A quick search of Firstgov helped me snag the text of co-sponsor Musgrave’s Federal Marriage Amendment  H.J. Res. 56.

This is classic policy claim stuff, complete with all the stock issues associated with a problem solution bit of argument. The solution to the problem is, of course, the amendment, which reads

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

In my opinion (and perhaps in Orwell’s), phrases and verbal chunks such as “Neither . . . shall be construed to require that . . .” are always problematic, and, dare I say, always meant to deceive. “Be construed to require” here can be taken as “‘interpreted’ to require” or “shall be ‘interpreted’ to require that . . .” or ‘shall be understood’ to require. In other words, the amendment language is merely ordering that one interpretation be discounted, obviated, restrained, or simply ignored. All people shall take the color red as to construe the color of red and no other color shall forthwith be taken or be understood to mean any other color other than red. Personally speaking, I think a sentence like the first be set as law in the United States goes beyond idiocy. From here to eternity, none shall ever but when together and side by side grasp the left hand of their companion with their right hand unless they are married and in that case and in no other case which shall not be construed as a suggestion but as quoth from on high, or heard on the wind, shall henceforth keep their hands in the rear pocket of their opposite, which shall require that only married couples shall be required to wear pants.

To continue the stock language issues, here’s the problem the amendment means to solve

The Federal Marriage Amendment is an urgently needed response to the pending judicial destruction of the legal status of marriage in America. Most legal experts predict that a case now pending before the Massachusetts state Supreme Court will destroy marriage as the union of a man and a woman. At that point, lawsuits will be filed in every state to force this destructive social revolution upon the entire nation. Since over 70% of Americans believe marriage is uniquely the union of a man and woman, the American people have consistently voted to defend marriage in both Hawaii and Alaska.

Here are the advantages:

Existing Legal Protections Are Insufficient:

1. The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cannot prevent activist groups from undermining marriage laws through lawsuits brought in state court in states such as Vermont and Massachusetts. These state lawsuits will lay the foundation for additional lawsuits around the country. For example, over 80% of Vermont so-called civil unions involve out-of-state residents — from every state in the nation — who will file lawsuits to undermine marriage in their respective states. A similar pattern can be expected to apply in Massachusetts.

2. State marriage laws and DOMA are not likely to survive if challenged in court. Although the courts may uphold the federal DOMA as it applies to federal law, they will almost certainly invalidate the section of DOMA that attempts to bar interstate transmission of same-sex marriages. Under the established doctrine of judicial supremacy in matters of constitutional interpretation, this section of DOMA will be viewed as an unconstitutional effort to base an Act of Congress upon a purportedly authoritative interpretation of a constitutional text (the Full Faith and Credit Clause)

Her’s the best solution though: do away with DOMA. Problem solved. The amendment language here is loaded not with constitutional legal dogma but with straw men and question begging. To this point: “The Federal Marriage Amendment is an urgently needed response to the pending judicial destruction of the legal status of marriage in America.” “Juditial destruction” is an inference not a fact, nor does it make much sense since the distinction between legal status as social construction and norm and legal status as political position doesn’t appear to matter. There’s no reference to the legal arguments coming out of the Mass court, which is where the argument should go or be directed toward, not as a political gesture, meant to head off some “destruction” of a “wish.” In the end, the question of DOMA and the above amendment go to the idea of bias and bad consitutional faith, not marriage or “status.”

This is naked politics. Not good, well argued law and policy.

If this were about just legal status and the love of some ideal of marriage, then we’d need a law outlawing divorce.

Now that people have headed away from the Superbowl imbroglio, moving on to other tragedies, I’d like to suggest a venture back into it.

In sport there are moments or long lines of what might be termed naked excellence. I remember watching John McEnroe begin and end his career, going from brat genius to even-tempered old-timer, which created a relationship and conflict with the conventions of the court. The amazing six hour match in 1982 between McEnroe and Wilander, however, for the Davis Cup title is one of those moments where nothing moved but them.

Vinatieri’s excellence on the field proves that every game tells a story. The chair edges in the houses of sport’s fans are slippery with use.

Then there’s the half-time stuff, the fool’s game in between, the juggling for coins. I think there’s something to say about the audience (me) and the producers here in the positioning of things. It may be strange that pro ballers are paid nice chunks of dough. Deford and others have talked a lot about this juicy bit. Much like CEO pay. It may be outrageous. I think it is. Is maybe 200,000 not enough?

But the image does matter. When I watched McEnroe and Wilander play, I knew with every stroke that everything was in that match, the skill, the power, the commitment. It went way beyond entertainment but into the space of skilled struggle or excellence. Matching. The politics and the show disappear.

Then the kicker rises. Everything else disappears. Everything else becomes trivial. The half-time show proves this.

I’ve been going through comp student lists of possible topics of study and am finding pretty standard stuff, which is fine. The question is what to do with an idea. I have one topic called: cars. Hm. What do with that.

Lots of things. Here’s one.

Thinking from the subject is a skill of extension, which is why I try to have students visualize with maps or clusters of ideas.

Consider this list which stems from autos:

Speed, marketing, fuel cells, vegetable oil, instrustry and the environment, the politics of transportation, urban planning.

All of these would be great topics of concern. For essay writers and poets by the way. I find the image of a person gassing up behind the local McDonalds quite invigorating.

