Tag: Premium

No More Phoning It In, Ctd

Farhad Manjoo criticizes Mayer’s decision to ban Yahoo employees working from home, pointing to the mounting evidence of the benefits of telecommuting:

It’s not just that the policy completely elides the virtues of working from home. Numerous studies have found that people can be more productive when they’re allowed to work away from the office. One, released this month by researchers at Stanford, showed that when Chinese call-center employees were allowed to work from home, their performance increased by 13 percent. Considering such gains, it’s likely that Yahoo’s new ban will force remote workers to alter their work lives in a way that will lower their productivity. It will also put Yahoo at odds with just about every other tech company in Silicon Valley—firms that don’t impose such rules on working from home, and with whom Yahoo competes for talent.

A reader calls Manjoo’s piece “ridiculous”:

How can journalists compare call center workers, travel agency workers, and journalists to the highly skilled people employed by Yahoo who are going to charged with engineering that company’s revival and manage to keep a straight face? When Marissa Mayer talks about the crucial conversations around a water cooler, that’s not a quaint Mad Men era justification.  Most people are unable to imagine what the actual work done at a tech company is like, and so they make idiotic comparisons to call centers. Mindshare is overwhelmingly important in the tech industry – it really matters to be in the middle of problem solving and then be able to trot across campus and -ask- the guy who wrote the thing you depend on what assumptions he was making, &c.

Marcus Wohlsen suspects that Mayer is running her own experiment in productivity:

Coming from Google, hardly known as a stuffy workplace, she obviously has seen how unorthodox approaches to life at the office can support huge successes—and huge profits. Some current and former Yahoo employees have reportedly said that the new policy will separate out the truly productive workers from stay-at-home slackers who abuse the system. Perhaps Mayer sees the policy as a test of commitment, which, once passed, will help generate a roster of who can truly be trusted with flexibility in where and how they work. Once honed, maybe that leaner organization will lead to a better company.

If O’Brien Won’t Go, Why Is Mahony?

Pope Benedict XVI Holds Concistory

The dynamic in which closeted gay men actively persecute openly gay men as a way of credentializing their own alleged heterosexuality is not exactly news. Some of the most virulent hunters of homosexuals – from J. Edgar Hoover to Roy Cohn – were closeted homosexuals themselves. But when it comes to the disproportionately gay Catholic priesthood, it has, especially under Benedict XVI, intensified to new heights of hypocrisy. The Church in 1975 issued a rather inclusive, if still prohibitionist, view of homosexuality. Almost as soon as he got control of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Ratzinger ratcheted up the anti-gay rhetoric. He called gay people “objectively disordered”, human beings who were somehow born naturally inclined toward an “intrinsic evil.”

So it is no big surprise to find that the Scottish Cardinal O’Brien has been credibly accused of the sexual harassment of other men and barred from the Conclave that will select the new Pope. After all, this is what he wrote a year ago on the subject of gay marriage in the context of the British debate:

Will both teacher[s] and pupils simply become the next victims of the tyranny of tolerance, heretics, whose dissent from state-imposed orthodoxy must be crushed at all costs? In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women. But when our politicians suggest jettisoning the established understanding of marriage and subverting its meaning they aren’t derided. Instead, their attempt to redefine reality is given a polite hearing, their madness is indulged. Their proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.

Gay marriage is madness. It’s a violation of human rights. It’s tyranny. It’s … wait for it:

No Government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage. Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that “no one will be forced to keep a slave”.

Earlier this month, one former and three priests reported O’Brien’s attempts to have “inappropriate contact” with them, going back three decades. One was so traumatized he left the priesthood:

The first allegation against the cardinal dates back to 1980. The complainant, who is now married, was then a 20-year-old seminarian at St Andrew’s College, Drygrange, where O’Brien was his “spiritual director”. The Observer understands that the statement claims O’Brien made an inappropriate approach after night prayers.

The seminarian says he was too frightened to report the incident, but says his personality changed afterwards, and his teachers regularly noted that he seemed depressed. He was ordained, but he told the nuncio in his statement that he resigned when O’Brien was promoted to bishop. “I knew then he would always have power over me. It was assumed I left the priesthood to get married. I did not. I left to preserve my integrity.”

Britain will have no representative at the Conclave because the Cardinals are either too old or too sexually compromised. But Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles, found unequivocally guilty of hiding and enabling the rape of children, will show up in his red robes. Why exactly is he allowed to go while O’Brien has resigned? Will he grab a sherry with Cardinal Law, another enabler of child-rape actually rewarded by the Vatican with a sinecure in Rome?

And here’s a question: if every Cardinal who had a cover-up of child-rape and abuse under his authority or had had sex with another man were barred from the Conclave, how many would be left?

(Photo: Cardinal Roger Mahony former archbishop of Los Angeles (C) attends the consistory held by Pope Benedict XV at the Saint Peter’s Basilica on February 18, 2012 in Vatican City, Vatican. By Franco Origlia/Getty Images)

Two Popes, One Secretary

Benedict XVI Holds Weekly Audience

The damage Benedict XVI has done to the Catholic church and the papacy may be far from over. All I can say about yesterday’s developments is that they seem potentially disastrous and also indicative to me of something truly weird going on underneath all of this.

