Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Transmogrification TV

The first of possibly many observations on Hollywood here at Right Detour--entertainment entrails if you will.

E! Entertainment broadcast the first episode of I Am Cait, an alleged reality show documenting the transmogrification of Bruce Jenner into Caitlyn Jenner.





It is an "alleged" reality show in a number of senses.

First, like all reality shows, producers and directors stage events to some degree. In addition, everyone knows that when someone points a camera in another person's direction, they act differently.

Second, it remains to be seen whether or not Bruce will actually complete his transmogrification. After all, he still has his "junk."

That so far has made me skeptical of whether or not this "reality" show is real. I initially concluded that Bruce executed this as a stunt to secure his own show. Maybe he has tired of his supporting roll for the celebrity sluts known as the Kardashians and seeks stardom in his own right.

If not, his transmogrification hardly qualifies as an act of courage. Yes, he claims to be coming out as his "real self" despite the skepticism and hostility that he expects to face as a trans-gendered person. (As a side note, the notion of the "real self" is a puzzling one, at least from the perspective of progressives. Remember, they are the ones who claim that gender is a social construct--not a biological reality. According to this view, there is no real self, at least where gender is concerned.) But at this stage of our civilization's decay, what hostility could he face beyond talking heads on cable television and bloggers of varying degrees of notoriety?

If Jenner is sincere, then he is not displaying courage, but rather exhibiting a mental disorder. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders used to call it gender identity disorder. It asserted that people who desired to be the opposite gender suffered from a mental disorder.  The American Psychological Association now calls it gender dysphoria. Now the organization  denies that gender non-conformity is a mental disorder. It is concerned now only about the distress that one experiences from living as the gender into which one was born. The only reason for the change appears to be that calling it a disorder implies that someone possessing this disorder might actually be disordered.

This change parallels the change regarding homosexuality. The DSM used to identify homosexuality as a mental disorder. Now they consider it a mental disorder only if one feels distress over being a homosexual. (It used to be the distress over one's homosexuality was an indication of a sound emotional state--but never mind that now.)

With no psychology degree and analyzing the situation from my basement computer, I wonder if gender dysphoria may even be related to homosexuality. Despite the view of progressives that gender is a social construct, homosexuals distinguishing themselves by gender as "gays" and "lesbians." And many homosexual couples, especially lesbians, seen to adopt male and female rolls. For example, one of most well-known lesbians Ellen Degeneres clearly adopts a male persona in her dress and hair styles. Her partner identifies as "the wife."



Then there is the less well-known but more significant couple behind the fight over same sex marriage in California-- Kris Perry and Sandy Stier:



Maybe Jenner's reality is not related to his gender but to his homosexuality.


Who knows.

Perhaps he has mental disorder afterall.

That's what happens when you live with the Kardashians.






Thursday, July 2, 2015

Happy Independence Day!

On this date two hundred nine eight years ago thirteen of Great Britain's twenty seven North American colonies declared independence.

The Second Continental Congress convened on 10 May 1776 to assess the progress made since its sessions the previous summer in maintaining their rights while at the save time preserving their union with Britain. The British Parliament had been attempting to fund the costs of empire through imposing various taxes on the colonies. The colonists had responding with protests and non-importation agreements, arguing the injustice of "taxation without representation."

The situation had worsened.

The previous October King George III charged in a speech before Parliament that opposition in the colonies was “carried on for the purpose of establishing an independent Empire.” The colonists, he continued, make “vague expression of attachments to the parent state, and the strongest protestations of loyalty to me, whilst they were preparing for a general revolt.” It was time, he concluded, “ to put a speedy and to these disorders by the most decisive exertions.” In response to the King's charges, Parliament passed the Prohibitory Act. This act declared the colonies outside the protection of the empire, prohibited all commerce with the colonies and initiated a naval blockade, and announced that all colonial ships and cargo forfeit to the Crown as enemy vessels.

Moreover, the month before the convening of the Congress, fighting erupted between British regulars and Massachusetts militiamen at Lexington and Concord.


