I read your last post and this one...

There's no easy answers in today's political climate. Even compromise is no guarantee that you will get a bill passed...look at how much compromise was put into the health care legislation. And the supreme court may well overturn it.

I do think that politicians have a hard job. Or I should say politicians with principles have a hard time. And unless campaign finance reform is passed (ha) they will continue to spend more time raising funds to be re-elected (and passing legislation to please those with the money to help those with the money to help them to win elections) than they will delivering results to regular folks.

That should be there are no easy answers....sorry my grammar sometimes slips out the window when I'm not looking...

:)

and this should be (and passing legislation to please those with the money to help them to win re-election)

:(

Your point about campaign finance reform is (you should excuse the expression) right on the money. Particularly with the Supreme Court decision that allows SuperPACs, we went from a bad situation to a far worse one. The new problem is that politicians are terrified that an opponent is going to come at them with a SuperPAC in the last week of their campaign and they won't have the funding to answer, so they're all fundraising frantically all the time. Just what we need.

The point of the last post wasn't really about Congress, it was about political dilemmas, many of which I think are unacknowledged. I used Congress as an example. Even though I am in many respects a Puritan at heart, I don't trust Puritans in politics because I think they have a tendency to sacrifice efficacy for purity, which I don't think is necessarily the most responsible tradeoff.

kosher, it's hard to know which road leads to results...

being pragmatic is no guarantee that you're going to achieve your goal...

to take Jonathon Franzen as an example. In a recent essay he sets himself up as a sort of non-idealist as a writer who just writes for a big audience and not to create art with a capital A....and he talks about David Foster Wallace as more of one of those artist with a capital A.....and yet...it's hard to know the intentions of others. Sometimes I have more innate respect for people who are striving for a vision, even a grandiose one, even if they fall short, rather than the admitted panderers...

probably it's a flaw in me....and pandering is definitely the popular road these days when it comes to everything including how to build a twitter following....

or then again, maybe it isn't. sometimes when people are looking for leadership it helps to have a few original ideas to call your own.

This isn't about pandering. Pragmatism, yes; pandering, no.

This looks like it's about corruption, but it isn't. The New Guy is looking at two bills: Bill A, which he wants to pass, and Bill B, which he'd rather didn't.

Bill B will pass no matter what he does. So, anything he does about Bill B is strictly cosmetic, not substantive. In other words, he has neither the ability to save anyone from Bill B nor the ability to make sure it passes. His vote sends a message, but doesn't actually do anything. So, no matter what he does about Bill B, it won't hurt anyone because it's already a foregone conclusion.

Bill A is important, not because it lines his pockets but because it brings justice to people he cares about.

He is new and incapable of shepherding a controversial bill through the House. His visitor will do that for him, and his visitor is fully capable of that, in exchange for a vote that is strictly a gesture on Bill B.

This isn't about career advancement, prominence, any of that. It's about defining his responsibilities to his constituents. Quite simply, he accomplishes more and brings more home if he's willing to allow his image to be tarnished for that cause. We evaluate this strictly through the lens of what he should do and what he should be prepared to sacrifice in order to do it.

Kosher

First of all, let me apologize if I seem to have misconstrued your last post- I did not at all mean to imply that you personally were/would be the actor in your story- I don't believe that you would torture a fellow being if you “found it necessary”, the point that I was trying to make was that, as you would be tempted to compromise your principles for a small or “free” gift, so a warrior would be tempted to compromise his principles to not torture, in order to secure a “Greater Good”

If you don't like the Lawyer/Warrior dichotomy I will phrase it in terms of Verbal vs Non- Verbal communication in communion. In this sense, I use communion in the sense of the mutual fortification of free beings, what takes place in a Liberal (classic: Free) society.

The congressman is Verbal, his métier is language, the manipulation of semantic and numerical symbols. The congressman views the deal making and clever and unclear process of “horse trading” as all just part of “getting things done” Word bending is not only his skill but his delight. He is, at his very best, a Poet. His carefully crafted words will capture not only the letter, but the spirit of the Law he intends to craft.

At his worst he is a sleazy, untrustworthy, con artist. He would tell you that trusting anyone is naive, and the suckers are there for the pluckers. He will cheat you. He robs you with a fountain pen.

The soldier is non-verbal. His métier is force. Breaking things and killing people is his job, and he isn't supposed to say it, but killing terrorists gives him a certain satisfaction. At his best, he is a Priest, one who could delight in killing and rape and torture, but is held back by a personal sense of what is right and what is just- the Japanese refer to this as his Wa- meaning his inner harmony and balance. Properly, Luke trusts “The Force”, but Obi wan and Yoda obey “The Balance/ harmony” ( scales of Justice?) Both of these may be thought of as "Honor"

At his worst, he is a torturing, raping, pillaging terrorist. He will rob you with a six gun ( Or anything else that's handy, including his bare hands, or just threatening presentation.)

I grew up in a society where dominance was established non-verbally. We settled points of honor physically. I had 5 brothers and a martial arts trained father, so I figured out “Bullying” before I went to the first grade. What my father helped me and my brothers figure out was that even if we didn't like our brothers ( and we didn't) we had to love them, and that included “sticking up for them” if they were being bullied. Further, my “brothers” included my 54 first cousins, and my friends and members of my fathers scout troop.

The lesson learned was that trying to be dominant (bullying) would invariably result in finding somebody who was willing to get scuffed up a bit in order to scuff you up a bit and prove to you that you weren't going to bully him. ( if Girls bullied each other, I didn't know about it- bullying a girl would get you scuffed up by older brothers, etc) Bullying for dominance was the mark of a really masochistic kid. ( I had no idea in those days about the familial etc sources of a bully)

We pretty much all agreed that it wasn't worth the pain and effort to try to dominate, but we all insisted that we were all “Just as Good”. By the time my brothers and I reached puberty the disinclination to “settle” things physically was reinforced by the knowledge that, given a first blow, any of us could kill or maim any of the rest of us. We fought for “fun”, but we were very careful to keep a code of “honor” which was primarily that, on pain of being shunned as untrustworthy, we treated people as we expected to be treated, and left clarification of any disputes up to our parents, teachers and coaches. The trust was that in our dealings with our “tribe” we were to do no intentional harm, and unintentional (misunderstandings) were to be settled by the judgment and guidance of our Elders ( our Government if you will) To be caught attempting to take advantage of or bully a member of the tribe by threat or intimidation in the slightest way would result in shunning and the reduction of the offender to the status of “varmint”- and hurting varmints who harmed you was not Torture, it was payback.

I had a cousin who was 2 years older than I was, who was raised in Ithaca, New York. (High above Cayuga's Waters) His Father was a lawyer, and his Mother was a feminist of the 1940's variety. He and his siblings and friends, far from being trained to protect themselves physically, were absolutely forbidden any recourse to violence under any circumstances. Which means that when they fought physically, they did so ineffectually, but mostly it meant that Bullying in my cousins world was done by trickery and verbal abuse. My cousin was dominant in both, in his group. He was as slick a city slicker as had ever slicked a rube.

The kids in his family and mine would spend our summers at my grandfather's dairy farm in upstate New York. It always seemed to take him a week or so to run out of “here, let me show you a trick” and smart mouthed witty comments when he ran into me and my brothers in the summer. He would play games where we would make bets and lose property to him, under the guise of “teaching us a trick” He had a really cutting and wicked tongue, which he used without hesitation. What he'd forgotten since the past summer was that such Tricks resulted in being punched in the stomach, when he tried to explain how my property was now his, or being ignored, or punched in the stomach, depending on how annoying his invective became. Since my farm raised uncles (who were largely in charge of being our elders) thought he was getting no less than what he asked for, I look back on that as a teachable moment for him.

