Inhumanity in America.

December 9, 2009 at 3:19 P.M. An advertisement was imposed on these blogs: "Save $ Inmate Phone Calls, Immediate Savings on Inmate Calls (888) 728-2726 to save big today! http://www.conscallhome.com/ "

The plight of inmates is very amusing to some people in New Jersey government. ("An Unpleasant Encounter With New Jersey's State Police" and "N.J.'s KKK Police Shocker!")

September 26, 2009 at 1:33 P.M. A number of cyberattacks prevent me from accessing my Yahoo account. I will struggle to continue writing from public computers.

Andrew Sullivan, "Dear Mr. Bush, You Approved Torture -- Only You Can Fix the Damage," in The Atlantic, October, 2009, at p. 78. (Time to get off the pot, Mr. Rabner.)
Philippe Sands, "Torture -- The Complicit General," in The New York Review of Books, September 24, 2009, at p. 20. (Further evidence of U.S. psychological torture policies, many are used against inmates in US prisons.)
William K. Rashbaum & Al Baker, "Police Official In Terror Unit is Removed," in The New York Times, September 24, 2009, at p. A1. (You decide. Working for the Jersey Boys?)
Peter Baker, "Obama Says Current Law Will Support Detentions," in The New York Times, September 24, 2009, at p. A23. (Disappointing.)
David M. Halfbinger & David Kocieniewski, "For Christie, A Family Tie No Candidate Can Relish," in The New York Times, September 24, 2009, at p. A30. (Luca Brazzi says hello!)
"Prisoners' Rights," (Editorial) in The New York Times, September 24, 2009, at p. A40. (What have we become?)
Peter Baker & David Johnson, "Guantanamo Deadline May be Missed," in The New York Times, September 29, 2009, at p. A27. (There is a fear, internationally, that Mr. Obama is neutralized by intelligence services and Republican enemies ignoring the chain of command.)
David Cole, "The Case Against the Torture Memo Lawyers," in The New York Review of Books, October 8, 2009, at p. 14. (American lawyers responsible for "crimes against humanity" and Holocaust-like evil" are rewarded with federal Circuit Court or N.J. judgeships.)

New Jersey lawyers and "minions" may deface or alter these essays on a daily basis. I have spent forty minutes or so correcting "errors" inserted in writings describing torture. This is considered an adequate response to charges of atrocity on the part of OAE officials and their agents. September 30, 2009 at 10:06 A.M.

More sex lives of New Jersey judges will be discussed at length in forthcoming essays.

"In 1996, Congress passed a law that made it much harder for inmates to challenge abusive treatment. It has contributed significantly to the bad conditions -- including the desperate overcrowding -- that prevail today. The law must be fixed."

The situation of many inmates -- this is especially true of women who are incarcerated -- can only be likened to slavery. Worse, there is a sexual form of abuse, especially for young offenders, that is gruesome and destructive of whatever semblance of humanity remains for women (particularly) who are imprisoned in the dungeons of America. ("Foucault, Rose, Davis and the Meanings of Prison.")

American women inmates are, overwhelmingly, victims of exploitation, child abuse, drug addiction, and other social ills long before they get to prison, usually in childhood. The trauma of imprisonment, when combined with these tortures, makes them worse offenders and more dangerously ill women. Much the same is true of men who are incarcerated. The obstacles and injustices are almost always worse for women than men.

Prison administration attracts an unusual number of individuals, male and female, who are sadists, officials relishing the sanctioned opportunity to indulge in vicious cruelties as well as sexual violations. Traditionally, the only real remedy for PERSONS who are incarcerated and subject to the desires of sadists in uniforms of various kinds has been access to the courts. Internal mechanisms or administrative hearings are a joke in prisons.

Psychobabblers and other social workers are "enablers" of abuse -- or abusers themselves -- in many instances. These social scientists see prisoners as fodder for experiments and sources for exploitation in their projects and careers. They are usually detested by inmates, deservedly and appropriately detested. I often agree with inmates about such so-called "whores of the court." ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")

"In the name of clamping down on frivolous lawsuits, the Prison Reform Litigation Act barred prisoners from suing prisons and jails unless they could show that they had suffered a physical injury. Prison officials have used this requirement to block lawsuits challenging all sorts of horrific conditions, including sexual abuse." (emphasis added)

Most women are constrained, already, from reporting the sexual abuse to which they are often subjected in American prisons -- sometimes every day -- by fears of retribution (from guards) or the power-structure within prisons (other inmates), a power-structure which may be complicit with rituals of sexual domination or the desires of the administration of a facility. A prison sentence for many American women is mandatory consignment to a course of sexual abuse and exploitation which is, in nearly every instance, exactly what has brought these women to prison in the first place. We are guaranteeing young offenders a life of crime and return visits to prison. (Again: "Foucault, Rose, Davis and the Meanings of Prison.")

There is enough tragedy and suffering, also injustice and abuse of power, sadism and relish of cruelty in women's penal institutions to last a lifetime for an observer who spends only one day visiting and talking to imprisoned women.

"The law also requires inmates to present their claims to prison officials before filing a suit. The prisons set the rules for those grievance procedures, notes Stephen Bright, the president of the Southern Center for Human Rights, and they have an incentive to make the rules as complicated as possible, so prisoners will not be able to sue. 'That has become the main purpose of many grievance systems,' Mr. Bright told Congress last year."

Women inmates do not have multimillion dollar lobbyists in Congress and, often, are not represented by able counsel before the U.S. Supreme Court. They are easy targets of politically popular, but meaningless non-solutions to crime and incarceration controversies:

"In the last Congress, Representative Robert Scott, Democrat of Virginia, sponsored the Prison Abuse Remedies Act. It would have made it harder for prison officials to get suits dismissed for failure to exhaust grievance procedures. It would have exempted juveniles, who are especially vulnerable to abuse, from the law's restrictions."

One "error" inserted since this morning has now been corrected. I am shocked to learn that some Right-wing Cubans object to literacy programs in Cuban schools, while opposing racial integration in American schools in Miami. ("Babalu and Free Speech Too!" and "American Hypocrisy and Luis Posada Carriles.")

"The bill's supporters need to try again this year. Conditions in the nation's overcrowded prisons are becoming increasingly dangerous: recently, there have been major riots in California and Kentucky. Prisoner lawsuits are a way of reining in the worst abuses, which contribute to prison riots and other violence."

"The main reason to pass the new law, though, is human decency. [We don't believe in human decency any more.] The only way to ensure that inmates are not mistreated is to guarantee them a fair opportunity to bring their legitimate complaints to court."

Among the scandals in prison administration is the negligent or incompetent medical care afforded to inmates that is Tuchin-like in its disdain for the welfare of victims of abuse and mistreatment. Women are raped in prison every day. Many do not receive treatment for illnesses until it is too late to do much good. ("Would you have helped Kitty Genovese?")

" ... In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress to hold detainees without charges" -- not without convictions, but without CHARGES! -- "the Obama administration is adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies."

America's first African-American president cannot be soft on slavery. Mr. Obama said: "We will not abandon Constitutional principles for expediency." Well, our most fundamental commitment in a free society is to due process of law. No deprivation of liberty without charges and conviction. No PERSON will be deprived of "life, liberty or property" without due process of law. 1988-2009? (Thomas Jefferson, James Madison) There will be "no torture" in this Republic. There will be no censorship in the United States of America. (Chief Justice John Marshall) Are Jefferson, Madison, Marshall "Communists"? Are the Framers of the Constitution "soft on terrorism"?

Mr. Obama's continuation of Bush/Cheney inhumanity -- if true! -- is not in keeping with our values nor with your own campaign speeches, Mr. President. One new "error" inserted and corrected in the ongoing cyberwars. There is more at stake than your political advantage from not being perceived as "soft on terrorism." I know that this matter has not yet received the administration's full attention or final decision. I am sure that discussions of this policy will be as intense as the criticisms of continuation of Bush practices deserve to be. The United States of America must not plunge to the latrine-like levels of its worst jurisdictions, such as New Jersey. We must abide by a higher standard on the world stage. Any more "errors" that you OAE lawyers wish to insert in this essay?

A third "error" has been inserted and corrected. ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "What is it like to be tortured?")

What is at stake in this debate is America's Constitutional commitment and conscience. This "going along to get along" is not acceptable, Mr. Obama, even if it is tempting and easy for you politically. You know this much already. Please reconsider your decision on this issue.

Chris Christie's uncle was a member of organized crime. Nearly every prominent person in New Jersey politics and law has family members in organized crime. In fact, New Jersey's politics and law have become organized crime, a family affair. Right, Diana? This may help to explain the humiliating inability of law enforcement to control the spectacle to which you are a witness, every day. Judges, politicians, lawyers relieve themselves on the Bill of Rights before your eyes. Right, Howard?

September 30, 2009 at 10:17 A.M. I have just corrected newly inserted "errors" in "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture." I expect these "errors" to be restored to the text by hackers from Trenton, New Jersey. ("Debbie Poritz Likes the Ladies!" and "Sybil R. Moses and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")

The allegations in the media that Mr. Christie concentrated on political corruption in New Jersey, as opposed to organized crime, neglects the fact that mafia activity (which is much more than Italian in the Garden State) is focused on political corruption. Political corruption is organized crime in New Jersey. Right, Alex Booth?

Christie is a corruption fighter and opponent of the way business has been done in New Jersey for decades. Residents of the state need a governor like Chris Christie, regardless of party affiliation. If you wish to continue to be robbed blind by the various mafia families from Trenton vote for the Democrat machine (all of the registered voters in the cemetery will do so). Otherwise, please try to rescue what is left of New Jersey government and the courts by getting an honest politician into office who will not accept a bribe from the mob. ("New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead" and "Is New Jersey Lucky Luciano's Havana?")

I am struggling to remind politicians and judges in New Jersey that they once had a conscience. True, many of them never had a conscience. The situation concerning the tortures that I have described in these essays along with my experiences with fraudulent proceedings in the state's legal system are making their way through the Internet to some distant places. This nightmare is becoming global. I will not be intimidated. There is no member of the bar in the Garden State that I have met who is in a position to argue these philosophical-jurisprudential issues with me. Cybercrime is not the answer. Censorship is not the answer. Inserting "errors" in my writings is not the answer. The real number of hits at this blog may be from 25,000-50,000; my book is circulating pretty widely in the world; and there is more interest expressed in my ideas and opinions every day. You cannot beat up ideas. You are witnesses to American jurisdiction defecating on the U.S. Constitution. Give me those reports, Mr. Rabner.

