supreme Court is for the states to defend their laws vigorously and to the full extent of the law. I would go so far to say that it is the duty of the state and federal Attorneys General to do so. By acting in the role that should be reserved for the appellate judges, rather than in the role for which they were elected or appointed (to defend and enforce the laws of their state or country) they are showing an amazing lack of confidence in the integrity of the judicial system, and actually holding back the cause in which they claim belief.

6/26/2013

Now that I have had some time to ruminate on the Supreme Court decisions from a day ago, I wanted to write down some of my thoughts on my emotions, and analyze some of the practical outcomes of these monumental decisions. Regardless of any of these, I can say without hesitation that 6/26/2013 was an absolutely fantastic day that will go down in the history books as the day that America changed for good and for the good.

Elation

Since the day had started out with even more chaos than usual, being my daughter's fourth birthday and dealing with the schedule chaos brought by a week of late bed times from Vacation Bible School, I had not really given much thought to the coming decisions on DOMA and Proposition 8. I decided to check my twitter feed and saw that SCOTUSblog was about to start their live blog on the decisions. From past experience (Hello, CNN) I had learned that SCOTUSblog was the most proficient and accurate source for announcements and comprehension of Court decisions.

In the previous days and weeks as many of my friends awaited these potentially groundbreaking decisions, I noticed that their enthusiasm and optimism was growing daily. This worried me, quite frankly, because I remembered the absolute despair that many of my gay and lesbian friends felt after the North Carolina constitutional amendment banning recognition of same-sex relationships passed with an overwhelming majority of voters. I didn't want to see their hopes dashed again. I knew from my study of the law that regardless of what people think of the Supreme Court, decisions like Brown v. Board of Education are the exception, not the rule. The law moves slowly and is usually playing catch-up to social movements, only really recognizing them after they have already become the norm.

I did my best to prepare my friends for the disappointment that they would feel if the decisions came out differently than they hoped. I confess that what I felt was most likely is that the Supreme Court would take a pass and use procedural technicalities to send the cases back to the appellate courts and push the decision down the road. My biggest fear was that they would uphold both DOMA and Proposition 8, which, although I thought this was unlikely, was possible and would be a devastating defeat to the forces of equality.

As the time came close, I felt my pulse quicken. I didn't expect to have such a physical reaction to these decisions. Then shortly after 10:00, the SCOTUSblog live blog announced that they had Windsor (the DOMA decision) and that it was a 5-4 decision. I felt the adrenaline pumping in my veins and goosebumps rise on my arms. They announced that the decision was written by Kennedy (which told me nothing in a 5-4 decision because he would be the swing vote either way). When they announced he was joined by the four liberal justices I knew at least my worst fears would not be realized -- at least DOMA had not been upheld. What I didn't know is whether they had overturned it, or decided to kick the issue back to the appellate courts and put off the ultimate decision for a couple years.

What happened next was wholly unexpected. As I read the post that the Court had found that DOMA violated the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional, I felt my body shiver, tears welling up in my eyes and found that my hand was resting over my mouth, holding back sobs of joy. I knew right away that this was an incredibly important decision, one that would rank with the most important Supreme Court civil rights decisions in history. For the first time the court had decided that same sex couples were entitled to the same protections under Federal law as any other couples. This was monumental. This was astounding. This was a home run!!!!!!

Seeing the celebrations of my gay brothers and sisters on social media, on news outlets, through pictures and videos across the internet filled me with a total sense of joy. I knew that my friends who had suffered discrimination, threats, assault, shame, depression, suicide, abandonment, condemnation, persecution, fear, rejection, despair, now could say "I am equal to you" and had the force of the law of the United States to back them up.

The emotion was overwhelming.

As I began placing celebratory posts on Facebook, and reading tweets coming in from across the country, I cautioned that we still had the Perry Prop 8 decision to come, and as exciting as the DOMA decision was, I knew that it was unlikely that the Court would go as far with the Prop 8 decision. The reason was that if the Court ruled on Prop 8 and found that California's ban on same-sex marriage violated equal protection, they would be in essence saying that states did not have the right to ban same-sex marriage. Such a decision would be wonderful, but very unlikely at this point.

After some other cases were released of far less interest, finally Perry was released. As I had expected, the Court held that there was an issue as to the standing of the appellants (the supporters of the ban on same-sex marriage) to challenge the lower court ruling. My fear on this, however, was that they would simply kick the decision back to the circuit court for a decision, which would leave Proposition 8 in place for the time being in California. This was not, however, what happened. Because the Court held that there was no standing to appeal, the Court left in place the District Court judge's decision finding that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. Therefore, same-sex marriages could once again be performed in California.

This was truly a great day.

Although we are far from the finish line on this issue, the precedents set today and the undeniable momentum of the laws of this country are favoring the recognition of marriage equality in our near future. The next step will be challenging state bans, such as ours in North Carolina. But more on that in a bit. For now, let's keep celebrating.

Religion

I can't begin to explain how wonderful it was to be able to celebrate the decisions of the Supreme Court with my church community. Most of the celebratory tweets on my twitter feed were from members, clergy, and bishops of the Episcopal Church. Episcopal Churches across the country rang their church bells in celebration of the Supreme Court decision. The National Cathedral rang their carillon and held prayer services both before the decision and after in order to celebrate.

Belonging to a faith community which welcomes and celebrates the LGBT community equally and fully is a powerful witness to the true power of God's love. I have seen the effect that this has on gay, lesbian, and transgendered individuals. To finally realize, many for the first time in their life, that they are worthy of God's love, not only if they give up who they are, but because of who they are is a remarkably empowering feeling. The Episcopal Church through its radical openness and acceptance (along with many other Christian denominations as well) is literally saving lives, and acting as living examples of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

While I was enjoying this new spiritual experience, being able to celebrate such a wonderful day openly with my fellow church members, I felt a sense of sadness come over me for my friends who, despite agreeing with me whole-heartedly on this issue, were not able to experience the same spiritual joy I was. As the Episcopal Church almost uniformly praised the actions of the Court, the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church was having the opposite reaction.

By mid-afternoon, the statements from the usual suspects -- Archbishop Dolan of New York, Bishop Cordileone of San Francisco, Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage, and on and on and on -- were spouting the most hateful, demeaning, and damning statements about the Courts decision and gays and lesbians themselves. Two of the most prominent Catholic members of the Court -- Justices Scalia and Alito -- were reading their dissents, dripping with hateful ignorance and sarcastic insults, from the bench.

I am familiar with the tension such days cause, being raised in the Catholic Church and considering myself a Catholic in varying degrees of practice, for the first 40 years of my life. Days like this would be seen with personal happiness, but dulled by the reminder that your personal beliefs were not only not shared by your faith, but condemned by it. Along with your congratulations to your gay and lesbian friends who would be directly impacted by the decisions, would be the caution to not express your views too loudly or openly for fear of repercussions.

Being an American Roman Catholic is to live daily with a sense of cognitive dissonance. The discomfort felt by the incompatibility of a faith which teaches that the beliefs that a vast majority of Catholics feel toward issues such as gay rights, contraception, pre-marital sex, divorce, etc. are going to land you in Hell is something quite familiar to most American Catholics. Most, either out of a sense of tradition, or a sense of obligation, or a duty to family, or from true personal faith despite the Church's leadership, choose to remain in the Catholic Church. For those, I felt sadness because I understood all too well the pain they were feeling yesterday.

I had come to the realization that I could no longer live with such discomfort and confusion and that I never wanted my daughter to feel torn between her faith and her beliefs, a couple of years ago. On this wonderful day on which I celebrated the anniversary of the birth of my daughter and the freedom of my gay and lesbian friends, my decision to break from the spiritual and intellectual shackles of the Roman Catholic Church was celebrated as well, especially as I heard those beautiful carillon bells ring out from the highest point of our nation's capital celebrating equality, freedom, and most of all love.

What Now?

There were certainly some shortcomings in the decisions of the Supreme Court yesterday. The parts of DOMA which apply to states' recognition of marriages from other states are still in effect. Therefore, even though marriage equality is recognized in 16 states and the District of Columbia as of now, 34 states have either statutory or constitutional bans prohibiting same-sex unions.

I will speak of North Carolina, which last year passed a Constitutional Ban to add to its already existing statutory ban of same-sex marriage, and where we go from here.

The decisions of yesterday certainly lay a groundwork for challenging North Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage. Because the Court recognized that same-sex couples have a Fifth Amendment right to equal protection under the law, the ultimate recognition of same-sex unions nationwide is all but inevitable.

Since the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Fifth Amendment's guarantees of equal protection to the States, a violation of equal protection from a state ban would fall under the same rationale in the Windsor case. Certainly there will be challenges based on disparate treatment of tax laws, such as there was in Windsor, whose plaintiff was made to pay $320,000 in estate tax from her spouse's estate she would not have had to pay had her deceased spouse been male. This would seem to apply to couples legally married in a state recognizing same-sex marriage, who then move to a state not recognizing such. If a surviving spouse is forced to pay a state tax on their deceased spouse's estate, this would almost certainly have to be found to violate equal protection under the holding of Windsor.

Another situation that does apply in North Carolina deals with rights to child custody and adoption. North Carolina has an outright ban on same-sex couples adopting children and does not recognize under the law the right of a same-sex partner who is not the legal parent of the child to visitation or custody in the case of a split, even if the couple were legally married in another state. This will almost certainly be challenged either in State or federal court before long, based on the rulings yesterday. The law is clear that North Carolina does not recognize these rights, so a trial court judge would essentially be powerless to rule otherwise, so it would be up to the appellate courts, either state or federal, to make these decisions.

One area which would be ripe for challenge under North Carolina law is the preferential treatment under the law married couples are given in the area of real property ownership. North Carolina has a special category of real property ownership available only to married couples. Tenancy by the Entirety has real and tangible benefits for married couples. For instance, if one spouse has debts to which the other party is not subject, the real property owned as Tenants by the Entirety cannot be attached to these debts and therefore the property cannot be sold in order to satisfy the debts. Also, a tenancy by the entirety is not able to be dissolved without the consent of both parties, therefore protecting both spouses rights and interests in the property in the event of a split. Lastly, tenancy by the entirety is automatically transferred upon the death of one of the parties, and that transfer is not counted as part of the decedent's probate estate. This has a profound effect on both the rights of the surviving spouse to inherit free from challenges from family members, as well as the economic benefits of having a smaller probate estate.

I can foresee a plaintiff who is married in a state which recognizes same-sex marriage and then moves with their spouse to North Carolina and purchases property. Because North Carolina law prohibits them from owning as tenants by the entirety, they would be able to show actual harm based on the benefits being denied to them because of North Carolina law's non-recognition of their valid marriage in another state. I would not be surprised if they challenged this in Federal Court that based on the rulings from yesterday they would be successful in ruling North Carolina's statutory and Constitutional bans on same-sex marriage invalid as a violation of their right to equal protection under the law. If someone is in that situation, get ye to a lawyer pronto and let's get this ball rolling!

The upshot of yesterday's rulings, and the reason that yesterday will be remembered in history, is that the question of whether gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans will have equal rights in this country is no longer a question of "if" but instead a question of "when." There is still work to be done to recognize these rights uniformly across the nation. However, the work has gotten a whole hell of a lot easier.

Cheers!

Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Domestic Spying

A couple of months ago, I wrote a post called "Rooting for Uniforms" about how Americans tend to support programs they once opposed when they are proposed by members of their own political party. Nothing has exemplified this phenomenon more than the NSA spying scandal.

During the Administration of George W. Bush, when it was revealed that the government was engaging in warrantless wiretapping, the Democratic party and liberal blogosphere exploded with rage. This was called, rightfully, an absolute infringement on the Fourth Amendment, an extra-constitutional expansion of executive police power, and an erosion of our right of privacy. The Conservative political class responded with the usual terror scare tactics, and how in a post 9/11 world we were going to have to live with giving up some liberties in order to remain safe.

In the last two weeks, thanks to the leaks of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and the reporting of Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald, we have learned the under the Obama Administration the NSA has expanded its domestic surveillance including gathering metadata on every phone call made within the United States, and collecting data directly from the servers of many of the largest internet companies in the United States. The administration claims that these types of activities were authorized under the re-authorization of the Patriot Act as well of the FISA Amendemnts Act (FAA).

You would think that this disclosure would have resulted in a huge liberal backlash against the Obama administration. But, you would be wrong if you did. Instead, every mainstream liberal talking head went into overdrive trying to defend the administration's actions as being necessary for the protection of our country, and painting the whistleblower Snowden as a traitor. From Lawrence O'Donnell to Bill Maher to Joy Reid, the airwaves were filled with liberal commentators who had eviscerated the Bush administration for similar, though less intrusive, programs of domestic surveillance, praising the Obama Administration for their unprecedented dragnet of personal information about virtually every American citizen. Democratic Senators and Congressmen were lining up to defend the administration's actions declaring them legal and even transparent, though conducted in complete secrecy. Even Senator Al Franken, considered one of the most liberal in Washington, said he wasn't the least bit worried about these intrusions.

During all of this, Pew Research Center released a poll looking at the views of the government monitoring e-mails based on party affiliation which when compared with a similar poll of a similar question in 2002, showed disturbing results:

It seems that the partisanship that has brought our legislative process to a complete halt across the nation has permeated throughout the electorate itself. We, as a nation, have nobody to blame for our broken political system than ourselves. As long as we judge the worth of a policy based on which party is proposing it, rather than whether it is good for the country, we don't deserve anything other than the sleazy, partisan, broken government that we have now.

I will say this again: when you look at any proposal of any kind, especially one in which the government asks for more power to intrude on your every day lives, ask yourself if you would support the policy if it were put forth by the other party. If your answer is no, then it is a bad proposal and you should be against it.

What this latest grab of power on behalf of the government should show us is that neither of the two major parties in this country represent our best interests as Americans. Any government that would spy on its on people en masse, is not a representative democracy and does not deserve our allegiance. The only thing that this current group of so-called leaders in Washington and elsewhere deserves is to be thrown out of office, each and every one of them. And if the next group that takes their place shows as much contempt for the protections of the individual liberties of our citizens as the current  Congress, then they deserve the same fate.

It is time for us to stand up to our leaders and reassert our power as Americans. We must hold both Democrats and Republicans responsible for the lawlessness that they have unleashed on this nation and demand a government which doesn't see its citizens as enemies of the state.

The Amazing Benefits to NSA's Domestic Spying Program

It was revealed this week that the National Security Agency and the FBI have been collecting metadata on every telephone call placed within the United States for the last seven years. A day later it was revealed that through its PRISM platform the NSA has been tapping directly into the servers of virtually every major internet company beginning in 2007.

Now there has been a lot of bellyaching on the part of the civil liberties community (read: America hating communists). Woe is me! Our data is being collected! Cry me a river.

I would like to focus on the benefits that such a treasure trove of data could bring to us.

For instance, the next time you are filling out a job application and it asks for your most recent five addresses and you can't seem to remember the address of that studio apartment you lived in for three months, just dial up the NSA and ask.

The next time you can't remember your password? The NSA can help you out with that.

Ever had a hankering to view your old zombie My Space page and don't remember what your login was or if My Space actually still exists? The friendly folks at the NSA can easily pull up those pages for you.

Hey, NSA, what was my old friend's Spotify playlist that I liked so much? You know, the one that had the really great tribal beats on it? Yeah, that's the one. Thanks, man. I couldn't have done that without you.

So, the next time you want to whine about all the privacy invasion this and military industrial complex that, remember: Let the Surveillance State's massive data mining work for you!

This message brought to you by the new NSA: We're not just for indiscriminate killing anymore; and by Organizing for America.