Exactly

This is a wonderful article from Alter.net, which expresses exactly how I’ve been feeling. This is the first page of several, so be sure to read the whole article.

America: Why R Your Peeps So Dum?
U.S. culture is going down like a thrashing mastodon giving itself up to some Pleistocene tar pit.
December 9, 2010

JoeBageant.com / By Joe Bageant

If you hang out much with thinking people, conversation eventually turns to the serious political and cultural questions of our times. Such as: How can the Americans remain so consistently brain-fucked? Much of the world, including plenty of Americans, asks that question as they watch U.S. culture go down like a thrashing mastodon giving itself up to some Pleistocene tar pit.

One explanation might be the effect of 40 years of deep fried industrial chicken pulp, and 44 ounce Big Gulp soft drinks. Another might be pop culture, which is not culture at all of course, but marketing. Or we could blame it on digital autism: Ever watch commuter monkeys on the subway poking at digital devices, stroking the touch screen for hours on end? That wrinkled Neolithic brows above the squinting red eyes?

But a more reasonable explanation is that, (A) we don’t even know we are doing it, and (B) we cling to institutions dedicated to making sure we never find out.

As William Edwards Deming famously demonstrated, no system can understand itself, and why it does what it does, including the American social system. Not knowing shit about why your society does what it makes for a pretty nasty case of existential unease. So we create institutions whose function is to pretend to know, which makes everyone feel better. Unfortunately, it also makes the savviest among us — those elites who run the institutions — very rich, or safe from the vicissitudes that buffet the rest of us.

Directly or indirectly, they understand that the real function of American social institutions is to justify, rationalize and hide the true purpose of cultural behavior from the lumpenproletariat, and to shape that behavior to the benefit of the institution’s members. “Hey, they’re a lump. Whaddya expect us to do?”

Doubting readers may consider America’s health institutions, the insurance corporations, hospital chains, physicians’ lobbies. Between them they have established a perfectly legal right to clip you and me for thousands of dollars at their own discretion. That we so rabidly defend their right to gouge us, given all the information available in the digital age, mystifies the world.

Two hundred years ago no one would have thought sheer volume of available facts in the digital information age would produce informed Americans. Founders of the republic, steeped in the Enlightenment as they were, and believers in an informed citizenry being vital to freedom and democracy, would be delirious with joy at the prospect. Imagine Jefferson and Franklin high on Google.

The fatal assumption was that Americans would choose to think and learn, instead of cherry picking the blogs and TV channels to reinforce their particular branded choice cultural ignorance, consumer, scientific or political, but especially political. Tom and Ben could never have guessed we would chase prepackaged spectacle, junk science, and titillating rumor such as death panels, Obama as a socialist Muslim and Biblical proof that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs around Eden. In a nation that equates democracy with everyman’s right to an opinion, no matter how ridiculous, this was probably inevitable. After all, dumb people choose dumb stuff. That’s why they are called dumb.

But throw in sixty years of television’s mind puddling effects, and you end up with 24 million Americans watching Bristol Palin thrashing around on Dancing with the Stars, then watch her being interviewed with all seriousness on the networks as major news. The inescapable conclusion of half of heartland America is that her mama must certainly be presidential material, even if Bristol cannot dance. It ain’t a pretty picture out there in Chattanooga and Keokuk.

The other half, the liberal half, concludes that Bristol’s bad dancing is part of her spawn-of-the-Devil mama’s plan to take over the country, and make millions in the process, not to mention make Tina Fey and Jon Stewart richer than they already are. That’s a tall order for a squirrel brained woman who recently asked a black president to “refudiate” the NAACP (though I kinda like refudiate, myself). Cultural stupidity accounts for virtually every aspect of Sarah Palin, both as a person and a political icon. Which, come to think of it, may be a pretty good reason not to “misunderstimate” her. After all, we’re still talking about her in both political camps. And the woman OWNS the Huffington Post, fer Christsake. Not to mention a franchise on cultural ignorance.

Alan Greyson Kicks Ass

The Judge

Rep. Anthony Weiner Rips Into Republicans

This guy is so great. Why can’t all Democrats be like him? From ••here••.
Anthony Weiner’s temper on the House floor has yielded another YouTube moment, this time as he lashed out at Republicans for blocking a measure to provide $7.4 billion in aid to 9/11 responders. As Sam Stein of the Huffington Post explains, the New York congressman was incensed that Republicans based their objections on procedural concerns and denounced them as “cowardly.”