Benedict XVI has claimed that his almost unprecedented resignation came about simply because of his physical infirmity in the face of what appears to be a growing vortex of sexual and financial scandal inside the Vatican. He said he would quietly disappear to serve the church through prayer and meditation. But we now realize he’s going nowhere. He’s staying in the Vatican’s walls, and retaining the honorific “His Holiness.” He will keep white robes. His full title will be Pope Emeritus. Far from wearing clerical black, returning to the title of Bishop of Rome, and disappearing into a monastery in Bavaria, he’s going to be a shadow Pope in the Vatican. And this, we are told, was his decision:

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Benedict himself had made the decision in consultation with others, settling on “Your Holiness Benedict XVI” and either emeritus pope or emeritus Roman pontiff. Lombardi said he didn’t know why Benedict had decided to drop his other main title: bishop of Rome.

If you were trying to avoid any hint of meddling, of a Deng Xiao Peng-type figure pulling strings behind the scenes, you would not be doing this. The only thing the Pope will give up, apparently, are his red Prada shoes. He has some fabulous brown leather artisanal ones to replace them. But this is what really made me sit up straight, so to speak:

Benedict’s trusted secretary, Monsignor Georg Gänswein, will be serving both pontiffs — living with Benedict at the monastery inside the Vatican and keeping his day job as prefect of the new pope’s household. Asked about the potential conflicts, Lombardi was defensive, saying the decisions had been clearly reasoned and were likely chosen for the sake of simplicity. “I believe it was well thought out,” he said.

So Benedict’s handsome male companion will continue to live with him, while working for the other Pope during the day. Are we supposed to think that’s, well, a normal arrangement? I wrote a while back about Gänswein’s intense relationship with Ratzinger, while noting Colm Toibin’s review of Angelo Quattrochi’s exploration of Benedict, “Is The Pope Gay?”. Here’s Toibin getting to some interesting stuff:

Gänswein is remarkably handsome, a cross between George Clooney and Hugh Grant, but, in a way, more beautiful than either. In a radio interview Gänswein described a day in his life and the life of Ratzinger, now that he is pope:

The pope’s day begins with the seven o’clock Mass, then he says prayers with his breviary, followed by a period of silent contemplation before our Lord. Then we have breakfast together, and so I begin the day’s work by going through the correspondence. Then I exchange ideas with the Holy Father, then I accompany him to the ‘Second Loggia’ for the private midday audiences. Then we have lunch together; after the meal we go for a little walk before taking a nap. In the afternoon I again take care of the correspondence. I take the most important stuff which needs his signature to the Holy Father.

When asked if he felt nervous in the presence of the Holy Father, Gänswein replied that he sometimes did and added: ‘But it is also true that the fact of meeting each other and being together on a daily basis creates a sense of “familiarity”, which makes you feel less nervous. But obviously I know who the Holy Father is and so I know how to behave appropriately. There are always some situations, however, when the heart beats a little stronger than usual.’

This man – clearly in some kind of love with Ratzinger (and vice-versa) will now be working for the new Pope as secretary in the day and spending the nights with the Pope Emeritus. This is not the Vatican. It’s Melrose Place.

(Photo: the Pope’s personal secretary Georg Ganswein adjusts Pope Benedict XVI’s cloak during the weekly audience in St. Peter’s Square on September 26, 2012 in Vatican City, Vatican. By Franco Origlia/Getty Images)

The Right And Marriage Equality: It Gets Better

Before it was taken over by religious, constitutional and fiscal fundamentalists, the GOP was once the pragmatic party of business. It still is, of course, fitfully – even though its brinksmanship and rank partisanship and fiscal recklessness have hurt businesses hard these last few years. (Imagine where the auto industry would be now if Mitt Romney had had his way). But its insistence on opposing any civil rights for gay couples is beginning to make the business world uncomfortable. This strikes me as an under-noted story among the many Amicus briefs being filed with the Supreme Court in favor of marriage equality. Just as local Virginia businessmen took on the extremist Republican Ken Cuccinelli recently, so too is big business weighing in against discrimination against gays in marriage:

The publicly traded companies backing gay marriage include Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (ANF), Alcoa Inc. (AA), American International Group Inc. (AIG), Becton Dickinson & Co., EBay Inc. (EBAY), Marsh & McLennan Cos. (MMC), NCR Corp. (NCR), Nike Inc. (NKE), Oracle Corp. (ORCL), Office Depot Inc. (ODP), Panasonic Corp. (6752), Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM), Sun Life Financial Inc., Xerox Corp. (XRX), Zynga Inc. (ZNGA), Barnes & Noble Inc. and Caesars Entertainment Corp.

A larger group of companies — more than 200, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) — is also poised to side with gay- rights advocates in a second Supreme Court case, involving a federal law that defines marriage as a heterosexual union. Under that law, known as the Defense of Marriage Act, legally married gay couples can’t claim the federal tax breaks and other benefits available to opposite-sex spouses.

The companies in that case are part of a collection of more than 250 employers, including cities, counties and law firms.

These businesses want to attract the best workforces they can. And if they are in states that treat gay couples as second class citizens, they may lose them. The US has already lost major talent because gay spouses of a non-American are forced to live in Western Europe or other parts of the civilized world because of the United States’ refusal to allow any process for gay married citizens to keep their spouse in the country. In the end, the free market matters. And in the end, it wants gay equality.