New Jersey has become a byword for human rights violations, corrupt legal proceedings, sold out judges, incompetent government and decades-old cover-ups. There must be one or two people left in New Jersey's judiciary with some semblance of decency or humanity who appreciate what is at stake in this matter. Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?

"The point of this letter, [President Bush,] is to beg you to finally take responsibility for this stain on American honor and this burden on a war we must win. It is to plead with you to own what happened under your command, and to reject categorically the phony legalisms, criminal destruction of crucial evidence, and retrospective rationalizations used to pretend that none of this happened. It happened. You once said, 'I'm worried about a culture that says ... If you've got a problem -- blame somebody else.' I'm asking you to stop blaming others for the consequences of decisions you made."

The buck stops with you, Mr. Rabner and Ms. Milgram. The legal system of New Jersey is a disgrace to the United States of America, a daily DEFECATION on legality, where sanctioned public theft -- also mafia involvement in the judiciary and higher echelons of the legal profession -- coincides with grotesque and unprecedented levels of incompetence that are not matched in any First World legal system.

A fourth "error" was inserted in this essay since this morning. I have now corrected that "error."
Mr. Rabner, put an end to the cover-ups, lies, obstructions, malingering, pointless delays, turn over Tuchin's and Riccioli's reports and records, today, along with all videotapes and audiotapes (including items hidden by the OAE), in order to make amends for these terrible crimes while compensating -- to the extent that you can do so -- for the thefts and other atrocities committed against me and others. Maybe there is still time for you to clean the judicial robes that you have sullied, thus removing the stench that hovers over your tainted courtrooms and legal chambers (as well as yourself) in New Jersey.

How many others in New Jersey will never know that their rights were violated when they were subjected to secret hypnosis sessions by so-called "therapists," like Terry Tuchin of Ridgewood, New Jersey?

Why not abide by the Constitution that you, Mr. Rabner, once promised to enforce?

Miami's Cubanoids Protest AGAINST Peace!

May 7, 2010 at 8:00 P.M. From a public computer: "Errors" inserted and corrected.
November 9, 2009 at 8:45 P.M. Evidently, Mr. Rubio and the Cubanazos actually favor the policy of incarcerating juveniles for life in Florida. This is probably the punishment for kids convicted of shoplifting. These, in my opinion, criminal sentences are being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The horror associated with the legal systems of New Jersey and Florida have moved international organizations to outrage and expressions of compassion for the victims of both states. Cuba's legal system cannot be worse than these two states' so-called "court systems." Perhaps you will wish to insert another "error" in this essay, Senator Bob? ("Is Senator Bob 'For' Human Rights?")

I am grateful for the international attention devoted to these blogs. Any further attention that you can generate for these matters is deeply appreciated. Political and legal corruption does not fare well in the light of public scrutiny.

October 18, 2009 at 10:01 A.M. "Errors" were inserted overnight in my essay examining Martha Nussbaum's review in The New Republic. I cannot say at this time, to the best of my knowledge and recollection, how many other writings have been damaged, if any. ("Senator Bob, Corrupt Law Firms, and New Jersey Ethics.") "The Cover-Up Continues," (Editorial) in The New York Times, October 26, 2009, at p. A22.

An Order of Protection for these blogs may be ignored and should be redundant given existing legal protections and rights that are ignored every day by N.J. officials and lawyers.

Two items should interest the "Cubanoids": John F. Burns, "Britain: High Court Approves Releasing U.S. Intelligence Documents on Torture," in The New York Times, October 17, 2009, at p. A5 (interesting byline), then Scott Shane, "C.I.A. Is Cagey About '63 Files Tied to Oswald," in The New York Times, October 17, 2009, at p. A11. (C.I.A. collusion in JFK murder -- with cooperation of Cuban-American operatives -- is alleged, along with the Cubanazo's role in development of psychological tortures being used in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, possibly in New Jersey and Florida against African-Americans.)

Immediately after I posted this item, my security system was disabled. I will struggle to restore that system. Three attempts to restart my computer have not helped.

"His [Jefferson Morley's] lawsuit has uncovered the central role in overseeing directorate activities of Mr. Joannides, the deputy director for psychological warfare at the C.I.A/'s Miami station, code named JM/WAVE. He worked closely with directorate leaders, documents show, corresponding with them under pseudonyms, paying their travel expenses and achieving an important degree of control over the [Cuban exile] group, as a July 1963 agency fitness report put it." ("How Censorship Works in America.")

Readers should expect regular insertions of "errors" in this essay from C.I.A. veterans of the Cold War having a banana daiquiri somewhere in South Beach. I welcome such "error-insertions" as confirmation of much of what I am saying, however hurtful they are to me personally. I hate to disappoint you gentlemen, but Batista is dead. ("Havana Nights and CIA Tapes.")

Isn't it interesting to discover that your tax dollars are financing "psychological warfare" techniques to be used, eventually, against Americans? ("Psychological Torture in the American Legal System.")

October 12, 2009 at 10:53 A.M. Hackers are obstructing my security system. I will run scans throughout the day. ("Burn Notice.") This sordid history among Cubanoid-fascists and C.I.A. operatives may explain not only catastrophes like the Watergate break-in, but also the torture interrogations at Abu Ghraib and the shady role of "Southcom," located in Miami, in these events. Also, continuing torture and murder at Guantanamo and "Gunatanamo." (Listen, chico, I will save you the trouble of inserting the "error.") Cigar? Say hello to Kay Li Causi, Bob.

October 10, 2009 at 2:34 P.M. "Errors" were inserted in "Why I am not an ethical relativist." I have made the necessary corrections for the time being. ("Roberto Unger's Revolutionary Legal Theory.")

October 1, 2009 at 2:20 P.M. I just experienced a number of obstructions in accessing this post, which is a further demonstration of the "commitment to free speech" of many opponents of Cuba's Revolutionary government. "Errors" were inserted in my essay examining the film work of Melanie Griffith. Ms. Griffith is not a Communist. ("The Art of Melanie Griffith.")

I surmise that Ms. Milgram will not disrupt her "lesbian love-fest" to arrest persons committing these crimes -- like daily violations of civil rights over a period of years -- who happen to be lesbian friends, if they are lesbian friends. I cannot say whether rumors of Nydia Hernandez, Esq.'s lesbianism are true. I have no personal knowledge of Ms. Hernandez's sexual-orientation nor of her exact relationship with a law school friend who was, allegedly, "very close" to Ms. Hernandez. ("Martha?") Lots of luck, girls.

I wonder whether Ms. Hernandez visited my sites and engaged in attacks on my writings? Jose Ginarte, Esq.? Perhaps we will find out. Maybe Nydia was promised a judgeship if "she helped out." Did you believe that, Nydia? Who would do such a thing? Who would make such a promise to a gullible young lawyer? Luisa? Mary Anne? Paula? Yolanda? Edgar? Senator Menendez, can you clarify these matters? Most likely it was about cold, hard, cash. Mucho dinero, Ladies?

I cannot say and will not speculate concerning the "intimacy" between Sybil R. Moses and Deborah T. Poritz nor whether these "relationships," if any, between these so-called "ladies" (women, I never say "chics") explain the continuing spectacle of sanctioned copyright violations and defacements of texts. Which of you ladies was "close" to Diana Lisa Riccioli? Debbie? Both? This would be a good time to insert another "error" in my writings. Since my t.v. signal is already obstructed, it may be a good idea to try to break my radio. This abuse of government power amounts to urinating on the Bill of Rights, publicly.

I will provide detailed essays examining the sex lives and disturbing allegations against prominent members of the bar I know well in New Jersey -- such as Cuban-Americans Ariel Rodriguez, of the Superior Court, Appellate Division; Jose Linares, Federal District Court Judge with a wonderful sense of humor about African-Americans; Jose Fuentes of the New Jersey Superior Court; and others. Profiles of each of these persons are coming up. ("What is it like to be tortured?" and "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")

In no case will I be as violative of privacy rights as persons acting for the state of New Jersey have been violative of my rights. ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "The Long Goodbye.")

Continuing responses to the violations and defacements of my writings will be directed to these gentlemen, personally, and to other members of the N.J. Hispanic Bar Association, whose peccadillos will be discussed at length, along with those of many more Cuban-American politicians in New Jersey and Florida. How you doing Candido? Still happy to be a "boot-licker," Candido?

This will be my response to censorship emanating from Trenton in violation of federal laws and the U.S. Constitution. Further inserted "errors" will serve to confirm much of what I am saying. ("Stuart Rabner and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")

All of these persons should be disbarred if we are serious about legal ethics -- including members of N.J.'s disgraced Supreme Court -- rather than using ethics violations MANUFACTURED against political dissidents as weapons of censorship in order to crush radical political opposition. N.J. courts should enforce First Amendment rights. ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")

Rabner and Poritz have both "served" as New Jersey Chief Justices. I cannot say what other interests in society they have also "served," besides their own interests which they have certainly "served" very handsomely indeed. Does Mr. Rabner know of these unconstitutional censorship efforts? If so, has he brought them to the attention of law enforcement in New Jersey? Complicity, in the form of silence, is a share in the guilt of (and for) these offenders and their offenses, Mr. Rabner. Ms. Milgram? Senator Bob? As a member of the bar, no lawyer can be a party to the criminal violation of human rights nor a participant in a criminal conspiracy to violate civil rights. Perhaps a bomb might be placed in my refrigerator by Mr. Posada-Carriles. ("American Hypocrisy and Luis Posada Carriles.")

What did you "ladies and gentlemen" in N.J. know and when did you know it? More cover-ups, boys? Perhaps it is time to send another angry real estate lawyer to threaten me? ("A Letter From the DRB in New Jersey" and "Another Letter From the DRB in New Jersey.") Was it Tuchin's man who approached me in a New York bookstore in an attempt to provoke a physical confrontation?

September 24, 2009 at 5:24 P.M. Yahoo e-mail is inaccessible. I am working at a public computer.

September 24, 2009 at 8:16 A.M. An advertisement was just posted at this blog, against my will, purporting to come from "Ads by Google": "NJ DWI Lawyers, http://www.new-jersey-dwi-defense.com/ "

I am not now -- nor have I ever in my life -- been charged with DWI. (Again: "Burn Notice.")

September 23, 2009 at 8:47 A.M. "Error" inserted overnight. I have now corrected that "error." I am aware that both the Cubanazos and N.J. mafia guys have newspaper people on the payroll for "stunts" aimed at politicians or others that they dislike. I wouldn't be surprised if the White House gate crashers were paid to do their stunt and received assistance in getting in the door. The goal of that exploit was to embarass the President, which (despite the constant repetition of the story) isn't happening. "Most admired man in America," Mr. Obama. How many Nobel Prizes does Senator Bob have?

