The landmark trial currently before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has huge potential. The constitutional challenge to California’s anti-gay marriage statute passed by referendum in 2008 (a.k.a “Proposition 8″) started this past Monday, and is easily the most anticipated court challenge in the past few years. Everything is on the table and being discussed, from gay marriage to adoption, civil rights to biological science, Loving v. Virginia to Jones v. Hallahan. Many gay rights groups believe the trial is likely to have a positive impact on precedence for gay marriage laws; not just in California, but for other states as well.

The religious right’s strategy in these hearings? Go big or go home. The defendants have threatened to appeal to the United States Supreme Court if the trial isn’t decided in their favor. But is such a strategy really prudent for them?

One of the crowning achievements of our democracy is our system of justice. The United States Supreme Court is at the end of the road for any legal proceeding possible. It hears cases that can (and sometimes do) change the very framework that our nation is built on. Any decision by the court is binding and sets legal precedent that influences the direction of policy and legal decisions for years. The Supreme Court is the head of the household, if you will, and the underlings are the lower appellate courts that constitutional challenges and important appeals go to first. If the losing party appeals, they then move up the chain of courts until they finally get the case in front of the Supreme Court.

Right now, the Prop 8 constitutional challenge is currently in front of one of those subordinate appellate courts – the District Court for the Northern District of California. According to press reports and liveblogs inside the trial, it seems to be quite an interesting ride so far. Everything is on the table with Judge Vaughn Walker, and the plaintiffs are making a tremendous case. The defendants are, well, on the defensive, with news breaking recently of issues inside the defense team and members trying desperately to distance themselves from the trial. Not the best outlook for the State of California’s last hope at keeping traditional ‘opposite’ marriage. (Gasp!) A press release from the National Organization for Marriage [link is NSFYS: not safe for your sanity!] details their strategy if their case doesn’t go as hoped: “We’re in for a real fight to save traditional marriage. The trial court proceedings are expected to last for weeks. The case will then be appealed and, ultimately, will end up before the United States Supreme Court.” I find this to be an interesting strategy. Push the case to the highest court in the land – y’know, the court that has the potential to strike down laws across the country – and hope for a victory?

Let’s look at the numbers first. Nearly every national poll on gay marriage support is inconclusive – it’s up one year and down the next, and many polls have different numbers for the same topics. But let’s look at the OTHER numbers, the ones that can actually help us project the likelihood of gay marriage existing in most states within, say, my parents’ lifetimes. Firstly, gay marriage is vastly more popular with young people than it is amongst people of older generations. Gallup says that among people aged 65 and older, 32% are for gay marriage, with 66% against. Moving through the generations, there is a visible progression. People of 50-64 years are 37% for gay marriage, and 30-to-49-year-olds are 40% in favor. But in the country’s youngest age bracket of 18-29 years of age (i.e. the one that will be calling the shots in about 10-15 years), 59% are for, and 37% against (margin of sampling error +/- 3%). The Pew Forum has different numbers (a bit lower in favor for each age bracket) but that same progression of strong support in the younger age bracket is still evident. So it’s clear that the youth and Generation X are much more in favor of gay marriage then their older counterparts. And we all know what happens with new generations – they move in to replace the older ones. That will, without a doubt, make these polls show more support for gay marriage nationally over the next few years. As FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver says:

Civil unions have already achieved the support of an outright majority of Americans, and as those older voters are replaced by younger ones, the smart money is that gay marriage will reach majority status too at some point in the 2010′s.

Furthermore, there are even more not-so-good numbers for NOM. As the levels of religious influence in the general population fall, and the levels of atheists/agnostics/non-fundamentalists rise, numbers in favor of gay marriage will likely increase at a faster rate.

It seems that under these circumstances, NOM’s best bet for having their gay marriage-free world would be to stand still and do nothing. Seriously. The best bet for stalling a gay marriage bill is to leave it up to our always-adept lawmakers to legislate it. Everybody knows that the fastest way to kill something is to leave it to a State House (or, worse yet, the national Congress). So what if they lose California? They are taking on much bigger risks by sending the case to the Supreme Court, given the possible outcome. It would likely be irreversible at that point. You’d think they would want to sacrifice that, if it meant saving the rest of the nation. (The pro-America parts only, of course.) Perhaps their only saving grace is that the Supreme Court is composed entirely of oldness and Antonin Scalia’s gigantic head. The last thing they should want would be a repeal of DOMA, and sending this case to the Supreme Court could lead to that!