All that to say, enforcement of the decisions of elders in our society has always been ultimately one of the application of force. Non- verbal communication is primary, precisely because it is more basic and less evolved than reasonable co existence, and eventual communion.

My cousin was prevented from learning the consequences of physical confrontation in his environment, so it always came as a horrible shock to him that we would inflict pain to defend ourselves from what we viewed dishonorable attempts to harm us by verbal manipulations. In the setting of the farm, the authorities who could dispense ultimate force (correction) agreed with my viewpoint. My cousin was outraged that I was allowed to get away with torturing him, when he had just been doing what he always did to gain what he wanted.

That's “non-Verbal” justice. It depends on the acceptance that in order to deal with each other, you must trust each other not to take a verbal advantage, on pain of physical correction.

We, of course, live in a world of non-violent, mainly urban, law obeying, citizens.
They look to their lawmakers to write laws that force their enemies to do what is right. Justice belongs to the state. You must trust the representatives to do what they say they will do, and if you vote for them because they say that they will support a given issue, or oppose a different one, you expect them to keep their word.

When they don't, you feel betrayed. Since you are a member of an increasingly non-verbal voting block, you really don't want to hear, and cannot understand any self righteous sleight of hand word bending about WHY your representative was correct in the theory of gamesmanship to even consider voting for a law which will destroy the earth, whether it would pass anyway or not.

There's the joke about the rich devil who says to a young lady, “Would you sleep with me
for a million dollars?”

She says “Of course!”
He asks, “Would you sleep with me for $10 dollars?”
She indignantly says, “What do you think I am!!!???”
He replies with a sneer, “We've already established that, now we're just dickering over the price”
She breaks a beer bottle over his head and cuts his lungs out.
He never does anything like that again.

Or in the case of your congressman, she not only votes for his T-party rival in the next Republican primary, she starts a blog petition demanding his recall.

Your non verbal equivalent “joke” is when the officer in charge finds himself before a senate committee explaining to a bunch of wusses that water boarding is not torture, and only a wuss would think it was, and besides which it isn't as if these terrorists are human.

Or maybe it's your urban poor or rural middle class proudly showing off pictures of his son or daughter in Afghanistan getting some payback on those terrorists by urinating on their corpses or sexually humiliating prisoners (who are, after all, varmints)

That is why I say, the congressman may be able to explain why he would consider such a deal, but he probably won't be able to explain it to his mostly non-verbal constituents.

Nicely done. Authentic feel to it. I can see down the road when New Guy's running for president, when the environment is the major issue, and his debate opponent throws out this spitball: "Sen. New Guy says he's an environmentalist. Well, Senator, how do you explain your [token compromise] vote back when you were a freshman congressman? [finishes with a flourish and smug grin to wild applause from his people].

Everything we do or do not do has consequence. Thing is consequence comes with teeth...and more often than not...they bite. Beware of influence peddlers. They never serve your best interests.....only their own.

Creepy and good.

Dude, I think Goethe illustrated how well Faustian bargains work, didn't he? Not only does Faust/your "new guy" get corrupted and ends up rightfully going to hell, but he screws over poor Gretchen/his constituents as well.

Pretty damn comparably in my mind.

If you were elected based on a set of espoused beliefs you damn well better stick to them. Anything else is self rationalization of selfish goals.

Like your POV and what Andre Bliss says.

ahhhh...much easier for me to get it now....( not much deep thinkin here)...when the consequences of their actions affect SO many others.....a little extra mulling should be in order....

Intriguing, Kosh! :) r.

Compromise and back room deals are the heart of democracy, like it or not.

HRdR,
That was quite a comment. You may have a point about his constituents. No, I didn't think you were tellling me I'd be tempted to use torture.

Amy,
The question I have here is whether this particular bargain is Faustian at all. The New Guy isn't considering this for personal gain, he's considering it on behalf of his constituents. To put it in terms of your comment: What selfish goals? The only question on the table is maximizing service. Under these circumstances, how does he do that?

What is a Congressman's job?
Is his job to maximize what he can accomplish on behalf of his constituents or is it to express opinions and vote?

Though I'm not certain what the right answer is, I really have my doubts as to whether purity + ineffectiveness = responsibility. There's an old saying about how the two things you don't want to see being made are sausages and laws. There's a second problem with purity: It leads to enmity instead of cooperation. The model becomes Do what you can to defeat the opposition because the way you get what you want is to send enough of them home, not to work with them. That guarantees that if one side doesn't have a lopsided majority, nothing will get done. We have problems in Congress precisely because the GOP has shifted to this model - to purity instead of to service. That's why Dick Lugar was just defeated in Indiana - he was an experienced Senator and Rhodes Scholar who worked with Democrats when necessary and he's about to be replaced (if the GOP candidate is elected to the Senate) by an ideologue.

Yes, there's an extent to which I'm playing Devil's Advocate (always appropriate with Faustian references) but there's an extent to which I'm not. See Scanner's comment.

Steel Breeze,
Glad to clarify. That's why I did this. Trust me, fiction is not what I usually write but I thought it was worth a shot.

Chicken Maaan,
That's pretty much how it works. You can be pretty sure that the guy who will make that claim on the campaign trail will know exactly why New Guy cast that vote. To figure that out, you just have to look at how the GOP in particular has treated Obama - he's governed like a moderate and been treated like a radical. When he endorsed gay marriage, it's not like the pundits for the GOP were really outraged; it's just that they had something else they could use. Outrage was a tactic, not an actual feeling.

I worked on and around 'the Hill' for six years and Kosher is right on with his statements and analysis. Ideological purity is inconsistent with effectiveness and progress on any debatable point.
This, and the complexity of government, are what makes the simplicity and the reach of the Occupy movement silly.

Don't worry kosher. Once Israel attacks Iran soon all such fine-tuned concerns about politics will be endearingly antediluvian. With the coming of a genuine economic depression the rude forces of nativist Amerikan fascism will sweep away the old center as extremism begins to look more appealing to a vast, risingly disconsolate public. Today's log-rolling grayish politics will be steamrolled by vibrant new Leaders who will fill the visual media with colorful imagery of a nostalgic America that can only be reclaimed by returning to a New/Old Purity...wink

Thanks, Traveler.
I don't find the Occupy movement silly; I'm frankly glad that the frustration has a visible manifestation. Ineffective, to a large extent, but not silly.

This is part of a broader discussion I attempted to start with my last post, which is about acknowledging the consequences of political actions in both directions and accepting that responsibility comes with those consequences, meaning that there are a lot more dilemmas involved than typically gets acknowledged.

JP,
How the Hell did this become about Israel?
I think I'm getting pidgeonholed here.

If I were New Guy faced with the conundrum you posed, here is how my thoughts would flow:

"I was elected not only for my platform, but also for my perceived integrity. The people trusted me to go to Congress and act in their overall best interest."
"If I vote for the bald guy's bill, for whatever reason, I will be compromising my principles and, therefore, the trust of my constituents (who will inevitably find out, along with the rest of the countries, especially my rivals). Whether my vote is a throwaway is irrelevant. Unless I believe in the bill, I shouldn't vote for it."

"It will be easier for my constituents to understand my struggles to get my bill passed because of my freshman status than it will for them to understand why I voted for a bill with which they totally disagreed. I will be viewed as 'just another politician.' "

"I'll pass on this so-called gift and find a way to get it done more honorably."

