Blog Poll: Bartling Outpolls Barnett... and a Dems' Quandary

The latest Madville Times poll asked, "Who gets your vote for South Dakota auditor?" You, dear readers, gave Democrat Julie Bartling the nod:

Julie Bartling	74 (56%)
Steve Barnett	57 (44%)

Votes: 131

Not bad, although given the standard Madville Times bias and barn-sized margin of error, Bartling should keep shaking hands and kissing babies...

...which brings me to my quandary. Julie Bartling is notorious among South Dakota Dems for her work on the 2005 abortion task force and her primary sponsorship of the 2006 abortion ban. Bartling has since disavowed her 2006 legislation (which failed to pass muster with voters on referral that year). But some Dems don't like Bartling's politics on reproductive rights and may thus withhold their vote from her for state auditor.

When I first heard this Dem complaint, I thought, What's the fuss? She'll have a lot less opportunity to advance the Hunt/Unruh Handmaid's Tale agenda from the auditor's office than from the Senate chamber. Bartling will be a good state auditor. Her quals—18 years as Gregory County auditor—beat the pants off the other guy. Besides, we need every Dem we can get in state office so we can build a stronger bench of candidates for future races.

Yet I'm still considering my own protest vote against a down-ticket Dem over a similar hot-button political disagreement. Doyle Karpen wants to replace Dusty Johnson on the Public Utilities Commission. Doyle Karpen is a good Democrat with lots of good public service experience. But Doyle Karpen also thinks the Hyperion refinery would be "fantastic" for South Dakota and was instrumental as Union County Commissioner in opening the door for those Texas oil men to tear up a lot of good farmland and keep us addicted to fossil fuels. And a Public Utilities Commissioner has a little more say over other big dirty oil projects than an auditor does over abortion legislation.

But if I tell Dems to drop their political grudges and vote for Bartling, can they not bounce the same argument back to tell me to vote for Karpen?

I have some thinking to do over the next four weeks. Your thoughts, dear readers, are welcome in that process.

Fast Horse: Amend Indian Civil Rights Act, Abolish BIA

Todd Curtis Fast Horse, member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, writes in The Independent Local that his tribal government needs a whoopin':

On the Rosebud Indian Reservation there is only the illusion of a tribal government that represents the people, is honestly elected and abides by the Constitution under which it was created.

In reality, nothing could be the further from the truth. When tribal governments are allowed to control all funds public and private, as well as tribal revenues and donated resources with no accountability, mismanagement, embezzlement and theft are only the beginning.

I believe Kleptocracy best describes the type of government created by the self-appointed long-term tribal government politicians. The term literally means, “Rule by thieves.” From the inside looking out, bribery, nepotism, cronyism, theft, embezzlement and electoral fraud are a big part of the status quo [Todd Curtis Fast Horse, "When Silence Is Betrayal," The Independent Local, 2010.10.03].

Fast Horse continues, saying the Bureau of Indian Affairs lacks the will and the authority to enforce the Indian Civil Rights Act and facilitates tribal corruption. Fast Horse calls for amending the ICRA and abolishing the BIA.

Fast Horse is a former Rosebud Community Chairman. He was kicked out of office and censured by the tribal council at the end of 2008. He tells more about the political corruption on the Rosebud in this letter to the Resource Party.

Sounds like Fast Horse and his neighbors should dress up like Gordon Howie and Barb Lindberg and toss their elected officials in the Little White River. I'm still waiting for our Tea Party activists to reach out to the reservations and make some serious efforts to fight political corruption right here in South Dakota.

Chicoine Cold-Shoulders AAUP on Cantangui

The American Association of University Professors remains unsatisfied with Monsanto executive board member and SDSU President David Chicoine's response to their concerns about the firing of entomologist Mike Catangui.

Actually, AAUP is saying, what response? In an August 24 letter to President Chicoine, the AAUP says they are still waiting for a response from Chicoine to their July 8 letter protesting the apparent lack of due process in Catangui's dismissal. They acknowledge that the university subsequently granted Catangui a closed-door August 9 hearing before a faculty committee. However, according to AAUP's letter, the Board of Regents officially terminated Catangui's employment August 14, well before the anticipated release of the faculty committee's report on August 30.

AAUP isn't fighting now for Catangui to remain at SDSU; they're simply saying that if you're going to fire a professor, you've still got to accord him due process. Their position: Catangui should remain on staff and receive salary at least until the formal hearing process has concluded and the faculty committee has issued its report.

Whether Chicoine deigns to offer AAUP the courtesy of a response remains to be seen.
--------------------------
Archive update 2010.09.01: see also coverage in the Brookings Register. Getting fired twice in one summer—that just stinks!

