Leaving Egypt

From "Leaving Egypt" by Miriam Adahan:

Egypt -- in Hebrew, Mitzrayim -- literally means a "place of narrowness." It was a place where people were enthralled by flashy materialism, were fascinated with death, and were lacking in reverence for life. It was a society which believed that only those people in the most exalted positions were deserving of honor, and that they were justified in their arrogant disregard of and cruelty toward those who were beneath them. It was a place in which we lived in physical slavery and bondage.

Within each of us there is also a spiritual Mitzrayim, from which we must extricate ourselves daily. This coming out of Mitzrayim is accomplished by breaking out of our narrow boundaries and demonstrating our reverence for God, for the Godliness within man, and for the lasting values of Torah. As we will see, this is a difficult transition.

. . . .

In order to reach emotional maturity, a child must leave this Mitzrayim -- mentality. He must learn to look within himself for his sense of worth and joy, must develop tolerance and respect for his fellowmen, not just those at the top or those who agree with him, and must stop using manipulative control tactics to force others to change.

Many people never make the transition. They remain enslaved in a spiritual Mitzrayim, constantly condemning those who don't measure up or compulsively seeking approval to make themselves feel loved and successful, while feeling like losers deep inside. They alternate between an angry Pharaoh-mode (i.e. oppressing others in an attempt to feel superior) and a depressed slave-mode (i.e. allowing themselves to be oppressed and stifled, because they feel helpless, hopeless and inferior).

Read it all at InnerNet Magazine.

What I did on JetBlue

Watched Colbert.

These were exceptional:

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

I've always thought this was one of the greatest movies ever made. I believe I first saw it when it came out in 1964, along with Fail Safe, the straight dramatic version of a similar crisis. I was only 11 at the time, so it was only years later (college, I imagine) when I began to fully grasp Kubrick's genius (not to mention the art of Peter Sellers -- whom I didn't recognize in multiple roles the first time I saw the movie).

I bought a DVD of the film only last year and tried to get my kids to watch it (tough sell - black and white AND the Cold War - ancient, ancient history). But who would have thought it was so contemporary after all.

From today's CNN News:

In August, a B-52 bomber flew from North Dakota to Louisiana with the crew unaware that six nuclear-tipped missiles were on board. Four officers were relieved of duty afterward, including three colonels.

"Air Force Officials ousted over nuclear gaffes"(CNN, June 5, 2008)

What made the movie so biting in the 1960's was that we were still in the midst of the Cold War so, despite all the zaniness, the movie was only a few steps away from what could really happen. Now, the bite has come back to haunt us.

[Aside from the recent Air Force incidents, does General Jack D. Ripper remind anyone of any of our current crop of religious wing-nuts? "Fluids, it's all about fluids," you know.]

For a flavor of the original, see this trailer. For diehard fans or others who would like some background, see this documentary on the making of the film, beginning with Inside the Making of Dr. Strangelove - Part 1.

Preaching it

I am hoping this speech does not fade from our collective memories in the rush of politics as usual. I note on some of the blogs and forums I frequent, everyone seems reluctant to say much, some out of express reservations about the candidate, some perhaps reluctant to get caught up in too much enthusiasm, too much trust in such high promises and ideals.

I certainly understand why many do not want to get their hopes up or, at least, need to remain skeptical of any and all politicians. Already there are some who are unhappy with how Obama has dealt with his church affiliation and relations with his pastors; others who had their heart set on Hillary. However, among loyal Democrats and others who fundamentally agree with much that Obama is campaigning for, I wonder why there are not more expressions of sheer joy at hearing a speech like this.

Maybe it is just nostalgia on my part for some of the great speech givers of the recent past -- Julian Bond, Barbara Jordan, Mario Cuomo, Bobby Kennedy, JFK and others. But for me it goes beyond a love of nice sounding words or memories of particular individuals. It hearkens back to a time when many people really believed that government could and should aspire to do good -- not solve all problems or change human nature, but at least try its best to serve people, to find new ways of doing things when needed, to value old ways that have had some success, and not just provide the stage for those trying to clamor for more and more power, where there is not much left to do but watch the tumult and the gymnastics.

I don't know if Barack Obama will be elected or, if elected, whether he will succeed in bringing the people of the country together, ending the war in Iraq, and refocusing our energies on much needed work at home and, at the same time, be mindful of the needs and concerns of the rest of the world, whose resources we consume at such a frightful pace. But I do know that we need more people, voters and politicians alike, to talk about dreams again, to not give up and give in to the politics of hate and division. We need to believe again, not to have uncritical faith in any one individual or party or set of programs, but to believe in the capacity of human beings to plan for and accomplish good things. Yes, it requires humility on our part and the grace of God, but even though humans alone cannot bring forth the Kingdom on earth, neither can we afford to be mired in despair, cynicism, and inertia.