Most people in America are worried about the economy gutted by Bush/Cheney. Mr. Obama is trying to fix the mess. If my story goes public, which is possible, the same hired journalists will engage in character assassination against me. Fine. This will prove much of what I am saying. Oh, you guys intended to embarass the U.S. President? Well, no one can question your patriotism.

AP, "26 Arrested in Three States In Medicare Fraud Schemes," in The New York Times, December 16, 2009, at p. A33. (Cuban-Americans are promiment in a multistate scam of medicare money explaining much of the "success and accomplishment" in the Florida Cubanoid community. Millions of dollars stolen from taxpayers. No drugs? Ex-CIA operatives?)
AP, "Cuba 'Peace Concert' Draws Multitudes," in The New York Times, September 21, 2009, at p. A8.
Ginger Thompson, "In Further Sign of Thaw, U.S. Official Meets Cuban Authorities," in The New York Times, September 30, 2009, at p. A7. ("Ginger" has been brought under control. I wonder whether "Ginger" knows "Manohla"?)
David Sandison, The Life and Times of Che Guevara (Bristol: Parragon, 1996). (Copies of this book will be sent to Senator Bob Menendez and other Cuban-American politicians.)

The Times is intimidated by Cubanoid threats. Hence, they only carry items favorable to the Cuban-American peace effort under an AP or fictional byline. How curious that "Manohla Dargis" and "Ginger Thompson" were not assigned this story? Senator Bob? Congresswoman Ross-Lehtinen? Or is it "Ross-Lehtirer"? Any ideas about this? Mel ("Mel-the-Man") Martinez? How about it, Albio Sires? Any truth to rumors of an F.B.I. investigation in West New York, Albio? Anthony Suarez, Esq.? Is that cash burning a hole in your pocket, Anthony?

Senator Bob is losing many of his soldiers. Pending bank fraud investigations in Hudson County should add a little spice to the holiday season. ("New Jersey's Mafia Culture in Law and Politics" and "More Mafia Members Arrested in New Jersey" as well as "An Unpleasant Encounter with New Jersey's State Police.")

"Hundreds of thousands of Cubans attended an open-air 'peace concert' in Havana on Sunday headlined by the Colombian rock star 'Juanes,' [irony?] an event criticized by some Cuban-Americans who said the performers were lending support to the island's Communist government simply by showing up."

A person who is of Colombian citizenship is told by these Right-wing Cubanoids (Preparation H?) where and when he can perform? Says who? Mr. "Juanes" refused to accept this instruction and responded to vicious criticisms from Miami by saying that "Miami is one of [his] favorite cities."

I agree about Miami. The Cuban food is some of the best in the country, especially in the vicinity of Calle Ocho. There is a bookstore specializing in Spanish language works from all over Latin America that is as good as what I find in New York. The people are, mostly, friendly and patient with tourists, even beyond the South Beach area. Women are often astonishingly beautiful and athletic, also (usually) on the friendly side. Try the Cuban sandwiches at El Toston.

A tiny segment of the Cuban-American population enjoys bizarre power through intimidation and corruption in local government. They hint at the horror that would befall Cuba in the absence of a Revolutionary government on the island, a government which (with all its faults) is probably better than what these fascists would bring to the Cuban people. Like "Juanes," I am not easily intimidated. (Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me.'")

Any more computer harassment today? Insults? Threats? "Error"-insertions? A little censorship before dinner?

"The excitement [in Havana] did not extend to some accross the Straits of Florida, where Juanes had endured death threats, CD-smashing protests and boycotts since anouncing his plan for the concert in Havana." ("Babalu and Free Speech Too!")

Did Cubanoids delete letters from his Internet writings using New Jersey computers? Now I understand the suppression of my book and "sanctioned" defacements of my Internet writings. These Right-wing and mafia people and their corrupt public officials speak of "freedom" and "democracy." I wonder why I cannot access my Yahoo mail or MSN groups? Has MSN really closed? ("How Censorship Works in America.") Publish America? Lulu? Any attorney involved in this conspiracy against me should be disbarred and indicted. Good luck with the ethics matters, Mr. Ginarte. F.B.I. troubles, Jose Ginarte?

September 30, 2009 at 10:27 A.M. "Errors" were inserted and corrected in several essays. More attacks on these writings and continued suppression as well as censorship attempts must be anticipated. ("Censorship and Cruelty in New Jersey.")

"The police in Key Biscayne, Fla., said they were monitoring the homes of both the singer and his manager." ("American Hypocrisy and Luis Posada Carriles.")

I hope they will monitor my computer and keep an eye on my family members.

" ... Some Cuban-American officials used the opportunity to deride United States foreign policy toward Cuba, and the 47 year-old trade embargo in particular. But Juanes insisted that the concert was about music, not politics." ("Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends? and "Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks.")

Everything is about extreme fascistic politics among these Cubanazos, equipped with large gold medallions and shiny pointy shoes, even when they are women, and who represent, as I say, only a minute fraction of the population. The attempt to, as it were, "highjack" the agenda of the U.S. president and DICTATE American foreign policy on the Cuba issue (thank God!) is doomed to fail. I will be riding a bus to Boston. Threats to hijack that bus and take it to Cuba do not worry me. (The foregoing statement is what is known as "humorous.")

Mr. Obama is also not easily intimidated. It is a crime to threaten the life of the President of the United States of America. No one is going to put a bomb in the "jumbo jet" of America's foreign policy.

The foreign policy of the United States of America is formulated by the Chief Executive and carried out (exclusively) by the Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham-Clinton, and other U.S. executive officials, as well as the men and women employed by the State Department, together with all other relevant governmental agencies. All segments of the population are heard in developing that policy, including Cuban-Americans of every political persuasion. However, ultimate responsibility -- which I do not envy -- rests with these high public officials and not with a group of aging Ricky Ricardos sipping "expresso" coffee and munching on fake Cuban cigars. (I don't look a day over 45!) "Deuce Martinez of the C.I.A.?" Is it true that Cuban-American Right-wingers are partial to "Grey's Anatomy"? "The L-Word"?

I am not overly troubled by persons from the coopted OAE in New Jersey posting insults of me on-line. These insults are "fire works before historical truth, fading all-too quickly. They do not trouble us ..." (Fidel Castro)

"In another sign of improving relations between Cuba and the United States, a senior State Department official has talked with high-level Cuban officials in Havana about a variety of issues, including ways to improve cooperation on migration and the fight against drug trafficking."

" ... Among small but significant gestures, United States officials turned off an electronic sign that streamed anti-Castro messages on the windows of the United States Interests Section, the diplomatic complex Washington maintains in Havana. In return, Cuban officials lowered dozens of large black flags they have raised to block the view of the sign." ("Che" and "Today's Cuban Revolutionaries Are on the Internet.")

"... 'Look at the momentum; look at the pace of these steps,' said Julia E. Sweig, a Cuba expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'It's a departure from many, many years of practice.' ..."

The Cuban authorities have borrowed a page from the State Department's book and adopted a "good-cop-bad-cop" routine: President Castro talks tough; Mr. Alarcon is conciliatory. Perhaps they are seeking to "condition" us into a more healthy adjustment to political realities. Carrot and stick approach? Another "error" inserted and corrected. I expected much worse. A "sexy" profile of Nydia Hernandez is coming up.

I continue to believe that the greatest obstacle to genuine peace and progress that would benefit MILLIONS of Cubans and Americans, who are suffering now, is the opposition of a politically significant, but numerically and even culturally trivial sector of the Cuban-American community. Mr. Diaz-Balart? Pointless cruelty and suffering caused to millions of poor people by "cruel embargos" is never in the interests of the United States. If interviewed by Cuban or any media, I will be happy to make this point and provide supporting documentation. I understand that many of my essays are appearing in foreign media as a protest against censorship in America. Corporate media in the U.S. (so far) has been instructed to ignore me. When, or if, they can no longer ignore me, then coverage will be slanted in favor of corporate politicians. I am glad if persons in Cuba are witnessing this spectacle and that my writings are circulating on the island.

Threats and further copyright violations, or destructions of my writings, will not prevent me from participating in such an interview, if it is offered to me, nor from publishing my writings somehow and somewhere. If I am subjected to a physical assault, I will do my best in my own humble way to protect myself.

These Right-wing fans of "conditioning" are among the people who censor my writings, I believe, insult opposition figures, and respond to any gesture of communication or peace between the U.S. and Cuba with threats. These self-proclaimed "freedom fighters" are really opponents of the freedom of others to disagree with them. They are protected in America by corrupt, mafia-influenced political figures. They are unrepresentative of the Cuban-American community in their racism, anti-semitism, lack of charity or compassion for the poor and afflicted, sadistic relish of control, homophobia -- control of the political agenda affecting the two countries and all forms of speech that they dislike. It is time for the U.S. to "move on" from the Bay of Pigs fiasco, not to repeat the error in Honduras or anywhere else. Mr. Rubio should accept his sexual-orientation (whatever it may be) and enjoy equal rights to marriage with every other person in America.

$74 MILLION per year, the Times reported recently, is spent by the U.S. on disrupting the Cuban Revolutionary government, whereas half that sum in technological and humane assistance would create more friends on the island for America as well as positive growth in recognition of civil rights for all Cubans.

October 10, 2009 at 3:12 P.M. "Errors" were inserted in foregoing paragraphs. I have corrected them, again, even as further allegations against Senator Menendez are rumored to be on the verge of exploding. Money laundering, perhaps, or allegedly? I can only hope that supporters of the Senator and members of the Cuban-American community are not among the participants in these CONTINUING tiresome and foolish displays of censorship and totalitarianism that help to confirm the disgust and horror expressed by persons all over the world for Cubanoid fascism emanating from Miami or New Jersey. Do you wish to delete another letter from one of my words, Mr. Sires? ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")

These fascists in pencil-thin mustaches (regardless of gender) also seek control of the distribution of political power among ALL persons in the Cuban-American community strictly on the basis of political values. I welcome disagreement with my views. However, I will not be prevented from expressing those views. ("Time to End the Embargo Against Cuba" and "Today's Cuban Revolutionaries Are on the Internet.")

If you are not a far Right-wing Republicano, then you get hostility and censorship from "them," Right-wing Cubans and their paid-for politicians. In the words of a Republican Vice President, Dan (Mr. "potatoe"-head) Quayle, who served under George Bush, "the Elder" -- "I wear their scorn with pride." (That's how he spelled it, folks.) Have some plastic covers for the couch.

Corzine in Bed With Casinos!