Big Brother at Your School: Check Tech Policy for UN Rights Violations

As you get ready to send your kids back to school (before Labor Day? far too early! it's still summer!), keep an eye out for those wordy Internet/Technology Use Agreements your kids will surely bring home for you to sign. Those are the hefty policies that basically say that if your kids touch a computer at school, the district owns their soul.

You might want to pay particular attention to the rules your school sets for monitoring your kids' computer usage at school, whether by spyware or even via webcam. As Web scholar Jill Walker Rettberg points out, your school may be violating the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children (to which, yes, the United States is a signatory). Walker Rettberg highlights these two relevant articles of the UNCRC:

13. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.

16. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.

Does your child enjoy those freedoms? I know ours does... in home school.
------------------------
Update 18:05 CDT: But oh my gosh: the kids are sexting! Aaaaccckk! Lock down all the computers! Confiscate all the cell phones!

Oh well: at least if they sext in a committed relationship, it won't hurt their grades.

BP Does More Damage than Failed Bomber: Strip Corporate Rights

Corporations are persons, right? Persons who threaten to damage our country deserve to lose their constitutional rights, right?

The Displaced Plainsman takes the square root of those two and asks this arguably reasonable question:

BP has caused millions of dollars of damage to the United States. The damage may be the result of negligence or criminal activity. If true, why can’t BP the individual be declared an enemy combatant for terrorizing the United States? The harm done by the spill is far greater than the harm that would have been done by the Times Square Bomb attempt. In fact, people actually died because of BP’s actions [LK, "A Question in Which I Act Like a Cranky Conspiracy Theorist, Sort Of," The Displaced Plainsman, 2010.05.11].

People want to take away Faisal Shahzad's rights as a person for bumbling in his use of firecrackers. Why don't we get as cranky about the real damage—human, ecological, and economic—done by corporations?

TransCanada Party to Genocide; Repeal Keystone XL Permit Now

So that's why TransCanada so carefully avoided drawing Keystone XL across Indian Country....

The South Dakota Legislature enacted two laws this year empowering the state to use its investment clout to fight genocide, terrorism, and other crimes against humanity. Senate Bill 21 directs the State Investment Council to comply with federal divestiture enactments against companies doing business in countries that are up to no good. The Legislature called for the first enactment of this new law in HCR 1012, a resolution protesting the atrocities in Sudan. Senate Bill 134 directs the State Investment Council to pull money out of certain companies doing business in Iran.

I approve of both bills, but it is worth noting that the companies targeted under these new laws are only middlemen to evil. We invest in Shell, Shell drills for oil in Iran, Shell pays Iran fees and taxes, Iran uses that money to build weapons for terrorists, terrorists kill our soldiers—Shell is still culpable, but not directly. Divesting in Shell is somewhat like punishing the gun shop owner for selling a gun to a felon, or fining the bartender for selling one too many drinks to the drunk who gets behind the wheel and causes a wreck.

If that level of culpability for atrocities in Sudan and Iran can provoke our Legislature to withdraw state investments, how was the Legislature able to authorize continued tax breaks for Canadian oil company TransCanada, whose actions in northern Alberta have directly contributed to Canada's continued abuse and decimation of the Lubicon tribe?

Overlooked when a treaty was signed with other aboriginals in 1899, the Lubicon were promised a reserve 40 years later that never materialized. They never ceded their ancestral lands or signed a treaty with Alberta or Canada.

Industry laid siege and during the past 25 years, billions of dollars of oil and gas and timber have been taken from their traditional lands, leaving the Lubicon decimated with a compromised water supply, third-world diseases, birth defects and an epidemic of suicides and other social ills.

With unwavering government support, it is proving easier and vastly more profitable for industry to simply continue the siege and wear them down over time than to sincerely negotiate. Yes, a slow genocide-by-attrition is taking place in our so-called "civilized" neighbor of Canada.

A couple years ago, TransCanada Corp. joined the fray with a proposed 42-inch natural gas pipeline across unceded and disputed Lubicon land. It would supply natural gas to cook the vast tar sands for oil - the most environmentally destructive project on Earth. The Lubicon were denied standing before the Alberta Utilities Commission, which ultimately issued the license.

A political-business duopoly rules Alberta, supported for the most part by a compliant Judiciary. Advisors to the Lubicon have their telephone calls monitored, mail opened and e-mails diverted. With the deck stacked against them, the Lubicon appealed to the United Nations.

Three separate U.N. bodies (U.N. Human Rights Committee, U.N. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the U.N. Special Rapportuer on Housing) have told TransCanada to cease and desist and respect international covenants [William M. Cox, "Sever All Ties with TransCanada," Juneau Empire, 2010.03.31].