The Geography Of The Grocery Store, Ctd

A reader writes:

Most of the items McNamee lists – milk, eggs, fresh vegetables, cheese and meat – require refrigeration, watering, frequent restocking or other special handling.  All of that is more efficient if the items are located at the rear of the store, so they’re closer to the storeroom, loading docks, and mechanical infrastructure.  Sometimes the design of a store is a nod to plain old engineering, not the sinister social kind.

Another offers a very different take:

In Texas, there is a particularly despicable phenomenon known as “Central Market”, a division of the giant H.E.B. chain here. Central Market stores cater to an clientele that doesn’t mind paying higher prices for the gratifying illusion that doing so makes them upscale.  These stores are laid out with one long maze-like aisle that snakes around all the way from entrance to the check-out counter.  In other words, you have to navigate the entire store even just to buy a can of Pledge.  In normal grocery stores, a knowledgeable disciplined shopper can march down one aisle and back if all they want is a gallon of milk and avoid lots of distracting impulse buys.  But in CM you can’t.

I’ve pointed all this out to several loyal customers who refuse to shop elsewhere, even at conventional HEBs, to no avail.  You get a definite sense that they think the other stores are strictly for the hoi polloi.

Update from several readers who rush to defend Central Market:

Your second reader doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  Central Market does indeed have a long snake-like aisle. But it also has several cut-throughs that make it easy to bypass the sections you don’t want to visit, unlike a regular grocery store.  It also has much less space devoted to processed foods and a great beer/wine selection which I view as big positives. Only issue I have with them is that the stores close have massive parking issues, but wanted to set the record straight.

Another defender:

Your reader who hates Central Market is wrong. Central Market offers a fantastic experience, with the shopping areas broken up to resemble traditional markets, not to create a maze. There is a flow to the overall store, but there are plenty of cut-throughs that are marked and that easily enable knowledgeable shoppers to take short cuts. The example of a can of Pledge, for example – a knowledgeable shopper will know that there is a very easy way to get to the nonperishable aisles and right back out.

Central Market is booming, growing from one Austin location to ten throughout Texas by later this year. For products that are offered both at Central Market and the chain’s mass-market stores (H-E-B), they commit to matching the H-E-B price at Central Market, and then adding a ton of fresh, organic, and other options at prices that easily beat Whole Foods. They work hard to feature local produce and products. When I lived away from Austin, missing H-E-B and Central Market was one of the worst aspects. See this for more.

One more:

Unlike that other high end Texas-based grocery chain that preaches an organic gospel no matter the actual health benefits, Central Market focuses on freshness, variety, and quality while eschewing the hippy pseudoscience that pervades its competitor. Far from being some evil exercise in consumer manipulation, I’ve found that Central Market’s layout mirrors how I actually shop and in fact encourages me to eat healthier by placing the fresh foods up front. You enter into a produce section that is larger than most East Coast grocers and teeming with amazing, exotic fruits and vegetables that I’ve never seen anywhere else. From there, it’s on to the fish counter and butcher shop, twin 100-foot cold cases with an incredible variety of fresh cut meats, fish, and in-house prepared sausages. Only then do you find yourself in a more traditionally laid out store, albeit one with an epic selection of affordable wines and loads of local craft beer. Some of the other offerings are pricier than at a “normal” grocery store, but in my experience the basics compare favorably.

I shop there because I like the quality and the variety, not out of some dickish sense of superiority. There’s a reason that the owners of NYC’s Eataly are rumored to have looked to Central Market when embarking on their venture. And the lack of a Central Market is a small reason that, when recently faced with an opportunity to move to New York, my spouse and I stayed in Texas.

The Right And Marriage Equality: A Breakthrough

[Re-posted from earlier today]

Forgive me a moment to absorb this news. I was tipped off something was imminent, reading my email on a flight to Portland, Oregon. I’m speaking there tonight and attending a class there today – on marriage equality and conservatism respectively (if you’re a local Dishhead, the event is at 7.30 pm at the Smith Auditorium 900 State Street, Salem, Oregon. Tomorrow, I’m at the University of Idaho for a debate on the same topic hosted by Peter Hitchens. That’s at 7.30 pm at the University of Idaho’s Student Union Ballroom, in Moscow, Idaho).

Over the years, after my 1989 conservative case for marriage equality, I must have given hundreds of these kinds of talks – in the late 1990s, it was basically all I tumblr_lni23xheku1qchhhqo1_1280did. Today, I rarely show up on TV. Then I accepted any invite on marriage. And my goal was to persuade sometimes uncomfortable audiences (I’ll never forget the events at Notre Dame and Boston College on Catholicism and homosexuality) that there really was nothing radical about integrating a previously marginalized community into the options of family and commitment and mutual responsibility, and the social status those virtues rightly acquire.

In the early 1990s, I might as well have been speaking Swahili – and was assailed, attacked, picketed, demonized and smeared to the point of personal trauma by the gay left. By the early 2000s, I was demeaned, pitied, ignored, ostracized and mocked by the Republican right. They were both, in my view, misguided and panicked – because the truth is: marriage equality is both a liberal and a conservative project. It’s liberal because of its insistence on equality; it’s conservative because of its insistence on responsibility, and because the alternatives – domestic partnerships/civil unions – are actually damaging to a critical social institution, civil marriage, by providing a marriage-lite option for all.