October 18, 2009 at 10:45 A.M. A new wave of attacks against these writings has resulted in defacements, alterations, disfigurements of essays and short stories. David Kociniewski, "In New Jersey Debate, Talk of Jobs, Taxes and What Pops Up on the Bathroom Scale," in The New York Times, October 17, 2009, at p. A15.

"Mr. Christie's closing statement got the most rousing applause. ... 'Do you believe that New Jersey in the last four years has improved? Do you believe that if we continue the same [corrupt] policies we will get a different result?' he said to cheers from the audience. 'If you elect me, I will bring the change that is necessary.' ..."

September 21, 2009 at 10:23 P.M. I was very pleased to learn of comments and new postings for my book in France and the UK, as well as India and China. Attacks on this essay and all writings in these blogs are expected 24 hours per day from Trenton government offices. I do not drink alcohol. I do not take drugs of any kind. My second book is still suppressed in America. ("How Censorship Works in America.")

There are those in Cuban-American and Republican groups who believe that Senator John McCain's loss of the U.S. presidential election was the result of a conspiracy. I am highly skeptical of all conspiracy theories. I believe that Mr. McCain's loss of the election was the result of receiving fewer votes than his opponent.

Josh Margolin & Claire Heininger, "Governor's Hedge Fund Investment Questioned," in Sunday Star Ledger, September 20, 2009, at p. 17.
Tom Moran, "On Democratic Turf, Seeds of Concern for Corzine," in Sunday Star Ledger, September 20, 2009, at p. 17.
"Governor to Holley: Resign!," in Sunday Star Ledger, September 20, 2009, at p. 18.

Every time I urinate, I think of New Jersey. Today I received some more news of corruption in Trenton to justify my harsh conclusions, giving me a big target to aim at in my urinal -- which features a photo of New Jersey's Supreme Court justices:

"In the ongoing fight over political corruption, Christie has often accused Corzine of being more lenient with prominent Democrats while throwing lesser figures under the bus. After the arrests of 44 PEOPLE in a corruption sting in July, Corzine took a firm stance, calling on all of those accused to resign from office and freezing development in Ridgewood to pressure Mayor Anthony Suarez to quit."

Anthony Suarez enjoys Senator Bob's protection and has not quit. "I don't care about nothing!" Suarez says, allegedly. Did Suarez cough up the ten grand that he received in cash in an envelope in exchange, allegedly, for his "good will"? Think of how irrelevant and incompetent Corzine and Milgram appear to the world.

I think I will add Mr. Suarez's picture to my urinal. I wonder whether pressure has been put on state agencies not to make use of Terry Tuchin's torture services in light of Tuchin's well-known racism and alleged dismissals of African-Americans as "smelly"? Should a Jewish person be a racist, Terry Tuchin? How many of your torture victims are African-Americans and Latinos? All of them? Give me those reports, Terry. I wonder how many of Tuchin's victims are sitting in prison cells in New Jersey?

There are New Jersey attorneys who have cross-examined Tuchin and may be able to provide some useful information concerning the man's so-called "credentials" and "opinions." Any such information will be gratefully received without attribution as to source. All comments concerning New Jersey's power structure are appreciated. I didn't realize how much you people hate each other in New Jersey's corridors of power.

October 18, 2009 at 10:54 A.M. a new "error" was inserted since my previous review. I have now corrected that "error" that was not found in earlier versions of this text.

"There was less public Corzine outrage in August, when the Attorney General's office filed charges against Roselle Council President JAMEL HOLLEY, accusing him of illegally filling out absentee ballots [for dead people, AGAIN?] in a Democratic primary three years ago. Holley is fighting the charges ..." ("New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead.")

These charges were allegedly motivated by a request put into Anne Milgram by George E. Norcross, III ("The Real Governor of New Jersey"). Isn't the "real governor" Richard J. Codey, Esq.? Senator Bob? It sure isn't Corzine. Maybe that's the problem. Who do we need to call to do something about public criminal civil rights violations emanating from Trenton, New Jersey? Ghost busters?

Anne Milgram, Esq.'s "lesbian love-fest" is endangered because Corzine has (reportedly) put out the word that he wants a new A.G., if he gets reelected. Thank God. No more using the office to get young "chicks," Anne. Do you "socialize" with Deborah T. Poritz, Esq.? Meow Mix? Have fun, ladies.

That's a big "if" for Corzine because the Democrats are losing the inner cities. Minorities see themselves getting screwed out of the stealing sprees in the Garden State's government. It is not bad enough that dead people draw government salaries in New Jersey, but they have to be dead white people.

Corzine is in bed with the Casino investors, which may explain the presence of unsavory elements -- like Joe ("The Enforcer") Doria, Esq. and several other advisers -- especially the token Cuban-Americans. Senator Bob's boys and goons for the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) are, allegedly, prominent among Mr. Corzine's advisers, as Ms. Luchese is a friend of BobbyM's leisurely moments. Or is her name "Li Causi"? Say hi to Gloria, Bob. And give my regards to the twins, Bobby. ("Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?" and "Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks.")

"Gov. Jon Corzine has a stake in a private hedge fund related to the corporate owner of four New Jersey casinos, an investment Republican critics contend presents at least the appearance of a conflict for a multimillionaire who has vowed" -- Corzine was obviously lying! -- "to stear clear of them."

Them? Oh, you mean conflicts of interest and corruption? Wadda-ya kidding? This is New Jersey! I thought it is a violation of the law for a single owner to have 4 casinos?

New Jersey's casinos are run by the Gambino and Luchese families which have a lot of say, through their bought and paid for politicians, on who gets to be on the New Jersey Gaming Commission that is supposed to "regulate" the gambling industry. Like most things in New Jersey, the mafia families run the show. Care for a roll of quarters? Try the slot machines. All Atlantic City slot machines feature pictures of the public treasury.

As one former Municipal Court judge in Hudson County explained to me: "WE run New Jersey!" He was not referring to officials or politicians, I believe, when he used the word "we." In the words of a prominent New Jersey politician quoted in the Star Ledger:

"Any way you slice it, Jon Corzine has run afoul of the law and certainly afoul of the standard he set for himself ... You cannot be in business with a casino license holder and that is exactly what's happened ..."

Minorities should either vote for "corruption buster" Chris Christie or stay home this election and send the message to the New Jersey political-mafia that they can't take your vote for granted. Tell them that you wanna "wet your beaks."

Stuart Rabner, New Jersey's Chief Justice, is asking his alleged "good friend" and former colleague at the federal prosecutor's office -- indicted attorney, Paul Bergrin, Esq. -- to recommend a sexy spot in Atlantic City for hot action because Bergrin's Whore House is closed. But then, New Jersey's Supreme Court has been called a "low end whore house" -- thanks to Jaynee LaVecchia. ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "Jaynee LaVecchia and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary.")

Say hello to Angelo ("The Horn") Prisco, Stuart. OAE "walking turds" are welcome to post any insults or crap about me that you want -- for a small fee, perhaps. It all helps at this point. Same to you from me. How about deleting or adding a letter to one of my words, "Howard Masia"? "Alina Falcone"?

Dem guys ... Heh, heh, heh.

"America's Real Strength is Character": A Speech for President John McCain.

September 19, 2009 at 7:25 P.M. "Errors" were inserted in a number of essays. The usual bullshit from New Jersey suggests more arrests are coming. Good.

September 16, 2009 at 8:48 A.M. A UN report establishes that terrible atrocities in Gaza have made survivors of the Holocaust and their children as well as grandchildren responsible not only for war crimes, but (possibly) also for "crimes against humanity." According to Israeli soldiers who participated in the Gaza events, "insane force" was used against mostly unarmed civilians. My use of images from this conflict depicting these crimes may have resulted in the denial of images and cyberobstructions as well as continuing harassments against me. This censorship -- suppressions of speech and orchestrated American media silence that victimizes me -- takes place, before your eyes, in a nation lecturing to the world concerning the rule of law, protection of free speech, and dissidents' rights. The far Right-wing fascist branch of America's political conversation is irrationalist and totalitarian in its opposition to radical political speech. I will continue to write.

If Critique still exists at MSN, then see "News From the War on Terror" and "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture," finally, "Neil M. Cohen, Esq. and Conduct Unbecoming to the Legislature in New Jersey" and "Stuart Rabner and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey."

Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?

September 15, 2009 at 2:25 P.M. The more things change, the more they stay the same. My t.v. signal was briefly interrupted by a "warning from the New Jersey emergency warning system." Considering that I live in New York, this seems strange. This occurred from approximately 11:10 A.M. to 11:20 A.M. Typically, such incidents are followed by curious troubles with elevators and plumbing. Coincidence? Telephone calls at short intervals from "marketers"? Whatever your feelings about me, are the rights of others of no concern to New Jersey "ethics" personnel?

Attacks against this essay will be constant. My corrections and criticisms of N.J.'s corrupt legal system will also be constant. Below is a draft of a speech for Mr. John McCain, as U.S. President, written before the election in November, 2008 when it seemed possible that Mr. McCain would be elected. Horrors. August 29, 2008 at 3:19 P.M.

September 3, 2008 at 1:47 P.M. after a wave of attacks against these essays and my security system, new "errors" have been inserted in these writings. I will do my best to make the necessary corrections.

First lady Cindy McCain, Mr. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, President Bush and Mrs. Bush, Vice President Sarah Palin and Mr. Palin, Members of the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, Honorable William Jefferson Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton, Distinguished Public Servants, Ladies and Gentlemen.

My fellow Americans,

I am proud and honored to begin today my service as President of the United States of America.

Defeatists must not be permitted to prevent victory in Iraq -- a victory that is, finally, within our grasp. This Administration will pursue the hard-won military advantage on the ground, pressing ahead to final victory. "Let us win!" This is what American soldiers in Iraq have said to me.

America does not shirk or run from difficult challenges or commitments. To do so -- to surrender now -- is to betray the men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for this great land of ours. Suicide bombers and terrorists cannot defeat America. Only Americans can bring about their own country's defeat by failing to stay the course in Iraq.

America will bring peace and democracy to Iraq with stable governmental institutions, a secure flow of energy to the world's economy that enriches the Iraqui people, while providing for that nation's future and our own, no matter how long it takes. The Middle East region is finally rid of the nefarious influence of Saddam Hussein. A new era has arrived providing prosperity and making genuine peace with Israel possible, as terrorism becomes less attractive (or likely) among disaffected young people.

Today's young Iraquis are gainfully employed or engaged in university studies. Iran's nuclear threat and expansionist ambitions will be checked by a strengthened, fully democratic Iraq. Only when these final tasks are completed, will our "mission be accomplished."