Joe Biden At His Best

I love his passion. It’s a slow build, but a good one.

Wise Words

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” — Isaac Asimov

I Wish Patton Oswalt Was My Friend

The Wisdom of Craigslist

I found this on Craigslist, via Reddit.com:
—

REPUBLICANS DOING A GREAT JOB
Date: 2010-03-27, 6:34PM EDT
Reply to: comm-pkkcz-1664524803@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]

BUSH-REPUBLICANS DESTROYED AMERICA, AND OBAMA IS DOING A GREAT JOB FIXING IT

Between Jan 20 2001-2009 under Republican’s policies and leadership:

Unemployment doubled from 4.2% to 8.2%
National debt doubled from 5.7 trillion to 10.6 trillion
Yearly budget went from a 236 billion surplus to a 1.2 TRILLION deficit (a 1.4 trillion drop)
Dow Jones plunged 25% from to 10,587 to 7949
Gasoline tripled from 1.44 to 4.11 per gallon on July 11, 2008
Losing 700,000 jobs monthly
Economy in total freefall

(Republicans try to confuse people by saying democrats took over in Jan 2007 and started the recession, but they can not name one thing democrats did to hurt the economy. All experts state the housing crisis started in 2006 and all subprime loans had already been made under a republican congress and president)

SOURCES:
BUSH MORE THAN DOUBLED UNEMPLOYMENT FROM 4.2% TO 8.2% —–(Feb 2001-2009)
(Source: US Dept of Labor – Bureau of Labor Statistics-)
(http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3)

BUSH DOUBLED OUR DEBT FROM 5.7 TRILLION TO 10.7 TRILLION
(Source: US Treasury Dept – Bureau of Public Debt – http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np)

BUSH TURNED A 236 BILLION BUDGET SURPLUS INTO A 1.2 TRILLION DEFICIT (A 1.4 TRILLION DROP)
(Source 1: CBO – Congressional Budget Office – Historical Budget data – Shows the 236 billion surplus in 2000)
(http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf)

(Source 2: Congressional Budget Office – Annual budget and economic report and testimony before Congress on Jan 8, 2009) (Declares 1.2 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009 —2 weeks before obama takes office)
(http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958/01-08-Outlook_Testimony.pdf)

(Please note: The fiscal year 2009 started Oct 1, 2008 under president bush. At that time, the 2009 deficit was projected at 600 billion. Then the banking crisis occured in Oct 2008 and bush started a 700 billion TARP bailout program which was added to the 600 billion deficit which left obama with a 1.2 Trillion deficit the day he took office according to the CBO)

BUSH OVERSAW A DOW JONES THAT PLUNGED 25% OVER 8 YEARS
(Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI)

GASOLINE TRIPLED UNDER BUSH ENERGY POLICY
(Source: US Dept of Energy- Energy Information Administration) (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MG_RT_US&f=W)

OBAMA IS DOING A GREAT JOB FIXING THE BUSH DEPRESSION

The dow jones rose 33% in his first year from 7949 to 10,600 on Jan 20, 2010
The job loss rate plunged 97% from 700,000 jobs lost in Jan 2009 to 20,000 jobs lost in Jan 2010
The GDP rate rose to 5.7% in 4th quarter of 2009 – the highest in 6 years
Existing home sales up 27% in 4th quarter of 2009
Jan 10 Home construction up 2.8% (up 23% since april 09 low)
Jan 10 Industrial production up 1%
Jan 10 Retail sales up .5%

——————————–
In 2002, why did Bush ask his fannie mae appointees to “make 440 BILLION in subprime loans to minorities”?

Here is the video…go to the 4 minute mark to hear him say it.

Here is the offical white house text of that speech he gave in atlanta on june 17, 2002.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617-2.html

Here is the offical white house fact sheet:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617.html

Bush said “…That’s why I’ve challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America, by achieving the goal of 5.5 million new minority home owners. I call it America’s home ownership challenge.

And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date, as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system — I introduced two of the leaders here today — they call those people Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment. It’s a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also conforms to their hearts.”

(Please note that bush appoints Leland and Franklin to their jobs at fannie mae and freddie mac so when he asks for 440 BILLION that is basically a presidential order)

Also note: The govt can not force a bank to make a bad loan. And surely, an ALL REPUBLICAN GOVT would not force a bank to make a bad loan. In 2002, republicans controlled both congress and the white house. You can’t blame this on democrats and barney frank.