(Seriously though, why is there a National Organization for Marriage? Isn’t gay marriage inevitable already?)

1. Move everybody back into the cities (eliminate ALL suburbs).
   1. I have watched a documentary recently titled “The End of Suburbia.” It talks about a range of topics, including the sharp uptick in levels of consumerism since the 1920′s, and the rise of fossil fuel consumption in the modern world. It relates data on how the spread of very low-density living in suburbs is essentially destroying the planet. This is for three basic reasons: 1) Cheap and economically-conscious public transit solutions are not cost-effective financially or environmentally because of the low amounts of people and the distances between them. Furthermore, low-impact transit like walking or biking isn’t possible because everything is so spread out. 2) Because of these factors, the most cost-effective way to transport people is for each of them to use their own car, which not only uses a very high amount of energy but also pollutes at an astronomical rate. 3) Since everything is so light and spread out in suburbia, things have to be trucked in from so far away, and localized agriculture is not cost-effective. All of these factors increase our levels of consumption exponentially, and if we could eliminate suburbia and return to pre-1920′s ways of life (not with technology, of course, but simply with living arrangements) we would be able to rely on public transit and more localized forms of production; the benefits of which are numerous.
2. Eliminate ALL uses of fossil fuels and totally convert to alternative sources (no more oil or natural gas).
   1. As mentioned above in number 1, and also in the film “The End of Suburbia,” global oil has peaked in supply and feasibility. From now on, it will cost more to get each barrel of oil than it ever has due to the fact that it is deeper and harder to reach. Eventually, we will be unable to rely on oil-based solutions for energy. As populations around the world increase and so does global demand for oil, oil’s output will decline and costs will increase. Because this is so, consumption at current levels isn’t just no longer feasible, it will soon not be physically possible. As oil will someday run out, all uses of fossil fuels must be eliminated completely. This may be done over a period of time, but immediate action is needed to not only ensure that our oil consumption won’t rise (even in the face of increased demand), but also to begin reducing our levels of demand and consumption to levels we have previously passed by utilizing alternate sources of energy. This is a staggering proposal indeed, but drastic things must be done to meet such an important challenge to our civilization as a whole.
3. Ensure that effective carbon-emission regulations are on the books in every industrialized nation.
   1. CO2 is not merely a United States problem, it is a global problem. We all share the same planet, the same atmosphere, and the same ozone layer. The US is now behind China in terms of carbon emissions, so we are clearly not the only player here. Strong regulation of carbon emissions to reduce our environmental impacts are imperative; this can start with Congress, but must be echoed in every hall of government in the industrialized world in order to effect real change.
4. Make all industrialized economies sustainable (that is, we put less in and get more out, and not vise-versa).
   1. This is an easy-to-understand concept that goes without saying. If you put more energy into making a product than the product can give you back, it simply isn’t sustainable, and it will contribute to the degeneration of our planet’s natural resources. Ensuring that our practices and our products are sustainable and healthy for the environment will eliminate many problems associated with modern forms of production and pollution.
5. End intensive and industrialized agriculture.
   1. The above step is closely related to this one. With food products that are produced in huge factories, that are unsafe, contaminated, poisoned with hormones, and made with “cheapness” in mind, it is impossible to have a balanced ecosystem. Switching to all-organic products will eliminate many forms of contamination in industrialized societies, kill bad labor practices in third-world countries (and in OUR OWN country), improve the health and well-being of our population, and reduce our impact on the earth and its creatures.

Probably less easy to do than it was for me to type… but it is all necessary. Will we be able to pull it off and survive into the next century? I guess our world leaders will decide the answer to that question, starting in Copenhagen this week.

This policy memo is written for Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, proposed during this, the One Hundred Eleventh United States Congress. The purpose of this memo is to assist you in making a decision that would most benefit the people of the Ninth District. It provides a brief survey of the legislation, a summary of the provisions of the bill and an examination of some arguments for and against it. It wraps up with a look at the effects it would have on your congressional district and a recommended course of action.

