I should preface this by saying that this is my second post to this space that was also submitted to the Daily Cardinal, a University of Wisconsin student newspaper (since 1892). The first one was printed and can be seen below under the title "Harsh". I expect this one to run Friday. Here 'tis:

According to Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution all people are to be treated as equals by the State. This is something that most of us take for granted. Yet it isn’t always the case. Consider the situation faced by same-sex couples. Currently they cannot be married by the State, nor can they receive any of the benefits that are granted to married couples. These benefits include some very basic rights, such as hospital visitation and survivor’s benefits, or to be included in a health insurance policy. Still, progress has been made over the years. Some churches are now willing to recognize same-sex couples, even “marrying” them. I must use quotes around “marrying”, however, because there is a kicker: the state won’t recognize these marriages. Which begs the question, who is it that decides which couples can be married and which can’t? And by what criteria?

The answer, of course, is that every church decides based on its own criteria and the State does too. Shouldn’t it be one or the other? We purport, in this country and in Wisconsin, to have separation of Church and State. Other than on the issue of marriage it can be argued that we have it. But regarding marriage the two are completely intertwined. Or rather, almost completely, as it is possible to get married without any church involvement. A couple can have a “civil ceremony” even though they are not being married by any church. So the idea of separation is not only possible, it already exists. It’s just convoluted. The state will recognize one couples’ union without any sanction from a church; it will also refuse to recognize another couples’ union, even if that couple has the blessing of their church.

The larger issue here would be that there is a very good reason for Church/State separation, that reason being that the two institutions have different aims. The smaller issue is that there is disagreement as to what constitutes “marriage”. This issue can be easily resolved by having the State remove itself from the marriage business. Churches can go on marrying their members, or not, based upon their own criteria, just as they have for thousands of years. The State can recognize couples based on its own criteria, criteria that should not include sexual orientation anymore that it should include ethnicity or religious affiliation. The State confers legal rights, churches do not. If a couple wants to officially become united and receive the benefits which currently accrue to married couples they would apply for a certificate of civil union and, assuming they meet certain criteria, such as both being adult citizens, they would receive it. They would then be free to have whatever ceremony they saw fit to have, including a good-old-fashioned church wedding.

The State would then be treating its citizens equally, as prescribed by its Constitution. Couples that are currently being denied basic rights would no longer be denied these rights. Churches would continue to marry their members that wish to marry, as always. Even people who insist that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry could be satisfied, as, in their eyes anyway, these people would not be married. Agreed?

You can tell it's almost baseball time. A-Rod admits to steroids, Clemens and Bonds still face possible convictions for lying under oath (about steroids), Selig stumbles along. What's his legacy going to be? (Hint: it won't be inter-league play).

Time for a quiz.

Question 1: What player led his league one season in batting average, .374, slugging pct., .641, at bats, 633, hits, 237, doubles, 56, home runs, 31, runs, 111, and RBI, 154?

Question 2: Who is the greatest all-around player in the history of the "major leagues"?

Question 3: What hall-of-famer had 1,815 hits in home games, 1,815 hits in road games, 1949 runs scored and 1951 runs batted in?

Quetios 4: What hall-of-famer holds the single-season record for home runs by a 21 year old, 47?

Question 5: Which hall-of-famer was inducted into the hall on my 45th birthday? (Hint: he's tenth all time in singles, tied for 11th in doubles, ninth in hits. Also, he's the only player ever to have a five hit World Series game.)

Question 6: Who won back-to-back N.L. MVP honors in 1975, 76, the first National Leaguer to do so since 1957, 58 (Ernie Banks)?

Question 7: What player (yes, a hall-of-famer) is currently tied with two other players (Ted Williams and Frank Thomas, the Splendid Splinter and the Big Hurt) for 18th on the all time home run list, with 521?

Question 8: Which player, not in the baseball hall of fame, died in (or over) Canton, Ohio, on Aug 2nd, 1979?

Question 9: Which pitcher hurled three complete game shutouts in six days in the 1905 World Series?

The answers are the players on my all-time "M" team, a team comprised solely of players whose last names start with the letter "M" (as in Mack, or Me).

