Me, The Egoist

At the Volokh conspiracy, Orin Kerr writes a number of technology-related questions regarding computer crime law. I have no formal legal experience, though I consider myself reasonably informed. However, I am quite well versed in computer technology so I would like to give the questions a shot. They are:

(1) Is it possible to establish a Fourth Amendment “reasonable expectation of privacy” in remotely stored Internet files such as e-mail, or do you lose Fourth Amendment protection in e-mail when you send it? If you can retain protection, when? (No Article III court has answered this essential question yet, and it turns out to be a suprisingly difficult problem that has received very little scholarly attention.)

(2) Many computer crime laws prohibit unauthorized access to computers. But what does “access” mean? What does “authorization” mean? (I wrote an article on this last year with some ideas, but the issue is very much open.)

(3) What Fourth Amendment test should courts use to determine when a computer file is “seized”? The Supreme Court has held that seizing requires dispossession; does this mean that if you merely copy a computer file you are not seizing it, and that the FBI can copy your files without implicating the Fourth Amendment? (Almost no scholarhip on this, although I am working on a piece that will touch on it.)

(4) In the context of sentencing computer criminals, are cybercrime-specific rules needed? Is it fair to treat a virus-writer who inadvertently causes $100 million worth of damage the same as a con man who reaps $100 million of profit from his victims? For that matter, how do you calculate how much harm a computer virus causes? (Basically no scholarship on this yet.)

(5) Child pornography laws prohibit the “possession” of images of child pornography. But what does it mean to “possess” a computer file? If you view a file on your computer, are you possessing it? Does it depend on how much you understand how computers work? (Three of four cases on this so far, but no scholarship yet.)

1) I would personally consider e-mail to be the same as a post-card. That is, unless encrypted, it is a piece of publically-readable text and should be treated as such. However, since an e-mail system is supposed to be completely automated without any human intervention but in the most extrordinary of cases (ie the thing breaks), there is reason to believe that there is in fact an expectation of privacy in the system. This is also similar to washrooms in building open to the public - you don’t own them, but you still have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using the system, despite the fact that a janitor might look in.

2) Unauthorized access is fun. Let’s look at real world examples. If I give you permission to enter my premisis, and you shoulder the door down because you think it’s sticking “just a little”, is that breaking an entering. I would argue not. In that light, I would argue that if a system gives you access to something, then you aren’t really breaking in. However, in the real world I can take a crowbar to your door and break in at any point in time. At that point, your door is giving me access (sort of), but it is an illegal act, partly because I had no expectation of having been given permission. From that point, an arguement can be made that anything other than explicit and straightforward use of a secured system can be considered gaining unlawful access.

What really muddles the water is that being a completely artificial digital system, it is possible to design a system which cannot be broken into, however difficult that may be. Thus you can argue that access was authorized because they really didn’t want to keep you out.

My view on this is as follows: If a person does something to gain access which could be done accidentally by an authorized user, than it isn’t really breaking, and thus unlawful access. For example, if a password checking routine doesn’t check passwords if the field is blank, than entering a blank field and getting otherwise unauthorized access would not be prohibited because it is reasonable that a person might forget to enter their password. Likewise, if a person gains access by modifying the URL which they entered, including parameters passed by GET, that is not unauthorized because it is reasonable to assume that a person could have mis-typed the value anyways. The same goes for data entered into textboxes on web pages - they are ment to have data entered. A person could accidentally enter in SQL designed to drop your entire database.

However, if somebody was to start sending malformed packets with the intention of executing a buffer overflow on your system, that would be unlawful. Note that intent still must be present.

3) The fourth amendment also protects against unreasonable searches, not just seizures. It is true that you can copy a file without “seizing” it. My preferrred way to look at it is to compare this to a similar physicl-world example. Would would be the legality of the FBI entering your premisis and photographing all of your personal documents, correspondance, etc. If that would be legal, than so would copying computer files. If not, than not.

4) I tend to abhore computer-specific laws. Breaking and entering is still breaking an entering, wether a crowbar or a malformed TCP packet it used. It may require an adendum to existing legislation to codify exactly what is meant by this in the computer-specific sense, but the law and sentencing should still be the same. As for $100 million dollars in damage due to a virus release, I would treat that exactly the same way industrial sabotage is treated. If the release was accidental (from a research lab, etc.), I smell civil suit.

5) There are two ways of looking at this. Computer systems are agents of the user, and so you can argue that any action taken by the computer is done at the request of the user. As much as I would like to do this to get rid of all of the morons on the Internet, that is not reasonable considering the complexity of computer equipment. Thus we have to ask if a person has the intent to posess the photographs in question. If the site was visited unknowingly (click here to learn about horticulture - surprise!) and the image is in the browser cache, then there is no intent to possess. However, if the site was visited knowingly, or better yet a copy of the image was saved deliberately then “possession” actually occured and there is evidence that afirmative action was taken to do so.

