Iowa evangelicals were undoubtedly shocked and alarmed by the ruling of Polk County Judge Robert Hanson. The ruling states that Iowa’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and orders that the six plaintiff couples be granted marriage licenses. In his ruling, Judge Hanson argued that the Iowa Constitution provides for equal protection and due-process and that the passage of Iowa’s Defense Of Marriage act violates that provision.

The ruling will certainly add a new wrinkle to Iowa’s presidential primary. Clearly, candidates who may have sought to limit their comments on the subject will now be forced to weigh in on the ruling…which will certainly increase the attention placed upon the outcome of the states primary.

I decided to have a little fun with the ruling and the evangelicals who will certainly be mobilizing to protect the institution of marriage from the destructive influences of same-sex unions. The following is a list of suggestions designed to protect the marriages of evangelicals…which they may want to enact until such time as the ruling can be stayed or stricken down by a higher court.

Rumor has it that wearing a necklace of corn cobs will ward off the negative and evil influences one may experience when encountering a married homosexual.

Evangelical women should encourage their husbands to avoid any possibilities of being identified as a metro-sexual…such men are prime targets for conversion efforts.

Evangelical men must monitor the television their wives are watching during the day. The militant homosexuals have infiltrated daytime programming in order to convert unsuspecting women of faith. Under no circumstances should evangelical women be allowed to watch Ellen or The View. While the V Chip was intended to monitor the programs viewed by children, husbands are encouraged to utilize the device to prohibit the watching of inappropriate programs by vulnerable wives.

Evangelical businesses are encouraged to remove all coffee tables and coffee table books and magazines from their waiting areas as it may attract married homosexuals.

Evangelical males who may be traveling by airplane are encouraged to avoid the use of airport restrooms…there are concerns that heterosexual men may be vulnerable to the lure of these palatial potties. Women should encourage their husbands to use the bathroom before departing the home and not again until they are on the plane. Evangelical women need not worry about the sex their husbands have on a plane as the Mile High Club currently prohibits the formation of a homosexual affiliate. Notwithstanding, there are concerns that a secret sect of stewards are planning to form a similar club called “In The “O” Zone”. Please check back for updates.

In extreme situations, it may be necessary for husbands to hire the services of a prostitute. Recent research by Senator Vitter of Louisiana suggests that an unstable marriage can be renewed by such measures…and it has an added communal effect which was evidenced by the standing ovation the senator received upon his return to Washington. He is a true champion of heterosexual marriage. An anonymous source indicates that the Senator will announce a new campaign designed to defend marriage…the campaign is called “Marriage: One Man, One Woman, & A Shit Load Of Hookers”.

A word of caution to the wives of evangelical ministers. Under no circumstances should you allow your husbands to travel out of town on trips that require an overnight stay or time alone. It is being reported that information provided by hotel staff and informational literature found in hotel rooms has been co-opted by militant homosexuals. Completely innocent massages have been reported to lead to man on man sex and the use of illicit drugs which are designed to convert the unsuspecting minister. Those who doubt the veracity of this warning need only be reminded of the fall of well-known Colorado Springs minister, Ted Haggard.

Lastly, should your spouse lose their way and succumb to the tireless efforts of the homosexual agenda…fear not. The same program that restored Ted Haggard in a matter of a few weeks is being made available to the people of Iowa on a priority basis. If you suspect your spouse has fallen, please contact Gay-B-Gone and they will forward you a trial sample of their revolutionary product Rinse-Away-The-Gay…a quick penetrating shampoo that will leave your spouse tingling from the infusion of the holy spirit…and you feeling confident that your betrothed is on the road to recovery. Call now…the phones are staffed by sympathetic and satisfied customers.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Bios cause bad vibes in Baghdad.

WASHINGTON (XF) - A series of thumbnail bios of members of Congress visiting Iraq have some claiming they are being “slimed” and that the mini-biographies appear to be designed to differentiate them as either for the war or against it. But sources familiar with the documents tell the Xsociate Files that the fliers are actually designed to help soldiers and other service personnel, many of whom have spent the last five years in Iraq, to remember that the US still has a representative democracy.

According to the source, because of prolonged and repeated deployments, many soldiers stationed in Iraq have trouble recalling details from back home.

“Some have been there so long they probably have trouble remembering their spouses name, much less the name of their representative in Congress,” the source said on condition of anonymity.