In fact, bush’s top 2 banking appointees have stated that the CRA – community investment act has had absoutely nothing to do with the banking crisis.
Bernanke: Experience “runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties.” In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: “Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties.”
Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: “Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible.” Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.
Prominent republican attorney and bush appointed FDIC chairman has stated that the “community reinvestment act” CRA has had nothing to do with the housing crisis. From an article in US News and World Report:

Along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act has been fingered by a number of critics–mainly from the right–as a key cause of the financial crisis. But in a speech Wednesday, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair–a Republican–called such logic a “myth.”
CRA as a scapegoat
I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there’s plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.
Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.
You’ve heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.
Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can’t afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth … pure and simple.
CRA isn’t perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -“consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions”.
Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay “consistent with the safe and sound operations”? No, of course not.
CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank’s capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited.
That is why the CRA never set out lending “target” or “goal” amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can’t pay back. That’s a set up for failure.
Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages.
Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America.
So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.
http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-home-front/2008/12/17/sheila-bair-stop-blaming-the-community-reinvestment-act.html

PostingID: 1664524803

Paul Krugman Schools The Republicans On Healthcare Savings

Republican Fear Campaign Fails

Another fantastic op-ed by Paul Krugman:

Fear Strikes Out

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 21, 2010

The day before Sunday’s health care vote, President Obama gave an unscripted talk to House Democrats. Near the end, he spoke about why his party should pass reform: “Every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made … And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine.”

And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation.

I’d argue that Mr. Gingrich is wrong about that: proposals to guarantee health insurance are often controversial before they go into effect — Ronald Reagan famously argued that Medicare would mean the end of American freedom — but always popular once enacted.

But that’s not the point I want to make today. Instead, I want you to consider the contrast: on one side, the closing argument was an appeal to our better angels, urging politicians to do what is right, even if it hurts their careers; on the other side, callous cynicism. Think about what it means to condemn health reform by comparing it to the Civil Rights Act. Who in modern America would say that L.B.J. did the wrong thing by pushing for racial equality? (Actually, we know who: the people at the Tea Party protest who hurled racial epithets at Democratic members of Congress on the eve of the vote.)

And that cynicism has been the hallmark of the whole campaign against reform.

Yes, a few conservative policy intellectuals, after making a show of thinking hard about the issues, claimed to be disturbed by reform’s fiscal implications (but were strangely unmoved by the clean bill of fiscal health from the Congressional Budget Office) or to want stronger action on costs (even though this reform does more to tackle health care costs than any previous legislation). For the most part, however, opponents of reform didn’t even pretend to engage with the reality either of the existing health care system or of the moderate, centrist plan — very close in outline to the reform Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts — that Democrats were proposing.

Instead, the emotional core of opposition to reform was blatant fear-mongering, unconstrained either by the facts or by any sense of decency.

It wasn’t just the death panel smear. It was racial hate-mongering, like a piece in Investor’s Business Daily declaring that health reform is “affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color.” It was wild claims about abortion funding. It was the insistence that there is something tyrannical about giving young working Americans the assurance that health care will be available when they need it, an assurance that older Americans have enjoyed ever since Lyndon Johnson — whom Mr. Gingrich considers a failed president — pushed Medicare through over the howls of conservatives.

And let’s be clear: the campaign of fear hasn’t been carried out by a radical fringe, unconnected to the Republican establishment. On the contrary, that establishment has been involved and approving all the way. Politicians like Sarah Palin — who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.’s vice-presidential candidate — eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue. On the eve of the big vote, Republican members of Congress warned that “freedom dies a little bit today” and accused Democrats of “totalitarian tactics,” which I believe means the process known as “voting.”

Without question, the campaign of fear was effective: health reform went from being highly popular to wide disapproval, although the numbers have been improving lately. But the question was, would it actually be enough to block reform?

And the answer is no. The Democrats have done it. The House has passed the Senate version of health reform, and an improved version will be achieved through reconciliation.

This is, of course, a political victory for President Obama, and a triumph for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. But it is also a victory for America’s soul. In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform. This time, fear struck out.

Gay Teen Denied Prom Give Scholarship

It’s so great to see how many people are standing up for this very brave young woman.

Interesting Craigslist Post

I found this posted on Reddit.com. It has very, um, salty language, but it well worth the read. The original post is ••here••. It makes some really excellent points about the ways in which Americans have failed to hold our leaders (political and economic) to account for the damage done to the nation since 1980. While I don’t agree with every specific point, or the presentation, I endorse the overarching idea that we as Americans must become more involved, and demand better. The title is: “I hate what America has become.”

