An Adult in the Playroom
by MikeGeneWhile it seems that most critics of ID have been busy bashing religion, attacking theistic evolutionists, and/or explaining why universities should deny tenure to scientists who accept some form of ID, I did run across the comments of a couple who showed a sense of thoughtfulness and ethics. One such critic was Larry Gilman, who offers a very wise observation:
Obviously, if anybody whom a college administration considers "an embarrassment to the institution" (or potentially so) is fair game for hiring discrimination, then it's open season on everyone who doesn't pray three times a day in the direction of the administration building. The fact that in everyday, real-world practice academic freedom is imperfectly protected—and comes with certain obvious hazards, like all freedoms—is no reason to zero it out. Or to rage at it when it happens to break in favor of Them. Racist or ID-bonkers physics profs who do good physics should not be discriminated against, just like left-wing linguists who do good linguistics should not be discriminated against. (With the commonsense provisos that Poirot mentions.) Universities SHOULD have to put up with "embarrassments." If they can't, they're not doing their job. Either you believe in freedom of speech for speech you loath or you don't believe in freedom of speech.
These words of wisdom actually remind me of what Behe's boss once said:
But Simon is also quick to add that he has no plans to quash intelligent design discussion or the class Behe teaches, which includes "Darwin's Black Box" as required reading.
Professors "have to believe in the free exchange of ideas," Simon said. Academicians who don't, he said, have "lost sight of what a university is supposed to be."
May 15th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Exactly.
Comment by Jehu — May 15, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
What makes you think Myers or his ilk believe in freedom of speech ?
Comment by thesciphishow — May 15, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
What makes you think Myers or his ilk doesn't believe in freedom of speech ?
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 15, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
What makes you think Myers or his ilk doesn't believe in freedom of speech?
PZ believes in freedom of speech just as long as is accompanied by the right to punish theistic offenders. Within the law of course. Shaping the law to fit one's worldview is preferable to breaking it.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Hi Bradford,
I probably shouldn't have reacted as I did. Mike has ethically put up a fair-minded acknowledgement that some on the "other side" actually share some values with "this side".
I did not like thesciphishow taking a cheap shot. Of course he felt comfortable doing that since no one in THIS blog would challenge him on it. Ok maybe one person would.
Reread P.Z. Myer's quote. His method for dealing the Theistic Evolutionists is to fill gaps in our knowledge. I suggest P.Z.Myers makes no pretense that he is presenting a balanced view. Therefore, he is acting ethically as far as I can tell.
Shall we compare PZ Myres to, say, Dembski for allowing free speech on his web site?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 15, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
I'd find it much more interesting to see what PZ would do in a forum where he espoused an unpopular view. Now he is like a speaker surrounded by a group of burly body guards that always outnumber hostile interlopers.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 12:12 am
The choice of language they use. It wasn't a cheap shot.
Comment by thesciphishow — May 16, 2007 @ 12:12 am
May 16th, 2007 at 12:50 am
Hi thesciphishow,
And "ilk" is a better choice of language?
I consider a "cheap shot" to be a short insult that doesn't take much effort to make (certainly no explaination) in a manner where it is unlikely to be challenged.
If asking a retorical question in a derogatory manner on a friendly blog isn't a "cheap shot", what would be?
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 16, 2007 @ 12:50 am
May 16th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Sure. He is a liberal after all
But it is clear based on many of his statements in the past that he has little love for free speech that he disagrees with.
As for the use of the word "ilk", consider the sorts of statements others of his "ilk" have used like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, towards religious upbringing and how such things should be outlawed.
That is an attempt to suppress ideas they disagree with and Myers has complained about that sort of upbringing before.
Comment by thesciphishow — May 16, 2007 @ 1:00 am
May 16th, 2007 at 8:04 am
just like left-wing linguists who do good linguistics should not be discriminated against.
Are there any left-wing / atheist linguists with tenure at Bob Jones University?
It seems to me that each school attract a group of professors in line with their own broad philosophy. No school is obliged to offer tenure to anybody, but we all have the freedom to set up our own schools, for example Patriot Bible University (where Kent Hovind got his degree) would surely welcome evolution dissenters who were denied tenure from schools that are embarrassed by "non-materialist science"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
You can grumble away, but what would you do to change the situation. If you were in control, would you change the system so that professors who publish views that are considered embarrassing to their peers cannot be denied tenure?