This conservative case was buttressed by my fellow conservative writers – learned, decent, honest intellectuals like Jon Rauch and Bruce Bawer and Dale Carpenter and John Corvino and many others. We were no Democrats. Most of us loathed the Clintons for what they did to the gay community, our rights and dignity. But we became more and weddingaislemore dismayed by our fellow conservatives, so many of whom did not simply remain on the fence but mounted a furious, passionate campaign against us. Bill Kristol’s response to this nascent movement was to bring legitimacy to the ex-gay movement; David Frum – back in the day – threatened to bring back enforcement of sodomy laws if we didn’t shut up. Republicans gleefully enshrined discrimination in many state constitutions – and bragged about it a little more loudly than Bill Clinton did the Defense of Marriage Act.

They decided, with Bill Clinton, on the most radical pushback to a fledgling movement imaginable: a Defense of Marriage Act that stripped our families of any rights under federal law, and, without Bill Clinton, a Federal Marriage Amendment that would single out gays as second-class citizens in the founding document of their own country for ever. And they used this hatred and fear of homosexuals quite openly as a way to win the 2004 election. It was crucial in Ohio that year. If Bush had lost it, Kerry would have been president. And Bush won it in large part by fear-mongering about gays.

For me, the FMA was the end of engagement and the beginning of war. You can read my reaction the day Bush endorsed it here. But I never stopped making the conservative case for marriage equality for the simple reason I believed in it. I never thought it would happen to me, but I knew it would have protected so many of my friends who didn’t have to just die agonizing deaths from AIDS but did so stigmatized and alone, their spouses treated often like dirt, their loves 400px-Aids_Quiltpublicly repudiated, their dignity grotesquely violated. This was, I believed, a matter of core humanity. It became for me the defining cause of my life.

A friend recalled visiting a man dying of AIDS at the time. A former massive bodybuilder, he had shrunk to 90 pounds. ‘Do I look big?” he asked, with mordant humor. In the next bed, surrounded by curtains, my friend heard someone singing a pop song quietly to himself. My friend joked: “Well not everyone here is depressed!” Then this from his dying, now skeletal friend: “Oh, that’s not him. He died this morning. That’s his partner. That was their song, apparently. The family took the body away, threw that guy out of the apartment he shared with his partner, and barred him from the funeral. He’s stayed there all day, singing their song. I guess it’s the last place he’ll ever see where his partner actually was. His face is pressed against the pillow. The nurses don’t have the heart to tell him to leave.”

You want to know why this became a life-long struggle? You have your answer. And I did this not despite being a Catholic, but because I am a Catholic. And I did this not despite being a conservative but because I am one.

This hideous cruelty in the midst of such shame demanded a Catholic and Christian response. This attack on people’s families, and their mutual responsibility (that man’s partner had cared for him for months, while his biological family kept their distance) was an attack on those institutions like civil marriage that are vital for a free society to keep its government in check. If that man’s husband hadn’t cared for him, the government would have had to. Why weren’t conservatives celebrating this man’s dedication rather than smearing him? Why could they not see in the gay community’s astonishing self-defense a Burkean model for social change from below – a dedication to saving our community independent of government that, if it happened in any other community, would have led the GOP to put those activists on the podium of the Republican Convention as exemplars of civil society at its best?

And that is what husband really means: to take care of someone. Why, I wondered, were conservatives actually doing all they could to prevent couples’ taking care of each other? Why would they barely tolerate it in a free society – but treat these responsible relationships as if they were threats to the very values they exemplified? Why would they want to discourage an emotional and domestic break against the huge force of testosterone that was and is bound to define a male-only community – and with a viral breakout helped wipe out 300,000 human beings in one generation? Why, for that matter, would they want to tear children from their lesbian mothers – or, even more sickeningly, recruit them to attack their own mothers, as NOM recently has?

It’s 24 years since I wrote that essay. But today, I see a phalanx of conservatives standing up for the equality of gay citizens. Here are some among the roster, which is now 75 and counting:

Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8 when she ran for California governor; Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York; Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security adviser; Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary to Mr. Bush; James B. Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official; David A. Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director; and Deborah Pryce, a former member of the House Republican leadership from Ohio who is retired from Congress.

Ken Mehlman, bete noir of the gay left for understandable reasons given his role in Rove’s gay-baiting 2004 campaign, was the key organizer. I’ve always believed that civil rights movements should be all about welcoming converts rather than hunting for enemies or heretics. And I think this is a huge achievement for Ken, morally, and politically. It is the right conservative thing to do. As the British Tory prime minister has put it:

I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a conservative.

Allahpundit is underwhelmed by the list. It does indeed lack, apart from Ros-Lehtinen and Hanna, current members of Congress. It lacks Dick Cheney, for example, a figure who holds this position but, as usual, does nothing about it – even when it directly affects his own family. It lacks Laura Bush – although she could still add her name. But, to her credit, Mary Cheney is there. So is my friend David Frum. The two strategists for the 2008 campaign, Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace are on it. Stephen Hadley and Israel Hernandez – two people very close to 43 – are there. Ken Duberstein, Alex Castellanos, Mike Murphy and Greg Mankiw are also on the list. These are not GOP lightweights. They are up there with Ted Olson.