So, whether any of us agree with all of Obama's programs or even choose to vote for him, let us at least embrace the ideals he speaks of so eloquently. Here's hoping.

Senator Barack Obama, St. Paul, MN, June 03, 2008:

The other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a debate I look forward to. It is a debate the American people deserve. But what you don't deserve is another election that's governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon – that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.

Despite what the good Senator from Arizona said tonight, I have seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I have brought many together myself. I've walked arm-in-arm with community leaders on the South Side of Chicago and watched tensions fade as black, white, and Latino fought together for good jobs and good schools. I've sat across the table from law enforcement and civil rights advocates to reform a criminal justice system that sent thirteen innocent people to death row. And I've worked with friends in the other party to provide more children with health insurance and more working families with a tax break; to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure that the American people know where their tax dollars are being spent; and to reduce the influence of lobbyists who have all too often set the agenda in Washington.

In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.

So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union; and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.

So it was for the Greatest Generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny, and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.

So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines; the women who shattered glass ceilings; the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom's cause.

So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that's better, and kinder, and more just.

And so it must be for us.

America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Full text here.

Nothing too serious

For the Mad Priest crowd:



Above: High school graduation party 2007
Sister Marie Therese, Sister Jane Margaret, and the graduate.



Below: Still Life with Resident Predators



I still haven't figured out why one would use these to slice fruits or vegetables, especially since this pair has lately had a run in with geese excrement, which the birds have left behind when shooed from the practice field. I think we'll toss the perishables now rather than try to use them for dinner.

Thought of the Day

Two prayers:

Serenity Prayer: Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.

- Rehnhold Niebuhr

Stress Prayer: Grant me the stubbornness to struggle against things I cannot change; the inertia to avoid work on my own behaviors and attitudes which I can change; and the foolishness to ignore the differences between external events beyond my control and my own controllable reactions. But most of all, grant me a contempt for my own human imperfection and the limits of human control.

Neil Fiore, Overcoming Procrastination (originally published as The Now Habit, Tracher/Putnam 1989) at p. 86.

Ann Louise, you leave me speechless

Ann Louise Gittleman says that, "Good health is paved with good intestines."

An Unmarked Trail

Judge Harlington Wood, Jr. is simply one of the most extraordinary human beings I have ever met. I was privileged to have worked for him, first as a student intern after my first year of law school, later as a full-time law clerk the year after I graduated.

As a young woman who grew up in a blue-collar community and attended law school at a public university in the Midwest, I would have thought that I would have had absolutely no chance at a clerkship serving a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Yet there I was, a rather shy, timid woman, not so sure of her abilities, and, at the time, dealing with the last, painful days of my first marriage to an active alcoholic. Nevertheless, my thoughts and opinions counted with Judge Wood, and I, in turn, learned that no legal analysis or decision is worthwhile unless founded in fairness, common sense, and an appreciation of how ordinary human beings live and work.

The story of my time at the court is nothing of import, other than the great privilege of getting to know a man who was and is not only a great lawyer, jurist, and public servant, but also someone who is both a loyal, old-school Republican and a quiet but forceful defender of the rights and dignity of all human beings regardless of race, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation, someone who can rightfully claim as friends such diverse persons as Richard Kleindienst (former U.S. Attorney General), Russell Means (AIM activist during the 1973 Wounded Knee crisis), and Judge Richard Posner.

The story of Judge Wood's life is remarkable, spanning his days in the ROTC cavalry, trial lawyer in state court, U.S. attorney, U.S. district court judge, Assistant U.S. Attorney General during the Nixon administration (including time negotiating conflicts at Wounded Knee, Alcatraz, and D.C. anti-war demonstrations), and finally Circuit Judge at the U.S. Court of Appeals. The story is told in his memoirs, An Unmarked Trail: the Odyssey of a Federal Judge, now finally available in print at www.harlingtonwoodjr.com.

Some of the comments at the book's website include the following:

"My first solo jury trial in the United States District Court in Springfield, Illinois was before Judge Harlington Wood, Jr. No nervous young attorney could have drawn a better venue. He was fair and patient and softened the embarrassment of my rookie mistakes in his courtroom. Riding An Unmarked Trail with Judge Wood will take you from the ROTC horse cavalry at the University of Illinois to tense negotiations at Wounded Knee. From a law practice in Springfield, his life story takes us on far-flung adventures and reaches the highest levels of the Department of Justice in Washington. Long and lean with a sparkle in his eye and a wry grin, Harlington Wood has left his mark not just on this attorney, but on our nation. Abe Lincoln is his hero and Wood played him convincingly in local theatre. But his connection with that great Prairie lawyer is more than just a dramatic pose. Harlington Wood's public life brought that great Lincoln tradition to his courtrooms and to all who were fortunate to share his journey."