How would you cope with a hypothetical situation of an Astronomy professor who suddenly starts publishing texts on Astrology and Occult divination. Would this be sufficient grounds to deny tenure?
Thanks
Comment by salimfadhley — May 16, 2007 @ 8:04 am
May 16th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Regarding the word "ilk," I agree with TP. I have come to despise that word and I agree that is a type of cheap shot. Ditto for "sycophant."
Now, TP also wrote:
I may be close to uniquely qualified to address that, since I have run afoul of both. Dembski has banned me from both from a major listServ he moderates and from Uncommon Descent, and PZ has "disemvowled" me. In my opinion, PZ's actions are far worse.
Banning simply follows the accepted practice of reserving the right to publish what and who you want. You can send a million letters to the New York Times"”they are under no obligation to print any of them. Disemvowelling is something newspapers would never do, because it involves distorting and then printing something under a person's name in a manner they didn't intend, just to make a mockery of that person. You can imagine the uproar if the Times started printing disemvowelled letters to the editor.
Back to the tenure issue. On this I somewhat agree with PZ. There is a subjective component that sits on top of a mostly objective evaluation. Did the candidate exceed the minimum requirements? If he did not then case closed. Is the candidate obviously world-class with lots of research money? Then who cares if he is not PC, the tax on his grant (overhead) helps buy the computers for those blood-sucking philosophy professors (who generate no money, but at least they'll stop whining for a moment and use the computers to write letters denouncing their benefactor.)
But most candidates fall in the middle, and that makes them susceptible to thinly veiled subjective attacks. Take PZ. If he were coming up for tenure now, I suspect he would be in trouble. His peer-reviewed publication record is abysmal, so he won't slide in as a researcher. How did he get tenure? No doubt he met some modest publication requirement at an institution such as his. We can assume that he provided exemplary service to the college via committee work. And we can assume that his teaching evaluations were very good, because that would be the primary consideration at a teaching college. However, if you toss into that mix all the provocative things he has blogged since being tenured then, given the right mix of people at Morris, you have the real potential of a critical mass of people in the loop who might find him an embarrassment. Do we really want a professor that likens the pope to a Nazi? is the type of subjective thinking that might enter the minds of reviewers, if he was applying for tenure today. It can then manifest itself in a variety of ways, such as harping on the candidate's weaknesses where, if he were less polarizing, you might gloss over them. (And it may affect his chances of being PZ being promoted to a full professor.)
Same for me. I was tenured without a hitch. If I were coming up now, after five years of blogging"¦ who knows?
Finally, I'll rant once more on the theme that the IDers have hoisted themselves with their own petards. Had Gonzalez written The Privileged Planet even ten years earlier and come up for tenure ten years ago it might have been a different story. But if the unsavory power-play tactics of the ID movement over the last decade have left a sour taste in the mouths of people like me, i.e., scientists-Christians who are sympathetic to ID arguments, imagine how they have been received by secular faculty.
Comment by David Heddle — May 16, 2007 @ 8:04 am
May 16th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Hi, David. Are associate professorships normally tenured in Wisconsin? I ask because this isn't the case at our state universities. Thanks.
Comment by Joy — May 16, 2007 @ 8:39 am
May 16th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Joy,
I thought it fairly standard everywhere that associate professors are tenured with the following caveats:
1) An older professor might be hired, say from industry, who leveraged his experience for an appointment at the associate professor level. In that case he might spend some years at that rank until he comes up for tenure.
2) Sometimes you can get promoted to Associate Prof the year before you come up for tenure. That happened to me. After five years I was promoted. After the sixth year I was tenured. At that university the fifth year promotion, should you decide to seek it, was considered a reliable but not bulletproof harbinger of the tenure decision the following year.
The bottom line is that if someone comes up through the ranks, then being an Associate Prof is highly correlated with being tenured.
By the way, I know nothing of Wisconsin specifically"”I'm not sure why you asked about it.
Comment by David Heddle — May 16, 2007 @ 8:57 am
May 16th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Thanks, David. I asked because you indicate PZ has tenure, so I wondered how come he's still an associate prof.