These are just my musings. I am strongly considering going to law school at some point. I believe that I have the riht temperment to be a good justice. Please do comment. On both.

I spent this past weekend down in the ’states with a friend of mine who happens to own a few guns. Quite a few actually (at least in my mind). Most of which were for hunting and would probably would blow my arm off if I fired them. But the weather was pretty good and so he took be out onto his property and I got to fire some of his toys.

The first weapon I started off with was a .22 revolver. This is the first pistol of any sort that I had worked with. I was somewhat surprised at how heavy the thing was - video games don’t do weapon weights justice.

After firing off about 10 rounds across 2 loadings, I was passed a .22 rifle. I had fired a .22 rifle previously with a scope, but that was years before. This time I was working with plain iron sights. I went through about 15 rounds with that and had a great old time. My aim wasn’t too bad out to about 20 yards standing, but I definitely need some practice.

Since we were on rifles, I was passed a 9mm carabine. I call it the Fisher-Price rifle because the whole stock was made out of plastic and it felt like a cheep childrens’ toy. After going through five rounds, I couldn’t figure out why I wasn’t hitting anything - after all, I had done reasonably well with the .22. We finally realized the the front sight was off by about 10 degrees. I tried to correct, but only managed to hit our target once. Ahh well.

Another thing that movies and video games don’t prepare you for are recoil. Despite fireing 9×19mm rounds, I kept finding myself flinching and on occasion closing my eyes just before firing. It takes a lot of work to hold something like that and not brace yourself. More practice, I guess.

As a side note, when I got back to Canada I phoned a local gun dealer to find out if I could order soemthing like that in Canada. It’s not great, but it’s reasonably manuvrable and could be used for self/home defence if you don’t mind violating the safe storage laws. I discovered that no weapon can be sold/owned in Canada if it has a magazine capacity greater than five rounds. I thought that the 10-round limit is the US was rediculous, but this was just crazy. You could probably import other magazines, but having more than 5 rounds in them would be illegal. Only if you get caught, I guess.

The next weapon I was able to fire was an original Makarhov pistol. It was used by the East German police, and fires 9.2×18mm rounds. The recoil was more than I expected, as was the draw, but overall it was fun. it would make a great pistol for concealed carry, though I might look for something with more common ammunition. But what do I know?

And finally, la piece de resistance. My friend had a hand cannon - a .44 magnum Desert Eagle. This thing scared me just looking at it. But I got up the will and the strength (the thing weight 4 f*cking pounds unloaded) to fire off a round. I only loaded one round into the magazine the first time - being unprepared, I’d rather not have to worry about shooting myself in the foot with a second round if I get knocked over.

I lined up the shot, took a break from the strain on my arm, lined up again, and fired.
It was as although somebody lit a stick of dynamite and said “here, hold this”. That this has KICK. I stumbled back about 3 steps in a bit of a daze. I now understand the principle behind stun grenades. I was glad I had only loaded one round because I’m not certain exactly what I did over those few seconds. It was unbelievable. So I loaded up another 3 rounds

A sad note was that he didn’t have any practice ammo for the .44 so we were firing hollowing point rounds. Oh well, it was still fun.

Over all, it was quite enjoyable. I have a much better appreciation for firearms now that I did before. I can’t wait for my next trip down to gun country.

I’ve been busy for a while and haven’t had much time to post anything lately - school will do that do you.

On the firearms front, I’m thinking that I’m going to write a book or a long essay of some sort on the matter over Christmas. If anybody knows where I can get official death statistics (how many people die every year from firearm and by what meens, drowning in bathtubs and that sort of thing) I would appreciate it. It’s going to be a lot of work, but I think it will be worthwhile. I’ve been mulling this arround in my head for the past 3 weeks, so I haven’t been posting much.

On the personal front, I have started up an excercise regime. So far, I have lost 25 pounds and am feeling great. The biggest problem I run into was overeating. I might write about this in the future. Who knows.

Wow. It has been quite some time since I’ve last written here. I’ve discovered that it is much harder to write than it is to speak to a responsive audience (a person).

In my previous post I talked about how there are a lot of people who are unable to separate similar, but distinct concepts. One of the arguements which is made in support of gun control is the frightning image of ‘vigilantes’. Vigilantes were groups of armed citizens which attempted to enforce the law without a justice system. This might work on occasion, but there is a good chance that mob mentality will kick in and innocent people will be hurt or killed.

People own firearms for a number of reasons - some for sporting or for hunting. I personally have interest in neither of those. I do have an interest in firearms ownership for another reason - self defense. The principle of self defense is required in a civilized society where citizens exist as free beings. Only a slave is required to submit to physical abuse from another - free people can avoid, request intervention, or defend themselves against physical attack. Defense of oneself is the last in a line of options, but in many cases it is the only viable one.

