A World We Dare to Imagine

Task: a pitch for new company that helps create a better world

Proposal:

1.     Name

ü  Adolescent Anonymous

2.     What it does?

ü  Mission: To provide safe, thoughtful, and self-supporting contexts for adolescents to share and do something about their troubles and confusions, with the ultimate purpose of a higher population of healthy teenagers and a lower rate of juvenile delinquency.

ü  A fellowship of teenagers who share their experiences, problems, and hope with each other. A shelter for the confused adolescents who are desperate to talk without causing consequences. Two of the distinguishing features are anonymity and “adults” free. The only requirement for joining the group is the will to share stories.

ü  We hold weekly meetings in various locations close to residential communities. Attenders are encouraged to wear a mask to hide their identities for the purpose of anonymity. We also provide masks by the entrance of the meeting rooms.

ü  In every meeting we invite several college students or people who have just passed their teenage confusion. They will share what they have learnt and understood during their adolescence in order to give advice as someone who has experience yet doesn’t judge or have an “agenda” of changing them. As their role is very important, we interview every one of them before meetings. Hopefully they were once the “cool kids” that may make them look more convincing and persuasive.

ü  Beside meetings, we also have many anonymous mailbox settings both online and offline. We invite and hire psychology or religious specialists to read and answer to the questions teenagers may have.

3.     Why does that?

ü  Remember when you were a teenager, did you have problems and thoughts bothering you that just wouldn’t go away but you really had no one to talk to? Adults such as parents and teachers were usually the last ones you would turn to, and you definitely didn’t want to share your stories with friends who might tell your secrets. Internet seemed like a good choice but the information there was too large in size and messy in content, making people get lost a lot.

ü  Studies show that a) unspoken worries are one of the major causes of misbehaviors; b) peer pressure especially from the people you know significantly increases your chance of risk-taking behaviors; c) “adults” opinions are very likely to trigger responses in the exact opposite direction.

4.     What is special of doing that?

ü  Due to the aforementioned reasons many adolescents nowadays rely on the Internet to share what’s on their minds and get advice from strangers. We filter out the advice from dark and twisted human beings and try to give positive influences to our attenders.

ü  With the reputation as a cool and chill institute that does not judge or represent the demanding parents and teachers (which we work heavily on via public relations techniques), we are a trustful place for confused teenagers to let go of their worries. Before anything radical or extreme action they might take, they may come to us first.

5.     Why AMDP should support?

ü  We are a non-profit that focuses on driving out the dark clouds shrouding the teenagers’ minds. We care about people because that’s what we do. We want to be helpful in the growing up process during which people are busy dreaming about a better world. We aim to make our world a better place which should not only be something we only dare to imagine.

Reading Reviews #8

The Role of Women in a Society

Maathai pointed out the fact that governments aren't doing their job. That being true, let me tell you a story which may give you another angle to look from.

As more and more places in modern China show great respect to women and treat both genders similarly, there are a lot of savage territories deep inside the mountains and forests where women are still treated like crap. A recent piece of news shock the Chinese society with a news title of <the woman married to the mountains> that tells the story about how a woman who was kidnapped and sold to a faraway village, after several failed attempts to escape and the delivery of her baby, started trying to accept her fate by really thinking what she could do in the mountains. Since she was the only educated woman among dozens of people in the village, she started to get closer to the kids and be their teacher. The only school in the village has no teacher for most of the time because the villagers couldn’t afford to hire one (you can tell from the fact that they even need to buy wives from the outside world due to the lack of women). She got more and more famous around the neighborhood and was known as “the prettiest country teacher”, but the fact that she was kidnapped was acquiesced in by the local people. Although after she had some exposure, her father called the police and tried to save his daughter from the village, the authority showed little interest in the case, considering it as “domestic dispute” and sent just a few policemen to run the task. They were blockaded by villagers who refused to let go the women because they had already paid for it. In the end she was let go with the term of not taking her child with her. She got out, escorted by the weak police force, and was terminally separated from her kid. Besides the sad experience of the woman, what makes it much worse is the title of the news “the woman who married to the mountains” which should be “the woman who was kidnapped and raped by the mountains”. However, many commenters, especially from rural areas, applauded for the woman’s “virtue”, ignoring the fact that she was a commercial to the villagers. The “inspiration” by a victim’s thorough contribution really shouldn’t be celebrated.