The reason, to my mind, is quite simple. The Republican Party of Reagan who defended gay rights in the 1970s, of Bush 41 and even parts of Bush 43 is now emphatically and increasingly a party of the fanatical Christianist right, based in the South, and dedicated not to conservative politics but to dogma, theological and political. Some elements in the party may simply be wary of major change in a social institution – which is a perfectly legitimate worry. But as the statement notes:

Many of the signatories to this brief previously did not support civil marriage for same-sex couples; others did not hold a considered position on the issue. However, in the years since Massachusetts and other states have made civil marriage a reality for same-sex couples, amici, like many Americans, have observed the impact, assessed their core values and beliefs, and concluded that there is no legitimate, fact-based reason for denying same-sex couples the same recognition in law that is available to opposite-sex couples who wish to marry. Rather, we have concluded that the institution of marriage, its benefits and importance to society, and the support and stability it gives to children and families are promoted, not undercut, by providing access to civil marriage for same-sex couples.

So we now also have empirical data to reassure legitimate conservative concerns about damage to a vital institution. The first state with marriage equality continues to have the lowest divorce rate: 2.2 percent, compared with 2.5 percent before gays were allowed to marry. Compare that with the most anti-gay states: Alabama’s 4.4 percent – double Massachusetts – or anti-gay Virginia’s divorce rate of 3.7 percent, compared with marriage equality DC with 2.6 percent. More broadly, the divorce rate has come down in almost every state in the last decade – the very decade gays were allegedly going to destroy the Constitution. Stanley Kurtz was simply wrong. Gay marriage has entered our consciousness and reality as divorce rates have fallen. The linkage that Maggie Gallagher keeps talking about as a premise is a fantasy. If you can properly draw any conclusions from the data, the linkage works in the opposite way. Gay marriage has strengthened straight marriage – not the other way round.

Only prejudice and fundamentalist dogma now stand in the way. Whatever happens in the Supreme Court, exposing that matters. Showing that there is a debate among conservatives, as well as among people of faith, is a vital step forward.

I sometimes end optimistic posts with the Israeli saying, “Know hope.” But this is actually something a little different. It is knowing hope. And seeing it rise, finally and fitfully, above fear.

The full summary of the Amicus brief is below:

Amici are social and political conservatives, moderates, and libertarians from diverse religious, racial, regional, and philosophical backgrounds; many have served as elected or appointed federal and state office-holders. Many of the signatories to this brief previously did not support civil marriage for same-sex couples; others did not hold a considered position on the issue. However, in the years since Massachusetts and other states have made civil marriage a reality for same-sex couples, amici, like many Americans, have observed the impact, assessed their core values and beliefs, and concluded that there is no legitimate, fact-based reason for denying same-sex couples the same recognition in law that is available to opposite-sex couples who wish to marry. Rather, we have concluded that the institution of marriage, its benefits and importance to society, and the support and stability it gives to children and families are promoted, not undercut, by providing access to civil marriage for same-sex couples.

Amici do not denigrate the deeply held emotional, cultural, and religious beliefs that lead sincere people to take the opposite view (and, indeed, some amici themselves once held the opposite view). Whether same-sex couples should have access to civil marriage divides thoughtful, concerned citizens. Those who support and those who oppose civil marriage for same-sex couples hold abiding convictions about their respective positions. But a belief, no matter how strongly or sincerely held, cannot justify a legal distinction that is unsupported by a factual basis, especially where something as important as civil marriage is concerned. Amici take this position with the understanding that providing access to civil marriage for same-sex couples—which is the only issue raised in this case—poses no credible threat to religious freedom or to the institution of religious marriage. Given the robust constitutional protections for the free exercise of religion, amici do not believe that religious institutions should or will be compelled against their will to participate in a marriage between people of the same sex.

I. There Is No Legitimate, Fact-Based Justification For Different Legal Treatment Of Committed Relationships Between Same-Sex Couples

Laws that make distinctions between classes of people must have “reasonable support in fact.” New York State Club Ass’n, Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 17 (1988). Amici do not believe that laws like Proposition 8 have a legitimate, fact-based justification for excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage. Over the past two decades, amici have seen each argument against same-sex marriage discredited by social science, rejected by courts, and undermined by their own experiences with committed same-sex couples, including those whose civil marriages have been given legal recognition in various States. Instead, the facts and evidence show that permitting civil marriage for same-sex couples will enhance the institution, protect children, and benefit society generally.

A. Marriage Promotes The Conservative Values Of Stability, Mutual Support, And Mutual Obligation

Amici start from the premise—recognized by this Court on at least fourteen occasions— that marriage is both a fundamental right protected by our Constitution and a venerable institution that confers countless benefits, both to those who marry and to society at large. … It is precisely because marriage is so important in producing and protecting strong and stable family structures that amici do not agree that the government can rationally promote the goal of strengthening families by denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

B. Social Science Does Not Support Any Of The Putative Rationales For Proposition 8

Deinstitutionalization. No credible evidence supports the deinstitutionalization theory. … Petitioners fail to explain how extending civil marriage to same-sex couples will dilute or undermine the benefits of that institution for opposite-sex couples … or for society at large. It will instead do the opposite. Extending civil marriage to same-sex couples is a clear endorsement of the multiple benefits of marriage—stability, lifetime commitment, financial support during crisis and old age, etc.—and a reaffirmation of the social value of this institution.