I have a friend who is finally leaving Kent State where he's realized he's unlikely to get tenure until he's gray-headed. Fine arts departments don't bring in much money - though he does get grants for projects - and full professorships are few. Going to where there's an open track.
Comment by Joy — May 16, 2007 @ 9:41 am
May 16th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Joy,
Are you sure you're not confusing assistant and associate professors?
Comment by Nick — May 16, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Well, since this conversation has veered off track, could you fill in the rest of us? I assumed that if one taught at a university full-time for a set number of years, one automatically came up for consideration for tenure, regardless of whether one was a lecturer, assistant prof., associate prof., or prof. Obviously, I'm hopelessly in the dark. A little light, please.
Comment by Bilbo — May 16, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Huh. I thought assistants were post-grads.
Comment by Joy — May 16, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Joy:
Now you're just confusing me even more. I thought assistant profs and associate profs are both post-grads.
Comment by Bilbo — May 16, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Bilbo:
LOL!!! Oh, I'm just spreading my ignorance of everything that's not science or fine art. Post-grad assistants (who usually teach the freshmen) are those paid a stipend in addition to tuition grants for their post-graduate degrees. They also (in some fields) do the grunt-work for researches ongoing. At accelerators, they absorb most of the dose… §;o)
Associates already have their Ph.D.s, they can teach all undergrad levels, and may be on a tenure track (contracts run for different amounts of time, depending on institution).
Comment by Joy — May 16, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
I thought a post-grad meant somebody who already had their PhD. The people who teach only freshmen level were — I thought — graduate students, working on their post-grad degrees.
Comment by Bilbo — May 16, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Well, I'm confused too, Bilbo. It was a long time ago that post-grad meant a Bachelor's or Master's degree, and what I know of the art/theater world may not apply to institutions people I know have actually served as post-grads seeking higher degrees or associates seeking tenure.
Maybe Nick will enlighten us to the current situation across the board. But if someone were to refer to me as a "post-grad" back then (when it meant flunky) instead of "doctor" because I'd EARNED it the hard way, I'd have had a hissy fit!
Comment by Joy — May 16, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Don't have a hissy fit, just yet. I never got beyond a BA, so I may not understand what's going on "higher up."
Comment by Bilbo — May 16, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Bilbo:
Don't worry, Bilbo! Things may have changed. But we've been charting our grandson's college career per his wishes, and he is a CURRENT wannabe paleontologist, graduates next year this time.
His Mom is an alum of the UNC system, our local campus is UNCA. They can cover the requisites for freshman and sophomore stuff, no problem. He's then planning to transfer to UNC Chapel Hill, where they offer a geology major program with a paleontological trajectory. I've talked to the head of the Department of Geology, he says don't let grandson take any geology until he gets to Chapel Hill. He can get his general courses out of the way.
When he graduates with a B.A. in paleo-geology, he applies to grad schools that will take the paleontological training for Masters/Ph.D. Grandson has his heart set on Alberta, which happens to hire a lot of UNC-CH grads in this program…
At which point his advanced degrees will be paid for, and he'll be paid to teach undergrads. He'll be a post-grad flunky, no doubt straw-bossing undergrads at digs much of the time. When he gets his Ph.D. he'll be a post-doc. They can be flunkies too, depending on where they are and what they're doing, but often they get hired at a higher pay-and-power level at a university as an associate professor. Desirably on a tenure track.
Nick threw this monkey-wrench by suggesting I was confusing assistants with associates. I'm calling him on it, per my experience of the system, long ago as it was. I'm thinking he doesn't want to deal with the idea that PZ's not tenured.
Comment by Joy — May 16, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
May 17th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
I can only comment on titles used in the biological sciences in the U.S.
"Post-grad" is not in common use. People studying for a Ph.D. or Master's degree are "grad students." To confuse matters, when I was a student, we tended to use "graduate" as a synonym for defending one's Ph.D. dissertation, so if someone said they were a "post grad," I'd would have needed to ask whether they were post-B.S. or post-Ph.D.
People who have a Ph.D. but are continuing their training are "post docs." Some institutions refer to post docs as "research associates,' but that termology is usually restricted to Human Resources. People in the lab say "post doc." "Research assistant" usually refers to a technician.
Newly hired tenure track faculty are typically "assistant professors." Non-tenure track research faculty may be "research assistant professors."