You may feel that the village is evil, every villager is evil, and the authority is alike. I feel the same way too. These villages are not educated, earn their income mostly from farming and other physical activities, and I think that is the main reason why their women have such a low status and why most families want boys over girls. The only duties for women in such villages are childrearing and sex providing. They are not treated as “human”. No matter they don’t have “human rights”.

Though a bold and inhumane thing to say, I have to admit that to reverse this kind of situation, propagating the idea of gender equality is absolutely useless. The women in such villages are economically useless, so how could they be equal to men? Most of them exist just to provide offspring and pleasure. As the “outside world” shows more respects to women, parents in such villages who would try to sneak their daughters out to escape from a life of being nothing, plus the culture of favoring boys over girls, resulting in the major decrease in the population of women in the village, thus giving rise to human trafficking. This is an endless, vicious loop.

Could the government subsidize the place to educate them in order to give a chance to the women there to contribute to local economy? This could work, if only the governments want to do that. People in such villages are culturally stubborn, and worse, the women have no idea that they could have a better life. If we as the outsiders do not care about them, they would never find it out.

With the belief that China (with all complications) is walking on the road that America finished years ago, and Africa today is on the road that China had done some years ago, in todays’ Africa there are much more such villages (and tribes and the alike). The underlying reason may be that most African income depends on physical activities in which men dominate due to natural gifts. Saving African women starts from saving their economic mode. Again, although most women are naturally less powerful physically than men, they are no less powerful mentally. In a healthy, fair economic mode, women could contribute an awful lot of income, and this is when their voices started to be heard. If women stay to be economically useless, how could they be treated as equal?

Reading Reviews #7

Bad, Bad Colonialism

It is interesting how African people (especially leaders and analysis) today still blame the “failed institutions, collapsed infrastructure, unemployment…” on colonialism, which serves as a scapegoat for conflicts, poverty, and dependency. Certainly colonialism could bring irrevocable harms and plant unreturnable roots in the colonized people’s culture, but there is no logic in still overreacting today. Worse, as Maathai points out, some governments inherent the way colonial people did because that’s the completed system and in that way the government could lightheartedly blame any problem on the model.

We could take a minute and try to see the problems that colonialism shed on districts from the angle of Hong Kong. It was once the British colonial and now it comes back to China. Although it now politically belongs to China, after all these years of being colonialized it already got used to the English model. Chinese government even has to agree to the “one country two system” policy which gives Hong Kong special powers and rights. The quarrels between mainland Chinese and Hong Kong people are constant, and have become a serious issue recently, perhaps because of some treacherous forces trying to split China. I’m not saying Hong Kong has turned out too well for Chinese government to take over, but the leftovers from the British people – wealth, values, operations, and even the traffic that keeps to the left – are completely different than mainland Chinese which give rise to discrepancies which generate problems in unifying and opportunities for plotting forces.

Self-consciousness – confidence if put in a positive tone or arrogance if put in a negative tone – is among the major reasons why the people can’t get along with each other; that happens everywhere. Hong Kong people believe that they are strictly capitalism which is of higher class than what mainland Chinese government advocates. Successful colonials almost have to include a successful brainwash. For African people who had been brainwashed even thru religious means, believing they are inferior, they have to find their ways to overcome “the deep cultural inferiority complex” before they can be comfortably taken over by local governments.

However, colonialism does not last. An interesting point I came up with the other day was that if the general public of the colonial could be brainwashed once, it should be possible to be brainwashed again. The main problem for Hong Kong people not accepting the way mainland leaders brainwashes them may be that what mainland governments always tell their people does not meet what Hong Kong people’s need, but mainland governments can’t just change what it always says or otherwise it could be deemed as capricious. The main problem for African, on the other hand, may be so sad that the local governments do not want to replace the inferior mindset because they can exploit it.

I read the experience of Maathai the other day and she really experienced what a lot of rightful Chinese people encountered during the messy times of China. China (with all complications) is walking on the road that America finished years ago, and Africa today is on the road that China had done some years ago. I somehow firmly believe in this pattern.

Dealer's Choice #4

Several Takeaways from UNIQLO Incident

The News

1.     UNIQLO sex video: Clip of Chinese couple having sex in Beijing fitting room goes viral – TomoNews:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xgKWTVLbXw

2.     Couple made sex video in a Uniqlo changing room and now the store has become a TOURIST ATTRACTION
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoplesdaily/article-3163909/Couple-sex-video-Uniqlo-changing-room-store-TOURIST-ATTRACTION.html

3.     Beijing Police Arrest Couple Who Filmed Uniqlo Sex Tape – Huffingtonpost News:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/beijing-police-arrest-uniqlo-sex-tape-couple_55abfa1de4b0caf721b31192

Caution

This is the point where you click on the red X in the upper right if you feel uncomfortable about this topic.  

