Mass Gay Wed Ban Spelled Straight

Mass Gay Wed Ban Spelled Straight

Massachusetts' Gay marriage ban publicized today - is merely the state legislature's reaction to the State Superme Judicial Courts' ruling that the Constitution of Massachusetts requires an equal rights marital provision for homosexuals - persons of the same sex. Rather than pass a law providing for that right's effectuation, the state's legislature assembled in constitutional convention (joint session) to begin the cumbersome process of amending the state constitution to explicitly define marriage as heterosexual, male-female - - - and to offer a same sex civil union equivalent to marriage - the latter however would not be called marriage. The amendment process requires the proposal to be passed at three constitutional convention sessions, again by the legislature and also be placed on a state public ballot .. or some such. Other ballot initiatives for public referendum in Massachusetts are also proposed. Meanwhile, the state deadline of May 17 set by the court is approaching -by which time - the legislature doing nothing - the Court provided a ruling to protect and provide by a prior instruction construing marriage license applications so that marriages of the same sex can occur (with or without the state legal reform) . Massachusetts Governor Romney will seek a stay of the Court's order -to avoid leading people into same-sex marriages which are later transformed to civil unions or disallowed. In short the legislature chose to oppose the Court's ruling by amending the Constitution - which amendment will not occur - until accepted by the state's voters - in time to address the Court's order. Now people of the same sex will seek marriage licenses May 17th and thereafter .. and be entitled to them by the Court ruling .. get them ..get married .. and await further status changes by the state's constitutional amendment procedure - pro or con. During that time - they will be married under and by interpretation of Massachusetts State law. Would it not have been simpler to re-affirm heterosexual marriage as valued; and then to amend the marriage law by easily simply removing the requirements of sexual differences between applicants? ..ie 'Sex-Neutral Marriage'?

NSC Accountability

NSC Accountability

Since Dr. Kissinger streamlined the office and competed with the US Department of State, the Office of National Security Advisor to the President - appointed by the President without Senate Confirmation - has been an issue of Congressional oversight. In technical truth - the issue has been settled by the Iran-Contra affair and the US v. Nixon cases. All US employees are accountable in oversight to the appropriations process which funds and pays them. Ordinarily - the Senatorial consent of a Presidential appointee implicitly grants that review or performance in checking the executive. Past US Presidents for confidence and bi=partisanship have offered their NSC Advsisor choice for a Congressional approval -but the offer was never pursued. The important NSC Advisor position is not confimed by the Senate. They do testify before Congress and Congress and Executive Branch Commissions at their option and the President's option - out of respect for Congress and the American people. We will face this issue on the Iraqi Intelligence Commission. Congress cannot join the Executive Branch in co-governance without expertise and review of expertise offered to the President in and with his Cabinet. Compelled testimony shuld not be necessary - secure testimony may be and is provided - and Executive Privilege - that doctrine which conserves quiet corridors of candor and confidence - is served. Sustaining the latter- means that a classified matters executive expert - need only fear disclosure of his communications when they are perjurious; incompetent or malfeasant. As the constitutional cases and the instrument in implcit functioning common sense requires .. when the balance of an essential inquiry meets the executive privilege - the blanket is tailored - not thrown over everything.

Clarke's Pique - Bush's Boffle

Clarke's Pique - Bush's Boffle

Mr. Clarke - late of the Bush-Clinton-Bush White House Counter-Terrorism National Security apparatus, has piqued the Bush Administration with his remarks and disclosures in a recent book -explaining the Administration's tethering of counter-terrorism. From the top down - the initial story has been the Bush Boffle on the Clarke vantaged memoire rather than his revelations. A secure White House rebuts and accepts differing criticism and doesn't lager itself - particularly before reading the acclaiming or defaming work. Of the top five - Powell alone; then a near-form by Rumsfeld; responded with an appropriate have not read it yet. Others in the top branch defenseively hyper-reacted. Clarke's main point alone? -- that GW Bush Jr. and his Presidency were so obsessed with finishing Bush I's Iraq leftover (by policy implications) that counter-terrorism was seconded. That co-incided with the Kean 9-11 Commission's review of US pre-9-11 counter-terrorism. Clarke, in testimony, faulted himself and the Administration of which he was a cross-administration part by the simple fact of failed attack prevention - (ie Al Quaeda's cheap success). Instead of joining and focussing - the Administration, caught off guard, hunkered down and stone-rolled. Stone-rolling is like Nixon Administration stone-walling. In stone walling - you become as responsive as a stone wall - you let nothing out. In stone-rolling .. you let it out slowly as if an inexorably slow heavy stone door were being rolled back, slowly revealing the crux and truth. Mr. Clarke, a civil servant in form, for 10 years - specializing in counter-terrorism - should be back in the US national security complex ... Homeland Security or a speciality desk in the executive branch could use him. His speciality would otherwise continue in permitted pubic education or think-tanking or corporate security -- especially financial, telecommmunications and cyber-security. Prescription? Address counter-terrorism: Government -not egos.