Review this detailed timeline of the trickery and abuse heaped on this small First Nations group by Canadian industry and by the governments of Alberta and Canada.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has more than once declared that Canada's unfair policies and industrial exploitation of Lubicon land constitutes a violation of fundamental human rights. Amnesty International notes that oil extraction has had enormous impacts on wildlife and in just one generation has ruined the ability of the Lubicon to provide for themselves through hunting. The World Council of Churches recognized in 1983 that such destruction of traditional economy and violation of legal rights by the Alberta government and several multinational oil companies "could have genocidal consequences."

And here is TransCanada, building a big pipeline right across Lubicon land with little regard for the wishes or legal rights of the people who live there. Hmm... sound familiar, neighbors?

TransCanada does acknowledge the Lubicon land claim... with two sentences:

TransCanada is aware the Lubicon Nation has outstanding land claim issues in the region of the project. While we continue to support and encourage the Lubicon Nation and all levels of government to reach a resolution to the land claim issue, we have no authority to resolve the issue ["North Central Corridor Pipeline Project," TransCanada.com, last updated 2010.02.02].

Nice. They claim no authority to resolve the land claim "issue"... but they'll happily exercise authority to exacerbate it by building a pipeline right across the disputed land.

So South Dakota plans to hand over millions of dollars in tax refunds to TransCanada, a company directly participating in environmental destruction and human rights abuses that some have gone so far as to call genocide. Perhaps our legislators should review the social investment laws they passed this winter. Perhaps they should consider this weekend's conversation about Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Perhaps we should think about the moral obligations we have to all native peoples in the spirit of the Year of Unity declared by our governor.

If we will pull money from companies contributing indirectly to human rights violations by generating revenue for evil governments in Iran and Sudan, we should act with stronger revulsion to withhold our money from an oil company committing direct human rights violations with its business practices.

Legislature, call a special session and revoke TransCanada's tax refunds. Public Utilities Commission, reject the lighter conditions TransCanada wants for Keystone XL... and while you're at it, revoke their permit.

SD House Republicans Table Anti-Discrimination Act

Curtis Price at Robbinsdale Radical documents the yeas and nays on the regrettable tabling of HB 1144 yesterday. The bipartisan bill would specify that discrimination on the basis of age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or military status in employment and housing is not cool. Equality SD asks for fairness; the faux family values crowd screams perversion and social collapse, and the Republicans chicken out and table the bill.

In an otherwise mostly sensible interview on Dakota Midday yesterday, new "political junkie" and MDL publisher Jon Hunter unloaded a bonehead comment on HB 1144. He said something about being uneasy with creating all these new legal protections for special groups and worrying that pretty soon public radio will be forced to hire people who can't speak. Jonathan Ellis from that Sioux Falls paper quickly pointed out that HB 1144 really just catches South Dakota up with the times. 44 of South Dakota's 50 largest employers already prohibit discrimination against sexual orientation and/or gender identity, as do SDSU, USD, and various cities, counties, and school districts.

So if Hunter really thinks HB 1144 would take us down some slippery slope, he should realize our biggest employers have already taken us there. Employers like Sanford Health, Citigroup, Larson Manufacturing, 3M, Hy-Vee, Sam's Club, Target, Poet, Qwest, Lewis, and Gehl....

Go ahead, family values crowd. Try boycotting all of those companies. Try getting all of your relatives and neighbors to quit their jobs at those outposts of liberal tyranny.

The Williams Institute at UCLA has a really good report on why legislation like HB 1144 is good for citizens and doesn't cause any of the made-up disadvantages Jon Hunter and other regressives cite. Read it, call your legislators, and let's get HB 1144 back on track!

HB 1255: End Food Tax, Bump Sales Tax to 4.3%

Neighbor on the other side of the state Stan Gibilisco absolutely will not support a state income tax. However, he is open to a revision of the state sales tax proposed by House Bill 1255. This legislation, sponsored by Representative Marc Feinstein and Senator Pam Merchant, would set the sales tax rate on food at 0%. "Food" would not include alcoholic beverages, pop, candy, dietary supplements, food from vending machines, or prepared food.

To keep the books balanced, HB 1255 would increase the state sales, use, and excise taxes on pretty much everything else from 4% to 4.3%.

What do you think: are you willing to eat that cost to end the food tax? As Mr. Ehrisman points out, more South Dakotans are having to turn to food aid like The Banquet. Food stamp use in the state is up over 10%. Would HB 1255 help working families put food on the table... or would the increased tax on other goods and services cancel out any advantage for the folks who need help?

We'll hear what the House Taxation Committee thinks when they take up HB 1255 bright and early tomorrow morning.