Critics of the administration claim, however, that the documents are actually designed to aid Pentagon officials in creating a “fog” as one lawmaker called it about events taking place in Iraq. Asked at a recent press gaggle if that was the case, outgoing White House Press Secretary Tony Snow denied the allegation.

“Look, we have a lot going on right now. And there are a lot of members in Congress. You can’t expect us to remember all their names,” Snow said.

“Maybe if Gonzales had had these cheat sheets when he testified before the Senate, he might still have a job,” one prominent critic of the administration is quoted as saying.

(X-posted at The Xsociate Files)

A couple of great blog postings have crossed my email inbox today, and I thought I’d share them:

Booman picks up on an absolutely absurd occurrence in Iraq during a recent visit by a GOP congressional delegation. I’m not even going to tell you what it’s about. You have to go read it - it’s that crazy. But here’s Booman’s intro to the posting:

Whether it was M*A*S*H, Dr. Strangelove, or Catch-22, I like to see war portrayed as absurd. Even when it is justified, it is absurd. Many Vietnam movies tackle the issue, none more poignantly than Apocalypse Now. I think we have a real life example that speaks volumes in today’s Washington Post. This could be straight out of Joseph Heller…

ASZ’s most excellent friend Melissa at Shake’s Sis found some more conservative absurdity in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece posted on Opinion Journal. Apparently, there’s a strategy that the GOP can use to re-attract the “security moms”. Again, without giving away Lis’ secret, here’s a snippet to whet your appetite:

Right out of the box, I can tell I’m going love Ms. Strassel, given that she subscribes to one of my favorite theories of politics: Vagina Voting. That’s the theory which proffers that Vagina-Americans (aka “Women”) are politically attracted to the closest vagina. Hence, all women should want to vote for Hillary. And if Hillary weren’t in the race, they’d want to vote for John Edwards, because of Elizabeth—and also because John Edwards, what with his hair fetish, is practically one big vagina himself…

Lastly, I’m sure that everyone heard about McFlightsuit proposing a bailout for the mortgage industry. Believe me, no matter how much the White House spins it, the bailout is NOT for homeowners. It’s for his buddies in the banking / financial service industries that are gasping for mortgage air. Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast does a sendup on the latest absurdity in the burgeoning mortgage industry crisis - and she (properly) contrasts the bailout to the lack of assistance for affected people in New Orleans:

Don’t kid yourself for one minute that this is about helping low-income Americans stay in their homes. If helping low-income Americans stay in their homes were the goal, the 9th Ward of New Orleans wouldn’t still be in ruins two years after Hurricane Katrina, its citizens dispersed elsewhere, the better to turn Louisiana into a Republican state and a cash cow for Bush’s corporate cronies. This Administration has dragged its heels on helping the most high-profile poor people in the country, but when the wealthy start to feel the effects, suddenly this president rushes into action…

If you’ve found some online absurdity today that needs to see the light of day, by gawd, post it in the comments!!

Gay marriage comes to the heartland. From the AP Wire:

A county judge struck down Iowa’s decade-old gay marriage ban as unconstitutional Thursday and ordered local officials to process marriage licenses for six gay couples.

Gay couples from anywhere in Iowa could apply for a marriage license from Polk County under Judge Robert Hanson’s ruling.

Less than two hours after word of the ruling was publicized, two Des Moines men applied for a license, the first time the county had accepted a same-sex application. The approval process takes three days.

Gary Allen Seronko, 51, was listed as the groom on the form and David Curtis Rethmeier, 29, the bride.

“I started to cry because we so badly want to be able to be protected if something happens to one of us,” Rethmeier said.

Deputy Recorder Trish Umthun said she took five calls from gay couples after the judge filed his ruling Thursday afternoon and expected a rush of applications Friday.

Of course, this will be appealed, and the Christians all over Iowa will be calling for an amendment to the state constitution. Politicians, and every single one running for President is in the state constantly, are now going to be asked the gay marriage question. So we’re going to be focused on this issue from now until the caucuses, to the exclusion of other very important issues. Don’t get me wrong, civil rights for gay people are very important, but they should not dominate our discussions, and believe me, they will dominate over the next several months in Iowa. Yeah, I’m not seeing this as all good news.

Nope, that’s nowhere in the constitution whatsoever. And the fact that T-Shirt slogans are not protected is not a sign that our forefathers were devil worshippers. There’s no reason, as Les says, to play the “poor persecuted Christian card.”