Lezlie

P.S. Which is why I would be an utter failure in Congress. :D

Hector fought Achilles and new guy should have fought old guy on the same grounds. I am sorry Kosher but sometimes you rationalize to much, it is a pitfall of being smart. Nietzsche advocated instinct over reason so I am in good company here. Do you think a ZeDeK makes any concessions to what is not righteous?

And do not tell me that there are few ZeDeKs that does not mean we should all not strive toward it, especially those that hold public office!

How about do what you think is right and stop worrying about re-election?

Naah.

r

Lezlie has made the most coherent case I've read yet, which doesn't surprise me.

Toritto,
This isn't about re-election; actually, his best shot at re-election is to reject the deal, not accept it. No one will blame him for what he can't accomplish if he votes right. This is about what he feels personally driven to accomplish for his constituents.

The entire question here is what is right. That's why the question is on the table. Is his primary responsibility to stay clean or to accomplish stuff?

Jack,
and that's what I'm having trouble with here. It's not about being a Tzaddik or not, not really. If he brings home the gay rights legislation without adversely affecting the environment (which is the net result if he agrees), his gay constituents will think he's a Tzaddik for doing so.

Keep in mind that his chances of re-election are better if he stays pure, not worse, so this isn't about getting re-elected. It isn't about money. This is a conscience-based decision. The easy thing is not to go along with the senior Congressman; the easy thing is to refuse to.

I find it bizarre how people look at this decision as corrupt vs. uncorrupt. It's not.

What it's really about is Doing Good vs. Being Good.

I notice that most people who talk about this in terms of conscience automatically take the side of Being Good.

Why? Are people elected to Congress ultimately because of what they're supposed to do or how they're supposed to be? What is the job description? Keep your nose clean for two years at a time?

In looking at this scene, I don't assume that the New Guy is necessarily being corrupted. It's as likely that he's being taught - This is what it takes to accomplish anything around here. Sure, the New Guy is being tested, but not necessarily for corruptibility; it's just as likely he's being tested to see if he'll be worth anything as a legislator.

I can't decide who's being moral and who's just being naive.

Compromise and negotiation is needed by all real professionals. Lawyers, businessmen, politicians. The hierarchy of goals necessitates this.

The thing is, which things do you cede and which do you not cede? Which chips matter most to you?

Sorry Kosh -

“I have to make sure I could survive your gift.”

The older man smiled, got up and reached for the New Guy’s hand.
“So get on the phone.”

If our newbie isn’t thinking about re-election then what is he thinking about? It doesn’t seem like he’s thinking about his principles. Will he be calling his environmental constituents to ask how they feel about the trade off? Or sitting at home alone examining his conscience?

Newbie has been offered a bribe to get something he wants. Sure, his vote won’t mean a thing - except it is something he would not vote in favor of in the absence of the bribe. His name will the appear forever with the “ayes” - which grizzled old congressman knows means he has lent his “support”, no matter what he says later.

Old grizzled congressman will also know our newbie can be “had” - just offer him something he wants badly enough.

It is a slippery slope. One day he will be offered something he desperately wants in return for an “aye” vote on the Iraq War. “It’s gonna pass anyway”. Ask Hillary Clinton.

One day in the future Jamie Dimon will call and in return for support gutting banking regulations our newbie will get a half a million dollar contribution to his campaign fund from JP Morgan Chase.

Sorry. Newbie should say "thanks, but no thanks".

Rw,
We haven't reached the point in this guy's theoretical career where that question has even been asked.

Toritto,
You have a couple of decent points.
Why would the Congressman say "I have to make sure I could survive your gift"? For one thing, because it's an easier thing to say to a guy you're thinking about refusing than "I don't know if I'm morally willing to do this." It's a gambit to avoid insulting him and it's an objection he'll respect without giving you a hard time about it. I'm in sales and that's the sort of thing you say to stay out of trouble.

Your point about Hillary Clinton and the Iraq war, on the other hand, is a very good one. That is conceivable under this scenario. The contribution from JP Morgan Chase takes a jump, but it's a possible jump. So far, he hasn't sacrificed principles to get re-elected.

Keep in mind that he'll have an easier time getting re-elected if he refuses the offer than if he accepts it. That's one part of the equation that's being left out. The second part is that we aren't talking about legislation that he's promoting being anything other than a question of principle. The older Congressman is doing something to protect the odds of his being re-elected, but the younger Congressman isn't.

The temptation isn't to enhance re-election chances - if anything, responding to temptation reduces them. The temptation isn't about money. The temptation is strictly to correct an injustice.

Maybe he will one day be tempted by JP Morgan Chase, and I can see how that argument would be framed: "I'm doing a lot of people a lot of good here and if I'm forced out of office, I won't be able to do that; in fact, my replacement from the other party will do the same people a lot of harm. I don't have a choice." Given the Supreme Court's decision that engendered SuperPACs, that's pretty much how all of Congress has to operate now, which is why banking isn't being regulated. Everyone in Congress is now in terror of being blindsided by a gigantic SuperPAC media buy for their opponent in the last week of their re-election campaign, so they're all spending more and more of their time fundraising to protect themselves, which makes them specifically vulnerable to the JP Morgan Chases of the world, particularly since news organizations have abdicated their role of referreeing what is considered dirty pool.

I think (a-political animal that I am) playing the game intelligently and well is the only recourse for any politician (and I think that's what being a freshman is about, the crucible that either tempers or destroys the newby). The most difficult thing is balancing the potential gain against the inevitable loss (the one step forward two steps back process that most governments from town to city to state to country seem to operate within).

Principles are well and good - and ideal - but as we all know this is not an ideal world.. The Tea Party has enjoyed the successes they have only due to the power of numbers that entered the game together with the same goals - the lone idealistic frosh won't find this same level of success without finding power in allies and learning the game - quickly.

Rated for it's dog eat dog get 'er done or go home.

Thanks, Seer,
It's the "get 'er done" part that seems to be at issue here.

The Tea Partiers in Congress had one other thing going for them:

They were more afraid of breaking their pledge to Grover Nordquist than of screwing their constituents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a parallel conversation going on at HRdR's blog in which he's copied portions of this one. Over there, I talked about what I would do if I were the Congressman in question and I opted to accept the offer rather than refuse it. This is what I'd do under those circumstances (copied from there):
--
....the first thing I'd do is phone the heads of the environmentalist organizations in my district and lay out exactly what was going to happen and why. Something along the lines of:

"The XYZ bill, which is lousy, is going to pass. There's nothing I can do about that because of whose district this project is in. My vote won't affect the outcome with this particular bill.

"But
"If I vote for it, I can bring home a gay rights bill. Voting for it also positions me better to stop future bad environmental legislation because of who I establish alliances with. Voting against it, on the other hand, is a wasted vote.

"I understand that a vote for this means you'll be watching me like a hawk. That's fine. When I can actually accomplish something for us with a vote the right way, I'll cast it, not because you're watching me but because one of the reasons I'm here in the first place is because this is a key concern of mine. Your extra scrutiny will actually help because if I get pushed to vote the wrong way on future environmental legislation, I can explain to my colleagues that I can't afford to, and that they'll get."

I'd make that call before the vote. Not after, before. You don't vote and hope your key constituents don't notice because, if you handle it like that, you look like a weasel.
---
There's a further reason to do it before: Give them a chance to say their piece. Maybe they have a case to make that I haven't thought of.

That's where we differ I'm afraid.

You see I don't equate ethics and standing for the beliefs you were elected to uphold to "purity" or ineffectiveness. I see it as something to be proud of and that we need more of.