During the month of May, Congress assumed the role of an unofficial provisional government, trying to coordinate the colonies and assume military control over the thousands of militiamen gathering in the Boston area.


Then on 7 June 1776, representative Richard Henry Lee of Virginia introduced the following resolution:

“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved. That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances. That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted tot he respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.”


After a couple of days debate, the Congress postponed additional discussion until July. At the time, only slightly more than half the colonies supported independence. A consensus had to be formed. Meanwhile, the Congress appointed a committee of five to draft a declaration of independence for adoption if the colonies reached a consensus. The committee delegated to one of its members, Thomas Jefferson, the task of writing a draft.


Finally, on 1 July, the Congress resumed debate on Lee's original resolution. Although no new points emerged, a virtual consensus had been reached. Only the delegates from the state of New York had failed to receive any instructions to support the resolution. So on 2 July 1776, the Continental Congress voted to pass the Lee resolution declaring independence. The United Colonies became the United States.



Richard Henry Lee



The Continental Congress then completed debate on Thomas Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence. After some revisions that more accurately reflected the consensus of the delegates, the voted to approve Jefferson's Declaration on 4 July, 1776.

Monday, June 29, 2015

Of Courting and Marriage

To no one's surprise, the Supreme Court declared that a somewhat archaic eighteenth-century document and one of its somewhat archaic nineteenth-century amendments granted the right of same sex couples to marry. 

It just took us a couple of hundred years to learn it.

The Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 majority in Obergefell vs. Hodges that the United States Constitution requires that states issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.


You can read the complete majority opinion of and the dissenting opinions here.


The decision was no surprise to any one after the Supreme Court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act. Everyone knew where the court would come down on the question of same sex marriage and knew who would write the majority opinion--Justice Anthony Kennedy. He showed his hand so to speak in his intemperate comments regarding those who supported DOMA--in his words a "bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group." He basically labeled President Barack Obama, Vice-President Biden, former President Clinton, the future presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, 342 United States Representatives and 85 Senators BIGOTS.

The legal basis of the decision rests upon the 14th amendment,  That amendment sought to protect the former slaves from legal disabilities imposed by states that might jeopardize their newly won freedom. Congress was especially concerned about blacks who traveled or moved out of their home state. In the decades before the civil war, many states refused to allow free blacks to enter their jurisdictions. Others required that free blacks post bond while traveling through the state for work or if they desired to live in the state. 

In fact, the 14th amendment actually echoes the provisions of Article IV of America's first constitution, the Articles of Confederation:

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State."

The 14th Amendment simply intended to extend these basic privileges and immunities to black citizens. The 14th Amendment had nothing to say about equal rights for blacks, women, homosexuals, or anybody else for that matter.

Although the history, circumstances, and limitations behind the passage of the 14th amendment are well known, Justice Kennedy wrote this fanciful characterization: 

"The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed"


Justice Kennedy offered no evidence in his opinion for this claim. And there is good reason why he did not. 

There is no evidence.

The citizens of this country apparently lacked the "learning" about freedom and the "new insight" to which Kennedy alluded. This is why citizens consistently rejected attempts by state legislatures and state courts to expand marriage laws to includes same sex couples.

Kennedy wants to be our teacher.

That vacuous passage is about the extent of Kennedy's allusions to the Constitution. As in most Supreme Court opinions, Kennedy devoted most of the text to discussion of  Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the issues of marriage, privacy, homosexuality, liberty, and equality. That is the problem with our judiciary. As the courts build precedent upon precedent, their jurisprudential edifice moves ever more distant from the Constitution and the historical context, intents, and actual words of its provisions.

In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy also wrote passionately about the special nature of marriage and the desire of same sex couples to live together in its bond. He retold the stories of the plaintiffs and the hardships they faced because state laws prevented them from enjoying the marriage bond. Kennedy shares the assumption of same sex marriage advocates that the lack of recognition of same sex marriage "stigmatizes" them. Because marriage laws remain some of the last remaining laws that distinguish people based upon their sexual orientation, Kennedy and other advocates of same sex marriage believe that removal of these marriage laws will result in the removal of this stigma.