In this case, we’re talking about a school dress code. Everyone is to wear khakis and a polo shirt with no insignia on the polo shirt. Sounds fair to me. But the mother of Tracy Prochnow is complaining because of Tracy’s fourth violation of the dress code. And, yes, she is playing the poor persecuted Christian card. Here’s the story:

The mother of a student who was suspended for violating her school system’s dress code says the rules unfairly target religion, WRTV in Indianapolis reported.

Tracy Prochnow said Highland High School in Indiana suspended her daughter, Brittany Brown, on Monday because the junior wore a Christian-themed T-shirt.

Monday was the fourth time Brittany violated the code, which the city’s school board implemented this year and requires students to wear khakis and polo shirts.

Prochnow said the school may be violating her daughter’s rights, and she has asked the school board to change the code.

“I don’t believe it matters what she’s wearing — whether it be a T-shirt and jeans or polo and khakis — as to what she’s going to learn,” Prochnow told WRTV.

The front of Brittany’s T-shirt features a cross and the words “This Shirt Is Illegal In 51 Countries.” The back quotes the Bible’s Romans 1:16: “I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God … the salvation of everyone who believes.”

“The school is basically saying I can’t wear a shirt that talks about Jesus or Christ or God or any religious type of T-shirt because we have to wear a polo,” Brittany said.

The school’s principal, Mark Finger, said the dress code doesn’t target religious beliefs.

“The policy states there are to be no logos or slogans on a shirt,” Finger said.

OK, I’m going to the really obvious here, that Mrs. Prochnow is just plain stupid. The school policy does not, in fact, focus on religion at all. What it is likely intended to do is make sure clothing is not a distraction at school. No, Mrs. Prochnow, there is no right in our society for your daughter to wear slogans on her T-Shirts, whether the slogan is about religion or whether the slogan is about how stupid her own mother is.

As Misty points out, Mrs. Prochnow and her daughter knew what the dress code was and Mrs. Prochnow allowed her daughter to violate that code four different times. I gotta wonder whether she is a fit mother.

(Want some fun? Go check out the comments underneath this news story. The Christians supporting Mrs. Prochnow and her delinquent daughter are hilarious!)

Almost immediately after a GAO report that showed Iraq’s leaders were flunking the benchmark test for surge success was leaked to the press, the White House set about to downplay its findings. According to the Bushies, the congressional report shouldn’t be given too much credit because it wasn’t grading on a curve. See in Bushworld, grades only matter when you’re doing well.

Well we may now have another instance of them playing fast and loose with numbers. From The National Security Network (via Kevin Drum):

There were significant revisions to the way the Pentagon’s reports measure sectarian violence between its March 2007 report and its June 2007 report. The original data for the five months before the surge began (September 2006 through January 2007) indicated approximately 5,500 sectarian killings. In the revised data in the June 2007 report, those numbers had been adjusted to roughly 7,400 killings — a 25% increase. These discrepancies have the impact of making the sectarian violence appear significantly worse during the fall and winter of 2006 before the President’s “surge” began.

Which would in turn given the impression that lower instances of sectarian killings during the surge would mean it’s working. Of course when you factor in seasonal statistics, you find that violence tends to decrease during the hottest of the summer months. It was almost as if the Bushies knew this when they started the surge…

All this data Shiatsu was apparently the last straw for the Pentagon since they are now affectively throwing up their hands and saying to Bush “It’s your mess, you deal with it”. It’s not really surprising since the commanders weren’t too keen on the surge to begin with but it is still not exactly good for troop morale knowing your commanders are practically washing their hands of the situation. Even more depressing is they are leaving the decisions up to cadre who don’t have soldiers, or the country’s, best interests in mind.

See also Cernig.

(X-posted at The Xsociate Files)

As the blogosphere has sought to digest the meaning of the Larry Craig incident, it has begun to spur a worthwhile debate…one which has been ignored and has lurked in the background in ways eerily similar to the behavior that led to the arrest of the Senator.

Generally speaking, the public is opposed to encountering unexpected or offensive behaviors in public environments…and that is a reasonable concern for those within government to address. Clearly, the opinions regarding which behaviors constitute a nuisance or create the conditions under which to charge an individual with a crime will vary from individual to individual…often dependent upon one’s values, one’s religious beliefs, ands one’s propensity for tolerance. The fact that there are discordant beliefs simply complicates the task for those charged with monitoring such activities.