Left field: Joe Medwick

Center field: Willie Mays

Right field: Stan (the Man) Musial

Third base: Eddie Mathews

Shortstop: Paul Molitor (yes I know he played very few games at shortstop, 57, but he did come up as one).

Second base: Joe Morgan

First base: Willie McCovey (over Eddie Murray, Mark McGwire, Johnny Mize and Don Mattingly)

Catcher: Thurman Munson

Pitcher: Christy Mathewson (and Juan Marichal, Greg Maddux, Dave McNally, Andy Messersmith, Sam McDowell and Tug McGraw).

On my bench, alongside Manager Connie Mack, the all-time winningest manager, I have Mickey Mantle, Heinie Manush, Roger Maris, Pepper Martin, Rabbit Maranville, Bill Mazeroski, all those first basemen, Mike Matheny and (holding my breath and cringeing a little), Pedro Martinez.

Wanna play?

President Barack Obama has vowed to close the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He has also signed an executive order banning the “harsh interrogation techniques” employed there and elsewhere in the U.S.-led Global War on Terror, bringing the United States back in line with international law, U.S. law, the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field Manual. Despite the assertions of the Bush administration and its supporters that these “tactics” are necessary for our security these changes are two big steps in the right direction. However, important questions remain.

First is the question of what to do with the detainees. It is almost certainly true that several of these men are dangerous people who will, if released, try to harm the United States. Some may even have felt that way before being incarcerated. Clearly the first task will be to determine which prisoners are to be released outright, which are to be tried for acts which were committed in violation of U.S. or international law and, most problematically, which ones are “enemy combatants”, whose “crime” is to be on the other side in a war. What to do with these men? In a traditional war, prisoners are held until they are either swapped for their counterparts or until the war ends. However, this “war” is no more likely to end than is the “war on crime”. Also, these POWs are not just soldiers, they are ideologues committed to waging war against the U.S. (And they don’t feel pity, or pain, or remorse, and they absolutely will not stop!) So do we just detain them forever? Where? On what grounds? That they hate us?

Second, how do we move forward without dealing with the abuses of the recent past? For seven-plus years “we” acted as if the rules don’t apply to us. The protections set forth in the Geneva Conventions were “quaint”. “Enemy combatants” have no rights; not even the right to prisoner of war status. Techniques which had been recognized as torture were redefined, by Bush administration lawyers, as merely “harsh”. Perhaps most egregiously, detainees were not allowed any of the basic rights of criminal defendants; not the right to counsel, not the right to know the charges against them (often times there were no specific charges), and, most important, no right to be brought before a judge and compel the arresting agency to state its reasons for the arrest and detention.

And for what? The torture (sorry folks, that’s what it’s called), we were told, would yield valuable intelligence (as if that would even justify it). Unfortunately, as interrogation experts have repeatedly told us since this became an issue, techniques which are designed to “break” someone do not yield reliable information. These techniques are good for one thing only: forcing confessions. The North Koreans used these techniques on American POWs during the Korean War and the North Vietnamese did likewise. Their aim was to extract confessions for propaganda purposes. Is that what we were actually after? So it seems. The lack of evidence against any of these detainees is apparent. They can’t even come up with formal charges against most of them, much less a prosecutable case. So somebody decided that forced confessions would serve for evidence. Unfortunately for this scenario, even Bush-appointed judges wouldn’t allow this “evidence” to be presented.

The denial of any traditional rights of the accused was meant to ensure that nobody would ever know just what was going on there. If they don’t have to bring the prisoners before a judge they don’t have to come up with charges until later, after the “confession” has been wrung out of the “terrorist”. Simple, no?

So, what to do? We purport to be a nation of laws, do we not? When people violate our laws they are prosecuted and, if convicted, punished. This applies to everybody, yes? So if there is reasonable suspicion to believe that laws were broken in this case (there is) then an investigation should be launched and the evidence should be followed wherever it shall lead. There is little (actually no) doubt that it will lead all the way to the top level of the Bush administration. If we do not proceed with an investigation and (likely) prosecution, what, exactly will we be saying? That we believe in the rule of law, except when we don’t? That no one is above the law, except the people that are? That when the President does it (or orders someone else to do it) it’s not illegal? Can we afford to say any of these things? No!