--------------------------
By the way, a perhaps discussion-worthy note on legal language: HB 1255 amend our tax law to refer to "the use of food" as a "privilege." I take it any of us lefties who think eating is a right can sit on a tack... as can international human rights advocates.

But our state tax law already says that "engaging in business as a retailer" and using goods and services are also privileges. So good old Main Street entrepreneurship isn't a right, either. Socialists and capitalists alike have something to discuss over (taxable) coffee this morning.

HB 1144: Expand Protection Against Discrimination to Old Folks, Gays, and Veterans

If you enjoyed the fracas in Rapid City over their anti-bullying policy, then let's get ready to rumble on the state level. Mr. Price at Robbinsdale Radical alerts us to the welcome entry of HB 1144 into the Legislature's agenda. HB1144 adds age, sexual orientation, gender identity, and veteran or military status to the classes of persons protected from discrimination under South Dakota's Human Rights laws.

HB 1144 does not add corporations to the list of protected persons. It does, however, replace salesman with salesperson in the statute prohibiting business discrimination. Landladies, your window of opportunity to discriminate is about to close.

Local legislator Mitch Fargen (D-8/Flandreau) has the guts to put his name on this bill—Russ, Gerry, where are you? Some of my other favorite Dems are also sponsors (e.g. Pam Merchant, Bernie Hunhoff, Ben Nesselhuf). They are joined in sponsorship by some prominent Republicans, including Senator Abdallah and Representative Krebs. Let's see who starts trotting out the anti-political correctness meme against Grandma and veterans....

Gee, who's Gordon Howie going to threaten if this bill passes?

Free Speech for Corporations: What Proper Constraints?

A just society would be one in which liberty for one person is constrained only by the demands created by equal liberty for another.

Ivan Illich, Tools for Conviviality, 1973, p. 41

A corporation is not a person. The law and a majority of the current Supreme Court say it is, but they are wrong. As Justice John Paul Stevens said from the bench in dissent yesterday, "corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires."

But let's set that argument aside (as does the Roberts-Scalia wing of the Court). While I read the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowing corporations to donate to political campaigns, consider this scenario:

Suppose I, a person, amass a vast sum of money (through hard work and wise investing). I run for state senate against Russ Olson. Two weeks before the election, I offer the Madison Daily Leader, KJAM, and every other media outlet that reaches our district four times their going rate to buy every available ad space. Good capitalists all, they accept. I even buy up Pat Powers's whole sidebar (and send his seven kids to college). For two weeks before the election, my disproportionate wealth drowns out the message of my opponent.

Wealth is power. When is my power to "speak" so great that it threatens the liberty of others? What proper constraints may society place upon my use of my wealth to "speak" in the public sphere?

---------------------------------
While we think about that, here's some more reading on yesterday's remarkable Supreme Court ruling:

1. Dahlia Lithwick, "The Pinocchio Project," Slate, 2010.01.21.
2. What's next: voting rights for corporations? Lyle Denniston, "Analysis: The Personhood of Corporations," SCOTUSBlog, 2010.01.21.
3. See also Erin Miller's great SCOTUSBlog round-up of first-day reaction to Citizens United v. FEC.—beaucoup links!

Update 2010.01.28: Dr. Newquist understands the question of disproportionate power at which I'm driving.

Google to China: No More Censorship

I love Google. The company found Chinese hackers were targeting companies and Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Google is now considering some hard-line foreign policy:

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered--combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web--have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China [David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, "A New Approach to China," The Official Google Blog, 2010.01.12].

Google vows to do no evil. If Google follows through with this statement, it will be doing some active good on behalf of human rights.

I wonder: is Google's announcement the first step into a geopolitical era when private corporations will be able to impose effective sanctions on nations? And if other Internet companies follow Google's lead (as some rights groups hope), could withdrawal of Internet services affect modern nations the way OPEC squeezed America with the oil embargo in the 1970s?

---------------------------------
Update 21:25 CST: Glyn Moody suggests the Chinese will just shrug and clamp down even more. Moody sees more possibility that Google's move may provoke other Western companies (and countries?) to consider putting principle over profit in dealing (or not) with China.

Hoadley Leads Winning Gay Rights Campaign in Kalamazoo

Here's an election result you won't hear the conservatives celebrating: voters in Kalamazoo, Michigan, passed a ban on discrimination against GLBT folks in public services, housing, and employment by an overwhelming 65–35 margin. Leading the "One Kalamazoo" campaign to pass the ban: South Dakota native Jon Hoadley. Conservative "family" groups tried twice to overturn city action before Kalamazoo leaders turned the issue over to voters. Hoadley was able to help local groups organize a voting drive and win the endorsement of numerous civic groups, including some religious groups.