By and large, citizens believe that law enforcement departments are committed to treating each individual fairly and with the same level of respect for their civil liberties. At the same time, history tells us that this isn’t always the case. Regardless, most citizens afford our law enforcement departments the benefit of the doubt…which is as it should be…but only to a point.

In writing about the Larry Craig situation, I broached the question of whether the targeting of men who have sex with men (I avoid using the term gay because studies indicate that many of the men who participate in these clandestine encounters are married and consider themselves to be heterosexual) receives a level of attention that is commensurate with that given to those who engage in opposite sex liaisons in public locations.

I have asked readers and colleagues to ponder the question and to cite any examples whereby tactics similar to those employed in the Senator’s case are being utilized to charge those engaged in opposite sex public encounters. At the moment, I have not been provided with any such examples…though a few individuals have cited prostitution stings as examples. I have discounted such examples because they constitute a specific crime that is not at play in circumstances like that of Senator Craig…meaning that the individuals charged in men’s restrooms are engaging in consensual sex without the exchange of money (by definition the exchange of money is an act of solicitation), which generally leads to charges of lewd behavior, indecent exposure, or disorderly conduct.

I don’t want to devolve into a legalistic discussion though some basic understandings are required for this debate. Firstly, laws can and do vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction so one size doesn’t fit all. Secondly, courts have offered a number of rulings on the subject though no definitive across the board position can actually be derived.

Relevant to this topic, the Senator’s actions constituted disorderly conduct…despite what he may have intended to do. In essence, intention doesn’t necessarily equate with the ability to convict on the lewd behavior charge. The fact that he plead to the lesser charge (disorderly conduct) is evidence of this reality. Further, in some of these cases, the accused have successfully argued that their actions in a closed door stall in a restroom facility cannot equate with disorderly conduct because their actions didn’t actually take place in public. The argument is open to interpretation and it can progress into questions of a fundamental granting of constitutional privacy privileges.

With that said, one can see that the issue is more complex than one might expect. Notwithstanding, it is important to note that the issue isn’t solely one of legality as it is reasonable to consider other factors…such as what the public can legitimately expect upon entering a public restroom. While I am personally opposed to using these restrooms for sexual liaisons, the issue requires a much more comprehensive analysis.

To introduce the other considerations, let me begin with a simple example that will hopefully illuminate my concerns. Suppose one conducted a survey whereby the objective was to gauge the public’s reaction and response to witnessing an apparent sexual encounter in a public restroom. In the study, the respondents witness 50% of the situations involving same sex participants and the other 50% involving opposite sex participants. In both cases, the sex of the participants is obvious, as is the sexual nature of the activity.

The respondents are then confronted as they exit the restroom in order to gauge their reaction as well as what they believe to be the appropriate response from law enforcement. Each respondent is asked to explain what they believe they witnessed to insure that they properly identified the sex of the participants. Once that is determined, they are asked to respond to a multiple choice question outlining the action they believe should be taken.

The first answer is, “While I don’t think they should be doing this in a public restroom, I’m not in favor of it being a crime.” The second answer is, “I think that they should be charged with a crime in the event that a law enforcement officer were to be summoned”. The final answer is, “I think that law enforcement needs to establish a sting operation to target those who might intend to engage in such activity in order to catch and charge them”.

My own belief is that the responses would be skewed towards answer number one with regards to opposite sex participants and towards answer number three with regards to same sex participants. I say as much because it would likely reflect the beliefs held by most Americans…meaning that heterosexual sex is viewed to be more acceptable than homosexual sex. In fact, I would contend that many of the respondents would laugh off the heterosexual activity while many of those witnessing homosexual activity would be outraged.

Therefore, one must ask whether the existing law enforcement actions being conducted in situations similar to that in Minneapolis…which led to the arrest of the Senator…reflect a societal bias with regards to homosexuals. In the absence of similar operations aimed at heterosexual activity, it seems safe to conclude that the treatment is not equal…and is likely reflective of prejudice.

Let me offer an even simpler example to reinforce my argument. All things being equal, a kiss between same sex couples in public will elicit a negative reaction (a moral judgment)…while a heterosexual kiss may elicit no reaction or at worst a negative reaction that such behavior doesn’t belong in public…but rarely a negative moral judgment.