For writers, coming up with a subject can be backbreaking work. I’ve known Ph.D and masters students who’ve hit the brick wall of “the subject.” Some simply didn’t have one and the ticker just ran out. I used to give students “the subject” in composition but found over the semesters that this could lead to just as much mental suffocation as anything else. You could smell resentment in the clouds of chalk dust, too. Something about the classroom, the world of writing in college, the thought of essays and research papers kills human curiosity. Is that too grand of a statement? Too much of a generalization?

As the candidates for the Dem nomination go about their business regardless of politics, they have to push ideas. Every day. Multiple venues. Constant scrutiny. Talking, writing, convincing–all of these become their job for a few years. They have a subject, troublesome or whateveryone wants to hear. This is a cosmic version of the day to day for most of use, since everyday we have to communicate ideas, convince others, complete projects, and explain ourselves. This is routine. In a way, composition is about teaching the routine of the days to come where the ability to convince and explain becomes an issue of survival.

The writer has to rely on technique whether the project is given or invented. Where does the college student go to find the subject? The thing that they will examine, the idea that will keep them going till the semester is over and they depart for more writing and thinking?

Life.

The Columbia Journalism Review weblog comments on misuse of the ellipses.

In a comment, Sarina Salemi had asked why Dennis Kucinich may be Beowulfian. In my estimation (and this is simply a guess really) and from taking some time over the last few months familiarizing myself with the Dem candidates for nomination–from Kerry’s tragic posture, to Lieberman’s desperation–I find that with Kucinich (perhaps the least nationally electable of people, which is probably a compliment) what you see, hear, and read is what you get.

I don’t agree with his all positions. But I get the impression that with this politician, you know what to agree or disagree with. This is fresh and rare.

For me, labels don’t matter, or platforms. It’s coherence and transparency that get’s me interested.

Reading some of the coverage of Governor Rowland’s political troubles is just weird. Christopher Shayes (R-4) claims that what Roland did was “totally wrong” but ventures that his gift-acceptence wasn’t illegal. Others, such as Dean Pagini, Rowland’s chief of staff, shadow this with observations that Rowland believes he broke no laws.

These people must know something we don’t. Shayes must know exactly what took place otherwise he wouldn’t deny legal foul play. I want to know what Shayes and Pagini know that neither The Middletown Press nor The Hartford Courant have yet to report.

The Journal Inquirer claims that much has yet to be disclosed and has been working to grab docs having to do with other gift issues–travel and work–that may prove or disprove a pattern of corruption at the state house. The JI writes:

Garber [Rowland’s lawyer] denied the JI’s request to examine all schedules prepared for Rowland by his staff, asserting, “the personal travel of the governor and his family do not relate to the public interest.”

Garber is shrewed. Because he’s right. Personal travel doesn’t matter and I’m sure the JI would agree. What does matter is who paid; that is the public’s interest, and that’s what, it would appear, the JI wants to know.

The illogic is just stunning.

I don’t know quite how to categorize this post but it’s essentially about politics and participation. I caught the last few minutes of the ABC News & WMUR-TV sponsored “debate” on C-Span tonight and pretty much liked what I saw. In typical C-Span style, there was no commentary or explanation and the display just happened and went wherever it went. I’m a Kucinich supporter myself.

After the “debate” (the definition of this word has changed over the years apparently) I heard Paul Begala of CNN start to bad mouth the candidates as a paid political entertainer. I was in another room but it went something like, “grrr grrrr grrrr grrr.”

Before my antennae stopped working on my car radio, I used to listen to NPR as a matter of course, and for some years (about 17) I’ve noticed a trend in commentary journalism to speak about political subjects and politicians with an attitude of cynical remove, advancing opinions about, say, partisan strategies with language such as “The democrats are concerned with . . .” or whatever candidate “is trying to appeal to their base . . .” or so and so is “tailoring their message to minorities.” Here democrat, base, and minority are being treated as if they’re asleep; they’re present, maybe, but referred to in the third person, as if they have no true presence. Everyone is basically reified.

Then we have the political entertainment concerns: CNN, Fox, and the Sunday talk on channel _____. Crossfire, Hannity and Colmes–I watch some of these the way I listen to talk radio (or used to before . . . well) for a few minutes before slipping in a CD or clicking around the channels for something on carnivorous plants.

What’s the matter with this? The reification and the entertainment approach in my opinion reveal something about media trends that turn American politics and government (two different things) into programmed subjects that don’t exist beyond newsroom decisions and have no vigorous reality. Media loves to talk about strategy, the horse race of elections, personality, and then more strategy, attempting to tell me why so and so is shaping his or her message to “minorities.”

The ubiquity of mediated discussion shapes how we view ideas and issues, of course. Politics is associated with programming. Political entertainment isn’t politics yet it seems to give it a roisterous, unreal context, as if political decisions have nothing to do with the commentators or the entertainers other than as subjects to manage and chunk up into slots and as an excuse to say the same thing over and over. Change the names and play the broadcasts from a year back and perhaps we wouldn’t hear the difference: the president and the office have become mere subject matter, employment opportunity, disconsolate amusement.

What do we need? Do we need the industry of commentators and entertainers? Is this a necessity? How does it shape our concept of journalism and history and our ability to make decisions about life concerns? The promo for CNN’s Dec. 10th American Morning claims this: “Tomorrow, we’ll have a recap and reaction to the final Democratic presidential debate of the year.” Pinch me.