The bill is cited as “Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009,” and is sponsored by Representative Bobby Rush, from Illinois’ First Congressional District. It is also referred to by its bill number, HR 45. This bill provides a guideline for the implementation of a national system of licensing for gun owners. This system would require those who wish to own a firearm of any kind to first be a licensed gun owner. The bill also provides for a national database of records of sale for guns.

The first provision of the bill provides for a system of licensing. Anyone other than a licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector must have a license to buy or own a firearm. The bill mandates that all people seeking to possess a firearm register with the national licensing system, under direct oversight of the Attorney General of the United States, unless their state already has a firearms licensing system. A gun owner has two years from the date of HR 45’s enactment to fulfill the necessary requirements and obtain a license. Any individuals seeking to buy a firearm after the date of enactment have one year from that date to obtain a license.

Requirements for obtaining a license are also outlined in the bill. The applicant is to include their name, any other name they have gone by, their address, date of birth and place of birth, as well as a passport-sized photo of their face. They are also required to certify that they are not prohibited from obtaining a gun license in any state, that they will keep the gun stored safely out of the reach of any minors under 18, and that they have passed a written firearms examination administered under the supervision of the office of the Attorney General. The firearms examination will test the applicant’s knowledge on a variety of subjects, including: the safe storage of firearms, the safe handling of firearms, the use of firearms in the home, and the legal obligations of gun owners. Finally, individuals who wish to obtain a gun license are required to authorize the release of their mental health records to the Attorney General’s office and to sign and date their application. It would need to be submitted in person with photo ID to an office or agency designated by the Attorney General with an appropriate fee of no more than $25.

The second provision of the bill provides for a national database in which gun sales or transfers would be recorded. The dealer is required to notify the Attorney General’s office (or the appropriate state agency, if that state already has a record-of-sale system for firearms) within fourteen days after a firearm transfer. The report of transfer is to include the gun’s make, model and serial number, as well as the date of transfer, the number of the transferee’s gun license, and the name and address of the dealer. The new national database would store all of these reports. The database would need to be established at least nine months after the date of enactment, and would contain all information described above that was collected regarding the sale.

The bill also provides for some additional conditions. It prohibits any person who is not a licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector from selling or transferring a firearm unless they are doing so through a licensed dealer. The only exception to this is for those who seek to gift a firearm to a relative, leave it to them as an object of inheritance, or loan to an acquaintance of at least thirty days. Furthermore, it would be illegal for a manufacturer or dealer to fail to maintain adequate records of sale or transfer or to prohibit law enforcement officials from accessing these records. The bill also prohibits anyone from leaving a firearm in a place where they know a minor has access to it. Penalties will not apply, however, if the gun is equipped with a safety locking mechanism, if the child uses the gun in self-defense, if the owner has no reason to expect a child in range of where the gun is kept, or if the owner is on-duty as a member of the Armed Forces or National Guard of the United States.

It is no secret that gun safety bills have a rocky relationship with Congress. In the past, the legislative and judicial branches of our government have faced many challenges regarding the “right to keep and bear arms” guaranteed to all citizens in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The paradoxical duties of government to both protect and defend its citizens against themselves and to ensure their right to gun ownership have frequently been pitted against each other. While HR 45 addresses a highly contentious issue among many segments of the population, it does so in a way that protects both the people’s safety and their constitutional rights. Many countries around the world have enacted legislation similar to that proposed in HR 45. Canada has had a law on the books requiring licensing and registration of handguns since 1934, with an extension passed to include rifles and shotguns in 1995. From 1998 to 2000, 970 valid and new licenses had been revoked by the Canadian government and 750 applicants had been denied new licenses by public safety authorities. That amounts to 1,720 applicants denied gun licenses due to either a bad mental health record or a failure of Canada’s uniform gun safety examination. Either way, that is 1,720 less guns in the hands of people with mental health issues or substandard gun safety habits in Canada.