Biology. There is also no biological justification for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples. Allowing same-sex couples to marry in no way undermines the importance of marriage for opposite-sex couples who enter into marriage to provide a stable family structure for their children.

Child Welfare. If there were persuasive evidence that same-sex marriage was detrimental to children, amici would give that evidence great weight. But there is not. Social scientists have resoundingly rejected the claim that children fare better when raised by opposite-sex parents than they would with same-sex parents.

C. While Laws Like Proposition 8 Are Consonant With Sincerely-Held Beliefs, That Does Not Sustain Their Constitutionality

Although amici firmly believe that society should proceed cautiously before adopting significant changes to beneficial institutions, we do not believe that society must remain indifferent to facts. This Court has not hesitated to reconsider a law’s outmoded justifications and, where appropriate, to deem them insufficient to survive an equal protection challenge. The bases on which the proponents of laws like Proposition 8 rely are the products of similar thinking that can no longer pass muster when the evidence as it now stands is viewed rationally, not through the lens of belief though sincerely held.

I. This Court Should Protect The Fundamental Right Of Civil Marriage By Ensuring That It Is Available To Same-Sex Couples

Choosing to marry is also a paradigmatic exercise of human liberty. Marriage is thus central to government’s goal of promoting the liberty of individuals and a free society. For those who choose to marry, legal recognition of that marriage serves as a bulwark against unwarranted government intervention into deeply personal concerns such as the way in which children will be raised and in medical decisions.

Amici recognize that a signal and admirable characteristic of our judiciary is the exercise of restraint. Nonetheless, this Court’s “deference in matters of policy cannot … become abdication of matters of law.” The right to marry indisputably falls within the narrow band of specially protected liberties that this Court ensures are protected from unwarranted curtailment.

Proposition 8 ran afoul of our constitutional order by submitting to popular referendum a fundamental right that there is no legitimate, fact-based reason to deny to same-sex couples. This case accordingly presents one of the rare but inescapable instances in which this Court must intervene to redress overreaching by the electorate.

Here are all the signatories so far:

—Ken Mehlman, Chairman, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007

—Tim Adams, Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, 2005-2007

—David D. Aufhauser, General Counsel, Department of Treasury, 2001-2003

—Cliff S. Asness, Businessman, Philanthropist, and Author

—John B. Bellinger III, Legal Adviser to the Department of State, 2005-2009

—Katie Biber, General Counsel, Romney for President, 2007-2008 and 2011-2012

—Mary Bono Mack, Member of Congress, 1998-2013

—William A. Burck, Deputy Staff Secretary, Special Counsel and Deputy Counsel to the
President, 2005-2009

—Alex Castellanos, Republican Media Advisor

—Paul Cellucci, Governor of Massachusetts, 1997-2001, and Ambassador to Canada,
2001-2005

—Mary Cheney, Director of Vice Presidential Operations, Bush-Cheney 2004

—Jim Cicconi, Assistant to the President & Deputy to the Chief of Staff, 1989-1990

—James B. Comey, United States Deputy Attorney General, 2003-2005

—R. Clarke Cooper, U.S. Alternative Representative, United Nations Security Council,
2007-2009

—Julie Cram, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director White House Office of
Public Liaison, 2007-2009

—Michele Davis, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and Director of Policy Planning,
Department of the Treasury, 2006-2009

—Kenneth M. Duberstein, White House Chief of Staff and Assistant to the President,
1981-1984 and 1987-1989

—Lew Eisenberg, Finance Chairman, Republican National Committee, 2002-2004

—Elizabeth Noyer Feld, Public Affairs Specialist, White House Office of Management and
Budget, 1984-1987

—David Frum, Special Assistant to the President, 2001-2002

—Richard Galen, Communications Director, Speaker’s Political Office, 1996-1997

—Mark Gerson, Chairman, Gerson Lehrman Group and Author of The Neoconservative
Vision: From the Cold War to the Culture Wars and In the Classroom: Dispatches from
an Inner-City School that Works

—Benjamin Ginsberg, General Counsel, Bush-Cheney 2000 & 2004

—Adrian Gray, Director of Strategy, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007

—Richard Grenell, Spokesman, U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations, 2001-2008

—Patrick Guerriero, Mayor, Melrose Massachusetts and member of Massachusetts
House of Representatives, 1993-2001

—Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, 2005-2009

—Stephen Hadley, Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor, 2005-2009

—Richard Hanna, Member of Congress, 2011-Present

—Israel Hernandez, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, 2005-2009

—Margaret Hoover, Advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, 2005-2006

—Michael Huffington, Member of Congress, 1993-1995

—Jon Huntsman, Governor of Utah, 2005-2009

—David A. Javdan, General Counsel, United States Small Business Administration, 2002-
2006

—Reuben Jeffery, Undersecretary of State for Economic, Energy, and Agricultural
Affairs, 2007-2009

—Greg Jenkins, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Advance,
2003-2004

—Coddy Johnson, National Field Director, Bush-Cheney 2004

—Gary Johnson, Governor of New Mexico, 1995-2003

—Robert Kabel, Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs, 1982-1985

—Theodore W. Kassinger, Deputy Secretary of Commerce, 2004-2005

—Jonathan Kislak, Deputy Undersecretary of Agriculture for Small Community and Rural
Development, 1989-1991