Israel's security must be ensured. Those promoting or cooperating with terrorism in the area will be on notice that America's vital security needs will be protected whatever price must be paid for doing so. Nuclear proliferation is a threat to the international community that must be contained. North Korea and any other country contemplating nuclear arms is forewarned that global stability and peace will not be threatened by any nation intent on developing nuclear weapons. The U.S., of course, will develop more nuclear weapons to meet our security needs.

America's "War on Terror" will benefit from new legislation allowing for increased monitoring of domestic activities that may serve as a shield for terrorist organizations, such as research in the sciences and humanities at our best universities. The sensitivities of civil libertarians must not be allowed to interfere with progress in surveillance efforts directed against Al Qaeda and similar criminal organizations, perhaps including (someday) the ACLU. Thomas Jefferson warned: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." We must not fail to heed that warning at this dark hour in the nation's history. Accordingly, we will protect the privacy of the American people by monitoring all phone calls made or received by Americans.

Free trade and not protectionism is the only way to ensure American prosperity. I will send legislation to Congress promoting and protecting America's oil industry and other vital enterprises that guarantee America's prosperity. It may also be necessary to provide a billion dollar bailout for the financial industry once in a while. We will continue to insist on a more equittable trade relationship with China and Japan. We will build lasting and profitable partnerships with our Latin American neighbors allowing America's corporations to make use of Latin American resources -- for what we decide is a fair price -- benefitting all nations as a result of emerging scientific achievements. Tax cuts for our corporations and those who own them are always useful.

Vice President Palin's expertise with oil industry issues, particularly as concerns offshore drilling, will be especially useful in negotiations with our friends south of the border seeking assistance in cultivating newly discovered oil fields. We will be only too glad to help. When it comes to our "little brown friends" south of the Rio Grande, America will always "drill! drill! drill!" Care for a burrito?

America is always looking for new talent and partnerships with friends around the world to promote democracy, civil rights, autonomy. No nation, however large or small, that seeks independence as well as recognition will fail to receive America's assistance and friendship in preserving that priceless independence from all enemies of freedom, no matter who those enemies may be -- except for Cuba, of course.

We will not torture. We will respect all treaties and the United Nations Charter. America will not become a terror organization. To promote these objectives we will create a national computerized DNA bank for every citizen or resident of the United States that will enable law enforcement to monitor all persons in their daily lives, ensuring that Americans are not subjected to the influence of terrorist organizations disseminating their "messages of hate" on-line or in other media. We will protect your bodies and minds from the evil of terrorism. Government will do your thinking for you on all security issues. We will decide which books contain the right values; what films are healthy; and what music promotes progress and development in body and mind.

Educational criteria will be made uniform and standardized. We will improve education and make certain that "no child is left behind" as we move into a future that demands scientific expertise and familiarity with technology. To do this "enhancing of education," we will cut wasteful spending on schools and excessive teachers' salaries, following the example of New Jersey by devoting millions of dollars to building new schools, but nothing to rewarding the people who work in those schools. Our friends and contributors in the construction industry will also benefit from this buiding of new schools. Perhaps these construction industries will then show their appreciation to us, their friends in government.

We must get tough on crime. New resources and funds committed to monitoring and surveillance will be subject to periodic reassessments. Results will be expected from law enforcement in the form of increased arrests and longer determinate sentences for convicted offenders. We must build more prisons. California's "Three-Strikes-Your-Out" law should be adopted in the federal system. Repeat offenders can not be allowed to return to society to commit further crimes or to enter politics in New Jersey. The most important civil right of criminals is the right to be punished by society. Under a McCain Administration, they would get full recognition of that right in the prisons built by our contributors. Some day our prisons will contain all terrorists and liberals who are planning to deprive us of our freedoms.

Welfare cheats and so-called "poverty-pimps" will not be rewarded with government generosity. All healthy adults in America will be required to work -- if necessary doing public service or street cleaning in our cities -- in order to receive unemployment benefits. Abortion is murder. Administration resources will be devoted to promoting alternatives to abortion. I will instruct the Solicitor General of the United States, John Yoo, to seek the opportunity to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court for rejection of the dismally flawed decision in Roe v. Wade.

I will appoint judges who apply the law -- not judges who make the law -- to the U.S. Supreme Court. Aside from Mr. Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, former U.S. Attorney General and my "amigo," will be a top candidate for any future Supreme Court vacancy.

The "Special Relationship" with Britain will be nourished and protected. America and Britain will continue to "stand together in the War on Terror." To promote that special relationship, we will impose tariffs on British entertainment products that are doing so well in America's market. British films are made for less money and are excellent as well as successful in the United States, sometimes even more successful than American movies. This could threaten our nations' friendship, also displeasing Governor Schwarzenegger's friends and contributors in Hollywood. This cannot be allowed. My goal in seeking enactment of these tariffs aimed at British film producers is only to "level the playing field."

Racial equality and fairness is an achievement in America that must not be threatened by affirmative action programs that discriminate against rich whites. We no longer need to worry about racial discrimination in America nor programs to help poor people attend universities. Not everyone needs to go to college. Men and women are useful in our military services and in any number of other professions, such as construction, where the novels of Dickens will be a waste of time. Sentiment must not be allowed to interfere with vital policies to strengthen America. Many immigrant children should be "left behind" when it comes to education in the humanities or attending universities. This will allow such children to work in the kitchens of our restaurants.

As for women's rights, I have always believed that women are always right. No further government action is needed to promote the status of women already more than sufficiently promoted by contemplating Vice President Sarah Palin on this podium. Only in America is this scene possible. Republicans are the party of diversity. We include men like Mr. Yoo and Mr. Gonzales as well as a woman, Vice President Palin (who is a female liberationist even as she accepts traditional values), in our highest positions. I wish to extend a special greeting to the Vice President's spouse, Todd Palin -- who is wearing a lovely blue suit today and his usual sparkling smile, as he cares for the couple's delightful children. Sarah is lucky to have you, Todd!

I cannot express too strongly my gratitude to my lovely wife, Mrs. Cindy McCain, for accompanying me on this electoral journey that has required that she listen to many of my speeches more than once. After this experience, terrorism holds little fear for America's new First Lady. I see that Senator Clinton is nodding her head in agreement. I am grateful for her support, such as it is.

The cynicism and unpleasantness in political life has become intolerable. Both parties have developed attack machines designed to smear and destroy candidates as a way of winning elections. This cannot be permitted to continue. "Hate the sin, but love the sinner." (Jerry Falwell) I am not suggesting that Democrats and "Leftists" (like so-called "democratic socialists") are sinners. They are merely misguided. We will pray for them. If you can't say something nice about your opponent, say nothing at all. Eventually, we expect all Leftists and most Americans to be incarcerated in California.

I make no apology for speaking of prayer, as I stand before you ready to assume the burdens of this great office, for we are a nation under God. Atheists and nihilists will not alter this fact. I speak not of a "social gospel" that is only a disguise for liberalism, but of a God of justice and mercy before Whom we will all be judged -- especially liberals. President Abraham Lincoln on May 30, 1863, echoed these sentiments with his much-revered proclamation:

"Whereas the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and nations, has by a resolution requested the President to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation; And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and trespasses in humble sorrow, yet with the assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon. ... "

... So we must now humbly bow our heads and ask for God's blessing as we proceed to discharge the duties of this high office, recalling the U.S. Supreme Court's conclusion in 1952:

"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."

John Courtney Murray, S.J., "E Pluribus Unum: The American Consensus," in William F. Buckley, Jr., ed., American Conservative Thought in the Twentieth Century (New York: The Bobbs-Merill Co., 1970), pp. 38-39.

Is There a Right to Same-Sex Marriage?

January 5, 2010 at 11:23 A.M. Jeffrey Gettleman, "After U.S. Evangelicals Visit, Uganda Considers Death for Gays," in The New York Times, January 4, 2010, at p. A1. Any nation that considers death for persons based on what they are -- whether in terms of race, gender, sexual-orientation or religious commitment/non-commitment -- has placed itself on the level of Nazi Germany which "criminalized homosexuality" and "Judaism." This abomination, like the atrocities in Sudan, cannot be ignored by racist Western media, with a shrug of the shoulders, because "it is only Africa." It is humanity that is at issue in this matter. Silence is complicity. I will not remain silent concerning genocide. Death for homosexuals is the protected murder of a genus of humanity. Serious discussions or tolerance of such barbarism, anywhere, is offensive to civilization. This has nothing to do with condoning criminality by lesbians or any other group of people. ("Trenton's Nasty Lesbian Love-Fest!")

November 17, 2009 at 6:55 P.M. "Errors" inserted and corrected. Cuban American National Foundation (CANF)? Additional attacks and "error-insertions" must be expected. The goal is to produce the kind of shock and permanent harm suffered by men in war: nerve damage, emotional shock, paralysis, or damage to memory are common effects of such "touchless torture techniques." They are quite popular at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Mark Danner, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror (New York: NYRB, 2004).

October 1, 2009 at 3:06 P.M. One "error" inserted and corrected since my previous review of this essay. I expected much worse.

September 14, 2009 at 1:15 P.M. An obstruction of my signal made getting on-line a little difficult this afternoon. President Obama's speech concerning financial services was marred only by an obstruction of the t.v. signal that seemed to "squeeze" the picture on CNN for some reason. Harassment continues on a daily basis. I will move to public computers later today, then I will return to this computer. Univision?

September 13, 2009 at 5:55 P.M. An attack on my computer's security system prevents me from updating my protection. I will run scans throughout the day. I will reboot my computer. I will try again tomorrow. This obstruction usually means that essays are being altered or defaced.

I expect sabotage and defacement efforts in response to my posting of this essay. I will do my best to defend the work, every day. Those interested in this essay may enjoy the following works:

Allan Bloom, Love and Friendship (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993).
John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe From the Beginnings of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).
Hent De Vries, Philosophy and the Turn to Religion (Baltimore & London: John Hopkins University Press, 1999).
Marjorie Garber, Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995).
Hans Kung, Does God Exist?: An Answer for Today (New York: Doubleday, 1980).
Jean-Luc Marion, The Erotic Phenomenon (Chicago: university of Chicago, 2003).
Martha C. Nussbaum, Love's Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).

For the views of two philosophers I admire, from whom I have learned a great deal, who differ with me concerning many aspects of the debate on gay marriage while agreeing with others, please see:

John Finnis, Fundamentals of Ethics (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1983).
Roger Scruton, Sexual Desire: A Moral Philosophy of the Erotic (New York: Free Press, 1986).

I. Introduction.

I recently made a bus trip to Boston. On this occasion, I brought along some magazines as well as a couple of books. I enjoyed reading articles defending totally different perspectives concerning the gay marriage controversy. Robert P. George, "What Marriage Is -- And What It Isn't," in First Things, August/September, 2009, at p. 35 provides what may be called the currently dominant Republican perspective on the issue.