Faculty who earn tenure are promoted from assistant to associate professor. At some later time they may be promoted to full professor, but I am more vague about how exactly that works. It isn't linked to tenure.
Caveat; This is based on what I observed at U Michigan and Duke, but I have friends who are faculty at UNC-CH, and I don't think the system is any different there.
Comment by Nick — May 17, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
May 17th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Hi Joy,
I bet you're a proud grandmom! Just curious, as a wannabe paleontologist, what is your grandson's view of ID? (If its none of my business, feel free to say so).
Comment by Aagcobb — May 17, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
May 17th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
In almost all American schools, the ranking is
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
In most schools, under most circumstances, the tenure decision comes in the beginning of the sixth year, at the assistant professor level, and tenure and promotion occur at the same time, though often there are separate votes to tenure and promote. Good people can be tenured early. One can in theory be tenured without promotion: I've seen that happen in practice exactly once, when tenure came as a result of a threat of legal action. Occasionally, people moving from one school to another are hired at the associate level but not immediately tenured, but that's also quite rare.
Ivy League and a few other schools have a longer tenure clock, and also tend to promote to associate professor without tenure. Harvard, for example, is legendary for very rarely tenuring their own junior faculty at all.
And PZ Myers is certainly tenured.
Comment by Gerard S Harbison — May 17, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
May 17th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Gerard S. Harbison, right-wing, libertarian-conservative, atheist. Now would the left-wing, progressive-liberal, atheist PZ Myers identify more with Harbison, because he is an atheist? Or would PZ identify more with me, a left-wing, progressive-liberal, theist? Poor PZ. Which one of us should get the axe first?
BTW, thanks Nick and Gerard (Gerry?) for the info. I feel so much more informed on what I missed out on when I left college.
Comment by Bilbo — May 17, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
May 17th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Because it's been in power too long, the GOP coalition is falling apart. Libertarians hate social conservatives, and vice versa. Dems, on the other hand, are past the low ebb and coming up, so they're still (comparatively) focussed on getting back into power, and more inclined to overlook differences. So you and PZ should be more inclined to get along with each other than either of you with me, or I with a conservative theist.
As a matter of fact, I get along OK with Paul. His blog has recently been more heavily weighted towards religion rather than politics, and, these days, when he writes about politics — e.g. Coulter's latest outrage — I'm usually hanging my head in shame rather than arguing.
Comment by Gerard S Harbison — May 17, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
May 17th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Hi Gerard.
In what sense are you conservative? I gather it would center on the proper role of the government, particularly with respect to individual liberties. Am I coorect?
Comment by Bradford — May 17, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
May 17th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Nick:
Well, thanks on the updated terminology. It's been awhile for me, so what do I know?
Aagcobb:
You betcha I'm a proud grandma! But then, he's known right where he was going since he was two. Never wavered, though many have tried to divert him. His particular talent with clay (was replacing his toy dino limbs with clay at two, then moved on to really amazing things) will probably get him extra bucks for exhibitions, and he can always spend his spare time (as if paleos have spare time) doing macques for digitally animated movies.
I've never asked him what he thinks about ID, and he's never asked me to explain it. He did inform us when he was just a wee guy that he was a velociraptor in his past life. So take THAT for whatever it's worth! §;o)
Comment by Joy — May 17, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
May 17th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I'm a libertarian conservative. I think government does very few things well, and so wish to see its role limited. The market is still far more efficient in most circumstances. I believe government has no role in regulating personal choices that do not directly hurt others. I am skeptical of social innovation in general, and believe long-lasting institutions mainly survive because they're useful. So, for example, I'm not a supporter of gay marriage, not for any moral reasons, but because I think the social roles marriage plays are not particularly relevant to gay relationships. In my direct experience, innovation in education has generally been a disaster.
I think Popper had it right when he called for piecemeal social change; human systems are dramatically non-linear, and so if you want to change society, you do so very slowly, and carefully monitor the response.
Comment by Gerard S Harbison — May 17, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
May 17th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
How about that Gerard. Although we have clear differences about ID and although you are an atheist and I am not, our views about the role of government, its efficacy and change are almost indistiguishable.
Comment by Bradford — May 17, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Yes, Gerard and Bradford are very close politically, though very far apart theologically.
PZ and I are very close politically, though very far apart theologically.