In a year of Tea Party bluff and bluster, it's good to see Jon successfully fighting to take America back... for all Americans. Nice work, Jon!

I Got a Guy in Kalamazoo: SD Native Hoadley Leads Rights Push

Another South Dakota debater moving and shaking: OneKalamazoo has hired Vermillion native and activist Jon Hoadley to lead a campaign in Kalamazoo, Michigan, to pass a gay-rights ordinance in the city's November 3 election. The local theocracy chapter is quaking in their boots, boo-hooing that Hoadley "has the ability to raise a quarter-million dollars and deliver a cadre of national volunteers" to help pass this city ordinance that would prevent landlords, restaurant owners, and employers from saying, "We don't take your kind" to folks of different sexual persuasions.

If Hoadley has that kind of power, he must be doing something right. Jon, when you get done fighting the good fight in Kalamazoo, come back to South Dakota and help us overturn our silly gay-marriage ban. You almost got us to victory last time; let's try again!

Domestic Abuse = Pre-Existing Condition in South Dakota

A Kevin Bacon hat tip to my wife, who read this on Pandagon, who got this from the SEIU:

Loyal readers, you know I love South Dakota. That's why I live here. That's why my daughter will grow up here. But some news makes me want to take my state by the scruff of the neck and say "South Dakota! What on earth is wrong with you?!"

To wit: South Dakota is one of nine states that allows health insurance companies to reject applications from victims of domestic abuse. South Dakota women, if your husband beats you, he may render you uninsurable.

I can't sort out all the levels on which South Dakota's policy here is disgusting. Domestic abuse is all about power, usually some desperate, inadequate, pathetic man using fists and fear to force a woman into submission. Wifebeaters cut their victims off from avenues of social and financial support. Taking away a woman's ability to buy her own health insurance can cripple her financially and reinforce her dependence on her abuser. By making it possible for some brute to take away a woman's insurability with one drunken wallop, we, the state of South Dakota, become accomplices in domestic abuse.

Somewhere, some insurance company employee (any bets on whether it was a man?) had to reason out the following: "Gee, women whose husbands beat them might incur more medical costs. Women whose husbands beat them might reduce our profits. Therefore, we should not do business with women whose husbands beat them."

Our private health insurance system not only allows but embraces such appalling thinking. The state of South Dakota facilitates such evil, favoring profits over people. South Dakota considers wife-beating, like pregnancy, a pre-existing condition. I keep hearing we're a pro-life state, but our leaders keep providing evidence to the contrary.

We may not be able to legislate or educate every man into showing every woman the proper love and respect the Bible demands. But we can act to change an immoral system that perpetuates the powerlessness abusers inflict on their victims. Mitch, Gerry, Russ—fix this.

Domestic abuse is not a pre-existing condition. It is a crime for which the abuser, not the abused, should be punished. No man should be allowed to take away a woman's right, if not to receive health care, then to participate in the free market and buy with her own money the health insurance that is necessary to get care.

Updating the Archives: Walker Bomb Threat Charges Go Nowhere

A while back (December 2007), I discussed the case of U.S. Marine Corps veteran Mark R. Walker, who was slapped with a rather tenuous charge of false reporting to authorities in connection with a flip comment he made to a bank teller about the contents of a package he was carrying. I don't recall anyone ever producing a good explanation of why it's a bank teller's business what a customer is taking to the post office. And I don't recall anyone following up with coverage of the trial or sentence.

That would be because there was no trial or sentence. I bumped into Mr. Walker in town the other day. (He was carrying a big backpack. I didn't even think to ask what was in it.) He says that when the whole fracas went down, he was at first inclined to go with the flow, plead, whatever. But when he realized the authorities wanted to make some sort of example on him, Walker took one simple action: he said he'd call his lawyer. That simple assertion of a basic right was all it took to make the authorities drip their flimsy homeland-hysteria case.

Walker was among the dozens laid off from Gehl last October. He plans to head up to Canada for university. And thanks to the GI Bill, you and I will fund his studies to become a planetary geologist. That's reasonable compensation for service to one's country. Now if we could just arrange compensation for treating a guy like a menace to society.

Tiller Murder Suspect Says More Killings Planned: Time for Torture?

From AP, an hour ago:

The man charged in the shooting death of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller warned Sunday that more violence is possible.

Scott Roeder, being held on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in Tiller's killing one week ago, called The Associated Press from the Sedgwick County jail.

Tiller, whose Wichita clinic was among only a few in the U.S. performing third-trimester abortions, was shot while serving as an usher at the Lutheran church he attended.

"I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," Roeder said.

He would not elaborate [Roxana Hegeman, "Suspect in Kan. Doctor's Death Warns of Violence," AP via Google News, 2009.06.07].