As for combating the GOP it's what's NEEDED because their problem sure as hell is not too many ethics nor "purity". Their problem is that they have a bunch of tea party Mestophaleses on their shoulders cuz they made their deal with the devil.

Amy,
In the case of the GOP I agree with half of that. I think they are obsessed with purity but that certainly doesn't translate to ethics in their case.

We may differ here. If I were in Congress and I had the opportunity to do real good for people without it actually costing my constituents (or other Americans, for that matter) anything, I would probably view it as my job to take that opportunity because that's presumably what I was sent to Congress to do - do real good for people.

My guess is that you think I'm rationalizing, but I don't have anything to rationalize in this case because I'm the only one potentially getting burned here:

No one in my district would blame me for voting my position issue by issue. Re-election is easier if I do that, not harder, so this isn't a move to make my re-election easier.

There is no financial gain here.

My vote, being functionally superfluous in this case, does no actual damage.

Again, it is easier to turn the guy down. It is safer to turn the guy down.

The main reason not to turn the guy down is what I can accomplish for my constituents; actually, for the American people in general in this case. My conscience doesn't allow me to ignore that.

The price is damage to me personally.

Dude, your constituents elected you, in part, to protect the enviroment. You're assuming that (first of all a lying politician) is telling you the truth about already having a majority; that all of them would vote that way if PEOPLE LIKE YOU STOOD UP FOR YOUR BELIEFS and opposed the legislation and that the people who elected you aren't smart enough to figure that out.

It only takes a few good people to stand by the beliefs they were elected upon. A few good people to lead the "compromisers".

Tell me this: What would happen to that anti-enviroment bill if EVERYONE refused to "deal" and did what they were elected to do?

(and don't tell me that it couldn't happen. Bernie Sanders and Al Franken proved it could).

@ amy

Word

Kosher

It struck me that we can draw a parallel with the selling of Indulgence by the medieval church. The question a Luther has about the whole dealing thing is, "Do you really believe that that's the way it works? Or are you just saying that in order to soothe your conscience about accepting a bribe? And which would be the more frightening answer, if you truly believed that god held you accountable for your actions?

Luther's solution was to do away with the whole hierarchy of God to pope to cardinal to bishop to priest to Individual. make it Just a direct connection Individual to God- that was the ultimate source of all Liberal philosophy and the government of man by individual reason.

perhaps we are now ready, in the age of the internet, for direct democracy. No dealing necessary, or possible. No politics

Do you think our Ruling class will quietly accept that?
If they truly only want what's best for us, it is time for their gamesmanship to be brought to an end.

Amy,
There are variables I haven't dealt with in this story. Assumptions such as that the older politician was leveling with the younger one, how the New Guy checks out the older guy's story before determining what course of action to follow, what happens if (from comments on what I'd do if I were the Congressman and if I were inclined to make the deal) the Congressman gets a convincing argument from environmentalists in his district he/she calls before finalizing a decision on the vote. There are all sorts of things that could derail a decision.

So, you'd object to the deal because:
The New Guy might be able to stop it after all.
The older Congressman might not be conveying accurate information.
Constituents are more concerned with consistency than with what is accomplished.

OK,
Though in one respect I take issue with something you said:
"if everyone refused to deal and did what they were elected to do"

Before the climate on the Hill got so toxic, I would think that a lot of Congressman would tell you that they were elected to deal. That's how things get done on the Hill. For most of our history, that's how Congress worked. One problem with the President is that he spent most of his first term assuming that it still worked like that but it doesn't nearly as much because those looking after the interests of billionaires don't compromise any more - they'd rather shut down the government and put it into default than increase taxes on those whose money they're so desperate to protect. Of course, compromise only works if it's a two-way street, which between parties it isn't at the moment, so nothing works normally; in fact, nothing works at all.

The second thing you said is if "people like you stood up for their beliefs." In making a deal to pass gay rights legislation, that's what the new Congressman was doing. You many not agree with how, but that's the premise and the point of the first post (actually, of both posts): the how isn't unambiguous. If it were, there would be no post. This isn't a post about corruption, it's a post about different takes on responsibility.

I have alot of friends who work on the Hill. I don't think a "token" gesture vote like this happens that often. Can you point to one in history?

Usually, the "gesture" asked for, by the older legislator, to see if the youngster can "play ball" is done in a less public, inconspicuous manner. He would never ask the youngster to take a hit during his first term on something like this. Especially if he knew his own bill was guaranteed to pass.

Reasonableness works both ways. I have read all of Robert Caro's books on LBJ, too. LBJ would test newbie legislators like this, too. But not this overtly. It was always more subtle. In ways that constituents and the media would be unaware of.

Believe it or not, legislative logrolling is the least common form of back-scratching on capital hill.

So your point is that politicians have been freaking lying to their constituents for a LONG time and that somehow makes it okay?

Or that dealing away somebody's rights in exchange for somebody else's is "progress"???

No. Sorry, dude. I'm not buying that one bit. If I elect a confess person based upon him saying he believes in and will stand firm on "A" and he then deals away "A" because "B" is more important, he's lost my support and is nothing but a self serving liar. This is most pertinent to me because the "A" that most often gets "dealt away" is human, gay and women's rights.

As for your contention that he receives no gain? Bull shit! The corporately funded anti-environmental PACs will literally FILL his reelection coffers for him. It's the poor ass minorities who elected him that are not served.

Rw and Amy,
Can't point to an example in history. Wouldn't know of one. Have no idea if one ever happened. I was trying to come up with a hypothetical because I've noticed a certain lack of acknowledgment of moral dilemmas with certain parties on OS and I wanted to construct one to illustrate that absolutes can be dangerous. This one may ultimately be insufficiently realistic, which may be my problem.

Amy,
You're assuming a lot about my protagonist that isn't in evidence. The first is that what drives him is money and re-election. The second is that he is likely to screw the gay community. The third is that he's likely to vote against environmental concerns when his vote does count. Actually, there is counter-evidence to all three. The action that he's contemplating may get him in trouble with his constituents while the opposite tack wouldn't, so re-election isn't driving him. The carrot to him is gay rights legislation, so the idea that he's likely to screw the gay community is silly - we start with the premise that gay rights is a big enough priority to take this risk over in the first place. The reason he's considering this vote is specifically because it won't count.

Think of it as a math problem: Two bills, at the outset, and the results if left alone will go the way he doesn't want in both cases. In both cases, "the way he doesn't want" is both an electoral and personal preference in that he ran for office on positions he actually holds.

0+0=0

If he takes action, as laid out, if we can accept the premises (and we haven't gone through any kind of verification process because the story takes place prior to attempts to do that - we pick up the story at the proposal stage), the equation being proposed is:

0+1=1.

The 1 isn't free but, if the information as laid out is accurate, the entire cost of the 1 is borne by him, none of it is borne by his constituents or anyone else's constituents.

The question on the table is:

Because he ostensibly has the opportunity to add that 1 without costing constituents anything, is it his responsibility to do so?

Your answer seems to be:
No, because:
1. the process of adding that 1 will inevitably corrupt him,
2. asking the question indicates a proclivity for corruption,
3. adhering to your issue positions overrule any and all actions, regardless of costs and benefits.

We could add Rw's objection, which is
4. as I said above, the setup is unrealistic.

It is, realistically, probably too clean a choice. No one really gets a bill passed in exchange for a vote that doesn't count.