Kennedy's sociology appears to be no better than his history. The lack of same sex marriage rights is not what stigmatizes same sex couples. Homosexuality itself is the stigma. For all of recorded history, even before the rise of the monotheistic religions notorious for their hostility to homosexuality and in cultures far removed from the influence of those religions, homosexuals have been whispered about, sneered at, mocked, physically abused, and even killed. Even 20th century communist regimes, officially atheist,  condemned homosexuality as "bourgeois egotism" and suspected homosexuals of serving as agents of "counter-revolutionary imperialism."  And the lack of "marriage equality" had nothing to do with it.

Contemporary Americans exhibit much more toleration (at least publicly) that previous generations. The fact remains, however, that large numbers of Americans believe that homosexuality is a sin, a biological anomaly, unnatural,  or, in the words of those following their feelings rather than any thoughtful consideration of the issue--"just plain weird." And for these and a host of other reasons and feelings remain cool to the idea of same sex marriage.

Kennedy and other advocates of same sex marriage exhibit an incredible amount of naivete in believing that simply a change in the law will transform hearts and minds.

And because the way the law was changed, not by deliberation of citizens but  by judicial fiat, it actually may make things worse. Doubters should simply reflect on the way that the Supreme Court's decision in Roe vs. Wade transformed a civil and even conservative approach to reform of abortion laws into a "culture war."

Below, another legendary constitutional scholar who opposed same sex marriage on religious and constitutional grounds:









Friday, June 26, 2015

SCOTUS Upholds SCOTUS-Care

As expected, the United States Supreme Court rejected the most recent legal challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Commonly known as Obamacare, Romneycare, and now via Antonin Scalia, SCOTUS-care, the law faced its most recent challenge on the grounds the the IRS and the Obama administration violated their own law by providing subsidies to those who purchased health insurance in market exchanges set up the federal government.

The law explicitly restricts subsidies to those Americans who purchase insurance through "exchanges established by the states." The subsidies served as a financial incentive for the states to set up exchanges. Witness for the plaintiffs--Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber.







 Moreover, Senator Max Baucus, Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who shepherded the PPACA through Congress, also affirmed that the bill restricted subsidies to exchanges set up by the states.

Because so many states refused to set up exchanges for their citizens to purchase insurance, the federal government set up its own. Then, in violation of its own law, the Obama administration began subsidizing the insurance premiums of those who purchased coverage in the federal exchange.


The court ruled, however, that "exchanges established by the states really means "exchanges established by the states and the federal government."

The Supreme Court justified their decision based upon the intent of Congress. According to John Roberts,

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter."

Moreover, "Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid."

Roberts and his fellow justices completely misconstrued the intent of Congress. Of course Congress intended the insurance markets to work. The purpose of subsidies was to force the states to set up exchanges by means of the promise of federal dollars. The "calamitous" death spiral is what happens when the intention of Congress fails--something that no one anticipated. Contrary to everyone's expectation, many states refused to set up health insurance market exchanges.  Once the Obama administration recognized what was happening, they intervened in violation of their own law. They set up their own exchanges and then subsidized the insurance premiums of those who purchased insurance in those federal exchanges. 

Concluding the the majority of justices simply have decided to protect the PPACT at any cost, including the integrity of law itself, Antonin Scalia dubbed the law SCOTUS-care.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Conservatism and The Confederate Flag

In a short break from the series of posts on Conservatism. . .

The vile and disgusting murder of nine church members by Dylann Roof has spawned a number of so-called "national conversations"--you know-- the ones in which everyone engages in a monologue of ideological sound bites instead of a dialogue that seriously explores alternative views. One of the latest involves revisiting the Confederate battle flag.

Here is my monologue.