If that same bias is being applied to the actions of law enforcement (and it seems difficult to assume otherwise), we have a problem with selective and unfair discrimination.

Let me share part of a discussion I’ve been involved with on this very topic. The information is from an individual who works with this issue and the men who are being charged with these types of offenses. I am not including his name or the organization as a matter of privacy. While I don’t agree with every point made, I think it provides some important insight into a perspective that is often omitted from discussions of this issue.

Ok. The agency I work for has worked on hundreds of these cases. We have won lawsuits on the matter so I am going to respond to this last post with a few items.

1. Undercover operations have 0 deterrent effect. There is no evidence that sting operations against gay men have a deterrent effect. In fact the opposite is true. When members of the public see uniformed police – THAT is a deterrent. It makes many people feel more safe and if you combine it with signs saying that illegal behavior will be prosecuted or that surveillance is occurring (it doesn’t have to be occurring) then you could argue there is a deterrent goal by the facility. But hiding a police officer does not prevent crime all it does is A. catch criminals or B. invites entrapment by overzealous cops who are frustrated with cautious perpetrators that refuse to take the bait. This is the reality.

2. Charging people is the goal. Police are very politically motivated. Their jobs and their bosses jobs are very much designed around getting rid of undesirables including queers. These operations usually carry a higher charge like in the Craig case where he claimed he had to negotiate it down to a misdemeanor. Charging felonies is about getting queers on the sex offender registry, shaming them in public, or costing them so much money they won’t dare fight the charge in court. We had a case of 770 arrests in 4 months. Almost all were innocent. 50 of the guys got in touch with (agency name omitted) and all were acquitted because the officer refused to show up for court, meaning that he would commit perjury about what he put in the police reports. There is a fine for the charge, a fine for the court fees, attorney fees and sometimes there is a “nuisance abatement” charge so they can take your car which costs hundred to get it back. This is thousands more if you go to court. I repeat. These charges do not deter men or else every cruisy area where there were arrests would see reductions. This is not the case.

3. Police mostly are not responding to public complaints. Police know about cruisy restrooms because of websites and a few public complaints. We have filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) after FOIA after FOIA and never once have we received a public complaint of public sex. If this is such a big problem, which justifies an undercover operation, there should be some documentation. Nada. In (state omitted), the State Police even called their operations “Bag a Fag” operations and printed T-Shirts saying so. This is the sign of bias not serving and protecting. If there are really people observing public sex (which is rare because most of this activity is committed by guys that do not want to be seen or caught) then a uniformed cop walking in should be able to see the same thing right. Right. But they don’t want to deter it or stumble across it, they want to invite it. They want it to happen. 9 times out of ten these men never get a warning and sent away. They invest so much money and time that they love charging on the first offense, charging high and publicizing the hell out of it.

4. I have trained over 1000 police, some as a condition of our lawsuit and nearly all of them believe that gay sex is so sick they would do anything to root it out. I have had cops say out loud in a training that they would watch two women go at it, send a str8 couple home and bust a gay couple. I have also had cops admit in these trainings that these operations are scams designed to make money and shame people. Some chiefs and some prosecutors won’t honor them at all. In (state omitted) we have shut down many of these when high level chiefs have admitted that uniformed cops are an effective way of dealing with the “problem.”

I think this is invaluable information…information that gives the reader a first hand view of the realities confronted by those who have engaged in such activity and the obstacles they face…but it also provides insight into which methods may be effective in limiting or deterring these activities as well as exposing the possibility that the motivations of those who establish programs like the one found in Minneapolis may be biased and misguided.

It’s difficult to argue in favor of a program that isn’t effective…unless, of course, one is particularly prejudiced against those who are participating in the behavior. If the goal is to extinguish this activity, it appears that these sting operations are less than effective.

Rather than rely upon one source, I consulted a document prepared by the U.S. Department of Justice titled, “Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places”. The following excerpts are from this lengthy document and they reiterate and reinforce some of the concerns shared in the prior quotation.

There are widely different perspectives on public sexual activity. Some do not believe the behavior constitutes a public safety threat; some view the behavior as a “victimless crime” involving two consenting partners; and some see the behavior as a threat to the community’s “moral decency.” “Impersonal,” “casual,” and “anonymous” sexual behaviors have negative connotations to many people, as they stand in contrast to ideals of romantic love, monogamous relationships, and long-term commitments. Moral overtones pervade discussions of nudity and sexuality, particularly when they address same sex interactions. These judgments often underlie the public’s concern. Community morals and beliefs about how the law should regulate morality will affect how each community addresses the problem. This guide does not adopt any particular moral perspective; it is intended to inform you about the effectiveness and consequences of various approaches to controlling public sexual activity.