—David Kochel, Senior Advisor to Mitt Romney’s Iowa Campaign, 2007-2008 and 2011-
2012

—James Kolbe, Member of Congress, 1985-2007

—Jeffrey Kupfer, Acting Deputy Secretary of Energy, 2008-2009

—Kathryn Lehman, Chief of Staff, House Republican Conference, 2003-2005

—Daniel Loeb, Businessman and Philanthropist

—Alex Lundry, Director of Data Science, Romney for President, 2012

—Greg Mankiw, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers, 2003-2005

—Catherine Martin, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Communications
Director for Policy & Planning, 2005-2007

—Kevin Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, 2005-2009

—David McCormick, Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, 2007-2009

—Mark McKinnon, Republican Media Advisor

—Bruce P. Mehlman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, 2001-2003

—Connie Morella, Member of Congress, 1987-2003 and U.S. Ambassador to the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2003-2007

—Michael E. Murphy, Republican Political Consultant

—Michael Napolitano, White House Office of Political Affairs, 2001-2003

—Ana Navarro, National Hispanic Co-Chair for Senator John McCain’s Presidential
Campaign, 2008

—Noam Neusner, Special Assistant to the President for Economic Speechwriting, 2002-
2005

—Nancy Pfotenhauer, Economist, Presidential Transition Team, 1988 and President’s
Council on Competitiveness, 1990

—J. Stanley Pottinger, Assistant U.S. Attorney General (Civil Rights Division), 1973-1977

—Michael Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, 2001-2005

—Deborah Pryce, Member of Congress, 1993-2009

—John Reagan, New Hampshire State Senator, 2012-Present

—Kelley Robertson, Chief of Staff, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007

—Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Member of Congress, 1989-Present

—Harvey S. Rosen, Member and Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers, 2003-2005

—Lee Rudofsky, Deputy General Counsel, Romney for President, 2012

—Patrick Ruffini, eCampaign Director, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007

—Steve Schmidt, Deputy Assistant to the President and Counselor to the Vice President,
2004-2006

—Ken Spain, Communications Director, National Republican Congressional Committee,
2009-2010

—Robert Steel, Undersecretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance, 2006-2008

—David Stockman, Director, Office of Management and Budget, 1981-1985

—Jane Swift, Governor of Massachusetts, 2001-2003

—Michael E. Toner, Chairman and Commissioner, Federal Election Commission, 2002-
2007

—Michael Turk, eCampaign Director for Bush-Cheney 2004

—Mark Wallace, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Representative for UN
Management and Reform, 2006-2008

—Nicolle Wallace, Assistant to the President and White House Communications
Director, 2005-2008

—William F. Weld, Governor of Massachusetts, 1991-1997, and Assistant U.S. Attorney
General (Criminal Division), 1986-1988

—Christine Todd Whitman, Governor of New Jersey, 1994-2001, and Administrator of
the EPA, 2001-2003

—Meg Whitman, Republican Nominee for Governor of California, 2010

—Robert Wickers, Republican Political Consultant

—Dan Zwonitzer, Wyoming State Representative, 2005-present

What The Hell Just Happened In Italy?

ITALY-VOTE-PLACARDS

This week’s general election has produced the country’s first-ever hung parliament, and the news wreaked havoc on world markets as fears rose of a new Eurozone crisis taking hold. Ryan McCarthy sets the scene:

This has been an election which featured an ex-prime minister who’s about to face trial for allegedly having sex with an underage night-club dancer and who was sentenced to four years in prison for tax evasion; a comedian running on an “antisystem” message; and Mario Monti, the country’s current prime minister, whose campaign a rival compared to a coma, and whose alliance is set to finish in fourth place.

As one Italian newspaper put it this morning: “The winner is: Ingovernability”. Barbie Latza Nadeau explains:

Pier Luigi Bersani’s [four-party] center-left coalition narrowly won in the lower house of parliament and will benefit by an automatic winner’s bonus of 54 percent of the house seats, but he barely eked out a win in the Italian senate, where it counts. There, the divisions are based on regions, and his win does not translate to a majority. His chief nemesis, Silvio Berlusconi, who rose from the ashes of a scandalous resignation in November 2011, was able to steer his center-right coalition to within a hair of the majority, but with no willing partners to help him reach the threshold.

Meanwhile, the anti-establishment “5-Star Movement” organized by comedian and blogger Beppe Grillo grabbed 25% of the vote in Italy’s lower house – more than any other party – as well as 23% of the vote in the country’s Senate. Grillo and his supporters have now earned an apparent kingmaker role for which, as Gavin Hewitt notes, they appear to want no part:

Mr Grillo has tapped into a mood of anger and resentment. He never gave a single interview to Italian TV and yet has nearly 170 seats. The country is in deep recession. Unemployment is rising and industrial production is at its lowest level since the 1990s. Mr Grillo raged against corruption, against budget cuts, against austerity and promised to hold a referendum on continued membership of the euro. He promised “a tsunami” and he delivered. His MPs are young, unproven and without political experience. … One unanswered question is whether Beppe Grillo will be open to a deal. Would his movement support, say, a centre-left coalition in exchange for widespread reforms of the political system? We don’t know. Buoyed up by success he has only promised to clear out the political class.

