Living in Austin, Texas, a university town, I have over the years been bombarded in debates regarding this Sabra and Shatila massacre. However, when I mention the "War of the Camps," a horrendous and bloody battle of attrition between the Syrian-backed Shi'a Amal militia and Palestinian factions that took place in the same camps beginning in 1985, all I get are blank looks. The War of the Camps perhaps cost as many as 3,000 lives (the exact number will never been known because of the widespread destruction throughout the camps, the large displacement of the population, and blockades that barred even the Red Cross/Crescent from gaining access to the camps). The war was marked by atrocities committed by all sides, from claims of patients being dragged from hospital beds and executed to children dying of malnutrition and dehydration because fighters would not even allow the most basic relief supplies to pass through their lines. Yet, I never see anything about Syria being called to account for its role, or hear about any former Amal militia man making a movie to explore his particular guilt, for these Sabra and Shatila massacres.

What Wingnut, either purposely or out of ignorance, or, I guess, possibly out of purposeful willful ignorance, fails to note is that there are two types of marriage in this country, One is marriage by religious ceremony and the other is civil marriage, in which the government recognizes certain unions and grants the participants specific legal rights and obligations. Individuals may marry pursuant to the tenets of their religion and, while this marriage may be valid within their faith, without some form of civil marriage (by license, common-law, etc.), their union will not be recognized by the state. On the other hand, a couple may marry civilly pursuant to state law, and the union will be recognized by the state for legal purposes, even if the couple chooses not to have the marriage solemnized through religious ceremony. While a state may regulate who is eligible to marry under civil law (and one would hope such regulation would be based on reason and not religious angst or prejudice), a state is barred under the constitution from dictating any form of religious marriage. The state, however, can refuse to recognize a religious marriage that violates it laws, and even prosecute the participants. Therefore the state can refuse to recognize the marriage of a man to a young child, despite the fact the participants were married pursuant to the tenets of their religion, and even prosecute the man for rape. Currently, gays and lesbians are already being married throughout the country, via religious ceremony, but, except for a few states, they cannot be married civilly. As an attorney, I think see no legitimate reason for a state to deny civil marriage to gays and lesbians. It would help answer and clarify many legal issues, such as medical decisions, inheritance, custody (yes, homosexual relationships can involve children!), division of property, etc., but would have no impact on religious marriages. And because Western family law is already based on the idea of a couple entering into civil marriage, extending civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples would not even require any extensive rewriting of existing statutes (in fact, many state laws already have substituted "spouse" for "husband" or "wife"). Frankly, I think the idea of a civil "marriage" is outdated; just change the name to "domestic contract" for everybody, and, instead of issuing a marriage licenses, require the partners to sign a contract setting out their marital duties and obligations under the state law. It would not be "destroying marriage," because religious marriages would still exist, but it would get the loaded word "marriage" out of the civil law. Unfortunately, the Wingnuts of the world would never allow it.

Back in 2006, a trio of men claiming to be libertarians settled in Loving County here in Texas, the emptiest and least populated county in the state, with the stated plan of taking over the county by encouraging libertarians to move there and run for various county offices. Among this group's stated goals was to "stop enforcement of laws prohibiting victimless acts among consenting adults such as dueling, gambling, incest, price-gouging, cannibalism and drug handling." Before all these neo-Peter Pans move out to their private MAN-made island, maybe they should first resolve the question of consensual cannibalism. Or, perhaps it might be better for us if they did not. . . .

I recall that in one of his books, neurologist Oliver Sacks wrote about a case history of a judge, who, following a brain injury, lost the ability to feel emotions, although his intellectual capabilities remained intact. While one would think that a judge lacking empathy would be the ultimate in impartiality, sort of a super judge, instead, this judge ended up resigning from the bench. He told Sacks that he could no longer sympathetically enter into the motives of each of the parties, and that because judging involved this sort of empathy, not merely pure logic, the judge felt he was no longer qualified for the bench,