It looks like we have Michael Sanborn's hypothetical come true: a suspected domestic terrorist in our custody declares he knows of more terrorist acts planned around the country. He refuses to talk to police, demanding his lawyer.

For those of you who believe torture is justified to protect Americans from terrorism, is it time to torture Scott Roeder to force him to tell us what he knows about future terrorist attacks?

Side question: should the AP stop taking this creep's calls? This media-hog is on a par with Osama bin Laden. Should a suspected terrorist like this have phone privileges that allow him to use the AP to issue further threats against the United States of America?

Jesus Is Not Jack Bauer

Another hat tip to DakotaWomen*, who brought to our attention Wednesday this disturbing survey. Among other things, the Pew Forum found that the folks most likely to say torture of suspected terrorists is "sometimes" or "often" justified were white evangelical Protestants. "Unaffiliated" respondents and infrequent chruchgoers expressed the greatest resistance to justifying such torture.

I offered the ladies this comment:

What would Jesus do? Weep. These numbers suggest that too many Christians have conflated Jesus with Jack Bauer or some such archetype. Jesus was not a manly man. He was not a warrior or a champion. He did not build the kingdom by smiting the Romans. And he sure as heck didn't say, "Torture thine enemies."

But what do I know? I'm just one of those soft secular humanists who believes some fundamental dignity is everyone's right [CAH, comment to Kelsey, "Torture Sucks. Why Is That So Hard to Grasp?" DakotaWomen, 2009.05.06].

Indeed, what's a godless commie like me know? Let's ask Jonathan L. Walton, a much more Jesusly dude than I and an assistant professor of religious studies at U. California-Riverside:

Muscular Christianity in America has minimized the vice of torture and extolled the virtue of the Heroic One who endures for a greater cause. The crucified body of Jesus is held up as a paragon of strength, virtue and virility....

Is it a wonder why, then, on Sunday morning it is often hard to tell the difference between Jesus and Jack Bauer on Fox’s megahit “24?” Like a long list of American messianic masculine archetypes (John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, and Mel Gibson), Jesus is situated in this tradition of bulletproof heroes who mock the machinations of torture.

What is more, like Jack Bauer, anyone who is willing to endure torture for others is that much more justified in dishing it out. And, unfortunately, since muscular evangelicals so identify with the mutilated body of Jesus who “suffered for the sins of the world,” it is only right that they, too, would condone the suffering of others in order to purge our world of “evil” [Jonathan L. Walton, "Evangelical Church of Torture and Jack Bauer," Religion Dispatches, 2009.05.06].

It's not Sunday, but I've got comps this weekend, so I'll say it now. Read the Bible. Read Ben Hur. You'll see. Jesus is not Jack Bauer.

(Matthew Glass, where are you when we need you?)

-------------------
*And a belated hat tip to Tim Gebhart, who blogged on this torture survey at A Progressive on the Prairie last weekend. Indeed, I need to pay more attention to my fellows!

Proposed Christian Women's House Violates SD Rental Law?

Thursday's print MDL gives front-page coverage to what looks like obvious housing discrimination. Mary Hunter of Madison and Tom Christopherson of Sioux Falls bought the old Trinity Lutheran parsonage last September. They lived in the house while their dad, James Christopherson, was pastor at Trinity in the 1970's and '80's. Hunter and Christopherson tell MDL's cub reporter Danny Andrews they plan to rent the house out to college-aged Christian women:

"We want to keep its heritage of a family house," Hunter said, adding that she hopes the women who live there to be [sic] "a sisterhood of believers."

..."I hope this house will be able to... [m]aintain that sense of a Christian home, a Christian community," [Christopherson] said [Danny Andrews, "Family Home Finds New Life as College Student Housing," Madison Daily Leader, 2009.04.23, pp. 1–2].

Andrews fails to ask the landlords about SDCL 20-13-20, South Dakota's discriminatory housing statute (emphasis mine):

20-13-20. Unfair or discriminatory housing practices by owner or agent. It is an unfair or discriminatory practice for any owner of rights to housing or real property, or any person acting for an owner, with or without compensation, including any person licensed as a real estate broker or salesman, attorney, auctioneer, agent, or representative by power of attorney or appointment, or to any person acting under court order, deed of trust, or will:

1. To refuse to sell, rent, lease, assign, sublease, or otherwise transfer any real property or housing accommodation or part, portion, or interest therein, to any person because of the race, color, creed, religion, sex, ancestry, disability, familial status, or national origin of the person or persons intending to reside there;
2. To discriminate against any person because of that person's race, color, creed, religion, sex, ancestry, disability, familial status, or national origin, in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale, rental, lease, assignment, sublease, or other transfer of any real property or housing accommodation or any part, portion, or interest therein;
3. To directly or indirectly advertise, or to indicate or publicize in any other manner that the purchase, rental, lease, assignment, sublease, or other transfer of any real property or housing accommodation or any part, portion or interest therein, by persons of any particular race, color, creed, religion, sex, ancestry, disability, familial status, or national origin, is unwelcome, objectionable, not acceptable, or not solicited;
4. To refuse to permit, at the expense of the disabled person, reasonable modifications of existing property that may be necessary to afford full enjoyment of property. The landlord may, where it is reasonable to do so, condition permission for a modification on the renter's agreeing to restore the premises to the condition that existed prior to the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted.
   