If your point is that the setup is unrealistic either because the offer wouldn't be made or, more likely, that the offer might be made but wouldn't turn out to be accurate or honest, that is a completely legitimate objection and I apologize for my ineptness at constructing this hypothetical. However, if that is your point, please tell me that that's your point.

I am worried, however, about objection #3, because that's a formula for gridlock. That's what the Tea Party did, and it almost resulted in the US Government going into default. Now, I'm not drawing a moral parallel between us and the Tea Party in Congress because, well, we're right and they're wrong, but given that both sides are in Congress, the only way to accomplish anything is for both sides not to treat #3 as an absolute. (This doesn't work if one side treats #3 as an absolute and the other side doesn't - which is a pretty good description of Obama's first term - because that results in the responsible side being taken to the cleaners, which it has.)

HRdR:
1. This isn't a bribe. What's being dangled here as the carrot is a gay rights bill, which is a matter of principle and nothing else. No money is on the table and the arrangement makes re-election more difficult, not easier, because it muddies the Congressman's reputation with his constituents. If it is your contention that any negotiation on behalf of others constitutes a bribe, I'm afraid I'd find that contention beyond naive.

2. More direct democracy might be in order with one major caveat:
Only with safeguards against tyranny of the majority. I live in a state where the majority just decided to prevent a minority from getting married and did so via a constitutional amendment. Direct democracy has both benefits and dangers. One danger is that legislators actually develop expertise, whereas a smaller percentage of voters is likely to pay attention to the debates leading up to the votes with any seriousness. The benefit is that the political process wouldn't be hijacked by fundraising for re-election. Though it wasn't true before, the benefit may now be big enough to consider this approach, though we also have to be careful of an even greater influence of advertising under those circumstances.

3. The ruling class neither thinks that what's best for us is a priority nor understands what's best for us. I don't think this position is either ethical or smart; not ethical for obvious reasons and not smart both because the current course could lead to dangerous unrest and because the current course will kill the business climate on which they depend. That they don't see the second "because" continues to amaze me.

kosher

1. whether you see it as a bribe, or I see it as a bribe, that is how an intuitive person sees it- I don't have to make up how an intuitive person feels, that's how i was raised- all I have to do is let the intuition go without intellectually processing it. trust me, your intuitive supporters look at it as a bribe and a sellout, and they aren't either equipped or inclined to listen to logic.

2. The reasonable caveats are already in the Bill of Rights.
It quite clearly limits those things that are not subject to legislation.
Government as conceived by the Constitution isn't about "Big Issues", it's about the daily function of those necessary "utilities" that make life in a community possible- It was much more intended to deal with Record Keeping and Rights, and it was NEVER intended for social experiments in "What SHOULD" people do" as opposed to "How can we facilitate what Free and Lively people do in the pursuit of their individual happiness".

The separation of Church and state isn't so much a list of particulars as it is the difference between IS ( state issue) and OUGHT TO BE (church issue)- If the State had not chosen to grant tax advantages to being married, there would be no question of "Gay Right to Marry", they'd simply incorporate like any other mutual corporation of individuals, under the terms they felt best, including pets and lawn furniture. The Founding Fathers had a very clear vision of "None Of My Business".
They clearly underestimated the word bending skills of either greedy or self-righteous men when they thought that they had clearly stated the areas that are forbidden to legislation when they wrote that all powers not enumerated are reserved to the States and the people.
But then, if the federal government limited itself to that, where would be the Profit in Politics? Hell, you'd probably have to draft people by lottery to be legislators.

Which brings us to 3
I agree. But, remember
As a member of congress, the congressman IS a member of the Ruling Class

Hence, the intuitive interpretation of point 1

Same as it ever was.

HRdR,
Congress should be members of the ruling class but I'm afraid I'm not convinced they all qualify. I think the trouble is how many of them are ruled by the ruling class, which the Supreme Court made so much easier.

Your intuitive judgment on whether or not it's a bribe is interesting and to the point. I agree, it feels like one, but it doesn't analyze right. I'm looking at this and picturing myself in this role and the truly bizarre part is I might think turning it down would be irresponsible. Not expedient, not easy, not anything like that, but irresponsible. Literally. I wouldn't want to do it because of how it feels to vote against my convictions even when it doesn't count but I keep asking myself why considering how it feels isn't self-indulgent. I'm not sure how, analytically, to get myself past this.

Which is how I got to this pair of posts in the first place. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'm wondering why so many don't think I owe it to anyone to go after this.

Datum ( That which is given- A gift of information)


I was in my car this afternoon for a short drive, and I happened to hear an exchange between conservative talk show host Mark Davis and a caller who professed to be a lesbian., concerning gay marriage.

The caller said that she was perfectly happy with the notion of “Civil Union” instead of Gay Marriage, so long as they were legally equivalent and conferred the same rights and benefits. She said she understood the problem some people had with the term “Marriage” being altered to mean something other than what it meant to couples who viewed the term to refer to a holy union between a man and a woman. She was perfectly willing to give up the term in order to gain the benefit

Mark Davis said that he thought that would be an excellent solution, and that he felt that most people who objected to “gay Marriage” objected for that very reason. He felt there would be no problem in getting such an agreement, because Christians don’t “hate” gays- they do understand that domestic partners of any gender deserve simple human rights equal to those of traditional marriage.

That’s close to what I've found with almost any of my christian T-party friends. It isn’t the equal rights that bothers them, it’s what they view as the “theft” of the SACRED term “marriage”. As I’ve said before, the state has no power to grant sanctity to any endeavor.

I would go so far as to say that The State ( and by that I mean one of the 50 political entities comprising the United States - in which the power to legislate corporations and unions is held ) Should henceforth issue ONLY certificates of Civil Union, and stipulate that for all Contractual and Statute uses of the term “marriage” in any legal documents or contracts, the word “Civil Union” would be substituted, in affect retroactively granting to all civil unions past and present the same legal standing as the previous term “marriage” granted. This would apply across the board to any public or private contracts that provided benefits for “marriage”.

The state would then abandon the term “marriage “ altogether, and declare any previous legal definitions null and void. "marriage" would revert to a spiritual term ( not gonna quibble with those who know that it was originally a civil term stolen by the Roman Church) that could be applied by any spiritual or philosophical communities as they saw fit to “sanctify” any union of plants animals lawn furniture or gender that was in accordance with their religious beliefs in accordance with the 1st amendment respecting the establishment of religion.

The Supreme court could then apply the 14th amendment and reciprocity laws as it saw fit to bring about an America where all domestic partner relationships – man woman/man-man/ woman -woman were nationally on the same legal footing.

I certainly wouldn’t have a problem with that, and I think, according to both Mark Davis and my own informal polling, neither would most conservatives. The fight is in fact about the meaning of the term “marriage”, not the benefits. So, for giving up the State sanctioning of “marriage" by replacing it with the term “Civil Union” all couples in the state acquire an equal standing before the law, and the term “marriage” is STILL available to any couples who want it by a simple ceremony at the philosophical/spiritual organization of their choice, More than a win for gays, Right?

So, I come to you and I’ve got my backing all lined up, we’re ready to do the deal –
How do you vote?

HRdR,

Actually, I'm fine with it. As long as everyone has the same rules, it works.

However, it's silly as Hell, because it won't actually change a thing; if anything, it will liberalize everything.

Marriage currently has two meanings: a civil (legal) meaning and a religious meaning. Very few people have religious marriages without civil marriages but plenty have civil without religious. If people really want to change the legal term for civil marriage, sure. It won't accomplish what they think it will, but sure.

The first thing to understand is that everyone will continue to use the term "married" for civil unions in common speech, with the possible exception of a few fundamentalists. So, we'll introduce this term, then proceed to ignore it.