Yet, even though Gerard observes:
it's not clear that PZ would agree. I get the impression that he thinks there is something intrinsically evil about theists, that is even worse than conservative-libertarians.
But why, Gerard do you also say:
?
Comment by Bilbo — May 18, 2007 @ 11:05 am
May 18th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Hi Joy,
Whatever else you might think of Jurassic Park, it probably produced a large portion of the next generation of paleontologists!
Comment by Aagcobb — May 18, 2007 @ 11:28 am
May 18th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
LOL!!! Sure enough! I honestly can't remember how many times he has impatiently corrected me when I called this sauropod or that one a "Brontosaurus." He knew all the subspecies of every group - literally hundreds of them! - and could tell you its era, how big it was, who found it, how many specimens have been found, in what state of completion…
We just learned to accept his word on that stuff as much as we acknowledge he's the world's foremost expert on Star Wars Trivial Pursuit. To the point where if he can't be on our team, nobody wants to play. §;o)
Comment by Joy — May 18, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Gerard, Bilbo brings up an interesting point. Why assume that Bilbo getting along with PZ is reducible to politics and you not getting along with theistic conservatives reducible to disagreements about the existence of a deity?
Comment by Bradford — May 18, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Bradford:
Well, consistent with my latest post to the main page (complete with survey data), I'd have to say it's because politics is way more important to people these days than religion vs. anti-religion is. After all, politics does affect all of us in almost every aspect of our daily lives, whereas religion is being steadily marginalized because a lot of people are disgusted at being counted as part of a voting bloc simply based on what church they go (besides, it's against the law for preachers to tell congregants how to vote and people don't like it).
This doesn't mean PZ Myers is capable of getting along with anybody who harbors religious beliefs, of course. His thirst for political power is pronounced, but not as pronounced as his hatred of religion. He's even distancing himself lately from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party ("leftists") precisely because they don't want to make the political stakes out to be religion vs. anti-religion. IOW, they're not anti-religion ENOUGH for his tastes.
Conversely, the distance between Gerard and Bradford is more political than religious. I don't see that Gerard would want to alienate a certified libertarian just because s/he believes in God, because for him it's all about the voting bloc. Politics is more important than religion. He's just not giving the same latitude to PZ or Bilbo.
This makes Gerard more representative of what's important to people than the New Atheists are. PZ can't ever hope to have a reliable EA voting bloc bigger than the ~2% of people who embrace atheism, and most of those will align with progressives or libertarians because political power DOES count. Truth is, people in this country are free to believe as they choose. Including atheists.
Thus there's no real need to make atheism - or religion - the bedrock of any political party. This was the framers' intent and the Republicans' mistake in embracing the Religious Right for no other reason than their reliable voting bloc. They're dead in the water for the next 20 years now that everybody's sick to death of it.
Comment by Joy — May 18, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
That may be true but has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction. Gerard's actual statement is something I am comfortable with. If our differences are political then they revolve around what has not been said. Given his atheism and my theism it is reasonable to expect differences. It is not reasonable to assume that I would want the government to assume a role in promoting my theistic values. In fact I abhor the use of government to promote anyone's values theistic or otherwise which is a good reason to ponder whether it is actually true that the GOP is DOA. Democrats cannot resist the temptation to remake society according to their own values. It does not matter that they can be classified as not part of a religious agenda. If they are imposed on me they are just as odious. Gerard and others may be assuming too much in thinking that those, whose views are like my own, view the government as a vehicle to advance my personal values. Unfortunately too many opponents of the present administration mean "my values not yours" when viewing the role of government.
Comment by Bradford — May 18, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Bradford:
In so far as the GOP has manipulated the Religious Right's desires for theocratic hegemony (enacting their beliefs into law and policy), I do think they've crippled themselves. Less government doesn't include spying on all citizens, overturning Roe v. Wade, or denying equal rights and protection to gays. But it's no doubt Jack Abramoff and the atheist Neocons who have done the most damage to the GOP. Makes 'em look pretty dumb and way too tolerant of corruption.
"Remake?" Roe is precedent several times affirmed by SCOTUS. And equal rights to domestic partnerships, hospital visitation, rights of inheritance, etc. is not a question of religious belief. It's a question of equal rights for citizens in good standing. If abortion is available to women and gays can form legal domestic partnerships, nobody's forcing you to do anything but tolerate the rights of other people. You aren't forced to abort a baby and you're not forced to be gay.