Notes

1.     Pornography is illegal in China

2.     But people always get what they want

3.     For example, online snoops almost immediately tracked down the protagonists

4.     Turns out it was a booty call between two strangers just met in the store

5.     The video has already gone viral in all kinds of Chinese social networks. I would assume that some people’s lives are influenced

6.     For example, the couple and some circulators were arrested, because

7.     Pornography is illegal in China

Takeaways

1.     I don’t think they are the first couple who did it in the fitting room, but they are the first such couple who go viral in China. Couple of possible reasons:

a)      Doing in the fitting room is still a fantasy for many people. This couple not only realized it but also filmed and released it.

b)     The video was not made by professionals. It feels real because it is real. For some reason that gives some people arousal, which is what Realitykings does (as shown in class).

c)      Pornography is illegal in China (I have said this an awful lot of times). This makes spreading and talking about it so exciting for Chinese people.

d)     It is actually more about making fun of it than discussing it. Now that “UNIQLO” or “dressing room” is officially associated with “intercourse”, people are writing lines such as “Let’s move this party to UNIQLO”. Even the official social media accounts of fashion stores made fun of it such as “we H&M have larger, brighter fitting room, don’t go to UNIQLO anymore”.

2.     It is not illegal to have a booty call in a fitting room. It is not very unethical, either. The only blamable point is that this may occupy the room for too long (well…is it too long though?). The reason why Beijing police arrested the couple and four others is the suspect of proliferating, not doing or filming. Liberty is fine, but it should not go beyond the law, whether you think the law is outdated or not.

3.     The power of internet and the power of internet violence

a)      As mentioned above, almost immediately after the outflow of the sex tape, snoops have tracked down the protagonists, including their names, their relationship, what they do for a living, and where do they live.

b)     The UNIQLO store has become a tourist attraction. Gawkers take selfies in front of the store. Some suspected that if this is a bold way advertise, but UNIQLO firmly denied it, probably because if the police determine the company had a hand in this it could be fined up to $140k.

4.     If you want to try this yourself, check this link out. It has tips for doing this, followed by 200 comments
http://www.xojane.com/sex/ill-try-anything-at-least-once-sex-in-a-dressing-room

Reading Reviews #6

The Game between Government and its People

The Challenge for Africa is a great book that examines the challenges from a lot of different angles that special continent is facing. Due to historical reasons African continent was typically referred to as the 3^rd world. As a student from China (the 2^nd World) studying in America (the 1^st World) reading about challenges for Africa (the 3^rd World), I couldn’t help myself doing a lot of comparison while I was reading.

In the first chapter Maathai reflects the problem of unsustainable growth in Africa, using a woman she saw in Yaoundé who did a lot of subsistence farming that could do serious damages to soil and water as a microcosm of the bigger picture of Africa’s problem. I heard a lot of cases when people condemning their governments and industries or even the humankind of seeking profits by sacrificing the Mother Earth. What I perceive is that people from all over the world perform like this, to some extents. The major difference among their behaviors is the level of harming. The simplest explanation is that poorer people have fewer options in exploiting nature without doing too much of a damage, while richer people have more spaces in keeping it healthy and less environmentally detrimental. Mostly the problem is associated with the general wealth condition of the area, if you believe the regular pattern that when the country is bountiful, its citizens are civil, and when a person has met his wants, he is scrupulous. Well fed, well bred. According to Marx, mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.

Mathaai blames this situation on governments. “[I]f governments had concentrated on practical measures that helped their people rather than, at times, investing in grandiose, attention-seeking projects or misguided attempts to satisfy the demands of outside investors, often at the expense of their own peoples”… this quote makes African governments look so evil that they care less of their people than outside investors – but the thing is, what government doesn’t do that? Depending on the overall wealth condition (and thus education level) of the area, the people that form the governments all have their own agenda. They make choices balancing the need of the people and their pockets. When the general public is knowledgeable, the government has to at least look democratic and kind to compete for voters, but when the education level is low, things like “dictatorships, military juntas, oligarchies, [and] kleptocracies…” will certainly occur to make gains at the expense of the governed. In fact, the appearance of such institutes agrees with the law of jungle – “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Powerful people dominate the less powerful – if the powerful side has nothing to awe the less powerful side, it could arbitrarily hurt and exploit.