Richard J. Durbin
U.S. Senator from Illinois

"Harlington and I have been colleagues on the Seventh Circuit for many years, but until I read his fascinating memoir I had only a dim idea of his extraordinary life, including distinguished service in World War II and his decisive contribution on behalf of the Justice Department in resolving the Wounded Knee crisis in 1973. Nor had I realized what an extraordinary world traveler Harlington was-how intrepid, resilient and adventurous. His modesty is excessive, but cannot quite conceal his sterling character and a life of great public service seasoned with excitement."

Richard A. Posner
Circuit Judge
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

"Harlington Wood, Jr., retired Senior Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, shows us how great men can live among us in quiet unassuming ways. Wood's appropriately named memoir An Unmarked Trail provides a remarkable first hand glimpse into some of the defining moments of modern history. His life is a true reflection of the American Dream-a Midwestern boy's own desire for adventure takes him around the world and back. On the journey we witness the Japanese surrender in the Philippines, take a final glimpse of Stalin preserved under glass in Red Square, get a front row seat to the anti-war demonstrations during the Nixon administration, attend the strained negotiations to end the occupation of Wounded Knee in 1973 and travel to post-Glasnost Russia in 1992. This personal book paints a portrait of a man whose life was lead by confidence tempered by humility. I am grateful he allows us all to share in his extraordinary journey."

Alison Davis Wood
Producer, WILL-TV (PBS)

Also available online is a video of a 1994 interview with Judge Wood on a local PBS station for the show Prairie Fire.

California Supreme Court decision

The California Supreme Court recently decided that a statutory scheme allowing marriage to only heterosexual or opposite gender couples was unconstitutional under the California state constitution. The majority's opinion in the case is marvelous in many ways, first and foremost because of the result, but also because of its reasoning. It focuses on the what the right to marry means to both the individuals involved and society as a whole. Refreshingly, and unlike most religious discussions, sex is not mentioned. Rather, partnerships and the families they engender (couples and extended family, not just children), are viewed as whole relationships, not just the sum of single, discrete economic, social, emotional, psychological, or physical components.

I'm going to include a long excerpt from the majority opinion below, but I would recommend reading more, as I hope to do in the near future. For now, however, let me remind everyone, as others have elsewhere, that the legal and political analysis required to understand what may yet happen in light of the November ballot initiative is rather complicated. (See Greenwald article in Salon- hat tip to Paul M. at Jake's place.)

What is at stake here is NOT an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution but rather the California state Constitution. Under the U.S. Constitution, there is no express right to privacy or "fundamental rights" as such -- notions which 20th c. case law only recently found implied in the Due Process clause of the 4th Amendment. In contrast, the California constitution not only has its own body of case law from its own courts interpreting it, it now has amendments that expressly provide for the right of privacy and other rights not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. They can be found here.

The big outstanding question is whether the November ballot initiative (assuming it is found to be legally qualified), which would amend the California state constitution to say that marriage is only between a man and a woman, could, if it is passed by the voters, in effect reverse the court's decision. Some speculate that it might not, given the court's finding that the right to marry is a fundamental right. Although I certainly would welcome that result in this instance, as a legal matter, I find the notion questionable. While I also do not think that any constitution should be amended by a majority vote of the electorate, given that the California constitution allows this, it seems both impractical and dangerous to suggest that a court's interpretation of a constitution could prevail over a constitutionally adopted amendment. As an institutional matter it makes no sense. I am sympathetic to the notion that Equal Protection cannot said to realistically exist with regard to marriage if the ballot initiative were to pass. Nevertheless, in the end I would not want four justices of the California Supreme Court to decide that their opinion cannot be altered by any means save appointment of new justices who would reverse them.

For now, however, I want to put aside those concerns, as important as they may be, and continue to celebrate the majority opinion, which reads in part as follows:

From In re Marriage Cases, S147999 (Cal. May 15, 2008):

Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution....

Although all parties in this proceeding agree that the right to marry constitutes a fundamental right protected by the state Constitution, there is considerable disagreement as to the scope and content of this fundamental state constitutional right. The Court of Appeal concluded that because marriage in California (and elsewhere) historically has been limited to opposite-sex couples, the constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution properly should be interpreted to afford only a right to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that the constitutional right that plaintiffs actually are asking the court to recognize is a constitutional “right to same-sex marriage.” In the absence of any historical or precedential support for such a right in this state, the Court of Appeal determined that plaintiffs’ claim of the denial of a fundamental right under the California Constitution must be rejected.