That said, everybody has to deal with what politicians force on everyone. That's why politics is more important than religion for most involved people.
[edit to correct quote]
Of course. That's what our only certifiable criminal class of overpaid professional liars DOES for a living! Nobody in their right mind trusts politicians. We the People almost always vote the lesser of evils, not the fondest wishes of our hearts.
Comment by Joy — May 18, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
There's more to it than this. Domestic partnerships are a case in point. Are there compelling reasons for them based on compassion or it it a case of who has the more powerful interest lobby? This link details some reasons why domestic partnerships ought to be broadened if compassion and respect for the rights of others is really the guiding principle. One case within the USA and another outside it illustrate that the issue of respecting the rights of others turns on who is defining what rights are. I'm as uncomfortable leaving this in this hands of secular priests as I am allowing religious ones the same power. Making it politically legitimate for the former and not the latter is not a moral principle.
IOW, if the relationship is not sexual you are screwed. See how others impose values that are not yours?
Comment by Bradford — May 18, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Bradford:
On issues of taxation of estates, I'm not sure how a case of elderly sisters in England necessarily applies (Britain having a taxation system far in excess of ours). When my sister died two weeks ago today, I was asked by her ex-husband if she had a will (there being three surviving siblings). I told him I didn't know and didn't really care, given that she has a surviving daughter - thus everything would of course go to the daughter, who is an adult, to do with as she wished. Of course, I also advised he get a lawyer for the daughter just to make sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed.
I sure didn't expect any of us sisters to complain, and none of us did. And despite being an ex-husband, none of us were in the least bit worried about him as father with the best interests of his daughter at heart to serve as her advisor in this. But then, my sister was no richer than the rest of us. A house, a car, some furniture, clothes and effects not worth a hill of beans.
Maybe if we were rich, we'd think we should inherit everything and be immune to taxation, and all upset that the government taxes estates over 5 or 10 million dollars (don't know where the current exemption is). If we were rich farmers and had 20 or 50 million dollars' worth of property, we'd probably be smart enough to form a legal partnership or corporation before we died so it wouldn't be an issue. Corporations don't pay death taxes.
If I'd been living with my sister when she died, and she had no daughter, I'd presume there would be three heirs (surviving sisters, our parents died years ago). If we were completely unable to come to some agreement about the house and car, then I guess we'd sell 'em and split it up. Though if that house and car were my only home and means of transportation, I doubt my sisters would try to take them from me.
Guess since we're not rich, we don't suffer the same paranoia of 'stuff' that others do. But no one at the hospital tried to keep ANY of us from seeing my sister when she was dying - and not a one of us lived with her, including her daughter. I hear it happens a lot to gay couples. THAT is grotesquely unfair as well as inhumane. And must be changed.
If rich old sisters in England weren't smart enough to protect their home from this eventuality then I'm afraid they're just SOL. The US is not England.
Comment by Joy — May 18, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
A case also occured in NY but location is not relevant to the overriding moral issue. Why are domestic partnerships based on a sexual relationship and exclusive of some more genuine and long lasting familial ones? There are compassionate reasons for including elderly siblings. But then again a resolution of that claim entails you and I (or a bureaucrat, judge etc.) inputting our own values into the mix. If the real objection to the religious right is their imposition of values then their opponents had better confess that their agenda entails the imposition of their own alternative value system or acknowledge that Gerard has a point about governmental intrusion. If it is intrusion only when those disagreeing with me do the intruding then I would have nothing more morally compelling than a personal complaint.
Comment by Bradford — May 18, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Bradford:
Um… because parents and children and siblings and such are all members of the same family, thus not restricted from inheritance rights or hospital visitation and such? Domestic partnerships (per my understanding) have to do with unmarried and otherwise unrelated people sharing home and property. Two sisters living together, or a parent and child living together is simply not an issue per the rights gays and unmarried partners are seeking.
If you can't pay the taxes on the estate, you'll have to sell it and pay them. That's true for everybody who is rich enough (at least on paper) to fall prey to the estate taxes. You could ask Paris Hilton when she gets out of jail, though I'd be willing to bet she (or her lawyers) has been smart enough to shelter her inheritance and she'll never pay a dime whether or not she ever marries or keeps a stable of boy-toys instead.