The provisions of subdivisions (1), (2), and (4) do not apply to rooms or units in dwellings that contain living quarters for no more than two families living independently of each other, if the owner maintains and occupies one of the living quarters as the owner's residence.

This section does not apply to dormitory residences maintained by public or private schools, colleges, and universities for the educational benefit and convenience of unmarried students or to dwellings occupied by fraternities or sororities officially recognized by such institutions. Nothing in this statute may be construed to displace federal, state, or local guidelines setting reasonable standards governing maximum numbers of occupants.

Welcome to the rental business, Tom and Mary. If you're renting this house, you can't even ask renters if they go to church (or even, in case of skinny applicants with short hair, whether they are female). The statements made by Hunter and Christopherson in Mary's husband's own newspaper might trigger this statute: a front-page news story with the subhead "Parsonage to be rented to Christian women from DSU" pretty clearly indicates and publicizes that rental by persons of one particular sex and most particular religions is not solicited.

Hunter and Christopherson refer to their positive experiences in themed housing at St. Olaf College. They're right: living in such intentional communities with folks of shared interests can be a great experience for college students. I certainly find living with a Christian woman to be a rewarding experience... although that might be a better argument for mixed housing.

Some dedicated Christian women's housing would be a nice way to carry on the spiritual tradition of the old Trinity parsonage. Maybe there is an arrangement by which Hunter and Christopherson can make their plan work. Maybe they can recruit some DSU ladies to start South Dakota's first Alpha Delta Chi chapter. But as it stands, unless I'm missing something (and if I am, I know you loyal readers will fill me in), you can't just up and rent your house exclusively to Christians, or women, any more than I could rent our Lake Herman guest cabin exclusively to atheists (not that I can find any around here).

Day After Iowa Overturns Same-Sex Marriage Ban, My Wife and I Still Wearing Rings

Kudos to the Iowa Supreme Court, for recognizing the rights of all citizens to get married and raise a family. (Funny: I hear same-sex marriage will cause incalculable damage to children and families... but my wife and I slept—together—just fine last night. Madville Times Jr. also looks like her normal happy and healthy self this morning.)

The court's unanimous ruling is great reading. Here are some highlights all South Dakotans—who vandalized their Constitution with a same-sex marriage ban in 2006—should read:

On the homosexual plaintiffs... also known as neighbors and fellow citizens:

This lawsuit is a civil rights action by twelve individuals who reside in six communities across Iowa. Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities. They include a nurse, business manager, insurance analyst, bank agent, stay-at-home parent, church organist and piano teacher, museum director, federal employee, social worker, teacher, and two retired teachers. Like many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children. Some are foster parents. Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto ["Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"].

Despite the commonality shared with other Iowans, the twelve plaintiffs are different from most in one way. They are sexually and romantically attracted to members of their own sex. The twelve plaintiffs comprise six same-sex couples who live in committed relationships. Each maintains a hope of getting married one day, an aspiration shared by many throughout Iowa [p. 7].

What do same-sex couples want?

They seek to declare the marriage statute unconstitutional so they can obtain the array of benefits of marriage enjoyed by heterosexual couples, protect themselves and their children, and demonstrate to one another and to society their mutual commitment [p. 9].

Can't those darn homosexuals just keep their relationships private and not bother the state for a marriage license?

This [district court] record included an explanation by some of the plaintiffs of the disadvantages and fears they face each day due to the inability to obtain a civil marriage in Iowa. These disadvantages and problems include the legal inability to make many life and death decisions affecting their partner, including decisions related to health care, burial arrangements, autopsy, and disposition of remains following death. Various plaintiffs told of the inability to share in their partners’ state-provided health insurance, public employee pension benefits, and many private-employer-provided benefits and protections. They also explained how several tax benefits are denied. Adoption proceedings are also more cumbersome and expensive for unmarried partners. Other obstacles presented by the inability to enter into a civil marriage include numerous nongovernmental benefits of marriage that are so common in daily life they often go unnoticed, such as something so simple as spousal health club memberships. Yet, perhaps the ultimate disadvantage expressed in the testimony of the plaintiffs is the inability to obtain for themselves and for their children the personal and public affirmation that accompanies marriage [p. 9].