The use of this term will not prevent clergy from having to marry gay couples because they don't have to now, anywhere. There are existing grounds on which various religions can refuse to perform weddings currently, such as intermarriage. That's a pre-existing religious prerogative; we don't need civil unions to give them that because they already have it and are likely to continue to for the forseeable future. No change there.

Conversely, there are clergy that currently do perform gay marriages and will continue to do so; if anything, the number that do is just about guaranteed to increase over time. Because this proposal will turn marriage into a strictly religious function, the states won't be able to regulate marriage, only civil unions, which will result in gay marriages being performed in all fifty states.

So people want civil unions? OK. That will be a temporary inconvenience that will result in lawyers making a lot of money with new legal language, but that's basically it, because the general population won't use the language. So we'll waste time and money, which is fine with me if we get equality.

The other result, of course, is that Republicans all over the country will now have to approve of people being Unionized. That's a first.

Kosher

The power of words.

It is almost hilarious when you sort through many ( Most?) conflicts and realize what the actual fight is about. That is what I did as a troubleshooter.
Listen to both sides and what they think they want, and then translate it into the other sides language so that they realize there is no real conflict at all
No conflict except, all too often, one that has been stage managed for someones profit.

Does the term “marriage” really mean that much?
Yes it does.
Symbolically, the State is acknowledging the limitations of its power over religion.
That is something that those who are brewing trouble for their own purposes won’t readily give up.

They would continue to cry outrage that as long as the State was not going to refer to them as “married” that somehow “Civil Union” would represent “Second Class”, EVEN IF ALL THAT WERE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE WERE “CIVIL UNION”

You are correct. Those who did not care about the SANCTITY of marriage would refer to their “Civil Union” as “Married”, and those who felt the need of sanctification would be confirmed in their already strong belief that REAL marriage was before God, and the business with a Civil License was just so much tax mumbo jumbo.

In fact, after a time , it might seem good just to do away with a separate civil union, and fill out forms to register 2 sub chapter S type corporations and merge them. The only thing special would be that these types of merged sub-chapter S corporations could then have their union blessed by the term “Married” as conferred by an institution of their choice. ( But then so could any “incorporation” – which would be a huge incentive to sort out just what sorts of advantages we want to give to those “Civil unioned”)
The “Civil Union” registry would become a sub department of the Corporation registry.

Don’t believe that it’s really all about the meaning of the term “Marriage?”

Then I’ve got another proposition for you. It’s time to do reparations for slavery.
The KKK has generously agreed to a fund which will pay $100,000 in reparations to anyone ( and race is tricky to figure out these days, so this has to be a personal choice – like the President and Prof Warrens ) who agrees to self identify as a N****R and respond politely when so addressed, and acknowledge it as his ethnicity when questioned.
Are you on board?

@ HRdR: you've never spent a solitary day without full equality, have you?

If you had, you'd never had questioned on WHY people like me, with THE EXACT SAME HUMAN AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS PEOPLE LIKE YOU, are so insistent upon being treated JUST LIKE EVERYBODY else.

P.S. Thanks for equating the fight for gay & human rights to the KKK. That was quite ingenious (and smarmy).

@Amy

I never have spent a day without full equality.
I was raised such that when someone treated me as their inferior, I found a way to demonstrate my superiority- when I was growing up, i did so just by beating the shit out of them.

When, in my twenties, it gradually was pointed out to me that physically disciplining those who dissed me could have incarcerating effects upon my body, I took up and perfected the sport of Rat Hockey, or Hare Jitsu- which is the art of being so much smarter than your enemies that you can use them for your own amusement until they finally realize that they are being made fools of. ( What Would Bugs Bunny Do?) Anger isn't much use in this process. A sense of Humor is absolutely mandatory.

I am very interested in your take on this. Though the United Methodist Church has affirmed it's stance that homosexuality is not natural, my own particular congregation treats the (2) gay couples just like any other couples ( Which is to say with small town everybody knows everyone else's business gossip-but also true compassion for their kids and partners)

What is in a WORD? For Believers "Marriage" is a Holy word.
It isn't about the benefits. It is about each congregation's right to set their beliefs. You will find that your most fundamental baptist will refer to Muslim multiple marriage as "marriage" and also "Hindu" or Chinese "marriage" as "marriage" - not because he approves of the religious rites used to sanctify the marriage, but because of the recognition that it IS a religious sanctification, and not just some kind of business contract.

The gays who insist on the term "marriage", seem to think think that being labeled anything else is "second class" even if everyone gets "second class"
The religious who object to the term "Gay Marriage" object because it is the state forcing them to recognize religious beliefs they don't hold.

Not that they don't acknowledge other religions right to marry- you will find that you won't run into any more debate about whether you are "married" if you get married by a"universal life Minister" or a "Buddhist" - damned heathens both, but entitled to their own ways, is how it is looked at.

At the same time, the religious would be delighted to push the states nose out of the business of "Sanctifying" anything.

I am asking this because I want to understand- What is the problem with EVERYONE- straight or gay, being incorporated for tax purposes by the state ( with equal benefits across the board) and Married at their discretion by the religious denomination of their choice?

The point of the KKK offer was, in a way about whether you give yourself the right to full equality. what the KKK wants you to do is SELF IDENTIFY as subhuman- once they've achieved that, the rest is just detail. I was actually identifying the KKK with the Nazi's and how they cut out and marked the Jews and homosexuals in the third Reich. How much smarmier would it have seemed if I had identified the offering agency as the NAACP?

Seriously, AMY, it is not usually my intention to be a smart ass, i am just naturally that way- to paraphrase Ado Annie in Oklahoma, I ain't better than anyone else, but damned if I ain't just as good.
You don't have to let people treat you as unequal. Think about it, What Would Bugs Bunny Do?

@Amy

(Please excuse capitalization AMY in the end of previous comment- my finger slipped on the caps lock and i didn't notice it)

On a moments reflection, I want to clarify my remarks about "Full Equality"

I've fallen into a common and confusing trap when it comes to "Rights" debate.

Let me state that I construed your question about "Full Equality" to mean "Full Equality of Respect for a Fellow Being"

I never had "Full Equality" with, for instance, my high school Latin teacher- indeed, he was like a god compared to me,

But I did have his Full Respect as a Fellow Being-(which saved me having to attempt to beat the shit out of him - I doubt that I could have) It further meant that I cheerfully beat the shit out of my classmates who jeeringly referred to him as a "Wuss" because of his gentlemanly ( effeminate) mannerisms. (What they didn't know was that he boxed at UM)

Let's be clear- I never have found anyone that I am "Fully Equal" with. However, I haven't yet met a living creature that doesn't deserve an equal amount of RESPECT. ( Course you are allowed to respectfully mess with varmints heads until they either quit annoying you, or quit being varmints)

HRdR,
OK, so let me get this straight:

If I'm short on cash, I go to the KKK and say: "You can call me whatever you want and I will respond respectfully, now give me my $100k," they'll do it? It's strictly about self-identification?

We can take a community of White homeless people to our local KKK office and say "All you have to do is let them call you this name, which no one else will call you because you don't fit the conventional criteria, and they'll give you a hundred thousand dollars" and they'll be out Millions?

That could get interesting.

I'm assuming the point about the KKK was to illustrate the power of language/terminology. Here at OS, we express ourselves in writing and a few of us belong to various minorities, so we know that already. Where you were going with that was initially a little ambiguous.