I know nothing about that, since no one in my family is rich enough for it to be an issue. Now, it could be that by the time my husband and I die our little homestead could be worth ten million (it would have to appreciate A LOT to get anywhere near that). By that time of course it would be paid for, if not the normal way, by way of life insurance on the mortgages.
If my daughter had to pay taxes on $10 million (we hadn't protected it some other way), I'm sure it wouldn't ruin her life. She'd come out the other side at least $6 million richer than she ever was, which is way more money than she'll ever earn in her lifetime. She could buy a nice little place of her own and be an eccentric artist the rest of her life. She won't mind.
Comment by Joy — May 18, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
You can will your property to whomever you wish. Domestic partnerships infer tax advantages. You are making a decision affecting other people's lives when you discriminate based on a sexual union. Those making the decision have decided to become moral arbiters; telling others how it should be.
It is an issue when the institution confers advantages not legally available to others. Not all elderly siblings are well off.
Comment by Bradford — May 18, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
That brings up a point missed the first time around. The issue of marriage/domestic partnerships is largely one of definition and who gets to define it. That being the case, it makes sense to accord everyone a fair shot at whatever advantage is being sought- or get the government out of the business entirely but let people live together as they wish.
Comment by Bradford — May 18, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Bradford:
Then sisters and brothers have no problem with inheritance, right?
Well, gays would like to form committed, monogamous relationships with each other and all advantages/ disadvantages that come with it. So do unmarried (traditionally) cohabitating serial monogamists, including dependent benefits like insurance. I can't honestly imagine a situation where I'd want to 'marry' my sister or brother, or why I'd need to. Simply incorporating or forming a business partnership does the same thing per property protection. There are no doubt other loopholes, since I don't ever recall rich people paying as much of their wealth in taxes as the rest of us.
I have gay friends, and friends who have had gay relatives. One inherited half of his uncle's estate when the uncle died a few years ago. Shared it with his uncle's partner, with whom the uncle built the estate and lived in a loving relationship for many years.
They did take legal steps to protect the estate and make sure it went where they wanted it to go. There have always been means to that end. What gays want is not to have to do that, they want the same social ASSUMPTION of rights that married couples get, for the $10 license fee.
Sisters and brothers don't need that for social acceptance. They have the traditional legal remedies, and should avail themselves of 'em if their joint holdings are greater than $10 million. At that level, you can afford a lawyer.
Comment by Joy — May 18, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
You can will your property to whomever you wish.
Nobody has an issue with inheritance. The issue was with the tax on inherted property.
It is an issue when the institution confers advantages not legally available to others. Not all elderly siblings are well off.
You do not have to. Since marriage was redefined to include something other than a man and a woman and since domestic partnerships are a legal creation, the process can be continued in order to ensure any advantage, tax or otherwise, that two people living together should have. If it is about relationships then let it truly be so or stay out of the business of using the government to effect social change.
Comment by Bradford — May 18, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Bradford:
And when exactly did this happen, Bradford? Last I recall, there are only a couple of states that recognize gays' right to wedlock, and the rest of the states plan to violate the 14th in order to ignore it should that couple relocate.
What I get from your complaint is the problem people who inherit more than $10 million have keeping all of it without paying any taxes. If the first $10 million is exempt, and the inheritor can't afford taxes on what is greater-than, I don't have a problem with them having to cash out, first $10 million free.
And I'm not getting your issue with the sisters. If sister #2 gets the house when sister #1 dies, there are also ways - in THIS country - to ensure that taxes aren't levied until after the death of the survivor, providing there are no other survivors (other siblings or children and grands). England may be different, I honestly don't care what their system is.
People in THIS country have to divest themselves of all property assets - even get divorced - in order to get basic health care if they've a need and happen to own a substandard house. I've known several long-married couples who had to divorce (giving the house to the spouse) in order to have long term care for serious disability covered. Forcing divorces for financial reasons seems worse to me than allowing gays to get a $10 marriage license.
When the government stops standing in the way of gays and cohabitants getting the same rights and/or disadvantages as others, we can both celebrate then.
And while I'm at it, I think the government should recognize all dependency relationships for tax purposes, instead of cutting it off at 18 when the bills go UP (and later, if your children or parents are disabled). But then, I guess you'd call that "using the government to effect social change."