Due to NSFW language, the post is behind the cut!

A Great Slogan

{click link for source}

Professor Obama Schools Lawmakers on Health-care reform

Once again, I am so proud to have supported Obama. I wish he was on TV with GOP every week!

Source:

Dana Milbank – Professor Obama schools lawmakers on health-care reform – washingtonpost.com.

Professor Obama schools lawmakers on health-care reform

By Dana Milbank
Friday, February 26, 2010

Republicans had been hesitant to accept President Obama’s invitation to participate in Thursday’s White House health-care summit. Their hesitance turned out to be justified.

An equal number of Democratic and Republican lawmakers assembled around a table at Blair House, and each had a chance to speak during the seven-hour televised talkathon. But members of the opposition party may not have fully understood that they were stepping into Prof. Obama’s classroom, and that they were to be treated like his undisciplined pupils.

Obama controlled the microphone and the clock, and he used both skillfully to limit the Republicans’ time, to rebut their arguments and to always have the last word.

Among the first to have his knuckles rapped was Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). The 2008 Republican presidential nominee accused his former rival of “unsavory” dealmaking, of breaking his promise to put health-care negotiations on C-SPAN, of supporting a 2,400-page bill, of giving favors to lobbyists and special interests. He directed Obama to “go back to the beginning” with health-care reform.

“Let me just make this point, John,” the president said when the tirade ended. “We’re not campaigning anymore. The election’s over.” Teacher directed student to drop the “talking points” and “focus on the issues of how we actually get a bill done.”

It’s a safe bet that no minds were changed in that room Thursday, and it’s not entirely clear that Obama was even trying to forge a compromise. Though advertised as a consensus-building opportunity, the summit served more as a moment for the president to tell Republicans, with the cameras rolling, why they’re wrong and he’s right.

The forum matched his lawyerly skills — and, less flatteringly, his tendency to act like the smartest guy in the room. Prof. Obama ventured deep into the weeds of health-care policy to contest Republican claims, and, for one day at least, he regained control of the fractious student body that is the Congress.

The 40 lawmakers and administration officials, seated in squeaky chairs around the square, were to speak only when called on. After each talked, Obama would determine whether the speaker’s point was a “legitimate argument.”

While each of them had to call him “Mr. President,” Obama, often waving an index finger, made sure to refer to each of them by their first name: “Thank you, Lamar. . . . We’re going to have Nancy and Harry. . . . John, are you going to make the presentation yourself?”

If somebody went on too long, Obama cautioned the lawmaker to be “more disciplined.” When Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.) spoke about Medicare cuts, Obama cut him off. “I don’t mean to interrupt,” he said, but “if every speaker, at least on one side, is going through every provision and saying what they don’t like, it’s going to be hard for us to see if we can arrive at some agreements.”

After several such moments, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) spoke up. “Republicans have used 24 minutes; the Democrats, 52 minutes,” he said.

Obama made McConnell look small in his chair. “You’re right, there was an imbalance on the opening statements,” he said, “because I’m the president.”

The forum probably didn’t alter the trajectory of health-care legislation, if only because few Americans could possibly have paid attention.

In between the flare-ups, the summit was often the kind of event only a member of the Party of NoDoz could enjoy. Republicans numbingly repeated their demand that Obama “start over.” Democrats responded with their talking point that the parties are “not that far apart.” Both sides trotted out stories of afflicted Americans, including a woman who said she couldn’t afford dentures so she “wore her dead sister’s teeth.” And the vice president’s idle brain coined a new Bidenism when he said of his fellow Americans: “I’m not sure what they think.”

Yet there was something uplifting about Thursday’s session. Sure, there was more posturing than in a typical yoga class, but lawmakers demonstrated themselves to be serious and knowledgeable leaders as they treated the nation to a discussion about expanding high-risk insurance pools, 60 percent actuarial values and the like. It couldn’t hurt Americans to see their leaders arguing substantive points without scripts and attacks.

“Never have so many members of the House and Senate behaved so well for so long before so many television cameras,” Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) observed.

That’s probably because their teacher carried a big rhetorical paddle.

After Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) accused Obama of trying to increase health-care premiums, Obama dismissed the “usual critique” of reform and told him that “this is an example of where we’ve got to get our facts straight.”

When Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said the two parties disagree about the question “Does Washington know best?” Obama shot back: “Anytime the question is phrased as ‘Does Washington know better?,’ I think we’re kind of tipping the scales. . . . It’s a good talking point, but it doesn’t actually answer the underlying question.”