Plaintiffs challenge the Court of Appeal’s characterization of the constitutional right they seek to invoke as the right to same-sex marriage, and on this point we agree with plaintiffs’ position. In Perez v. Sharp, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711 — this court’s 1948 decision holding that the California statutory provisions prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional — the court did not characterize the constitutional right that the plaintiffs in that case sought to obtain as “a right to interracial marriage” and did not dismiss the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge on the ground that such marriages never had been permitted in California.32 Instead, the Perez decision focused on the substance of the constitutional right at issue — that is, the importance to an individual of the freedom “to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice” — in determining whether the statute impinged upon the plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional right. 32 Cal.2d at pp. 715, 717, italics added.) Similarly, in Valerie N., supra, 40 Cal.3d 143 — which involved a challenge to a statute limiting the reproductive freedom of a developmentally disabled woman — our court did not analyze the scope of the constitutional right at issue by examining whether developmentally disabled women historically had enjoyed a constitutional right of reproductive freedom, but rather considered the substance of that constitutional right in determining whether the right was one that properly should be interpreted as extending to a developmentally disabled woman. (40 Cal.3d at pp. 160-164.) And, in addressing a somewhat analogous point, the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) 539 U.S. 558 concluded that its prior decision in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) 478 U.S. 186 had erred in narrowly characterizing the constitutional right sought to be invoked in that case as the right to engage in intimate homosexual conduct, determining instead that the constitutional right there at issue properly should be understood in a broader and more neutral fashion so as to focus upon the substance of the interests that the constitutional right is intended to protect. (539 U.S. at pp. 565-577.)

The flaw in characterizing the constitutional right at issue as the right to same-sex marriage rather than the right to marry goes beyond mere semantics. It is important both analytically and from the standpoint of fairness to plaintiffs’ argument that we recognize they are not seeking to create a new constitutional right — the right to “same-sex marriage” — or to change, modify, or (as somehave suggested) “deinstitutionalize” the existing institution of marriage. Instead, plaintiffs contend that, properly interpreted, the state constitutional right to marry affords to same-sex couples the same rights and benefits — accompanied by the same mutual responsibilities and obligations — as this constitutional right affords
to opposite-sex couples. For this reason, in evaluating the constitutional issue before us, we consider it appropriate to direct our focus to the meaning and substance of the constitutional right to marry, and to avoid the potentially misleading implications inherent in analyzing the issue in terms of “same-sex marriage.”

Accordingly, in deciding whether the constitutional right to marry protected by the California Constitution applies to same-sex couples as well as to opposite sex couples and, further, whether the current California marriage and domestic partnership statutes deny same-sex couples this fundamental constitutional right,
we shall examine the nature and substance of the interests protected by the constitutional right to marry. In undertaking this inquiry, we put to the side or the moment the question whether the substantive rights embodied within the constitutional right to marry include the right to have the couple’s official relationship designated by the name “marriage” rather than by some other term, such as “domestic partnership.” The latter issue is addressed below. (See, post, pp. 80-82.)

In discussing the constitutional right to marry in Perez v. Sharp, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711 (Perez), then Justice Traynor in the lead opinion quoted the seminal passage from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, 262 U.S. 390. There the high court, in describing the scope of the “liberty” protected by the due process clause of the federal Constitution, stated that “ ‘[w]ithout doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’ ” (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d at p. 714, italics added [“to marry” italicized by Perez], quoting Meyer, supra, 262 U.S. 390, 399.) The Perez decision continued: “Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men.” (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d at p. 714, italics added.)

Like Perez, subsequent California decisions discussing the nature of marriage and the right to marry have recognized repeatedly the linkage between marriage, establishing a home, and raising children in identifying civil marriage as the means available to an individual to establish, with a loved one of his or her choice, an officially recognized family relationship. constitutional right to marry. In undertaking this inquiry, we put to the side for the moment the question whether the substantive rights embodied within the constitutional right to marry include the right to have the couple’s official relationship designated by the name “marriage” rather than by some other term, such as “domestic partnership.” The latter issue is addressed below. (See, post, pp. 80-82.)