Most black Americans see the flag as a symbol of hate. The battle flag originated in the American Civil War. That contest began, of course, when Southern states seceded from the Union to protect slavery from interference by a new political party that had captured control of the White House and both houses of Congress--the Republican Party.

Southerners resurrected the flag in the 1950s in reaction to the Brown vs. Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court that ruled segregated schools violated the United States Constitution and the subsequent efforts of the federal government to enforce that decision. The flag was incorporated into the state flags of many Southern states during this time period by Democratic governors and Democratic controlled state legislatures. It seems no one cared about the issue until Republicans began winning control of state governments. Then the Confederate flag became a controversy.

It doesn't take much empathy for one's fellow citizens to see why black Americans take offense at the display of that flag.

For many white Americans, the flag is a symbol Southern pride or Southern culture.

That's the wonderful thing about symbols: its all inside the head. (One witnesses the same fantasy when people burn the American flag over something is symbolizes in their imagination.)

There is one incontrovertible  fact, however, about what the battle flag symbolizes.

As the Confederate battle flag, it served as the banner under which Southern armies fought in their attempt to break up the United States over the election of the Republican Party in  1860.

That ought to be grounds enough for any self-respecting Republican to oppose the display of that flag in any official capacity that represents a state government. And Republicans need to point out who hoisted the flag in the first place--the Democrats.

When running for president, Barack Obama said that the Confederate flag should be confined to a museum.

That's right Mr. President. Put it in a museum dedicated to the rich history of the Democratic Party.


Don't be confused:


Confederate Battle Flag
 
 
 

 
First CSA national flag: Stars and Bars


Saturday, May 30, 2015

Traditional Marriage: A Brief Defense

Some brief arguments on behalf of traditional marriage:

Conservatives hold a deep respect for tradition. Every generation possesses a cultural inheritance bestowed to them by earlier generations. Whatever traditions constitute part of this inheritance rest upon the reasoning of those earlier generations. Traditions can be changed; some should be changed. Conservatives hold that tradition remains the default position, however,  and that suggested changes must have compelling reasons as justification.

Traditional marriage between one man and one women is such tradition. (It is, of course, a Western European tradition as part of our cultural inheritance from the Greeks and the Romans. It is NOT a biblical tradition, although Christianity has sanctioned traditional marriage. Biblical marriage, of course, is polygamous.)

Traditional marriage is a social reality based upon biological reality. Men  and women engage in sexual intercourse, procreate, rear their offspring, and form kinship networks based upon consanguinity. Homosexual couples cannot do these things. They cannot engage in sexual intercourse properly speaking. They cannot procreate. They cannot form new kinship networks based upon consanguinity.

Obviously, some marriage couples cannot procreate. Although evolution designed two genders for the continued preservation of the species, some people are unable to have children. The fact that some couples cannot have children or that some couples choose not to have children seems irrelevant to the question of same sex marriage. Marriage recognizes the potentiality for children. No same sex couple possesses the potentiality for children.

Centuries ago, Aristotle argued that to understand the justice of any social practice, one must understand its telos--its end or purpose. Only traditional marriage fulfills the fundamental purposes of family formation. Consequently, it is just to restrict marriage to the traditional formula of one man and one woman.

And this is why in every state the laws defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman constitute part of family law or family code.

Marriage is a social convention with social purposes that we as a society can change and define anyway we want. We can change the definition of marriage to include couples of the same sex. We change the definition of marriage to include good old fashioned Biblical or Koranic polygamy. We can change the definition to include new fashioned gender neutral polyamorous relationships.


There just do not seem to be any compelling reasons why we should.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Sexual Disorientation

Several recent posts, here at Right Detour explored the nature of marriage as part of human social reality that rests upon biological reality.

Four million years of human evolution has yielded two genders for the reproduction and rearing of offspring. Nature has provided that men and women are drawn together to some degree subconsciously by subtle visual, auditory, and olfactory cues. For centuries men and women have been engaging in sexual intercourse, giving birth, rearing children, and forming extensive kinship networks based upon consanguinity.