And what interests could the state, through Polk County, muster to justify such disadvantages?

• promoting procreation
• promoting child-rearing by a mother and father
• promoting stability in an opposite-sex relationship
• conserving state resources
• promoting the concept and integrity of the traditional notion of marriage [p. 10]

Polk County also argued that denying same-sex couples marriage licenses doesn't violate equal protection because homosexuals cannot "procreate naturally" [p. 26]. I assume Polk County also denied marriage licenses to impotent men, barren women, and users of in vitro fertilization.

The Court declares bogus the arguments for a state interest in banning same-sex marriage:

Maintaining traditional marriage:

...A specific tradition sought to be maintained cannot be an important governmental objective for equal protection purposes, however, when the tradition is nothing more than the historical classification currently expressed in the statute being challenged. When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification. In other words, the equal protection clause is converted into a “ ‘barren form of words’ ” when “ ‘discrimination . . . is made an end in itself’ ” [p. 53].

Promotion of optimal environment to raise children:

...The civil marriage statute is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents [p. 56]....

...The ban on same-sex marriage is substantially over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. Yet, the marriage statute denies civil marriage to all gay and lesbian people in order to discourage the limited number of same-sex couples who desire to raise children [p. 57]...

...Quite obviously, the statute does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children. Same-sex couples currently raise children in Iowa, even while being excluded from civil marriage, and such couples will undoubtedly continue to do so. Recognition of this under-inclusion puts in perspective just how minimally the same-sex marriage ban actually advances the purported legislative goal [p. 57].

Promotion of procreation:

...[T]he sole conceivable avenue by which exclusion of gay and lesbian people from civil marriage could promote more procreation is if the unavailability of civil marriage for same-sex partners caused homosexual individuals to “become” heterosexual in order to procreate within the present traditional institution of civil marriage. The briefs, the record, our research, and common sense do not suggest such an outcome [p.59].

Promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships:

We must evaluate whether excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships. The County offers no reasons that it does, and we can find none [p. 61].

Conservation of resources:

Excluding any group from civil marriage—African-Americans, illegitimates, aliens, even red-haired individuals—would conserve state resources in an equally “rational” way. Yet, such classifications so obviously offend our society’s collective sense of equality that courts have not hesitated to provide added protections against such inequalities [p. 61].... Indeed, under the County’s logic, more state resources would be conserved by excluding groups more numerous than Iowa’s estimated 5800 same-sex couples (for example, persons marrying for a second or subsequent time) [p. 62].

The Court even takes a couple pages to discuss an issue the County was smart enough not to mention—religious opposition to same-sex marriage (this is really important; bold emphases are mine):

Whether expressly or impliedly, much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained—even fundamental—religious belief.

Yet, such views are not the only religious views of marriage. As demonstrated by amicus groups, other equally sincere groups and people in Iowa and around the nation have strong religious views that yield the opposite conclusion.

This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them.... The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil contract” and then regulates that civil contract.... Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage [pp. 64–65].

...As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our constitution immeasurably by trying to do more.

In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. [p. 66].

You're going to hear arguments (some might say pernicious lies) to the contrary, but the Iowa Supreme Court is making clear that they are defending religious liberty. And to that, religionists of all stripes should say Hallelujah and Amen.

--------------------
By the way, anyone thinking the Iowa Supreme Court would uphold unequal protection under the law should have considered the Court's history:

In the first reported case of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa... we refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions. This decision was seventeen years before the United States Supreme Court infamously decided Dred Scott v. Sandford, which upheld the rights of a slave owner to treat a person as property. Similarly...[in 1868 and 1873] we struck blows to the concept of segregation long before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Iowa was also the first state in the nation to admit a woman to the practice of law, doing so in 1869. Her admission occurred three years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois’ decision to deny women admission to the practice of law..., and twenty-five years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the refusal of the Commonwealth of Virginia to admit women into the practice of law.... In each of those instances, our state approached a fork in the road toward fulfillment of our constitution’s ideals and reaffirmed the “absolute equality of all” persons before the law as “the very foundation principle of our government” [pp. 17–18].

Priorities Check: Terrorism vs. Economy

As you head for your Friday coffee break, here are a couple questions that might spark some conversation:

1. Which headline would you rather see tomorrow?

• Bin Laden Captured by U.S. Army
• Recession Over

2. Which is the greater infringement on liberty?

• Searching everyone, including Grandma, at the airport
• Imposing regulations on hedge funds, private equity funds, bank holding companies, and insurance conglomerates