Meanwhile, if you're really worried about taxes on your estate, you can adopt me (I'm an orphan). I'll hire a lawyer and keep my share, I promise!
Comment by Joy — May 18, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
You're right. There are a handful of states and the list is growing but there is no right to wedlock. It is a matter of law.
That would be a difficult case to make in court.
My own view is that children have rights too and a healthy environment for them includes role models of each sex. The reason Bush is so low in the polls is that his policies have alienated moderates and conservatives like me as well as his natural opposition. Noone likes being dictated to by special interest groups be they on the left or the right. Those who hate Bush because of the religious right should level with America and let the rest of us know if the real problem was not moral arrogance but rather the wrong foot on the pedal.
Comment by Bradford — May 18, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Bradford:
Then it's a social issue entirely. My husband joined the Navy when his draft number came up in the Christmas lottery (1970). We already had a child and one on the way by then. I got my dependent ID by getting my picture taken for the card, and that was that. No one in 37 years has ever demanded to see that danged marriage license, which we bought for $3 at the time and I've no idea if we still have a copy anywhere.
Don't tell me gays get the same benefit if one of them joins the military (and regardless of any children not the military applicant's own). Divorced and remarried (no matter how many times) heterosexuals are covered, as is the entire amalgam brood. It's simply not so for gays - we're still in "don't ask, don't tell" mode. And the military is as government as it gets.
Not everybody's got the millions it takes to get a case to the SCOTUS, and ACLU doesn't do favors if you're the "wrong color." Most localities honestly don't care how people live so long as they're law-abiders. It's perks that come automatically from government and business and health care (such as it is, LAST in the industrialized world) that are denied to non-traditional families. There's no good reason for it.
That's nice. Not everybody gets that though, and that's okay too. All you can do is be there for your children. Volunteer for others if it's important to you that kids have male role models when there aren't any in-family.
Good. It's about damned time he alienated somebody besides me. I had a big problem right from the git-go because he couldn't speak in complete sentences or pronounce three-syllable words. It doesn't feel all that good to say "I told you so" when it was so obvious he was substandard all along.
Moral arrogance (and political arrogance, and judicial arrogance) is plenty enough. I never wanted Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or Ralph Reed or any of 'em running America. They don't even do a very good job running their own churches. Bush was THEIR surrogate, not mine. It's way too late to worry about whether he's just the "wrong foot." The damage is done.
Comment by Joy — May 18, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
My own view is that children have rights too and a healthy environment for them includes role models of each sex.
It's more than nice. It is the key issue for me and some others too. I do not care that gays live together. They already have that right. They should enjoy other niceties already mentioned- freedom from harassment in and outside the military, good health care benefits etc. A good reason for not endorsing government sanction of gay marriage though is adoption.
Comment by Bradford — May 18, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
May 19th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Bradford:
So when you said,
…you meant "personal values I don't want them to advance"?? What have you done to promote good male role models for the millions of children of divorce, who never see their fathers again and are never supported by them? That guy who inherited his uncle's estate was in that situation. His father abandoned him and his mother. His uncle was his male role model and supporter ever since he could remember.
No, he didn't turn out gay. He loved his uncle and was loved in return. Then there's kids who do get to see their fathers on weekends because Mom decided she was gay after all. Are they not enough of a role model for your tastes?
There's all kinds of real trouble out there in real society, Bradford. Not a bit of it can be legislated out of existence, but We the People could care to do more. More than half the children in this country are in a single parent household (usually Mom). More than 40 million of them live in poverty because women still earn a fraction of what men earn just because they're guys. They have no access to health care (such as it is) either, and are "food insecure" (go hungry) as often as they don't.
There's a lot to be ashamed of about our society. You say it's a moral issue, and I agree. I just don't think legislating morality is the answer. Mostly because it never has worked, and I'm not seeing that anything about human nature has changed recently.
So you could prevent my friend the lesbian's partner from adopting her two children if their father died? They don't need you to make such decisions for them, Bradford. They're entirely capable of making their own decisions. The kids will be fine.
If I were flippant, I'd say it's none of your business. In fact, I'll go ahead and say it's none of your business. We should probably let this drop now.
Comment by Joy — May 19, 2007 @ 12:14 am