Historically, calls for a comprehensive federal gun licensing system in the United States have been heard from both sides of the aisle. Rudolph Giuliani, a Republican, publicly called for such a system in 1993 as mayor-elect of New York City: “The simple fact is we have to try to fight back. We just can’t sit here and let this kind of carnage go on. Gun licensing would help. It would also help to have task forces of Federal, state and local police focus on guns and removing guns from some of the most dangerous criminals.” Charles Schumer called for a similar system as a Democratic representative from Brooklyn (now the senior senator from New York): “Unless you license the guns, they’ll flow from legality to illegality.” He proposed HR 3932 in the 103rd Congress which would have implemented a similar gun licensing system if passed.

Arguments against comprehensive gun control legislation are legion. They range from the constitutionality of gun control bills to debating the effect that such legislation would produce. The most serious opposition to HR 45 comes from those who doubt it can exist without violating the principles of the Second Amendment. At a glance this appears to be so, but many court cases over the years have upheld the idea of similar regulations. In the decision to a challenge of New Jersey’s stringent gun laws, Circuit Judge Goodrich writes: “One could hardly argue seriously that a limitation upon the privilege of possessing weapons was unconstitutional when applied to a mental patient… Such a classification is entirely reasonable and does not infringe upon the preservation of the well regulated militia protected by the Second Amendment.”

Others suggest that such legislation would not effectively reduce gun violence because it is not addressing the actual problem: questioning competence instead of character. James B. Jacobs, a law professor at New York University, addresses this argument by comparing gun licenses to driver’s licenses. “The licensing system for drivers is really not very effective in assuring traffic safety. There’s a simplistic idea that you somehow assure safety by requiring basic competence. Whereas the worst kinds of accidents are really not a question of competence–they’re really a question of character.”

Professor Jacobs makes a valid argument against the effectiveness of gun licensing legislation, but it falls flat at two points. First, gun licensing doesn’t aim to “assure” gun safety, but to ensure that people who use them are responsible and sane, therefore reducing the possibility of using them in an insane, or violent, manner. There is a link between gun abuse and mental competence. One study taken by the American Journal of Psychiatry, for example, shows that males who kill themselves with a gun are much more likely to abuse alcohol, have a history with the law, and have some sort of sociopathic/personality disorder.

Second, driver’s licenses are not intended to assure safety (they cannot prevent accidents), but to ensure that the driver knows the rules of the road and is ready to make informed and safe decisions when driving. The same principles can be easily applied to gun ownership: knowing how to drive a car will let you operate it safely, and knowing how to use a gun will allow you to use it safely. Following the same analogy, just as you wouldn’t let a blind person drive, you shouldn’t let a mentally deranged person buy a gun, because it is impossible for both of them to operate their tools safely.

Washington’s ninth congressional district would greatly benefit from the passage of HR 45. The district is predominantly urban and suburban, with the cities of Federal Way, Des Moines, Auburn, Puyallup, Fife, and Tacoma’s East Side within its borders. The communities in this region have a reputation for having more incidents of gun violence then other populated communities in the state like those around Seattle, Spokane, or Vancouver. Gang activity, which is synonymous with gun violence in Tacoma, has been on the rise on the East Side, and has been a persistent issue since the late 1980s. Violent crimes are also on the rise in other urban areas in Pierce County, as well as more suburban areas like Spanaway.

Taking all of these matters into account, as well as your voting record on gun safety legislation, background in criminal justice, and your efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children, I strongly urge you to support this legislation. HR 45 would reduce crime rates and help keep communities safe. It would also prevent the insane and unsafe from obtaining weapons and using them to harm others or themselves. This legislation will not pass through Congress easily, and it may prove to be an inconvenience to many people. However, the cost of not passing a gun licensing bill was summed up by then-Representative Schumer: “What we say to legitimate gun owners is, ‘Yes we’re going to inconvenience you,’ but isn’t that worth it, to save the lives of thousands? Most gun owners will say yes.”

Now, when the assignment was first given, my professor instructed me to write the paper and take a position, no matter if I agreed with it or not. I’m beginning to find that the points I outlined in this paper last school year are meshing more and more with what I currently believe about the state of gun regulations in this country, and what must be done to protect people from this kind of senseless violence.