Primarily, such activity constitutes nuisance behavior and does not pose a serious threat to community safety.

The responses to public sexual activity can be fraught with difficulty. Charges of harassment, entrapment, bias and discrimination against homosexuals have historically surrounded efforts to address public sexual activity between men. Therefore, it is vital that you objectively analyze the problem so that you develop fair and effective responses.

Certain patterns (e.g., opposite-sex coupling at a “lovers’ lane”) have not been studied empirically, while others (e.g., same-sex contact in public restrooms) have been studied much more extensively. It is important to note that engaging in same-sex activity does not necessarily imply a homosexual identity; in fact, many men who have sex with men in public places are married or otherwise heterosexually involved, and do not consider themselves to be gay.

When apprehended, many offenders may suffer substantial social repercussions, in addition to any criminal justice related consequences that may ensue. Threats to their marriages, friendships, jobs, reputations, and social standing often cause them to try to distract attention from their behaviors by showing exaggerated degrees of respectability, such as strong ties to the religious community or passionate condemnation of homosexuality. The larger the community’s moral objections to public sexual activity mean that participants have much to lose if they are discovered.

Two things are immediately apparent. One, The Justice Department realizes that efforts to limit this type of activity have moral considerations…and that can lead to prejudicial judgments. Two, the fact that same-sex activity is the only activity that has been extensively studied supports my contention that little effort is expended to suppress similar heterosexual activity. It also suggests that a bias has existed for many years with regard to homosexual activity and it has often been targeted.

A lack of privacy may also be the reason for male sexual activity in public restrooms. In particular, men with heterosexual identities may want to conceal their behavior from significant others. Their heterosexual identities also deter them from using other, less-public venues such as gay bars or sex clubs. Some homosexual men also lack the freedom to pursue same-sex partners privately due to family or peer disapproval. A community’s condemnation of homosexuality may drive the behavior to remote, although public, locations, particularly among those exploring their sexuality and not yet connected to the gay community.

Most researchers and practitioners agree that focusing solely on arresting those engaging in public sexual activity is unlikely to reduce the overall scope of the problem. In your response strategy, you should acknowledge that it will be difficult to affect people’s motivations for engaging in the activity. A balanced approach combining enforcement strategies and those targeting environments that support the behavior is most likely to decrease the prevalence of the activity and the public’s concern about it.

Used alone, enforcement efforts are likely to lead to displacement. Although not the most desirable outcome, there is evidence that when displacement does occur, the magnitude of the problem decreases with the move to a new location.

In addition, an exclusive focus on environments in which same-sex interactions occur can result in charges of bias and discrimination. Therefore, you must address the full range of public sexual activity and target particular locations based on objective, justifiable assessments of threats to public safety.

Again, the report confirms many of the same conclusions offered by the party quoted above and with whom I discussed the issue. I view the warnings in the last paragraph to be a tacit acknowledgment that there has been a focus upon same sex encounters. Note the use of the word objective…a word which tells me that the Justice Department has encountered programs that are subjective.

The report proceeds to list a number of possible responses to the presence of illicit sexual activity in public places. The list begins with 17 suggested responses (proactive actions intended to reduce the activity and make locations less favorable meeting places). This is followed by numbers 18 and 19 which are listed under the heading “Responses With Limited Effectiveness”. Those two items are “Using Undercover Decoys” and “Harassing Or Intimidating Suspects”.

18. Using undercover decoys. While using undercover officers to pose as interested parties in illicit same-sex public activity can lead to many arrests, such operations have not had long-term effectiveness in reducing overall activity levels. At best, they temporarily displace the activity to other locations, and the activity usually returns to prior levels once the operations have ceased. Further, given the active role that undercover officers must take to confirm suspects’ intentions, the police may be vulnerable to entrapment claims. In addition, many officers are reluctant to serve as decoys because of the customary behavioral scripts they must follow. Finally, some may see the serious social consequences of the publicity following an arrest as disproportionate to the severity of the offense.