It always intrigues me how the vibe of one government comes into being. Right now, the vibe of each government just follows what it started to be, and the people who don’t want to be a member are crowded out or even kicked out by all means. If a government starts as a dictator, people who want to be kind and selfless just won’t be accepted as co-workers. If the society is full of people like this, it will be natural that the government looks like this; the fact that both government and military forces are made up of common citizens (at least before they join the unions) shows that these minority (comparing to the general public) are either the same way as their people or good at deceiving them. China has reached a point where a growing number of people (at least the educated ones) don’t believe what their government has to say so the government has to use smarter excuses to fool them, before which it only needed to brag about its accomplishments and squelched the ones with other opinions. Now most African people may still be very afraid of governmental power and the people who work for the government are so arrogant and controlling, but I think as the overall economy grows and general public more educated, the bluster on the government side will become lesser.

Expert Final Draft

How to Interpret Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Friday, June 26, 2015 was a big day for same-sex couples in the United States, as the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled 5-4 in favor of same-sex marriage across the country. This ruling granted loving same-sex couples “the dignity of marriage across this great land”, according to Obama from the White House Rose Garden.

This decision immediately aroused great reaction from the public. Rainbow motifs flooded most social media networks, often followed by intense discussions about the complications and benefits of same-sex marriage.

The Ruling

It all began with the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges. James Obergefell and John Arthur were a same-sex couple married in Maryland, but they were unrecognized when they moved to Ohio. As local courts defended the ban on same-sex marriage, Obergefell appealed to SCOTUS.

The ruling grants every same-sex couple the right to get married in every State in America. In addition, any lawfully licensed marriage in one state is legal in all other states.

Several Disputes

1. Marriage as what it was, or marriage as what it can be?

The core of this case lies in the definition of marriage. Conservatives claim that marriage should be between a man and a woman, as Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines. The majority opinion, on the other hand, claims that marriage is capable of change and it has been constantly evolving. For example, polygamy was once popular in the U.S. The law could change as well; before the 1970s, the law of coverture recognized a married couple as one person, too often ignoring the rights of the female’s side.

Why should it change, though? Sociology believes that marriage is crucial for social stability as it fulfils the functions of forming family, procreation, childrearing, etc. However, according to anthropologists, only 3% to 5% of all the mammal species are known to form lifelong pair bonds, so marriage may be against human nature. This is why it is very important for marriage to be desirable. One way to do so is to define it conforming to the current public opinions.

In short, now that the general public supports same-sex marriage, the law should allow it.

2. Is it really #lovewins?

Marrying for love is a relatively new concept emerging from the Enlightenment. For a long time in history, marriage was mostly a socioeconomic transaction. This new concept helps enrich the meanings of marriage, which enhances the social positive power and Fill the World with Love.

However, the logic of #lovewins is untenable. If love actually wins, why couldn’t people such as polygamists and incestors be allowed to marry, as long as it happens between two consenting adults? Some argue that this is a logical slippery slope. But is this analogy really an extreme hypothesis? Take incestors for example. Picturing a brother sexually appealed by his sister may make you sick. But could that be the reason for banning incest? Before 1974, homosexuality was identified as mental illness in DSM, a professional manual to diagnose mental disorders; not to mention how the story of Sodom and Gomorah discourages homosexuality. Most straight people today still feel uncomfortable picturing homosexual romance. If same-sex couples can fight their ways from being unsupported by the people to become recognized by the law, could sibling couples do the same thing? Why does the homosexual love win, while incestuous love lose? Writer John Wright wrote, “Give me an argument justifying homosexual relations on grounds which do not answer as well or better for justifying incest.”

In fact, this has been an old debate. There are many persuasive arguments, but none should be about how #lovewins. So for this ruling, love has won for sure, but some other considerations definitely won, too.

3. Equality or Freedom?

In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, nowadays marriage is deemed as a profound institution which “embodies the highest ideals of love”. All five consenting justices explained their rationale based on human dignity. They claimed that DOMA violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as legal bans on same-sex marriage would put homosexual couples in an unequal situation. “Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association”, according to the ruling.

However, there is a tradeoff between equality and freedom. This time, the improvement in homosexual people’s equality right harms some other people’s religious liberty. For example, Texas Attorney General said Texans must “act on multiple levels to further protect religious liberties for all Texans”. About one-third of Alabama counties refused to grant licenses to same-sex couples, or even shut down marriage license operations altogether. These conflicts substantiate what the four dissenting justices worried about: this ruling has “potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty”.