* * * *

Although past California cases emphasize that marriage is an institution in which society as a whole has a vital interest, our decisions at the same time recognize that the legal right and opportunity to enter into such an officially recognized relationship also is of overriding importance to the individual and to the affected couple. As noted above, past California decisions have described marriage as “the most socially productive and individually fulfilling relationship that one can enjoy in the course of a lifetime.” (Marvin v. Marvin, supra, 18 Cal.3d 660, 684; accord, Maynard v. Hill, supra, 125 U.S. 190, 205 [describing marriage as “the most important relation in life”].) The ability of an individual to join in a committed, long-term, officially recognized family relationship with the person of his or her choice is often of crucial significance to the individual’s happiness and well-being. The legal commitment to long-term mutual emotional and economic support that is an integral part of an officially recognized marriage relationship provides an individual with the ability to invest in and rely upon a loving relationship with another adult in a way that may be crucial to the individual’s development as a person and achievement of his or her full potential.

Further, entry into a formal, officially recognized family relationship provides an individual with the opportunity to become a part of one’s partner’s family, providing a wider and often critical network of economic and emotional security. (Accord, e.g., Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977) 431 U.S. 494, 504-505 [“Ours is by no means a tradition limited to respect for the bonds uniting the members of the nuclear family. . . . Out of choice, necessity, or a sense of family responsibility, it has been common for close relatives to draw together and participate in the duties and the satisfactions of a common home. . . . Especially in times of adversity . . . the broader family has tended to come together for mutual sustenance and to maintain or rebuild a secure home life”].) The opportunity of a couple to establish an officially recognized family of their own not only grants access to an extended family but also permits the couple to join the broader family social structure that is a significant feature of community life.39 Moreover, the opportunity to publicly and officially express one’s love for and long-term commitment to another person by establishing a family together with that person also is an important element of self-expression that can give special meaning to one’s life. Finally, of course, the ability to have children and raise them with a loved one who can share the joys and challenges of that endeavor is without doubt a most valuable component of one’s liberty and personal autonomy. Although persons can have children and raise them outside of marriage, the institution of civil marriage affords official governmental sanction and sanctuary to the family unit, granting a parent the ability to afford his or her children the substantial benefits that flow from a stable two-parent family environment, a ready and public means of establishing to others the legal basis of one’s parental relationship to one’s children (cf. Koebke, supra, 36 Cal.4th 824, 844-845; Elden v. Sheldon, supra, 46 Cal.3d 267, 275), and the additional security that comes from the knowledge that his or her parental relationship with a child will be afforded protection by the government against the adverse actions or claims of others. (Cf., e.g., Dawn D. v. Superior Court, supra, 17 Cal.4th 932 [when biological mother was married at the time of a child’s conception and birth, husband is the presumed father of the child, and another man who claims to be the child’s biological father has no constitutional right to bring an action to establish a legal relationship with the child].)

There are, of course, many persons and couples who choose not to enter into such a relationship and who prefer to live their lives without the formal, officially recognized and sanctioned, long-term legal commitment to another person signified by marriage or an equivalent relationship. Nonetheless, our cases recognize that the opportunity to establish an officially recognized family with a loved one and to obtain the substantial benefits such a relationship may offer is of the deepest and utmost importance to any individual and couple who wish to make such a choice.

If civil marriage were an institution whose only role was to serve the interests of society, it reasonably could be asserted that the state should have full authority to decide whether to establish or abolish the institution of marriage (and any similar institution, such as domestic partnership). In recognizing, however, that the right to marry is a basic, constitutionally protected civil right — “a fundamental right of free men [and women]” (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 714) — the governing California cases establish that this right embodies fundamental interests of an individual that are protected from abrogation or elimination by the state.

Because our cases make clear that the right to marry is an integral component of an individual’s interest in personal autonomy protected by the privacy provision of article I, section 1, and of the liberty interest protected by the due process clause of article I, section 7, it is apparent under the California Constitution that the right to marry — like the right to establish a home and raise children — has independent substantive content, and cannot properly be understood as simply the right to enter into such a relationship if (but only if) the Legislature chooses to establish and retain it. (Accord, Poe v. Ullman (1961) 367 U.S. 497, 553 (dis. opn. of Harlan, J.) [“the intimacy of husband and wife is necessarily an essential and accepted feature of the institution of marriage, an institution which the State not only must allow, but which always and in every age it has fostered and protected.”

Slip opinion, p. 49-63.

Marx calls it offside

1972 Monty Python sketch, "The Philosophers' Football Match"

Late addition. My resident football player brought this to my attention. They showed it in school today, too late, however for Karl Marx Day.

Actually, I like the part about carding Nietzsche the best.

It may be old news for most people, especially the U.K. crowd, but it had me in stitches. Although not listed on the roster, I think that the inestimable Archbishop Rowan Williams might have been on the field somewhere.