It is inaccurate to describe Professor George's view as the Catholic view because many American Catholics have their own opinions on this issue. The Vatican has not made any position on this question a matter of faith. The Church merely provides moral instruction or guidance concerning such controversial questions. Abortion is an exception in that abortion is defined as sin. Confession and absolution are still available to religious believers who make use of abortion rights. I am pro-choice. Catholics often express disagreement and debate with Church teachings concerning difficult moral questions such as abortion. They are encouraged to do so.

I also read Martha Nussbaum's article, "The Right to Marry," in Dissent, Summer, 2009, at p. 43. This may be described as the liberal Democrat view of the issue. I admire both Mr. George and Ms. Nussbaum. I have read articles and books by these scholars. I recommend these articles to everyone interested in the controversy surrounding this issue. I believe that gays and lesbians have the equal right to marry and not merely to receive something called a "civil union certificate."

My perspective on this debate is different from the views of both of these authors. I will argue that there is, indeed, a right to marry for same-sex couples. However, I will set forth my argument in very different terms from those used by Professors Nussbaum and George. This is an effort to discuss the moral basis for a Constitutional argument within the American legal conversation.

I believe that the proper starting point for discussing gay marriage is the concept of a person. I will set aside that concept, for now. I will begin with a summary of Professor George's argument; I then offer Professor Nussbaum's views, which concur with mine to the extent that we agree on the result that should be reached by U.S. courts, even if we follow different paths to that result. I conclude with suggestions for a future direction in this discussion on the part of proponents of gay marriage rights developing from a Kantian-Hegelian theory of persons compatible with America's Constitution. Among philosophers whose position is close to mine, I include Ronald Dworkin and (from a very different perspective) Duncan Kennedy. I also refer the reader to Judith Butler's writings and Lawrence Tribe's treatise on American Constitutional law.

II. Robert P. George's Religious Traditionalism.

I emphasize, again, that I admire Professor George's writings on the concept of rights and the integral connection of rights with the related concept of a person. Although much of Professor George's discussion focuses on defining "marriage" and what he takes to be the necessary connection between marriage and procreation or child-rearing, there is an unexplored insight in this essay regarding the concept of a person:

"A human person is a dynamic UNITY of body, mind, and spirit. Far from being a mere instrument of the person, the body is intrinsically part of the personal reality of the human being. Bodily union is thus personal union, and comprehensive personal union -- marital union -- is founded on personal union." (p. 35.) (emphasis added)

November 17, 2009 at 6:55 P.M. a new "error" was inserted in the foregoing paragraph. I have now corrected that "error."

This language concerning the person and personal union is not gender-specific nor concerned with sexual-orientation in a great deal of Catholic and secular philosophical/theological reflection on this question. This is a point that will become central to my argument. Love for another person is expressed through the body that is integral to that person. The ways in which gays and lesbians express what they feel, and the persons for whom they feel love and erotic desire, are crucial elements of their identities. The same may be said of heterosexuals. ("David Hume's Philosophical Romance" and "The 'Galatea Scenario' and the Mind/Body Problem.")

To deny legitimacy to some forms of expressing love and to some recipients of love only for some persons in society is to dehumanize those persons who are compelled by their natures to express their romantic love for members of their own gender or sex. I cannot see this denial as anything other than illegitimate discrimination. This is an injury done to same-sex couples or homosexual persons, a denial of their identities, which is really to deny the identities of all of us -- especially of those who differ from the statistical norm. Discrimination based on sexual-preference can only be compared with racial discrimination that is just as invidious and offensive to the U.S. Constitution. (See the film "Code 46.")

I am not surprised that Cuban-American Republicanos are sufficiently upset at these suggestions that they find it necessary to alter the text. I am saddened, however, because many of the gay men I know -- and like -- are Cubanoids whose sufferings at the hands of the swaggering apes who are so prominent in Miami and New Jersey is horrifying and (sometimes) tragic. Even more sadly, many of these swaggering apes are themselves as gay as they come.

There is nothing wrong with Cuban-American men who happen to be gay, but there is something warped and probably homosexual about men from their community who are so "disturbed" by the mere existence of gay friends and relatives. I am not bothered about being called "gay." Perhaps this is because I know who and what I am. Do you know who and what you are? Incidentally, I am a "Cubanoid" or Cuban-American -- although definitely not a Cubanazo, like Mr. Rubio or Bob Menendez. Gay pride parade, Mr. Rubio?

If you are a homosexual Cuban-American man and own a construction company, become a Republican, swagger around a lot, own fancy cars and lots of gold medallions -- you will continue to be a homosexual Cubanazo. Say hello to everyone at the Cuban American National Foundation which is, allegedly, filled to the brim with homosexuals. This may be a good time to insert another "error," caballeros.

"What is unique about marriage is that it truly is a comprehensive sharing of life, a sharing founded on the bodily union made uniquely possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman -- a complementarity that makes it possible for two human beings to become, in the language of the Bible, one flesh -- and thus for this one flesh union to be the foundation for a relationship in which it is intelligible for two persons to bind themselves to each other in pledges of permanence, monogamy, and fidelity." (pp. 35-36.)

I am sure that such pledges are possible for same-sex and heterosexual couples, equally, and that "complementarity" (sexual and spiritual) is a larger concept than Professor George recognizes. If it is true that, as Carl Jung and many others suggest, there are masculine and feminine sides of all of us, then it is perhaps the union of what is feminine with what is masculine within ourselves and with lovers that the Biblical texts celebrate. Marriage is integration, spiritual and physical. ("God is Texting Me!")

This is a distinction that makes biological organs less relevant than gender-orientations or choices. ("Master and Commander.") The essence of marriage, as defined by Professor George, concerns procreation or the possibility of procreation leading to effective child-rearing. Hence, Professor George says that "truly marital acts differ fundamentally in meaning, value, and significance from intrisically nonmarital sex acts (such as acts of sodomy and mutual masturbation)." (p. 36.)

Not all heterosexual married couples wish to procreate; not all "straight" marriages are concerned with procreation, even as a possibility. Do these marriages therefore become "defective" marriages? I doubt that anyone would wish to make such a claim. Also, the sexual unions of persons -- like all activities of PERSONS -- may be expressive of what is felt for another individual sharing in the profound intimacy of play, including sexual play as love-making. Accordingly, oral sex (which is not unknown even among heterosexuals), and other forms of mutual exploration and delight in the person of the beloved may be expressive of what is felt as a kind of creative or aesthetic activity intended to capture that love in the "art" of love-making as distinct from sex. Indeed, Professor George recognizes the point and seems to explode the boundaries of the distinctions that he hopes to establish when he draws on the writings of John Finnis:

" ... the point of sex is the good of marriage itself, consumated and actualized in and through sexual acts that unite spouses as one flesh and, thus, interpersonally." (p. 36.)

This unity is certainly possible among same-sex couples, who have been known (like heterosexuals) to engage in "sodomitical" and/or "mutual masturbatory" conduct, which is hardly "non-marital sex" merely because it will not result in pregnancy. With loving sexual relations, as with so much aesthetic play and spirituality, the destination is the journey. Professor Finnis correctly notes that:

"... 'The organic unity which is instantiated in an act of the reproductive kind is not ... the unity of penis and vagina. It is the unity of the persons in the intentional, consensual act' of sexual intercourse." (p. 36.)

This same "organic unity" (body and spirit) is available to same-sex couples engaging in sexual activity that is EXPRESSIVE of the love they feel which recognizes or celebrates the personal status of a partner. Love-making is the "organic unity" of partners in a loving relation. Love-making is always celebratory and a form of recognition of the other's uniqueness. Loving unity is surely possible and actual among homosexual lovers who are, in every spiritual and moral sense of the word, married. The evidence of the earliest Christian texts -- the Gospel of Thomas, for example -- suggests a transcendence of gender categories in establishing the spiritual identity of persons in their erotic communities. Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (New York: Random House, 2003), pp. 227-242. Jesus said:

"When you make the two [male and female] into one, [in yourselves, as Jesus repeats,] you will become children of humanity, [persons,] and when you say, Mountain move from here!' it will move." (p. 240.)

Jesus said:

"Look, I shall guide her [Mary Magdalene] to make her male, [equal to the apostles,] so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. [All women are your equals, in other words, including prostitutes.] For every female who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." (p. 242.) ("Elaine Pagels and The Secret Texts of Christianity.")

Elsewhere, Jesus notes that men should be like women, both men and women should be like children. Among the concerns of that "Jewish Jesus" is to undermine these gender-categories, specifically suggesting that masculine females (lesbians) are welcome in the Kingdom of Heaven; the same is true for feminine men (gay "lovers"). The message is simple and direct: "Can you love one another?" I can not imagine a simpler test of the legitimacy or reality of marriage: Do you love one another? If so, then your sexual relationship will be expressive of that love -- however you choose to "make" love to one another. This is the essential religious meaning of marriage in Christianity. I am sure that comparable reflections will be found in all the great spiritual traditions. In fact, I am sure of the celebration of same-sex love in mystical literatures of all faiths. ("'Diamonds Are Forever': A Movie Review.")

Professor George concludes that "Sex is sex. It cannot really unite people as one flesh, but it can enable them to express their affection in a special way." (p. 37.) Love-making -- as distinct from sex -- can and does unite people as "one flesh." Furthermore, you, as a Catholic, are already one spirit or a unity with your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters through the "unity of the Holy Spirit." You share in the absorption of the body of Christ with the entire membership of the faith. This includes many persons whose "calling" is to love others of their own sex, among whom may be included many priests and nuns choosing celibacy. Each time you enter into "Holy Communion" you are part of the Absolute or God, where you must live as a human being in a community.

I write this sentence on the anniversary of 9/11. This was a date when the "community" in which we live in New York and America -- regardless of race, sexual-orietation, gender -- became very obvious to people in this city. All of us suffered. All of us have experienced a loss. Evil is about disintegration, separation, discontinuity; love is about binding, healing, restoring, unity. Is your sexuality and love-making about unity or division? Unity is marriage, whatever you choose to call it. Division is the opposite of the integration you desire and need, both within yourself and with your partner or partners in life. There is no better symbol of marriage than the shattered crystal goblet bound in cloth in a traditional marriage ceremony in Judaism.

The God seen in the person that you love -- regardless of sexual-orientation -- is the one God whose flesh and spirit is shared by all members of the Church or faith that is "present" in every person. This is true regardless of belief or lack of belief on the part of that person. These are symbols that point the way for us in living a moral life. Thus, it is impossible that the LOVING unions of such beings would not be, in the full meaning of the word, "holy." This is what you are here to learn: To love other persons, physically and spiritually, according to your nature. (St. John, who was a nice Jewish boy, said so.)