So which do Americans want more, equality or freedom? Typically, the two major parties represent equality and freedom respectively – Democrat advocates equality, and Republican advocates freedom. Their competition usually keeps the balance of equality and freedom for all people in the U.S. The current ruling is politically beneficial for Democrats as the subject is much more contentious among Republicans. Notice that the current President is Democrat, and he nominated two of the nine justices, both of whom are considered liberal and voted yes on the issue. Also notice that the opposing states such as Texas and Alabama are red states. Could this ruling affect the Election 2016?

Equality or Freedom? Maybe political.

4. Has SCOTUS bypassed its role?

While the five consenters focused on Equal Protection, all four dissenters warned that SCOTUS has bypassed its role this time. “Under Constitution, judges have the power to say what the law is, not what it should be,” the Chief Justice of SCOTUS, John G. Roberts, wrote in his dissent, “The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage”. In other words, “whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to [the Justices]”; “[t]he people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition”. It should be a decision made by the people of each State separately, but not by nine unelected Justices forcing the entire nation to obey.

In their understanding, the trias politica (aka separation of powers) model is designed for checks and balances, the techniques to the limit power of Congress, the President, and SCOTUS, preventing any of them from becoming supreme. Based on this fundamental principle, SCOTUS should not legislate from the bench (i.e. justices create new laws) unless it is an urgent situation, as the doctrine of judicial modesty requires. It is a very bad idea for the nine Justices to listen to the general public because they were appointed, not elected, exactly for the purpose of staying away from “public sound”. Very often, “public will” cannot represent the silent majority.

However, the five consenters considered this case similar to Loving vs. Virginia in 1967 when SCOTUS decided to allow interracial marriage, defending the “basic human right to marry”, while only 20% of Americans supported it. That ruling resulted in a more inclusive, less discriminating society. Likewise, in this case they hold that Constitution should be explained according to the background of the era – “The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions”, Kennedy wrote.

Worth mentioning, prior to Loving vs. Virginia, the interracial couple, the Lovings, were arrested twice due to the ban on interracial marriage. Therefore, the situation then was considered more urgent than what happens to homosexuals today, as U.S. citizens in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage take up about 57% in 2015.

Last Word

If you are a homosexual before the 70s, you might be identified as a psychopath; now if you are against same-sex marriage on grounds of “immorality”, you may be criticized as a bigot or a homophobe. Whichever side you take, you may want to know what you are really supporting.

Marriage protects the relationships between life partners, not the love between them. The spirit of #lovewins should be the indiscrimination toward the minorities. Every person deserves to spend his/her life with a partner, rear kids together, and share property. On this ground, getting marriage should not be anyone’s privilege.

Reference

Immigration Office FAQ about same-sex marriages:

http://www.uscis.gov/family/same-sex-marriages

Scientific views on marriage and monogamy

http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/21/opinion/laslocky-monogamy-marriage/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/12/1044639/-Marriage-is-a-Social-Contract-Not-a-Sacred-Covenant#

Justifying homosexuality without justifying incest

http://amptoons.com/blog/2009/08/13/justifying-homosexuality-without-justifying-incest/

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-it-inappropriate-to-compare-homosexuality-with-incest

The Fourteen Amendment:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

The evolution of marriage in the U.S.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/history-and-timeline-of-marriage

Public reactions to the ruling

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33292805

Roberts's dissent on Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/robertss-dissent-on-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling/1606/

Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States#cite_note-20

Reaction from the Deep South

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/06/28/texas-fights-back-against-gay-marriage-ruling/

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/jun/29/some-alabama-counties-give-gay-marriage-licenses-others-refuse/312161/

The nine judges of SCOTUS

http://www.voanews.com/content/a-look-at-the-nine-us-supreme-court-justices/1275442.html

Legislating from the bench

http://harvardpolitics.com/online/legislating-from-the-bench/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-black/supreme-court-policy_b_2166780.html

What is Wrong with the New Right of Marriage?

http://humanevents.com/2015/07/02/what-is-wrong-with-the-new-right-of-marriage-obergefell-v-hodges/

How could same-sex marriage affect religious liberty?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/13/same-sex-marriage-religious-freedom_n_1202862.html

Reading Reviews #5

Self-Sufficiency?