Spotting a huge stack of papers in front of House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Obama preempted him: “Let me guess: That’s the 2,400-page health-care bill.” It was. “These are the kind of political things we do that prevent us from actually having a conversation,” the president said.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), in his turn, tried all the Republican buzzwords: “scrap this bill . . . bankrupt our country . . . dangerous experiment . . . government takeover of health care . . . new taxes . . . Medicare cuts . . . unconstitutional.”

Obama shook his head. “John,” he scolded, “every so often, we have a pretty good conversation trying to get on some specifics, and then we go back to, you know, the standard talking points.”

It was the Blair House equivalent of being ordered to wear the dunce cap.

Conservative Cato Institute Supports Gay Marriage

From ••here••:

The Moral and Constitutional Case for a Right to Gay Marriage

by Robert A. Levy

Robert A. Levy is chairman of the Cato Institute.

Following bitter defeats in California, Maine, and New York, the gay and lesbian community has a New Year’s victory to celebrate. New Hampshire joins four other states — Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont — in legalizing gay marriage. And the nation’s capital is also onboard. Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty put it this way: “Marriage inequality is a civil rights, political, social, moral and religious issue.”

He covered all the bases, except one: It’s a constitutional issue as well.

Thomas Jefferson set the stage in the Declaration of Independence: “[T]o secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” The primary purpose of government is to safeguard individual rights and prevent some persons from harming others. Heterosexuals should not be treated preferentially when the state carries out that role. And no one is harmed by the union of two consenting gay people.

Of course, government discriminates among its citizens all the time.

For most of Western history, marriage was a matter of private contract between the betrothed parties and perhaps their families. Following that tradition, marriage today should be a private arrangement, requiring minimal or no state intervention. Some religious or secular institutions would recognize gay marriages; others would not; still others would call them domestic partnerships or assign another label. Join whichever group you wish. The rights and responsibilities of partners would be governed by personally tailored contracts — consensual bargains like those that control most other interactions in a free society.

Regrettably, government has interceded, enacting more than 1,000 federal laws dealing mostly with taxes or transfer payments, and an untold number of state laws dealing with such questions as child custody, inheritance and property rights. Whenever government imposes obligations or dispenses benefits, it may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” That provision is explicit in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applicable to the states, and implicit in the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the federal government.

Of course, government discriminates among its citizens all the time. By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks and certain Asians. Until 1954, all states were allowed to operate segregated schools. Thankfully, the Supreme Court invalidated both interracial marital restrictions and school segregation. The court applied the plain text of the Equal Protection Clause despite contrary practices by the states for many years even after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

To pass constitutional muster, racial discrimination had to survive “strict scrutiny” by the courts. Government had to demonstrate a compelling need for its regulations, show they would be effective and narrowly craft the rules so they didn’t sweep more broadly than necessary. That same regime should apply when government discriminates based on gender preference.

No compelling reason has been proffered for sanctioning heterosexual but not homosexual marriages. Nor is a ban on gay marriage a close fit for attaining the goals cited by proponents of such bans. If the goal, for example, is to strengthen the institution of marriage, a more effective step might be to bar no-fault divorce and premarital cohabitation. If the goal is to ensure procreation, then infertile and aged couples should be precluded from marriage.

Instead, most states have implemented an irrational and unjust system that provides significant benefits to just-married heterosexuals while denying benefits to a male or female couple who have enjoyed a loving, committed, faithful and mutually reinforcing relationship over several decades. That’s not the way it has to be. Government benefits triggered by marriage could just as easily be triggered by other objective criteria, leaving the definition of marriage in the hands of private institutions.

For instance, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee recently voted to extend employee benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. The qualifying criterion, which could also apply to heterosexual couples, is an affidavit identifying the domestic partner and certifying that the partnership is intended to be exclusive and permanent, within a common residence, with shared responsibilities.

Similarly, some states dispense benefits to qualifying gay couples joined in predefined civil unions. Even private-sector employers are increasingly offering same-sex “marital” benefits. According to the federal Office of Personnel Management, nearly 60% of Fortune 500 companies confer employment benefits on domestic partners.

Yet our politicians, unwilling to privatize marriage, seem congenitally unable to extricate themselves from our most intimate relationships. One would hope, in the coming months and years, that more enlightened federal and state legislators will have the courage and decency to resist morally abhorrent and constitutionally suspect restrictions based on sexual orientation. Gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity accorded to all Americans.