The Straight Answer about Gay Marriage

Unless you live under a rock, you know gay marriage is today's hot button issue. A few lawsuits are pending at the US Supreme Court which will decide the issue.

Basically, Plaintiffs allege denial equal protection law because of discrimination based on sexual preference. Meanwhile, states claim they are allowed to enact legislation governing who may marry.

These cases reached the 6th circuit, which upheld the bans on gay marriage. Now it rests in the hands of the US Supreme Court.

That's the current legal situation. You could read that anywhere. I'm interested in the current public opinion.

Most know I drafted the Fairness Ordinance for the City of Vicco, which made national headlines. Most also know I'm a straight man in favor of gay marriage. So people often engage me in debate/discussion about gay marriage. In the end, people almost always find they don't oppose the legal concept of gay marriage.

Almost every objection to gay marriage is based on religious or moral concerns. But really that doesn't matter in terms of equal treatment under the law.

Most everyone agrees throwing someone out of a restaurant based on their sexual orientation, gay or straight, would be wrong. In fact, many people think that's already illegal; although its generally not. People almost always see the issue with this scenario; and why it isn't fair.

Apply that to marriage. Its the same scenario. Certain states, including Kentucky, refuse to issue marriage licenses to certain people; based solely on sexual orientation. This is inherently wrong, just like the restaurant example.

Once opponents realize there is a separation between the religious/moral objection and the legal objection; they gain clarity. Maybe they don't become proponents of gay marriage. But they stop being opponents; which is a huge step.

"Stingray" devices: Are your rights being violated?

The Washington Post has a very informative article discussing new "stingray" devices used by law enforcement (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/secrecy-around-police-surveillance-equipment-proves-a-cases-undoing/2015/02/22/ce72308a-b7ac-11e4-aa05-1ce812b3fdd2_story.html).

Basically a stingray mimics a cell phone tower. It tricks YOUR cell phone into thinking it's connecting to the tower. Instead, your phone actually connects to a device that can take whatever information from your phone they want. It can also be used to track your location. It all happens without your knowledge.

The picture is from the article,  and is a great illustration of how the stingray works.

To date, Im not aware of any reported rulings one way or the other regarding 4th amendment or other constitutional issues surrounding stingrays. For now, the issue appears to be undecided.

Eastern Kentucky: Modern Day Parable.

Over the past week, life in Kentucky, and most specifically Eastern Kentucky, has been especially difficult. Massive snow, impassable roads (some still impassable, even a week later), water outages, power outages, grocery shortages, floods, ice, etc. It made me recall an article published in June of 2014 by the New York Times which labeled Clay County, Kentucky as the toughest place to live in the US (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/upshot/where-are-the-hardest-places-to-live-in-the-us.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0). I still disagree with the article, but it feels awfully accurate at the given moment.

Of course the weather is beyond anyone's control. Yet the secondary effects (ie the water, power, and roads) are within a reasonable amount of control by federal/state/local leaders. The amount of water outages that go on across the region are inexcusable. The 10 years I had my practice in Hazard, seemingly one in every ten days the city was under a "boil water advisory". Not long ago residents of Hindman, Kentucky went an extended period of time without water. Even worse? Parts of Eastern Kentucky still await public water/sewage. It's 2015. This just is not acceptable. 

What can be done? Who can help? Enter: SOAR (Shaping Our Appalachian Region). SOAR is a political creation that burst onto the scene just following the economic collapse of the coal industry in Eastern Kentucky; and was a welcome sign of hope. For reasons described above, one would naturally assume infrastructure would be the primary, and immediate goal. Wrong. Their first announced target was high speed internet, in an attempt to draw companies to the area.

This prompted memories of Sunday school class, and the parable of the wise and foolish builders. Essentially one built on a foundation of rock, so his structure was sturdy. The other built on a foundation of sand, so everything he built thereafter was weak. The gist: one must build on a solid foundation. While some readers may reject biblical concepts, surely this lesson is one we can all accept as logically sound.

Another application is Occam's Razor. A shortened explanation of Occam's Razor states "the simplest answer is often correct". It was conceived sometime between 1287-1347 AD. Both the parable and the Razor are as true today as they were 1000+ years ago.

Then why address internet before infrastructure? So residents of Eastern Kentucky can read online about places with dependable water and electricity?  How can one access the internet during the all too frequent power outages? Sure, companies may be interested in high speed internet. But companies won't relocate to an area lacking dependable water, sewage, and electricity. Furthermore, these infrastructure issues MUST be dealt with soon, especially some of the aging water lines, before they completely collapse. So why not now while grant money flows in? It defies logic.

No need to ignore concepts proven true over the course of 1000+ years. Take the simple answer - re-build the foundation of the region. It isn't as catchy as high speed internet; but its a much bigger need. Otherwise, everything else you build on the current shaky foundation will just come tumbling down.

What Happens with Lloyd Tubman?

There's been much discussion regarding the recent Lloyd Tubman news. There are two related, yet mostly separate issues in regards to Tubman and UK:

1) Legal - Tubman was presented to the grand jury (Id be interested in seeing a transcript, as Im guessing it was a softball presentation) and the grand jury reported No True Bill. This means the grand jury didn't believe probable cause exists to believe the crime was committed. Further, the prosecution stated they would not present this case again. It is not a declaration of innocence; but its the closest thing.

The victim appears to be sticking to her story, which is smart IF she testified at the grand jury; otherwise face perjury if she later changes her story. She can not appeal. However, there is no statute of limitations for felonies; so Tubman could be presented again at any time should a prosecutor so choose. Very unlikely, unless new information surfaces.

Ive tried multiple serious, serious rape cases. The law presumes innocence. However make no mistake - for these types of cases, Defendants are usually viewed as guilty until proven innocent. These are very emotionally and politically charged cases, which make them potential nightmares for any elected prosecutor. Ive seen prosecutors hammered in the press and/or election ads for dismissing rape cases that should have been dismissed.

2) UK's PR issues - Tubman wasn't fully cleared, but seems he wont be prosecuted. However there are potential PR landmines with this case. In the court of public opinion, anyone accused of rape is considered guilty; period. Don't believe me? Look at Bill Cosby (an example for the media treatment of these cases, not a comparison of facts in the case).

Media comes down so fast and hard on these cases, UK had no choice but to suspend Tubman immediately. No "we'll wait on the investigation", etc. Just an immediate, indefinite suspension. For comparison look at the Barker, Baker, Dubose situation. That's the difference in a rape allegation and an assault allegation.

Where does UK go from here? I think Tubman can come back, if his academics, etc are in order. I think there will be a minor, short term social media outcry. Maybe. But nothing major. I think the real question is: does Tubman want to come back? If so, is there anything else preventing him from re-joining the team (ie academics, out of shape, no longer wants to pursue football, etc)?