19. Harassing or intimidating suspects. Many who engage in public sexual activity do not want witnesses and try to avoid being seen. Thus, it can be difficult for police to obtain probable cause for an arrest. When the community pressures police to address the problem, officers may resort to harassing or intimidating those observed loitering in parks or rest areas. This approach undermines police integrity, can create tension with the gay and lesbian community and other residents concerned about civil rights, and has not proved particularly effective.

For the most part, the Justice Department document seems to be a reasonably objective discussion of the topic. I interpret the tenor to be impartial and informative…all of which I find rather refreshing given the well-publicized concerns as to the Bush administrations possible inclinations to politicize the department.

When one considers the arguments I’ve presented, in conjunction with the information provided by external sources, a picture begins to emerge. Clearly, there has been an inordinate historical focus upon the pursuit and punishment of those engaged in same sex encounters…likely a derivative of established social norms and values.

Over time, it also appears that there has been a growing awareness that programs to limit public sexual activity need to evolve and to begin incorporating methods that seek to extinguish the behavior as opposed to criminalizing it. That is a positive development.

Regardless, those in positions of authority are still forced to confront the views, opinions, and complaints of the citizens which they serve and/or represent. In so doing, there is likely to remain a focus upon, and a bias against, same sex activities.

Responsible leadership would be wise to approach the sensitive subject with caution, with an emphasis upon deterrence, and with the ample evidence necessary to prevent overreaction and the imposition of prejudicial programs that are simply designed to appease an angry public.

At the same time, the society at large must do its part to foster an environment that doesn’t penalize, ostracize, or marginalize those who are desirous of same sex relationships. Simultaneously, closeted gays must summon the courage to come out in order to foster greater understanding in the society…and more importantly…to allow themselves to experience the healthy and meaningful relationships they may feel are unattainable in a judgmental environment.

As I’ve explored this topic, I cannot help but acknowledge the irony found in the opposition to same sex marriage or its equivalent. Truth be told, those who decide to vilify homosexuality may actually do more harm by acting to oppose the recognition of such relationships…a fact that may well be evidenced by the behavior of the Senator and many others.

Clearly, people are entitled to oppose homosexuality. At the same time, denying homosexuals the opportunity to establish meaningful and recognized unions seems to contribute to the damage that can be done to decent human beings…individuals who seek little more than the same acceptance and rights as their heterosexual counterparts.

Let me be clear. I am not suggesting that adults who participate in same sex sexual activities in public locales aren’t culpable for their actions or that they are entitled to interpret opposition to same sex relationships as a justification for their suspect behavior. Nonetheless, I contend one cannot be discussed in the absence of the other.

In the end, if we’re truly a nation which prides itself upon its compassion and its affinity for Christian values, why would we be so careless as to refuse to extend these considerations to our fellow citizens? It’s an inconsistency worth pondering.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Oh I just can’t wait for the good news…you know…the good news about the success of the surge and the progress being made on the political front in Iraq. With every nugget of good news, the Bush administration apologists race to report the shifting tide while also chiding the defeatist Democrats. You have to admire their fortitude…their undaunted willingness to push the rock back up the hill over and over again…as if to be reenacting the plight of the mythical Sisyphus.

Unfortunately, the rock appears poised to slide back down the hill once again with the release of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. According to a draft of the document, the White House has apparently engaged in an effort to offer an assessment that may well conflict with the more negative views found in the administration. In other the words, the spin doctors have been very busy in anticipation of the GAO report as well as the findings to be offered by General Petraeus in September.

To demonstrate the divide that exists between those who are carrying the President’s water and the GAO assessment, I decided to put one statement next to the other and allow the reader to draw their own comparisons and conclusions.

From The Boston Globe:

Good news, but not for Democrats
By Jeff Jacoby | August 29, 2007

For months, observers have been crediting General David Petraeus’s “surge” with remarkable progress on the ground. That message has come not only from longtime supporters of the war, but from some tough critics as well.

Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, analysts at the left-leaning Brookings Institution, jolted Washington with their July 30 op-ed column, “A War We Just Might Win.” Eleven days later, the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, which had long pronounced the war a misbegotten disaster, radically revised its view. “The US military is more successful in Iraq than the world wants to believe,” journalist Ullrich Fichtner reported. So much so that the outcome the Bush administration “erroneously predicted before their invasion — that the troops would be greeted with candy and flowers — could in fact still come true.”