It goes without saying that Korten is all against Wall Street, as the primary task of his agenda for a new economy is to tear it down, and the main reason is that Wall Street is everything opposite to Main Street which produce real property comparing to the fake, illusionary numbers of whatever counting methods like GDP. I get that Korten speaks for the People, and he means well, but at the same time I also think that he has deep bias toward the home of New York Stock Exchange which blinds him from finding out the upside of Wall Street…

Let’s see what he suggests for ordinary people (the general public from Main Street, as he refers to) to do in order to resist Wall Street.

                      The first step in making a personal contribution to creating

                      the New Economy is to take control of your life and

                      declare your independence from Wall Street by joining

                      the voluntary simplicity movement and cutting back on

                      unnecessary consumption. Beyond that, shop at local

                     independent stores where possible and purchase locally

                     made goods when available. Make the same choices

                     as to where you work and invest to the extent feasible.

                     Do your banking with an independent local community

                      bank or credit union. Pay with cash at local merchants to

                      save them the credit card fee. Pay your credit card balance

                      when due and avoid using your credit card as an

                     open line of credit.

Declare your independence from Wall Street? I really don't think that’s easy. I don't even think that’s possible. Everything is in the chain in which Wall Street stands somewhere at the top with the government. If Wall Street and Washington are collaboratively running a secret government, how would the behaviors of ordinary people help? Not to mention that it is not very realistic to unite the general public in doing something that’s against the human nature like cutting back on consumption and shopping only at local stores. Paying with cash makes our life more inconvenient, and not borrowing from the bank is a variation of stealing from us in forms of assets available and taxes payable. The existence of Wall Street is not merely the plots designed to harm people, but it expediently answers the human nature of a lot of people.

What’s more, because of the operation of Wall Street, although crisis occurs now and then, the U.S. economy stays at the top among the world for a reason. Look at Greece which provides its people with tremendous welfare and holds debts all the time. I’m no expert but it seems to me that they are running on the Main Street schema.

Expert Assignment Draft

Critical Thinking on Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Friday, June 26, 2015 was a big day for same-sex couples in the United States, as Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled 5-4 in favor of same-sex marriage across the country. This ruling granted “loving same-sex couples the dignity of marriage across this great land”, said Obama from the White House Rose Garden.

This decision immediately aroused storms from the public – both supporters and opponents. Rainbow motif flooded most social media networks, often followed by intensive discussions about the right-or-wrong on this topic. This article aims to provide a comprehensive, neutral guideline of how to interpret this ruling.

The Ruling

It all began with the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges. This lawsuit was about a same-sex couple, James Obergefell and John Arthur, married in Maryland became unrecognized in Ohio where they moved back to live. Arthur was terminally ill with ALS, and they wanted the Ohio Registrar to identify Obergefell as the patient’s surviving spouse on his death certificate. After a long juridical process, local courts turned them down, defending the ban on same-sex marriage. Obergefell then filed documents to ask SCOTUS to reconsider the case. This time, the rulings was in their favor.

Because of the ruling, every same-sex couple now have the right to get married in every state of America. States like Ohio, Michigan, and Arkansas which previously banned same-sex marriage started to issue such marriage certificates. In addition, every lawfully licensed marriage in one state is legal in all other states.

 The Disputes

1. What on earth is marriage? Is it capable of change?

The core of this case lies in the definition of marriage. Conservatives claim that marriage should be between a man and a woman, as Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines. The majority opinion, on the other hand, claims that marriage is capable of, and has been in a process of constant evolution along with the social customs. For example: polygamy was once popular in the U.S.; before the 1970s, coverture required that a married couple is recognized as one person (usually the male).

History shows that the emergence of marriage was to secure the environment for the continuation of the species, protecting familial property and offspring by regulating sex activities. Sociology claims that marriage is crucial for societal stability, so society wants more people to get married. This is why it is very important for marriage to become desirable, as, according to anthropologic/biologic theories, marriage is against human nature (only 3% to 5% of all the mammal species are known to form lifelong pair bonds). That is to say, the definition of marriage ought to agree with the current public opinions.

2. The importance and the problems of #lovewins

Similar to the SCOTUS 5-4 ratio, U.S. citizens in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage take up 57% in 2015. For the majority, this decision is laudable; people from all over the places are celebrating using the hashtag #lovewins.