Speaking of human sexual nature and other things, Thomas Merton explains: "To love our 'nothingness' in this way, we must repudiate nothing that is our own, nothing that we have, nothing that we are." -- This includes homosexual sexual-orientation which is an "enrichment of a person's humanity." -- "We must see and admit that it is all ours and that it is all good: good in its positive entity since it comes from God." Thoughts in Solitude (Boston: Shambala, 1993), pp. 38-39.

Berkeley professor and Episcopal priest, L. William Countryman (who also happens to be a gay man) writes from the perspective of Protestantism:

" ... desire" -- regardless of sexual-orientation -- "is rooted as much in the soul and spirit as in the body. And it is supremely satisfied when it enables a genuinely transcendent union with the beloved, a union that belongs as much to soul and spirit as to body."

Love Human and Divine: Reflections On Love, Sexuality, and Friendship (London & Harrisbourg: Moorehouse, 2005), pp. 39-40.

"Marriage, on this revised understanding, is marked by a plasticity or malleability that sharply distinguishes it from the conception of marriage it is proposed to replace. In this revisionist understanding, marriage is also unnecessary [no, Professor George, it is only reinvented] -- even for child rearing. If two (or perhaps more) people find, or suppose, that the state of being married works for them, then they have reason to marry. [Precisely.] If not, then marriage is not as a matter of principle understood to be a uniquely, or even especially, apt context for them to structure their lives together." (p. 37.)

It takes a village to raise a child. Furthermore, it is a village that we establish through our loving-commitments. Marriage is not best defined as "the unions of heterosexual couples intended to lead to procreation and child-rearing" because this definition leaves out too much that is essential to marriage between "persons" -- like recognition of the loving unions of human beings that is not necessarily intended to (or capable of) producing children.

Many heterosexual couples are excluded from this so-called traditional definition of marriage, as noted by Professor Nussbaum. The kinds of sexual activities engaged in by loving couples is incidental to a proper definition of marriage, within morality and religion, since what is crucial is whether the sexual relations are expressive of love for one another that is felt by the partners in the union, not what it is that people do in the various positions in which they have sex.

Professor George says that "law is a teacher. It will teach either that marriage is a reality in which PEOPLE CHOOSE to participate, [exactly!] but whose contours people cannot make and remake at will, or it will teach that marriage is a mere convention, which is malleable in such a way that individuals, couples, or, indeed, groups can choose to make of it whatever suits their desires, goals, and so on." (p. 38.)

The concern to recognize and exalt loving personal unions, as marriages, reveals the respect many same-sex couples feel for their religious faiths as they understand those faiths. The issue is not to reinvent marriage, necessarily, but to ask what was marriage always really about? Maybe that is reinventing marriage, eternally. What is the essence of the concept of marriage? Why is marriage incomprehensible apart from the foundational concept of a person? Why is the idea of a person linked both to the concept of rights and marriage?

A great philosopher and theologian, Jesus Christ, taught us that "the laws are made for men and women." Persons are not made for the sake of laws. Marriage exists "for you," all of you. You should not truncate or deform your loving relationships because they do not fit into an overly narrow or outdated understanding of a marriage state and sacrament that is intended to be eternally evolving, like the love which is "undifferentiated" in which we participate. That love is called "God." These are metaphors through which we understand our life's journeys as well as our connectedness to one another and the universe.

"When the Oriental gurus come over here, they say, 'What does it matter if someone rose from the dead two thousand years ago? Are you rising from the dead today? Are you pulling your spiritual, your human consciousness out of your animal base [Eros, love-making] and letting the animal base [sex] become spiritualized in your life experience?' [Marriage] They're right. That's what's important. And that's what the myths [religious stories] are about."

Joseph Campbell, in Fraser Boa, ed., The Way of Myth: Talking With Joseph Campbell (Boston & London: Shambhala, 1994), p. 29. (This message is beyond gender or sexual-orientation.)

III. Martha Nussbaum's Jurisprudential Approach.

"Before we approach the issue of same-sex marriage," Martha Nussbaum writes, "we must define marriage. But marriage, it soon becomes evident, is no single thing. It is plural in both content and meaning. The institution of marriage houses and supports several distinct aspects of human life: sexual relations, friendship and companionship, love, conversation, procreation and child-rearing, and mutual responsibility. Marriages can exist without each of these. ... Marriages can exist where none of these is present, though such marriages are probably unhappy." (pp. 43-44.)

Let us begin by asking "What kind of beings enter into marriages?" It may turn out that the complexity and protean nature of the marriage state is a reflection of the variability of human nature and needs in life-long loving-unions. As far as we know, marriages are possible only for "persons." If this is accurate, if persons are self-aware moral creatures whose freedom directs them (us) to love others and to establish communities of love, then an essential component of marriage -- as a concept and social-legal institution -- must be expressive.

Persons are, essentially, freedoms directed at loving others and interacting with all others morally. The concept and institution of marriage expresses and must remain a reflection of human freedom (person = freedom) directed at love as well as loving that results in being loved. Loving others creates a circle. This observation returns us to the concept of marriage.

Since persons possess freedom and are capable of self-reflection, they are (necessarily) beings of infinite value and capacities who are entitled to respect for their AUTONOMOUS choices that are reflective and constitutive of their rights -- not least of their rights to expressive freedom with regard to matters in the moral and spiritual realm where all persons are, and must always be, equals. (Immanuel Kant, John Rawls) Among contemporary philosophers, Jean Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Judith Butler and many other thinkers may be quoted in support of these arguments, including Martha Nussbaum, who has testified "for" gay marriage rights.

This claim of equality and respect is a matter of right. This truth is not altered by the reality of evil in the world. It only means that there are many sadly deluded persons for whom others are not "real" (as persons), but are seen as "objects" that are either instruments or obstructions to one's will. Such a view of others is a kind of dangerous pathology that almost always results in great evil. It allows for the destruction of the writings of others, for example, and even for violence against those who presume to disagree with you. ("Is Western Philosophy Racist?")

"Marriage has ... an expressive aspect. When people get married, they typically make a statement of love and commitment in front of witnesses. Most people who get married view that statement as a very important part of their lives. Being able to make it, and to make it freely (not under duress) is taken to be definitive of adult human freedom. [Precisely.] The statement made by the marrying couple is usually seen as involving an answering statement on the part of society: we declare our love and commitment, and society, in response, recognizes and dignifies that commitment." (p. 44.)

Marriage is a dialectic between persons and among persons and their communities. Society has chosen to "recognize" some unions as "legitimate marriages." The unions of heterosexual couples, exclusively, are called marriages with some marginal restrictions. The essence of this limited and diminished existing public recognition for only some marriages is not, in fact, concerned with child-rearing or legitimacy. No legal condition on marriage requires procreation. There are plenty of children born outside of wedlock. Society takes little notice of the fact these days. Legitimacy in marriage should focus on love and not gender or desire for children. ("John Finnis and Ethical Cognitivism.") Professor Finnis may well disagree concerning gay marriage rights, but his writings lend support to proponents of such marriages.

Marriage, as a legal institution, is also not really about contested spritual values as distinct from autonomy in a society that struggles to maintain a religiously neutral public square. Conventional views of marriage are rationalizations, in my opinion, that are aimed at justifying, objectively, denying recognition to same-sex marriages. There is no valid basis for such a denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. I think it was Gore Vidal who said: "Why should same-sex couples not be as miserable as their heterosexual counterparts?"

Your spiritual values are your business. Hence, what is celebrated -- according to your understanding of spirituality -- should also be your business. This celebration may involve relationships that are about what you "deem" to be of spiritual and moral value in your life. When society grants benefits and authorizes the spiritual beliefs of some persons, however, then it will have to accord equal respect to the comparable beliefs and practices of all others in society who seek similar recognition and respect by means of public authorizations and benefits.

Some marriages are not called marriages because of irrational prejudice. Once we grant the autonomous status of persons; then admit that homosexuals are persons; the only conclusion that follows is that RESPECT for individual autonomy requires our recognition of the marriage state, equally, among all persons in a free society -- regardless of how marriage is defined by the various persons entering into "matrimony."

We cannot say that we will remain neutral concerning secular values and spirituality -- however they are defined by persons -- but also that we will choose to recognize some conceptions of marriage and not others, especially when the real basis for that determination is a set of contested religious values. As a society, despite our public rhetoric of equality, we appear to admire some understandings of love and not others, conferring benefits and opportunities on persons holding some spiritual values but not others. This attitude smacks of hypocrisy and inconsistency. We are intolerant of dissenting views on religious or amorous questions, while proclaiming a fundamental commitment to equal tolerance of all views as well as autonomous expressions concerning such questions.

Many traditionalists on the marriage question are people who want to say that marriage is a state freely entered into by persons that is reflective of the love that they feel which should be defined as one sees fit, autonomously. Society should recognize unions as marriages because persons want that recognition and are willing to pay the $10.95 for the necessary license. However, those same traditionalists also want to deny recognition to homosexuals because "homos are just weird." Weirdness, as I can attest, has never been grounds for denying people the right to marry.

What is a "weird" expression of love -- a love which is identical to what heterosexuals feel for one another -- is a highly individual determination. Nuclear families in a fifties mold strike me as bizarre to the point of being surreal these days, especially when created by immigrants who would have been excluded from bridge and bingo in suburban Connecticut in the Eisenhower era. Nevertheless, I am tolerant of the life-styles of others and respectful of their fantasies and choices. ("'Revolutionary Road': A Movie Review.")

Traditional religious concepts provide no basis for such a conclusion ("If you're gay, you can't get married!") because not everyone accepts such doctrines. Furthermore, many people have reinterpreted religious practices to conform with other kinds of understandings of ourselves and our increased knowledge of the universe. This is what should happen to our religious narratives and wisdom. These religious traditions are part of a constant process of hermeneutic reconstruction and deconstruction. Eternal does not mean rigid or unchanging. Marriage can be eternally developing, growing, deepening. We no longer sell slaves, burn witches, torture scientists under the Inquisition's watchful eye because of a deeper understanding of the values in our religious traditions, not because we have abandoned those values. (Ricoeur and Derrida) An analogy to the development of American Constitutional understandings is obvious to me.