Referendum 71 Approve/Reject by County

Washington State is a diverse state in many respects – diverse people, places, ideas, everything. Diversity is at the core of everything we are taught in school, in the images we see in local media, and in the history of our state itself. This diversity is an asset to our state and our region as a whole by providing all our citizens with a rich sense of background and unity, because while we are diverse, we are also all rooted in our region’s common heritage in nature and independence.

So why am I about to argue against the political diversity of our state and region when I say that Eastern Washington and Western Washington should split ways? Well, it might seem like an odd point-of-view, but it is indeed an important aspect to consider we think about what is best for the citizens of our state.

The above map was taken from the website of the Washington State Secretary of State’s web site. It shows which way each particular county voted on Referendum 71 by plurality of the total number of votes in each county. For those of you that don’t know (or for any out-of-state readers), Referendum 71 is a referendum sent to the voters to “Approve” or “Reject” the state’s new “Everything-but-Marriage” law. This law, passed by the Washington State Legislature and signed by Governor Gregoire earlier this year, grants those in domestic partnerships all the benefits of marriage without actually calling it “marriage.” (The legislature thought this would pacify most right-wingers against “same-sex marriage,” but apparently they were wrong.) The new law not only gives rightful benefits to gay couples in committed and loving relationships, but also to senior citizens and any other couple in a domestic partnership situation. The law was brought to referendum by a group named Protect Marriage Washington, which led a rather suspect signature drive to put the new everything-but-marriage law on the ballots for the voters to decide. This group obscured the purpose of this new law, and painted it as “homosexuals trying to gain the right to marry” in order to drum up support from the anti-equality right-wing base in Washington State. While there is much I could say about this new law, Protect Marriage Washington, and Referendum 71 in general, that is for another post.

As of this posting date, Referendum 71 is passing by a slim margin, but passing nonetheless. Washington is to be commended as the first state in the country to grant almost-marriage abilities to gay couples by a popular referendum. However, as the above image illustrates, there is clearly a political divide between East and West in our state. And by no means am I basing this conclusion on only one issue. Eastern Washington has always had the reputation of being staunchly conservative in comparison to Western Washington’s generally progressive liberal political ideals. This stereotype is proven by voting statistics in past elections: Gregoire’s gubernatorial wins over Rossi in 2004 and 2008, Maria Cantwell’s win over Mike McGavick in 2006, Patty Murray’s win over George Nethercutt in 2004, and many other elections in years past for both referenda and elected officials. As you can see, the East is much “redder” than the West. While it is beneficial to have political differences in different areas to provide balance and cause for rational discourse, it is clear that, due to the severity of the political leanings of both sides of our state, Washington is politically schizophrenic.

And it’s not just politics that separate our state. The West benefits from tourism, manufacturing, service, and high-tech industry, while the economy in the East is dominated by agriculture. Western Washington has large cities like Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Bellevue, and Bellingham, while Eastern Washington is chock full of small towns and agrarian communities (Spokane and maybe Pullman being the exceptions). The West is rainy, green, and coastal, and the East is dry and full of grassy plains the likes of which you would see in the middle of the country or canyons like you would see in the Southwest. Both halves of the state have things to offer and are very beautiful regions in and of themselves, but both halves are very different.

Both sides of the state would benefit from a split. Western Washington would be free to be progressive and liberal, while the East could freely embrace the conservative values it always votes for overwhelmingly in state elections. Presidential elections would be aided by this ideological split, for Democrats would no longer take all of Washington’s electoral votes because of the West’s dominance in population and congressional districts, and the East would be free to give its electoral votes to Republican candidates, as is the trend in elections. The West would be free to pass transportation levies for mass transit and freeway maintenance in its large cities, and such tax burdens would not need to be placed on citizens in the East who don’t use these systems on a regular basis. Separating the state is no different from the age-old policy of gerrymandering for congressional districts, and this policy would demonstrably help both sides of the state move forward. The Legislature and other NGO’s should take a hard and definitive look at effects that would result from such a split of our state, and take such matters seriously.

For further reading and more points of view on this topic: Check out the Wikipedia article for the “State of Lincoln” here, see a Seattle Times article about separating here, or one from the Spokane Spokesman-Review here and here.