Let me get off the tangent and back to the point:

There's one part that's really missing from this line of reasoning: If everyone got civil unions (and so what we think of now as the civil aspect of marriage were freely available to gays, period), a lot of religious organizations would perform gay marriages. Not every church would recognize every marriage but that's true now - there are heterosexual marriages that some churches and synagogues do not recognize, particularly around issues like divorce. Dividing the term does NOT keep gays out of sanctified marriages. If that's why to go through the exercise, it's a terrible reason because it won't work.

Uh, "it is not usually my intention to be a smart ass." Could have fooled me.

Of course, it takes one to know one. Freely acknowledged.

Kosher

I think it’s a little more complicated and subtle than that.

You not only must let the KKK and anyone else refer to you as N*****R, you must refer to yourself that way and introduce yourself that way, and come to think of it, you should probably also wear a black star on the back of your clothes, just so we can keep track and be sure you keep your bargain. The purpose is two fold, most obviously, it gives the bigots someone they can “look down on”, but more importantly, it forces you to identify yourself as a subhuman victim. Me? I’m just going to take their money and laugh in their face- and it will be fine until I find that I can’t get certain jobs, etc, once I tell them I’m a “N*****R., anything else I tell them is irrelevant.

And as you allude to the people likely to do this- how many Blacks would sell out their pride and take up this offer? Probably (hopefully) not many.

The analogy is that if you can’t get a group of people to ignore the meaning of a word for $100k, how do you think people react when you tell them, “Too bad you hold that word sacred, we’re going to rape the meaning of it from you”

Not to be offensive, though the whole point is that even the thought of it is offensive, how would you like to go to the local courthouse and go to the restroom and find that the toilet paper rolls were labeled “Torah”s ? Whole lot of emotion contained in just that one “innocent” labeling. Yes – Give the term “marriage” back to the religious, and make your “civil union” be anything wanted- so long as it is used equally for all couples.

The point is Not to say that people married by a different church are not married- that’s theological discussion. It’s to say that the state is not going to tell me what MY church must sanctify. I Don’t really care what your church will sanctify.

And the point isn’t to keep gays from having sanctified marriages. It’s to keep them from forcing MY church to sanctify them (NB- that is not MY stance- I have no problem with the Methodist church sanctifying gay marriage, but then, push comes to shove, the Methodist church might have some problems sanctifying me, If they ever get around to holding an inquisition ( Methodist’s use grape juice for communion, a Methodist inquisition means being made to sit with the elderly ladies Sunday school class for an hour)

HRhR,

No one is suggesting that any church be forced to sanctify any marriage.

That is not on the table. That is not the case in states where gay marriage is legal.

Do you know that no rabbi coming out of the theological seminary run by the Reform movement, the least legally strict movement, will perform a mixed marriage - between a Jew and a Gentile? Do you know that some Catholic dioceses will not perform marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics? Do you know that there are clerics in both religions who will not recognize the marriages of people who have been divorced, or in some cases who haven't been ritually divorced? The law does not force religious institutions to recognize all marriages. This is just another kind of marriage they can refuse to recognize.

Hell, among Mormons, forget about forcing clerics to perform certain marriages; in a sanctified Mormon Tabernacle, if you're not Mormon, you not only can't get married there, you aren't allowed into the building!

The objection you're pointing to is neither policy nor proposed policy. The state is no more capable of forcing churches to perform or recognize marriages than it is to regulate my daughter's eventual Bat Mitzvah.

The fear you're talking about is groundless. Off limits. Not gonna happen. Mythical. A smokescreen.

HRdR wrote: "The point is Not to say that people married by a different church are not married- that’s theological discussion. It’s to say that the state is not going to tell me what MY church must sanctify. I Don’t really care what your church will sanctify."


And when the Mormons "sactify" the sujugation of women and the Muslins "sactify" the forced marriage (and rape) of 9 y.o.'s and when the Animalists "sactify" ritual mutilation, when the Church tortures people into confessing their heresy or when the Puritan's drown a woman for witchcraft, it's all good right?

Sorry, dude but one of the basic tennents of the Constitution is that it protects EVERYONE from the tyranny of religious beliefs, whatever they may be.

Ergo, you or your denomination do not own the word or the "meaning" of marriage and us "homos" have as much right to the term as you do.

If it pisses your fundie asses off then I'd highly suggest you deal with it cuz we WILL not let you or your "alleged" "sanctifying higher power" prevent it.

Your righteous religionosity doesn't give you a permit for bigotry. Sorry.

Kosher

As usual, you're thinking.
People don't

It sounds as if whatever the "magic" of the term "marriage " is, Amy wants it- and she feels that by making it something that could only be conferred by a religious institution, I am treating her with disrespect and making her union second class, just by pointing out that "marriage" is not something the state can dispense, but is freely available from a religious/philosophical group of her choice.

That solution delights conservatives- and I understand the point they are making about their understanding of the separation of church and state , whether I can explain it to you or not. I have no idea in the world why it is offensive to Amy. I don't mean it to be.

If you can explain what you view as the pluses and minuses to of the deal i originally outlined about the state doing only "civil unions" and the religious doing "marriage" to Amy and those who believe as she does, I already know that the conservatives are pretty likely to go along with it, whether you understand why they would be willing or not, or whether I understand what would offend Amy or not- we should be able to have this whole "Equal Rights Civil Union"/ Holy sacrament of Marriage thing wrapped up by the end of the week-
suppose we can put in for a Noble Prize or sumthin?

HRdR,
To answer you in something closer to Amy's terms: Jews own Torah but we don't own Marriage. We can't regulate gentile marriages. Nor can any church regulate marriages outside of itself.

Kosher

Once again, translating, not arguing for or against:

Ii's not that the church can or wishes to regulate marriages outside of it's own community of faith. The point being made is that the State (secular) authorities have no authority to regulate (sacrament of) marriage ( a function of faith -church) whatsoever and are in fact forbidden to by the first amendment.

As Mrs Raptor pointed out- it would probably be better if the state did not engage in giving any advantages to domestic partners of any variety whatsoever, and if they did, as I suggested, to do it within existing contract and incorporation law.

Call it nit picking, but wars are fought over such nit picking.

So, can we do the deal or not?

Already answered, H
Yes if same model applies to all marriages/unions.

Kosh... in the words of a much better man than either one of us...

"How smooth must be the language of the whites, when they can make right look like wrong, and wrong like right."

-Black Hawk, Sauk-(1767-1838)Ma-ka-tai-me-she-kia-kiak

Regardless of whether there are personal ramifications to the decision to vote "for" the environmental question or not - your hypothetical congresscritter is in a situation where he has to compromise his ethics (essentially "vote for this which is repugnant to you if you want that which is one of your cornerstones"). I am rather assuming he has ethics to start with though and that is questionable since he was elected to be a congresscritter.

Mrs. Raptor,
If I knew which I was sure was wrong and which right, I wouldn't have written this. I know what feels wrong and feels right but I'm not sure that's enough. I don't like the idea of contributing to a vote going the wrong way at all, but I'm not sure that the fact that I don't like it is enough.

Kosher

Thanks for posting this.
The thinking and comments and back and forth of this have been ( still are) the "Stuff" of a pretty nice little Chautauqua on the way human beings make decisions. IMHO-

Reason is not always Reasonable, some times it is counter intuitive ( the Gift) and sometimes it is alogical (The "marriage" fight-) I couldn't have asked for a better exploration of the ART of Human Reason.

May I string our posts together on a "menu" and post them as a Chautauqua at "The ART of Reason "?