Over the centuries different societies have devised different social conventions that sanction human pairing and infuse it with meanings particular to those cultures. They call it marriage. They are all but universally based upon pairings between men and women. Marriage was created by heterosexuals for heterosexuals.

Yet homosexuals, who make up somewhere between 1%-2% of the population, claim to experience an innate attraction to persons of the same sex. (Because this describes one’s private, subjective mental state, no one can or should contest that claim). They also claim to be born "that way" and that homosexuality results from natural biological processes in the same way as heterosexuality. (That is a very different claim that is by no means obviously true). Consequently, they argue, homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality and should not be the basis of discrimination in the issuing a marriage licenses. But if homosexuality is explained strictly by biology, this makes homosexuality something of a biological anomaly.

Scientists do not usually talk about purposes when describing natural processes such as evolution. Modern science has long abandoned a teleological view of the universe for a mechanistic one. But the mechanisms of evolution have made heterosexuality the biological norm. It is not heterosexuality that needs explanation; it is homosexuality. How is homosexuality to be explained?

The traditional explanation of homosexuality is not biological at all, but psychological and /or moral. Until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association included homosexuality among its list of sexual deviations in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. At that time it substituted Sexual Orientation Disturbance, which referred to people who were unhappy with , in conflict with, or wanting to change, their orientation. This did not mean the APA normalized homosexuality. The author of the change in nomenclature wrote that “by no longer listing it as a psychiatric disorder we are not saying that it is "normal" or as valuable as heterosexuality.” This change occurred, however, as a reaction to political pressure, not as a result of new research evidence or better reasoning about homosexuality. The American Psychological Association followed suit two years later.

At the same time, many jurisdictions in the United States still criminalized certain sexual practices associated with homosexuality. Statutes usually referred to such things as "crimes against nature" rather than violations of the Christian scriptures. As a society we have never squared homosexuality as a mental disorder with homosexuality as a criminal activity. If it is a mental disorder, why to we criminalized it? The same situation persists today with pedophilia. It is still considered a mental illness but is also criminalized.

A more contemporary explanation relies on genetics. Genes determine physical characteristics of biological organisms. It is possible that a mutation triggers drives in homosexuals that deviate from those inherited by the vast majority of other members of homo sapiens. Perhaps homosexuals carry an allele that accounts for the deviation from nature's norm. If true, it suggests that homosexuality is natural in that it results from natural processes. But it is certainly a maladaptive trait. The possession of a homosexual allele or some other genetic factor does not affect directly the viability of the individuals who carry it. But, like most mutations, it is does not appear to enhance the survival of the species as a whole. Homosexuals couples cannot reproduce themselves. If homosexuals found themselves separated geographically so that their gene pool became isolated, it would not lead to new species. It would lead to extinction. Some research suggests, however, the counter intuitive conclusion that homosexual factors in the genes actually increase the chances for reproductive success among heterosexuals. And this explains the persistence of homosexual genetic traits in the general population.

A somewhat different appeal is to behavioral genetics. Genes play a determinate role in the instinct bases species-specific behaviors exhibited by animals. Scientists have now embarked on studies of behavioral genetics in humans. They suggest that a variety of genes contribute to human behavior. This seems to be a much more difficult task, given that humans do not really exhibit instinctual behaviors like other animals. Humans distinguish themselves from other animals by the possession of free will. And this brings us back to the controversy over homosexuality as a matter of choice. Moreover, researchers have yet to find a "homosexual gene."


Some researchers believe that genes contribute to homosexuality indirectly. They suggest that some malfunction of the genes that govern intrauterine development result in homosexual orientation or at least susceptibility to the development of a homosexual orientation. This seems the most probable.


Perhaps homosexuality results from some combination of biological processes, social conditioning, and choice. A recent pamphlet produced by the American Psychological Association suggests just that:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."


Does this mean homosexual relationships are evil? No,


Does this mean homosexual relationships are less worthy? No.


But neither does it contribute much to the argument for homosexual marriage.