What people fail to grasp is the difference between defense (either self defense of defense of others) and vigilantism. Defense is the principle of using some sort of force with the goal of preventing immediate unwanted violence or force to be used against oneself or others. Vigilantism is the idea of using unlawful force after the crime has been commited with no intention of preventing any immediate harm to others - it is an attempt to subvert the law by becoming judge, jury and executioner all in one easy step. As much as I like government efficiency and speedy trials, this is just a little too speedy for me.

As an example, if you are in a shopping mall and a man walks in and shoots a stalking subject (or his girlfriend or his wife or his sister or…) and then drops the gun, to kill him would be vigilantism. If he held on the the gun it could be considered defense - after all, it isn’t a far stretch to assume that with a gun in his hand he might kill somebody else. If instead you saw him in the parking lot getting into his car, you might be able to attempt a citizen’s arrest, but in general you would have little justification to use leathal force. Of course, if the man in question used a knife instead of a gun, the issue becomes a whole lot murkier.

Those who attempt to confuse the two issues are trying to simply instill their confusion on you as well. Vigilantism is a bad thing. Self defense is essential, and firearms are the easiest, cleanest, most civilized and generally the best way to deal with the most dangerous of threats.

About a month ago I was watching A&E up here in Canada (which is quite similar to, but different from A&E in the United States) and came across a program which I believe was titled “Airline”. The show followed different people in an airline, primarily the ticket and gate agents. There is also a British version of the show which airs right after the American one. On the British version, a crisis occurred and there was a major accident on the freeway leading to the airport, so a large number of people were late for a specific flight. They tried to hold the flight as long as possible, but schedules being what they are, had to seal up the plane and send it on it’s way.

One lady came in just after the last people allowed through and wanted to get on the flight but was rejected because she was late, though not her fault. She asserted that the plane was still on the ground and she could be let on. The person behind the ticket desk got on her phone and called down to the gate and was told that the plane had left, and so she told this to the lady, who was getting more and more irate. The lady used her cell phone to call the company headquarters, which told her that the plane was still on the ground and wouldn’t depart for another 40 minutes. She was happy.

Once the whole mess was worked out, it was discovered that the plance had closed it’s doors and pushed back from the gate, but would not be taking off for 40 minutes due to scheduling. They couldn’t open the doors due to security policy which would require them to deplane everybody on board and then reboard everybody, or some such nonsense.

What I will never forget is this lady screaming at that tick agent “You lied! You lied to me! I don’t appreciate being lied to!” In fact the ticket had not lied - I lie requires an intent to deceive. She had simple relayed the information which she herself had been given. She was mistaken and wrong, but she had not lied. I frequently think of her stupid antics when I see the “Bush lied” people. He may be shown to be wrong (yes, I know they have found small amounts of WMD and related equipment in Iraq), but there is no reason to believed he lied. Believing something wrong doesn’t make you a lier, it just makes you wrong.

Confusing being wrong with lying is a simple yet crucial thinking mistake. It shows that a person is unable to distinguish between two closely related yet different ideas.

The other concepts which many people tend to confuse are those of oppression and hardship. That is, if you have to work long and hard hours to put food on the table, you must not be free. Thus, the only way we can have a free people is through socialism/communism/wealth redistribution or some such nonsense.

Oppression is caused by an external, deliberate force. Dictators are abound in the world. Oppression need not be caused be a central government (it can be argued that a group like the KKK oppressed black people) but it is the most well known type. Usually speech is restricted, your religion is not of your choosing, there are no elections, immigration and emigration are controlled - even your movements inside the country my be tracks or restricted.

Hardship is due to external forces which are not deliberate. Events such as natural disasters are not deliberate. Same goes for power failures. Life is what it is. It will not be “fair” in the sense that not everybody will have either equal opportunity or equal results. It will not be “fair” in the sense that there is no guarantee that life will be somewhere between poor and good, but at least decent. And there is no guarantee that life will be “fair” and in a walk in the park where you don’t have to do anything.

People seem to believe that plant or company closures are deliberate attempts to oppress people. That could not be further from the truth. Most managers do not like closing down anything exactly because of the human costs. But it is not possible in business to run at a loss for an extended period of time. Thus when a mine is no longer viable, it will be shut down. A mill producing a product for which there is no longer any market that cannot be retooled will eventually go out of business. A plant which has overpriced labour (usually due to unions) will be shut down eventually because it is unprofitable.

All of these events involve some sort of human involvement, but they weren’t oppressive. The relationship between two groups was terminated, but they were not oppressed. Nothing was stolen from workers. The workers were able to seek work elsewhere. They were able to go back to school if they couldn’t find work in their field. Oppression occurs when somebody prevents you from exercising your rights as you see fit. The only way to view this as oppressive is to assume that the workers were entitled to that particular job, to which I ask why? Why were those people entitled to that particular job. There is no rational explanation. Thus they were not oppressed, but their lives have become more difficult.