In fact, Grillo has has maintained his party would not join any coalition, though it would consider proposals on a “law by law, reform by reform” basis. For his part, Silvio Berlusconi has floated the idea of a grand coalition between his center-right coalition and the center-left. Douglas J. Elliot sees that as the most-likely possible solution to the gridlock, though not without its risks:

It would be unstable despite holding a clear majority of seats in both houses, because the views and interests of Berlusconi and the Center-Left only partially overlap. Further, the Democratic Party is fairly committed to continuing on the economic path agreed with its European partners, while Berlusconi campaigned on the idea of rejecting that path. Finding a set of policies that both groups could support and that would not trigger a rupture with Germany and Brussels, spooking the markets, will be difficult.

Joe Weisenthal points to austerity as the primary motivator in the election:

Voters hate austerity. And voters hate when their own politicians are taking their cues from an institution like the European Central Bank, rather than basing decisions on domestic needs. And that’s the phenomenon that came home to roost last night. The political parties seen as continuing along the existing ECB-preferred path did badly. The rebellion voters (Silvio Berlusconi and populist Beppe Grillo) did much better than expected. And this has the potential to undermine all of the progress made in Europe over the past several months.

Indeed 57% of the Italian electorate voted for anti-austerity parties. Nigel Cassidy indicates this sentiment could signal problems for other austerity-besieged countries like Ireland and Portugal. And he sees little hope for Italy:

As things stand, Italy’s economy is still shrinking and its debt is forecast to rise to 128% of GDP by the end of this year. Both the Silvio Berlusconi and Beppe Grillo political camps opposed some of the tax hikes and public spending cuts instituted by Mr Monti. Yet, even if some of these cuts were reversed, it seems doubtful that an economy that has hardly grown in two decades could be turned around anytime soon. Reversing the most recent reforms would also signal that the new government was unwilling or unable to deal with fundamental economic problems. This in itself could lead to spiralling bond yields and the flight of capital invested in Italy could resume. The Five Star Party’s avowed opposition to eurozone fiscal convergence might also slow future progress on banking union and other financial reforms.

(Photo: Ripped off electoral placards showing the Democratic Party (PD) logo and right-wing Silvio Berlusconi (L) are displayed on a wall in Rome on February 26, 2013. By Filippo Monteforte/AFP/Getty Images)

When Climate Change Hurts Work

On hot and humid summer days, our bodies are less able to cool themselves due to the moisture in the air around us. Joseph Stromberg explains the impact this might have as the planet warms:

According to a study published yesterday in Nature Climate Change, increased heat and humidity has already reduced our species’ work capacity by 10% in the warmest months, and that figure could rise to 20% by 2050 and 60% by the year 2200, given current projections.

The Princeton research team behind the study, led by John Dunne, came to the finding by combining the latest data on global temperature and humidity over the past few decades with American military and industrial guidelines for how much work a person can safely do under environmental heat stress. …

[T]hinking about how the study defines “work” can lead to a troubling conclusion: in 2100, throughout much of the U.S., simply taking an extended walk outdoors might not be possible for many people. The economic impacts—in terms of construction and other fields that rely upon heavy manual labor—are another issue entirely. Climate change is certain to bring a wide range of unpleasant consequences, but the effect of humidity on a person’s ability to work could be the one that impacts daily life the most.

Lauren Morello provides some comparisons:

The combined heat and humidity in Washington, D.C., would be more stressful than conditions in today’s New Orleans. New Orleans, in turn, would experience more heat stress than Bahrain does now. And in Bahrain — an island in the Persian Gulf where temperatures already hit 120°F in summer months — heat stress would creep close to the limit that humans can endure for more than a few hours at a time.

The Evangelical Who Tackled AIDS

Michael Specter eulogizes C. Everett Koop, the late surgeon general under Reagan:

Koop turned out to be a scientist who believed in data at least as deeply as he believed in God. And he proceeded to alienate nearly every supporter he had on the religious and political right. To fight the growing epidemic of AIDS, Koop recommended a program of compulsory sex education in schools, and argued that, by the time they reached third grade, children should be taught how to use condoms. He did not consider homosexuality morally acceptable—and he never changed his view about that. But he understood that viruses have no religion or sexual orientation and that H.I.V. was a virus. He campaigned vigorously against smoking in public spaces, saying that tobacco should be eliminated from American society by 2000. He was the public official to state categorically that second-hand smoke causes cancer. Tobacco companies—and Jesse Helms, their biggest congressional ally—could hardly believe Koop’s treachery.

Cord Jefferson has more on Koop’s critical approach to AIDS:

In an effort to help cut through a lot of the bigoted nonsense, in 1988 Koop authored an informational pamphlet called “Understanding AIDS” and mailed it to all 107 million households in the United States. Despite his personal Christian conservative beliefs, Koop’s pamphlet dispatched a lot of paranoid misinformation swirling around AIDS in favor of frank talk about sex and prophylactics. For instance, while “Understanding AIDS” advocated abstinence and monogamy as “safe behaviors,” it also heralded condoms, recommended early childhood sex education, and suggested Americans do whatever they could to help AIDS patients in need “without fear of becoming infected.” What’s more, all of this came during a time when President Reagan himself would hardly mention AIDS, let alone say “the rectum is easily injured during anal intercourse,” as “Understanding AIDS” noted.