In fact, marrying for love is a relatively new concept beginning with Enlightenment. For a long time in history, marriage was mostly a socioeconomic transaction. The new concept is generally beneficial in helping marriage be more likeable, although issues such as infidelity arise. At the very least, #lovewins enhances the social positive power and encourages people to strive for success.

However, the logic of #lovewins is not completely safe. If love actually wins, polygamists, incestors, or any other minor group should be allowed to marry. Take incestors for example. The largest reasons to ban a brother from marrying his sister are immorality and possible defective posterity. Likewise, before 1974 homosexuality was identified as mental illness and documented in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); not to mention how the story of Sodom and Gomorah views homosexuality. As for the posterity issue, heterosexual couples may also produce defective offspring, and homosexual couples could not produce offspring – what’s the stand? If the legalization of near-relation marriage comes with a ban on them producing offspring, would the public concur then?

3. Equality or Freedom?

As Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, nowadays marriage is deemed as a profound institution which “embodies the highest ideals of love” that “may endure even past death”. All five consenting judges explained their rationale based on human dignity and freedom. They claimed that DOMA violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteen Amendment, as legal bans on same-sex marriage would put homosexual couples in an unequal situation. “Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association”, said the decision.

However, equality is not always as beautiful as it sounds. There is actually a tradeoff, also a bone of contention, between equality and freedom – equality limits freedom, and freedom hurts equality. An example related to the current issue would be the Deep South’s reaction: for example, Texas Attorney General said Texans must “act on multiple levels to further protect religious liberties for all Texans”; About one-third of Alabama counties refused to grant licenses to same-sex couples, or even shut down marriage license operations altogether. It is obvious that as the improvement in some people’s equality right harms some other people’s religious liberty. In fact, this was one of the reasons the four dissenters held: this ruling has “potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty”.

To think politically, the two major parties exactly represent the two sides: Democrat advocates equality (e.g. Obamacare), while Republican promotes freedom (e.g. free market capitalism). As president Obama is Democrat, and two of the nine judges were nominated by Obama (both are liberal and voted in favor of the ruling), could this ruling be a political arm of the federal government reaching into the rights of each State and its people? Could it be serving for the 2016 Election? Apparently this verdict is good for Democrat. For now, most Republican expressed opposition.

4. What’s SCOTUS’s duty?

While the five consenters focused on Equal Protection, the four dissenters all warned that SCOTUS this time has bypassed its role. “Under Constitution, judges have the power to say what the law is, not what it should be,” said John G. Roberts in his 29-page dissent, “The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage…our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage”. In other words, they don’t hold against same-sex marriage, but they disagree to interpret Constitution in this way.

This ruling could be viewed as a dangerous signal. In usual days, under the trias politica (aka separation of powers) model of governance, Congress is the Legislative, President is the executive, and SCOTUS is the Judicial. The Congressional legislative procedure is a long journey: a bill passed by both houses of Congress moves on to the president, who has the right to veto, yet Congress could veto that veto. The complex process and all other checks and balances techniques ensure stability by preventing any branch from becoming supreme. However, SCOTUS always has the right to rule, and by creating precedent for the law, it indirectly makes new laws, aka “legislating from the bench”. Such ruling cannot be vetoed by any party – not by President, nor by Congress.

Therefore the four dissenters called it dangerous. Frankly speaking, SCOTUS does need the power to make laws in order for setting precedents and challenging questionable laws. Similar to why the concept of marriage should evolve, some laws should too develop with times. However, overusing this power even a little bit could jeopardize the credibility of the whole system because it is very easy to do so. That is why SCOTUS judges subscribe to a doctrine of judicial modesty – it requires the unelected nine judges form the least democratic branch to overrule what the other two democratic branches have decided only when the situation is urgent, e.g. the conflict between a law and Constitution is strong and clear, but not when the judges simply have different preferences or understandings on the subject matter. However, this time SCOTUS does not apply judicial modesty but instead it allows nine unelected persons, most from NYC, to convey their own opinions and force all 50 States to obey.

However, the five consenters considered this case similar to Loving vs. Virginia in 1967 which overturned bans of interracial marriage. At that time, the ruling not only ignored history but also went against the public opinions (only 20% of Americans were in favor of marriage between white and black people). However, SCOTUS thought that those bans violated the basic human right to marry which was the Court’s responsibility to protect. Many states started to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples after that ruling, and the public support toward interracial marriage steadily increased and reached majority in the 1990s. As for now, the five consenters believed that the current ruling not only protects the basic right of the few, but also flows with the public consensus. In their opinions, Constitution should be explained according to the background of the case – “The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions”, Kennedy wrote.