Traditionalists want to deny marriage rights to gay men and lesbian women because "they have sex in weird ways." Well, I like sex in as many ways as possible, the weirder the better. However, society allows me and other men and women, like me, to marry. No government official knocks on your door at 11:00 P.M. (I hope!) to verify that your sexual life is "normal," whatever that means, provided that you are a heterosexual. But see the now rejected decision in Bowers v. Hardwick. Many Republicans would like nothing better than to arrange such a thing (sexual normality inspections) even as they argue for "small government." Most people sense that marriage is about more important things than sex, like love. Perhaps Senator Cardinale in New Jersey will agree that government should get off our backs and fronts.

November 17, 2009 at 7:34 P.M. A second "error" was inserted in this essay aimed at maximizing frustrations after the experience of posting "The Heidegger Controversy." The goal of these tactics is to silence dissidents by inflicting emotional damage and exhausting writers forced to make identical corrections dozens of times. For a study of hypnosis and frustration as well as anxiety in these efforts at control, use of financial pressures and attacks on self-esteem are also typical, please see: E.F. Deshere, "Hypnosis in Interrogation," in http://www.parascope.com/ds/articles/hypnosisDoc.htm .

I urge those who witness these crimes to examine Alfred W. McCoy's, A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006), pp. 80-81. (Catholic priest speaks of his torture, at the hands of the CIA, as a "perverse theater in which he is compelled to play the lead in the drama of his own humiliation.")

Lots of people have and want sex with others whom they have no intention of marrying. I am always suspicious concerning a woman's intentions when she invites me to dinner. Others may love and wish to marry persons who are incapable of sex because of age or infirmity. We know that there is a difference in sexual relationships and loving erotic unions that are intended to last for a lifetime. We understand, again, that there is a crucial expressive component in marriage. These expressions are entitled not only to respect, but also to protection as a core value in America's "Constitutional Republic." First Amendment religious and speech protections become relevant to such determinations, also liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection as well as due process of law and privacy. ("What is it like to be tortured?")

"The expressive dimension of marriage raises several distinct questions. First, assuming that granting a marriage license expresses a type of public approval, should the state be in the business of expressing favor for, or dignifying, some unions rather than others? [We are doing that already.] Are there any good public reasons for the state to be in the marriage business at all, rather than the civil union business? Second, if there are good reasons, what are the arguments for and against admitting same-sex couples to that status, and how should we think about them?" (p. 45.)

Clearly, government needs to play a role in recognizing marriages because all legal relationships between marriage partners and others change dramatically with entry into the marriage state. The raising of children and their safety as well as "thriving intellectual-emotional development" necessitates a strong governmental component (perhaps too strong or meddlesome in many cases) as employees of local government begin to substitute their values and preferences for those of family members, or to deprive children and families of autonomy. Fundamentally, respect is at the core of this necessary recognition.

We want to celebrate and recognize the self-chosen unions of persons as equally worthy and good when they accomplish identical goals of promoting stability, peace, cooperation and efficiency in social relations. This is something that good relationships of all kinds accomplish. We want to help and not hurt family unions. The concept of "family" should be understood broadly to fulfill these individual and social goals. From the point of view of society, it is good when people love one another.

"What we're seeing today as five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and, briefly, California) have legalized same-sex marriage, as others (California, and Vermont and Connecticut [even New Jersey, in a way,] before their legalization of same-sex marriage) have offered civil unions with marriage-like benefits, and yet others (New York) have anounced that, although they will not perform same-sex marriages themselves, they will recognize those legally contracted in other jurisdictions, is the same sort of competitive process -- with, however, one important difference. The federal Defense of Marriage Act has made it clear that states need not give legal recognition to marriages legally contracted elsewhere." (p. 47.)

The essential reason for recognizing marriages is that persons who are entitled to equal respect and autonomy have created those marriages. The dignity of persons -- the right to create their own loving-unions as they define and desire them -- demands the attention, concern, and recognition of society because society has already afforded that same recognition to the marriages of some persons in the community, celebrating some chosen unions (whether sanctified by religious beliefs or not), and therefore society must provide the equal recognition and (I think) celebration of all loving marital unions, especially those excluded from recognition in the past. Marriage "elevates" relationships to a special place in human and societal "lives."

The crucial consideration is less the understanding of marriage than what we mean by a person as a locus of rights and responsibilities, as an autonomous agent whose inner life is self-determined and ennobled through that self-determination, whose being is inconceivable without some appreciation of the concepts of freedom and love for each individual. I suggest that for all persons these concepts (freedom and love) will be entangled. Furthermore, the entanglement will include traditional concepts of God. ("Is it rational to believe in God?")

All of these aspects of persons as beings-in-the-world with others (Sartre, Ricoeur, Derrida, Butler) will come together in the institution of marriage. Denying marital recognition is denying identity. This denial is the rejection of the status of full humanity -- or "person" -- to some of us and not to others. This is illegitimate discrimination that creates a class of "sub-persons" in society entitled to less than full respect in their relationships. Invidious discrimination by government is subjected, usually, to heightened scrutiny by judges who will be more likely to find such discrimination unconstitutional and not merely immoral in the absence of compelling state interests for discrimination. Please see Gore Vidal's essay "Pink Triangle and Yellow Star."

What I wish to communicate to gay and lesbian friends is that they would be wearing pink triangles, I would be wearing a red circle (socialist), others would be wearing yellow stars (Jews) -- but we would all be in a concentration camp in Nazi Germany. It is important to understand why all of these groups were demonized as representative of outsiders or "abnormals." It still amazes me that there are people who wish to kill anyone who merely states such views concerning gay marriage rights. This is an important reason for those of us who believe that gay men and lesbian women have such rights to state these opinions, publicly.

It is hardly surprising that the closest analogy to the gay marriage controversy in law is to miscegenation cases and statutes prohibiting marriages between whites and blacks, or members of several different races at the time of Loving v. Virginia. Nussbaum comments: " ... marriage is a fundamental liberty right of individuals, and because it is that, it also involves an equality dimension: groups of people cannot be fenced out of that fundamental right without some overwhelming reason." (p. 53.)

No plausible or sensible reason has been offered for exclusion of gays from the marriage state that is neutral with regard to the religious beliefs of persons. Equally unpersuasive are secular moral determinations that same-sex marriages are "evil." Most rationales for denial of marriage rights are transparently based on prejudice or hostility to gay persons. I think that torture, rape, censorship and theft are evil. Gay marriage is peachy keen with me.

What compelling state interest justifies forbidding same-sex marriages? Child-rearing does not provide a rationale because children do equally well in homes with same-sex parents who provide loving care as in households with parents of different sexes offering the same care. For those who are religious, there are outstanding theologians of all the religious faiths offering defenses of same-sex marriage as equally valid and good when compared with different-sex marriages. Moral philosophers also defend same-sex marriages as good. Most authorities seem to agree on the centrality of love to determining the morality of marriage unions.

" ... all adults have a right to choose whom to marry. They have this right because of the emotional and personal significance of marriage, as well as its procreative potential. This right is fundamental for Due Process purposes, and it also has an equality dimension. No group of people may be fenced out of this right" -- to do so is to exclude them from humanity or the status of persons before the law -- "without an exceedingly strong state justification." (p. 54.)

Professor Nussbaum provides the comment of a person who suffered greatly from the miscegenation laws eventually struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. This statement must express what is felt by many gay men and lesbian women of my generation and older persons:

"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed ... that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But ... [the] older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, [sic.] should have that same freedom to marry." (p. 48.)

IV. Conclusion: "It's not personal."

There is no position concerning marriage that is "impersonal" for those who hold it. There is no way to think about your relationships and how much they mean to you that is impersonal. More importantly, how we love and why we need to love others is essential (not incidental) to what we understand by a person or ourselves.

A person is a locus of rights and responsibilities, a self-determining freedom in the world connected, necessarily, to others. Part of our journeys in life is expressive. We are constantly saying, explicitly and implicitly, this is who we are and what we value. These are the people and nations I love, within whose histories I exist and must "be." I am a dying animal and so are you. Hence, this universe of values is where I place my subjectivity, the remnants of my selfhood, as I depart the scene. These are the persons whose trajectory intersects with mine, whose being is linked to mine. Through one another's lives we connect with and make up this universe of meanings in which we all matter. We do this eternally, now. Our love is meant to adorn the stars in the universe forever. This is wonderful. This is good. This love is how we share ourselves with all of life and the universe, eternally. ("Is it rational to believe in God?" and "Is this atheism's moment?")

To deny me the right to recognition and expression of my self-chosen unions -- whoever I may be in society -- is to deny and disconfirm my identity. I am a person. I am not a machine. I am not an inanimate object. I am a source and namer of values. I am an entity that values. My valuing is expressive of the meanings in which my being unfolds. My identity is shared with a few (and, ultimately, with all) others in a culture and system of public values forming a necessary unity. To deny one of those central relationships due recognition -- even as my neighbor's relationships are celebrated and respected, properly -- is to disconfirm my identity. Furthermore, the injury done to my gay neighbor by denying his (or any lesbian's) identity is also being done to me. Next week the category of "sub-person" will include people like me. ("'Inception': A Movie Review.")

This denial of my love is a rejection of my humanity that causes the networks of meaning in which we all live to fragment, divide, and disintegrate. It is a wound to my humanity, but also a denial of the unity or identity of my community because the equality of its members is destroyed.

The deepest relationships of all persons in society must receive equal respect as matter of according due consideration to the religious and secular values of persons entering into those relationships, freely, and seeking the recognition of fellow citizens. Every person -- including the mentally ill and prison inmates or very old people -- has the right to be loved and to love others. Every person has the equal right to receive respectful recognition of his or her loves from others in society, especially from the state, as matter of humanity. No one is "beyond" loving and being loved.

You are a person who is free to determine the persons you will love, over your lifetime, and to express all of your loves, receiving the recognition of all other members of the community for what is your emotional truth and life. We will not discriminate between the loves of persons. We will not say: "This love is good." We will not decide: "That love is bad."

Marriage must follow from this understanding of the autonomy and dignity of persons in their loving relationships. Marriage is derivative from our understanding of persons. It is because persons are autonomous beings who are self-legislating that their self-chosen unions merit equal respect. We have a right to such recognition and solidarity. (Immanuel Kant, John Rawls, William J. Brennan) Please see my essay, "Roberto Unger's Revolutionary Legal Theory."

This understanding comports with the structure of principles underlying and expressed in the American Constitution. Freedom with equality limiting the power of government to encroach on fundamental zones of entitlement, like privacy. Autonomy over one's own body, procreative choice, and self-determination as to sexual relationships and intimacy are only part of this network of principles. Gay marriage is not some benefit handed out by government as a gift. The same is true of free speech. The RIGHT to marry is a matter of fundamental integrity which society must recognize for all persons, including same-sex couples. This national recognition is long overdue.