More good news came just this week in a breakthrough announced by Iraq’s top Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish politicians. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, President Jalal Talabani, Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi, and the Kurdish regional president, Massoud Barzani, are joining forces on legislation to settle some of the thorniest issues bedeviling Iraqi politics, including a national oil policy, an easing of de-Baathification, and the release of certain detainees.

For most Americans, positive developments in Iraq are very welcome. But good news is bad news for the Democratic left, where opposition to the war has become an emotional investment in defeat.

From The Washington Post:

Report Finds Little Progress On Iraq Goals
GAO Draft at Odds With White House
By Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks
Thursday, August 30, 2007

Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration.

The strikingly negative GAO draft, which will be delivered to Congress in final form on Tuesday, comes as the White House prepares to deliver its own new benchmark report in the second week of September, along with congressional testimony from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. They are expected to describe significant security improvements and offer at least some promise for political reconciliation in Iraq.

“While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced,” it states. While there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces, it notes, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged. It also finds that “the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved.”

“Overall,” the report concludes, “key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds,” as promised. While it makes no policy recommendations, the draft suggests that future administration assessments “would be more useful” if they backed up their judgments with more details and “provided data on broader measures of violence from all relevant U.S. agencies.”

Look, the bottom line is that the Bush administration is waging multiple wars…the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq…and the one at home designed to justify the quagmire in Iraq.

Jacoby’s tortured defense cites the widely criticized O’Hanlon and Pollack article…the one that received broad criticism and which the authors felt compelled to point out that they had no input in deciding the title of the article…stating that it may have been too optimistic and inconsistent with their actual conclusions.

Worse still, Jacoby goes so far as to quote a German article which repeats the pre-war assessment of Dick Cheney that our soldiers would be greeted by candy and flowers. I hate to point this out to Jacoby, but that was nearly five years ago and at this point…assuming they ever existed…the candy is undoubtedly stale and the flowers have long since wilted. In fact, stale and wilted seems like a much better assessment of the situation…as well as the one voters seem much more inclined to accept.

Jacoby then pivots to discuss the al-Maliki government’s announcement of political reconciliation…failing to acknowledge the fact that the government is being boycotted by nearly half of the cabinet or the fact that former Bush administration officials are actively seeking to unseat the al-Maliki government. Essentially, this announcement of a tentative meeting of the minds comprises a portion of what little progress is being reported by the GAO. Jacoby fails to mention the numerous other benchmarks that remain unmet.

Clearly, Jacoby is entitled to his optimism…but reality tells us that his article is little more than a biased attempt to build momentum for a failed strategy and an unpopular war. His final spin seeks to suggest that Democrats are falling all over themselves as they attempt to disavow themselves from their partisan negativity. His effort to depict the position of the Democrats as an “emotional investment” seems to be little more than a classic case of projection.

Suffice it to say that Jacoby’s ginned up garble lacks substance, does little to impugn the position of the Democrats, and serves to highlight the desperation of the White House as it approaches the eleventh hour of a malaise which arguably mirrors a mythical tragedy.

The following excerpts from the Post article provide further contrast and cast additional doubt on the veracity of the Jacoby piece.

One of eight political benchmarks — the protection of the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature — has been achieved, according to the draft. On the others, including legislation on constitutional reform, new oil laws and de-Baathification, it assesses failure.

“Prospects for additional progress in enacting legislative benchmarks have been complicated by the withdrawal of 15 of 37 members of the Iraqi cabinet,” it says. An internal administration assessment this month, the GAO says, concluded that “this boycott ends any claim by the Shi’ite-dominated coalition to be a government of national unity.” An administration official involved in Iraq policy said that he did not know what specific interagency document the GAO was citing but noted that it is an accurate reflection of the views of many officials.

The GAO draft also says that the number of Iraqi army units capable of operating independently declined from 10 in March to six last month. The July White House report mentioned a “slight” decline in capable Iraqi units, without providing any numbers. The GAO also says, as did the White House in July, that the Iraqi government has intervened in military activities for political reasons, “resulting in some operations being based on sectarian interests.”

The Bush administration and those inclined to defend it seem to be ignoring one crucial consideration…they fail to realize or accept that their campaign to tout progress cannot succeed without some actual progress. The American public is generally patient…but to assume that they are also stupid is a grave misjudgment.

George Bush may have little to lose at this point…but those within the GOP who are willing to ignore the message of the 2006 election do so at their own peril.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater