Jim West found it and quotes it here.

Right. It is an agenda. It is an agenda to have equal protection under the law regarding the civil contract of what marriage guarantees. The problem is that this rather reasonable agenda is cast in conspiratorial terms that somehow gays want to rule to country at the expense of other groups’ equal protection under the law (e.g. religious organizations) which is a far cry from the case.

With regard to the responsibility of the state, there is not a single legal argument to maintain the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman unless you rely on extra-legal foundations such as religion or outmoded understandings of tradition. Note that I am not talking about how votes have been cast in the past. Just because you vote for something does not mean that it is constitutional, correct, or even ethical.  I am talking about formulating a legal argument that makes the definition of marriage as between man and woman necessary.

Just because something is so, does not therefore mean it must be so.  The challenge for those who oppose a gender neutral definition of marriage is to argue why marriage must be so.  So far the courts are ruling that marriage as between man and woman proponents are not doing a good job with this argument and I whole-heartedly agree.

My suggestion is to stop whining about meritless and speculative conclusions that the man/woman qualification of marriage will destroy society, marriage, religion, etc.  Make the case with a solid argument built on solid legal foundations or the man/woman definition will continue to crumble as perhaps it should.

Bryan Williams just used this curious phrase in this context:

“It is believed that the violence in Iraq has decreased in recent weeks.”

What does this mean?

It seems that we would have surely have enough data somewhere to determine if in fact the violence has declined or that it has not. What is this “it” anyway? Sometimes the word “it” used this way might refer to a consensus. Whose consensus? Which data? How do we know if they are right or wrong? This should be a yes or no question because the data is so discrete. Here are other ways that language like this is absurd when we have clear and discrete data to determine something.

It is believed that:

• My wife and I were married in 1998.
• Church attendance spiked in the 1950’s and the 1980’s.
• At least some tomatoes in the past several weeks have been reported to have had salmonella bacteria.
• The world’s population is over 5 Billion people.
• Atoms cannot be seen with the naked eye.
• The elephant is the largest land animal alive today.
• Michael Dukakis was never the President of the United States.
• The crime rate in New York City went down dramatically during Rudi Giuliani’s terms in office as Mayor.

Now follow these statements with something like: “Startling details are emerging from this developing story. Tom Aspell reports.” Not interesting right? That’s what I thought about that lead-in to Iraq.

But…

This is what people will watch and listen to. Data is boring - especially when it is clear and discrete. Conjecture evokes a sense of mystery and allows the random and uninformed viewer to fill in the gaps with their own ideas about it. It creates gossip and conversation without which marketing suffers. If the consumer cannot read themselves into the story, it becomes less vivid, less salient, and less effective in driving up ratings and creating an audience. This story told us nothing factual and nothing new. However, it did evoke a response. I am just not sure my reaction was the kind of reaction they wanted. But I think it is the kind of reaction that more ought to have - especially in an election year.

The US is the largest source of media consumption in the world and it is also a place where media literacy is not a literacy we are taught very well, or at all. Media messages form and reinforce structures of belief and marketers know exactly how to do it whether the consumer likes it or not. They know your assumptions already and use them to link a product to a belief thereby reinforcing that belief. The kicker, the hook, the prestige here is that what you believe is just not good enough. The marketer always has something better, more fulfilling, and something more deeply related to you personally.

So why should I believe Bryan Williams’ lead in? It is what all Americans - those who want the troops out and those who would rather the US military stick around to ensure business is done - would like to see happen. So thanks for making us feel that you were our invited conversation partner during that lead-in Bryan Williams. We have a new friend again tonight and we will remember that for the next NBC or MSNBC news story. I am just not sure if what was just reported has any real substance to it.

One more thing…

That kind of story sets the audience up for the next climatic violent incident. Another reaction, another catharsis, another belief structure on this endless roller-coaster narrative plot line called the news. Constructed reality served to you nightly courtesy of corporate media. And that’s the way it is…

Douglas Rushkoff has a fantastic piece on political marketing, the good stuff in Obama’s brand, and the potential pitfalls and danger spots moving forward.

Those of us hoping to build communities, improve our schools, invigorate our local economies, restructure our land use, or reduce our energy dependence mustn’t equate a presidential campaign with substantive change. Obama may be a convenient conceptual placeholder for these concerns, as well as a person capable of dismantling a good amount of America’s more fascistic and militaristic infrastructure. But the only way he’ll even have the latitude to behave in a slightly more enlightened manner than his predecessors will be if we, the actual people on the ground, have chosen to live more consistently with those goals. If he’s president of a nation of fast-food-eating, bigoted, and selfish SUV drivers, he’ll prove as powerless as Cheney was malicious. And the results will be the same.

I urge you to read the entire piece here.

Green bombs?  Yep.  Maybe we can add solar powered tanks and have the generals drink only trade-free coffees while they order the slaughters from afar.

Campaigning is marketing.  It is about focus groups, polls, and creating a brand for a candidate.  If we look at it through the lens of consumer marketing, one goal is to get you to believe that without the acquisition of a certain artifact, your life will simply not be as enjoyable, fulfilling, whole, etc.  Keep an eye on this as Obama and McCain start volleying more directly at each other now.

Both will seek to do one thing - especially to moderate and undecided voters: make their message more vivid, salient, and memorable by the time you get to the polls.  Part of this is to label the other candidate as “Brand “X”.

Obama will tie McCain to Bush’s sinking political marketability and hope to anchor him as the candidate who will bring the Bush presidency to a largely imagined logical end.  McCain used to be a good product, but is not the same anymore.  So it’s time for an upgrade to a better system rather than continue to patch up this old one that is not really working anymore.  Still on Windows XP?  Try this MacBook Air instead.

McCain will follow a lot of Clinton’s message of Obama’s talk is just talk and he is going to make promises that he can’t keep.  Why would he do this?  He does not really know what he is getting into because he has not been on the inside track of Washington long enough.  That flashy new car has not been road tested enough in order for anyone to make a solid judgment on its reliability.  Don’t get lulled into buying that flashy Audi S4 when a more reliable Ford Fusion will do just as well, you can actually afford it, and you will support the American economy better.

I think the marketing metaphors work here as well.  Computers have a different kind of marketing attached to them to get you to buy new systems even if you don’t need them.  Cars target different kinds of people which is why there are so many models.  McCain is going to go after the person who probably should be driving a reliable Toyota, but would rather go for the domestic equivalent if the option is available, but who sure as hell can’t afford an Audi or pay for the insurance even if given one.  The point is that both will be selling their product to initiate a sense of desire in us to buy their product rather than the alternative.

Very little of this marketing will have to do with the issues.  You won’t vote for issues, you will vote as a consumer of a product you only think that you need, but are you sure you know why you think you need it?

SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory…

…The long-awaited court decision stemmed from San Francisco’s highly publicized same-sex weddings, which in 2004 helped spur a conservative backlash in a presidential election year and a national dialogue over gay rights.

Read the complete story

It is the only correct legal position to take. However, marriage in the eyes of the state remains to be a civil contract between two people and nothing more. There is no legal reason why it must be defined as a union between a man and a woman. None of the arguments to the contrary are at all convincing. Thus the fall back is to define the civil law in terms of the desires of religious groups who forbid marriage to be defined any other way than between a man and a woman.

If there is a secular legal reason why marriage cannot be defined as a gender free statute, I have never heard one. Religions can maintain their doctrinal stance regardless of what the state confers in its marriage licenses. But the idea that a gender-free definition of marriage will destroy a foundation of our society is not only a ridiculous conclusion, but the current data on marriage does not support this notion since half lead to divorce anyway. Arguing on these grounds is about as rational as arguing that a black person is 2/3 of a person and therefore they cannot vote! Or the argument that women have a naturally weaker physical and psychological makeup that prevents them from voting or serving in the military. Not to see the clear lines of similarity between these equally absurd assumptions about the constitution of human beings is to remain mired in absurdity and a retarded sense of equal regard under the law for everyone regarding with whom they wish to spend their lives in a civil union with all rights and responsibilities thereto.

Beacon Broadside has a nice piece to discuss some of the conclusions and speculations that are false if we assume a data driven posture. See what Massachusetts has learned.

Other comments on the California decision can be found here, here, and here.

Update: Julie continues with a discussion of the overturning of inter-racial marriage as a precedent used in the case. Americans United for Separation of Church and State also weighs in.

Update II: A really nice article on Get Religion asks some important questions in the debate this issue raises with choice and religion among others.

In a very short piece on the Today Show this morning, it was reported that the toll of dead and missing in Myanmar is now up to 60,000. The Kansas City Star published an AP report this morning:

Corpses floated in salty flood waters and witnesses said survivors tried desperately to reach dry ground on boats using blankets as sails. The U.N. said some 1 million people were homeless in the Southeast Asian country, also known as Burma.

“Basically the entire lower delta region is under water,” said Richard Horsey, Bangkok-based spokesman for the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Aid.

“Teams are talking about bodies floating around in the water,” he said. This is “a major, major disaster we’re dealing with.”

This is something that makes even Katrina pale in comparison to the devastation these people will now have to suffer for many years to come. In America, we simply do not understand how good things are here in comparison to most of the world, and especially the developing/third world. Following Katrina we heard more stories about people placing blame, crying racism highlighted by Kanye West’s comment “George Bush hates black people”, and more whining than was appropriate or helpful. Yet there we sat as the richest nation in the world completely able to help ourselves in the midst of such disaster.

This is something to keep your respective political complaints about the economy and how Iraq makes you ill, how George Bush is the coming of Satan, Hillary v. Obama V. McCain, etc. in perspective. Pause to understand that you - that is anyone who can read this or has time to - have it better than most in the world despite all of it.

The people in Myanmar do not have the luxury of complaining. It is unfortunate that the government seems to think business as usual is proper. The people do not, or likely will not have the strength to place blame for their situation. Many will now be forced to live in an enviroment where disease is more common than food and clean water is the most cherished luxury of all.

So far it is a blip on our news radar in between Lindsey Lohan’s sexual escapades and The Spears’ family values expressed in drunkenness and teenage pregnancy.

Pray for Myanmar if that is all you are able to do this morning.