But why, then, the ruling of Loving vs. Virginia was 9-0, while the current one was 5-4? Further questions remain to be answered beyond the purpose of this article.

5. Coming back: how should we interpret this ruling?

…to be continued

                                                                        …and abridged

Immigration Office FAQ about same-sex marriages:

http://www.uscis.gov/family/same-sex-marriages

Scientific views on marriage and monogamy

http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/21/opinion/laslocky-monogamy-marriage/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/12/1044639/-Marriage-is-a-Social-Contract-Not-a-Sacred-Covenant#

The Fourteen Amendment:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

The evolution of marriage in the U.S.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/history-and-timeline-of-marriage

Public reactions to the ruling

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33292805

Roberts's dissent on Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/robertss-dissent-on-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling/1606/

Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States#cite_note-20

Reaction from the Deep South

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/06/28/texas-fights-back-against-gay-marriage-ruling/

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/jun/29/some-alabama-counties-give-gay-marriage-licenses-others-refuse/312161/

The nine judges of SCOTUS

http://www.voanews.com/content/a-look-at-the-nine-us-supreme-court-justices/1275442.html

Legislating from the bench

http://harvardpolitics.com/online/legislating-from-the-bench/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-black/supreme-court-policy_b_2166780.html

What is Wrong with the New Right of Marriage?

http://humanevents.com/2015/07/02/what-is-wrong-with-the-new-right-of-marriage-obergefell-v-hodges/

Reading Reviews #4

Chicken soup of soul?

The evolution of human species to become intellectual enough to form civilized communities in general diminishes the cruelty of nature. People are different from animals because “life is equal” now. However, as civilization weakens the law of jungle, it cannot be eliminated. Still, 20% of people possess 80% of total wealth. Still, people are ambitious and competitive about resources. Still, people are greedy.

Absolute fairness is hopeless and meaningless. In fact, the concept of “fairness” is yet to be defined. People from various timelines realize this as their instinct so they fight their ways to compete for resources, under different rules. That’s how most people pass on the gene of greed and always ask for more.

Indeed many people have forgotten to do the best in exploiting what they already have but instead they just keep attempting to grasp more. If everyone can pause to consider how s/he’s living with what s/he has got, and whether her/his money practices is serving her/his soulful commitment, the entire humankind could probably refresh itself.

Korten mentions that current economy is not helping the general public in terms of health and happiness. That’s why he is looking for a new economy. I do value his efforts but I really don’t think building a new economy will work, putting aside the low possibility that it would succeed.

As I assumed that the problem is humanity, I’d suggest that the solution is also humanity.

What we can’t change is the rules that are already set. What we can’t do is to outsmart Wall Street people and prevent them from stealing our money. Although this sounds like losers, but what we can do is to change our mindsets.

We need to shift our attention from earning excessive money to make good use of what we have and turn it into high-quality experiences and memory. Money sometimes represent capability and charm, but it can never represent soul; making good use of what is already there can. Money, as an invention our ancestor created to make collaboration easier, is duty-bound to carry meanings and values from here to there. Allocation is mostly better than accumulation, and we are educated to enjoy the pleasure of sharing.

Now, I get that it really sounds like chicken soup of soul, which will be considered as losers for some aggressive people. They may argue that thinking how to make use of what you have rather than pursuing more shows your lack of the ability to pursue more, and so you comfort yourself by praises and beautiful moral adjectives. Well, if you are among the Wall Street geniuses, you are welcome to think that way, as if I had any method to stop you. However, if you are not that ambitious, or if you don’t want to be like them, I would suggest you consider what you have prior to what more you want.

The rationale is not something like “in that way you will find the finest of your innermost soul”, but it is the best outcome of what you can get.

It is also the mentality, the atmosphere, the aura that the country, even the human species, needs to change.

People are competitive. Again, many people don’t like hearing sayings like “you don’t need that much money; you just need a good heart” because that’s for losers. What they don't realize is that this thought could be very detrimental. They could get lost.

So my point is, let the economy stays what it is. Yes, GDP can’t measure the quality of life, but is it really better if we add “quality of life” into consideration when we calculate economy? Will Wall Street greedy merchants suddenly become super nice and start to consider other people’s wellbeing over their profits?

Some may say at least the government will pay more attention to people’s quality of life instead of the dry GDP. That will be a whole new topic about the relationship between a government and its people.