Sure. I've got no problem having this accessible in more than one place. And, in this case, you're right: The process of reason is strikingly different, depending on who's approaching it, with some not grasping the other side at all. Actually, one side's easy to grasp but the other apparently isn't. The idea that someone would feel obligated to make this deal for ethical reasons seems to be throwing nearly everyone a curve. I didn't think it was that difficult a concept but I don't see a lot of people grasping that. Instead, the main reaction seems to be that this deal must be based on corruption. On the part of the senior Congressman, yes, but on the part of the junior Congressman, not at all.

H,

I just realized I didn't answer one of your comments, the one where you wanted me to translate for Amy. I could, but I think the solution won't produce the desired effect at all. I've already outlined why not.

OK,
For Amy, if she's reading, the translation of HRdR's stance, which I don't think will work though I kind of get it:

There seems to be a large group of conservatives who view the term "marriage" primarily through a religious lens. Because they view scripture as prohibiting homosexual congress, they are inclined to attempt to reserve the term for heterosexual relationships.

There ae three fallacies here (which HRdR has not really gone through, but I will:

1. There are plenty of churches who will marry gay couples, so changing the legal term to Civil Union won't keep gay marriage out of church.

2. The term Civil Union won't be in generalized use for long because everyone is used to saying "marriage" and it's easier to say.

3. There is no proposal on the table that I know of requiring clergy to marry people they don't want to marry. This is not, repeat, NOT being forced into their churches.

In other words, the opponents of gay marriage are suggesting a course of action that is ultimately pointless but, given that they are opponents of gay marriage, we may have to cut them some slack.

However, this is what they think they want to do and this is how HRdH would change their approach:

While a lot of conservatives want to keep gay marriage out of the church, some justifiably find it inconsistent that one kind of couple should have so much more rights than others. So, what they suggest is that we change the terminology in order to have their cake and eat it too. If we call the civil portion of gay marriage "civil unions" and make that available to gay couples, we get around the inequality of legal protection issues. (From an earlier post, let's name this "straight privilege.")

H's variation is to make ALL government-performed marriages "civil unions," not just gay marriages, because this would take inequality out of the equation. No "separate but equal" here. In other words, get family out of the marriage business altogether and leave it in church.

Even though the civil union solution won't work, I'm glad that there are a lot of conservatives who are actually seeking some form of orientation equality.

It is stunning to read these posts, and the two threads, especially the threads. It is not that the posts are not good, but the threads are remarkable. They are remarkable for their obvious displays of naivete regarding how the world works, how our government works, and the purpose of committee action.

First of all, on quite a fundamental level, and taught in every 10th grade civics class (or should be so taught) is the fact that elected officials have two functions, not one. Jan Sand said that they are to do as their constituents direct them. That is only half of the picture. Elected officials are both delegates and trustees. The common perception is that they act merely as delegates. That has never been the case.

The Great War was/is what happens when people stand on principle and refuse to compromise. I'm not talking about just war. I mean endless, meaningless war with no progress and no let up. People ground into sausage because one side is absolutely right and the other is absolutely wrong. It is simplistic and it is dangerous.

Adults came along and tried to create a means to prevent such a costly impasse from ever happening again. Remember, they called it the "war to end all wars." What was the nearly universal solution? Was the solution moral teaching spread around the world? Nope. The solution was the creation of a deliberative body, the League of Nations, for the purpose of compromise. I struggle to believe that any modern adult does not understand that deliberative bodies like the House and Senate are assembled for compromises rather than quivers of moral vectors, all bunched together. Nothing outside of a religious structure works in that manner, and our government is not designed to fucntion like a religious entity. Like you said in a variety of places, the moral imperative of a democratic republic is to compromise in the interest of justice, not to stand inflexibly on principle.

Bill,
I don't remember who said it in one of the threads, it may have been Sagemerlin, but he made the trustee point. We're not alone in that view.

This sentence: "I struggle to believe that any modern adult does not understand that deliberative bodies like the House and Senate are assembled for compromises rather than quivers of moral vectors, all bunched together." is a gem.

I run into this phenomenon all the time. More recently, in my ongoing Israeli-Palestinian discussions, I finally thought I'd figured out a way to emphasize the practical by writing a post about how to achieve Palestinian statehood.

http://open.salon.com/blog/koshersalaami/2012/09/25/toward_establishing_a_palestinian_state

Again, I left the ideological alone and focused 100% on the practical. This is who you need on your side to accomplish this. This is why you need them. This is how you get them. This is how you disarm the opposition.

The result? Everyone, and I mean everyone, who usually posts or comments anti-Israel went to the "who deserves what" argument. I'd hear: "But then there has to be accountability," tribunals, whatever, International Court of Justice. Guys! You think you're going to get the head of a paranoid nuclear power Prosecuted?? Talk like that not only won't work, it will keep him in power! I couldn't get them there. I couldn't get most of them to acknowledge that There existed. I said: I don't want to hear what you want; this post isn't about that. I want to hear how you plan to get us there because that's what I've presented. Out of those who commented and held the views I'm talking about, only one answered me, and that was Markinjapan. His answer, incidentally, was:

I don't know.

I thanked him for his courtesy because none of his allies even acknowledged the question. It was all

We Want, We Want, We Want

with zero attention paid as to how to get it. I said: Give me a road map.

The answers I got back might as well have included the question:
What's a map?

I was being honest but I ended up calling a bluff. It's all, as you put it so succintly earlier,

Graffiti.

The internet gives us quite a lot, but it hinders and obscures much as well. One thing that I find personally distasteful about discussions on the internet is that given the opportunity, so, so many take advantage of the freedom to take illogical, untennable stances that an eyeball to eyeball conversation would regulate or not allow. Set aside the rudeness and malicious behavior. What shocks me is that some seem to forget what reasonableness is when they discuss almost anything. The notion that compromise never happens is absurd. King Solomon asked two who claimed to be the parents of a child to split the child in half in order to determine who the actual parent was. It was a trick, but the formula was compromise. That was from 3000 years ago. How can compromise be unfamiliar? Ever hear anyone called a "nimrod." Nimrod was the one who ordered the construction of the Tower of Babel. Is building a tower to the heavens not an allegorical reference to being too principled and rejecting compromise? When the tower collapsed, and everyone dispersed with their hair on fire, and speaking different languages, is that not an explanation about people falling into divisions which can not be translated into compromise? How can the value of compromise be new, when civilization has been writing about it since Genesis? How can compromise be set in conflict with morality when the first book of the bible has been instructing the value of compromise? What arrogance says, yeah, 3000 years of history says one thing, but my morals say better? It astounds me to see anyone even attempt that line of non reasoning. Eye to eye, it would never fly. And the name callers who stand on a "moral" principle? You gotta be kidding me.

I assure you, they're not kidding you. I keep trying to go there. It's like I'm speaking Greek. When I say Negotiate, they hear Selling Out. When I say This is what it brought us that's good that we wouldn't otherwise have, they say Nothing. They simply repeat Selling Out.

As I've said in a couple of places: Ted Kennedy should have stood his ground on every vote he ever made, and my kid would have gone through his short life sitting in his wheelchair viewing every curb as a cliff and having me park hundreds of yards away from my destination, even in the rain and snow.

Nice people.

But, the rest of Congress SHOULD have...

beep beep beep beep beep beep beep beep

excuse me? Who died and made you moral arbiter? Who listens to your idea of Should? Be nice if that's the way the world worked, but I'm afraid we have to deal with the world as it is, not as it Should be,

and the paradox is:

It takes a lot of compromise to bring the world closer to where it Should be.