Okay, two final items. This is it. I promise.

Those whacky Christians.

Bush's Push for Marriage Falls Short for Conservatives

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: January 15, 2004

Some major conservative Christian groups said yesterday that they were pleased but not satisfied by a new White House initiative to promote marriage, and they stepped up pressure on President Bush to champion a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage in his State of the Union speech next week.

"This is like lobbing a snowball at a forest fire," said Sandy Rios, president of Concerned Women of America, one of the largest conservative Christian advocacy groups. "This administration is dancing dangerously around the issue of homosexual marriage."

The conservative Christians' insistence on an amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage may put President Bush in a political bind as he starts his re-election campaign, caught between wooing potential swing voters and turning out his core evangelical supporters. Some conservative strategists warn that pushing to amend the Constitution to prohibit same-sex unions could turn off some potential Republican voters like suburban women, who might find excessive talk about the perils of same-sex marriage as intolerant, mean-spirited or weirdly obsessive.

"I think there are a lot of people that don't want to endorse a lifestyle contrary to their personal values, but they want to be tolerant," said Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster who is working with the Bush re-election campaign, "and quite frankly they don't like being put in a position where they look to be intolerant." More at link

Christians, particularly of the 'born-again' ilk are very intolerant creatures. They'll tell you that they're against homosexual unions, or homosexual anything because it says it's an 'abomination' in the Bible. Well, so is eating shellfish. And the big invisible sky guy's handbook doesn't tell you which is worse.

The real reason that Christians are against homosexual unions is that it doesn't produce new little minds to be molded to believe in 2000 year old myths. They may not know this, and don't count on any moments of cognitive dissonance. These folks are happy believing that they're doing that sky guy's work. I wonder if they'll do my work?

********

Also from the NYT:

Bush's Power to Plan Trial of Detainees Is Challenged

Ed: It really wasn't my idea to put 'Bush and 'challenged' in the same headline..honest!

By NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 — Five uniformed military lawyers assigned to defend detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have filed a brief with the Supreme Court, challenging the basis of President Bush's plan to use military tribunals without civilian court review to try some of the detainees there.

In their 30-page brief, filed late Wednesday, the lawyers assert that President Bush worked to "create a legal black hole" and overstepped his constitutional authority as commander in chief in the way he set up the program for military tribunals.

The administration has argued that the 660 detainees at Guantánamo are not only illegal enemy combatants who are not entitled to protections of international law, but that they are also not entitled to United States constitutional protections because the naval base, on the southeastern tip of Cuba, is not on United States territory.

As such, the government says, the prisoners may not petition the civilian courts for any relief like filing habeas corpus petitions in which people under arrest challenge their detentions before federal judges.

The government has tried to create a military tribunal system thoroughly insulated from the civilian court system. But in their brief, which civilian and military legal experts consider extraordinary because the defense lawyers are military officers challenging their commander in chief's authority, the lawyers are, in effect, trying to jump over the fence into the civilian system.

"Under this monarchical regime, those who fall into the black hole may not contest the jurisdiction, competency or even the constitutionality of the military tribunals," the defense lawyers wrote. They said they were not taking a position on whether the president may deny habeas corpus to people simply detained at Guantánamo, but once he puts them before a tribunal as the government is contemplating, "he has moved outside his role as commander in chief."

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, who represents one of two detainees who have been assigned lawyers, said in an interview that though the brief was extraordinary, "It was unavoidable as part of our duty to represent the interests of our clients."

The brief was filed after the justices agreed to review the constitutionality of the Guantánamo detentions, which have been upheld by lower courts.

Other briefs objecting to the detentions include one on behalf of 175 members of the British Parliament who said "the exercise of executive power without possibility of judicial review jeopardizes the keystone of our existence as nations, namely the rule of law."

The Guantánamo situation has been a major irritant in United States-British relations. Anthony Lester, a barrister who filed the brief, said it was unusual for so many members of both houses of Parliament to have rushed to sign the brief, including five former law lords, the rough equivalent of United States Supreme Court justices, two of them former chief law lords.

"This is a remarkable thing and it goes right across any party lines," Lord Lester of Herne Hill said, noting that the signers included many prominent Tories, Labor members and Liberal Democrats.

"One could have gotten a couple of hundred more if one had a few more days," he said.

I suppose you ought to expect the unexpected when you just make the rules up as you go along. Right on!