Always keep an eye out for mistakes like those above. They are generally good indications of fuzzy thinking.

While I was down in Ottawa, the friend I was staying with and I had a discussion about the validity of invading Iraq. One of the many points I made was that any free country has the right and the option (but not obligation) to invade a non-free country in order to liberate it. I do mean liberate in the liberate sense, not the rape, murder and pillage meaning. Any government which oppresses people and strips them on the ability to excercise their fundamental rights is wrong - it asks people to live as slaves or animals. It has no legitimacy. The ideal situation is for the people to rebel internally, but that is frequently difficult. In many cases, freedom can only come from the outside.

What, then, is meant by a free country? How do we know if we should invade or not? The very minimum needed for a country to be able to manage its own affairs is the ability for free political speech, a non-corrupt election process for the executive and legislative functions of the government, and a legal system which will uphold the first two items. Everything else beyond that can be solved at the voting booth. The problem is that it is frequently impossible to get *just* those three principles. A political discussion, for example, might say something which is contrary to a state religious or cultural principle which could conceivable get them arrested. Of course, if the country views anything remotely politically-oriented as protected speech then the whole issue goes away.

In practice it is far better to provide more freedom than then absolute minimum required so as to prevent backsliding into oppression again. Ideally, there would be a “stable free democracy in-a-box” that could be bought for about $20 and imported into an oppressive country. But, alas, it isn’t, and so there will always be pains in the process.

When China says that it’s population isn’t educated enough to support a democracy, they fail to explain why the oppress free speech. If there goal was to eventually move to a democracy then they could at least hold town-hall meetings……

On the invading/liberating side, the country pursuing such actions should be an established free country with many more freedoms than the minimum. In practice, any free democratic country will suffice. A country which has just converted to a democracy is probably not a good choice - building up a large military n a newly democratic country is a recipe for backsliding into the dark times once again.

You will notice above that I argued that a free country may, but does not have to, liberate an oppressive country. This is because funding such a military action involves taxing the people. To do so, you need to get the consent of the people for such action. OK - everybody in the country could voluntarily contribute to a “liberate country X” fund, but the results are the same. Some countries will be alright with this. Others will have other priorities. I begrudge nobody for saying no. After all, it boils down to personal choice. What I do object to are those who choose not to help liberate a country, and instead try to block the process. Nobody has the right to stand between a person and freedom, whatever the source.

What was the goal of invading Iraq? The liberation of it’s people. Why Iraq and not [pick your favorite third word despotism]? Because it suited US interests the most. By liberation, we can hopeful create the first real Arab democracy in the middle east and change the culture to the point that they no longer view short shorts as a reason to kill people. Will we do this to other countries? Hopefully. But remember that it costs a LOT of money to do so. We might only be able to liberate one country every other decade or so. Nations could pool resources and do this through an organization like the UN - they would finally have a useful mandate. But that’s just me dreaming. I can only hope that other countries, like my home of Canada will have the willingness to get up and hep free the world from it’s chains.

When I was down in Ottawa last week I stayed with ahigh school friend of mine who is in the Canadian Armed Forces. I also managed to spend a few hours with a college friend of mine who will be starting RCMP (Canada’s national police force) training this comming week. He and I reminisced for some time, and indirectly the talk tutrned to firearms. I am planning on moving to the United States and aquiring a concealed firearm for personal protection, and so I asked his opinion on such weapons. It was suggested that I look at a few specific makes and models, which I have done so online.

He told me about the firearms training he would receive, which would be quite intensive. He also mentioned his mother’s reaction to the video which was sent to him byt he RCMP which gave an overview of the training he would receive, since a lot of it would focus on firearms training. She was quite shocked at what he would have to be prepared to do. Most people view police work as primarily high-speed driving, investigations and public relations - the Police Academy view of police training. Unfortunately, a lot of time needs to deal with firearms work, especially with the major policing agencies. If you forget to aska question of a crime witness, you can always go back and ask it later. If you forget to take the safety off your firearm in a critical situation, you end up dead. Police need to be prepared not only to use firearms, but to deal with the consequences of their use.

The following day I asked my army friend about firearms. He doesn’t know as much about them as he is not an enthusiast, but he has more practical experience. He listed a few models and gave me some information. And then he asked me what I was interested in pisols for - they are nearly impossible to carry around with you in Canada. I told him I was doing reasearch and planned to aquire one when I eventually moved down to the United States for self defense purposes. He then asked me “Where would you shoot somebody?” I thought he was testing me so I began to answer that you aim for center of mass when he invertupted in his typically ADD-like style and continued to ask in a hyper fashion “When would you use it? How would you live with yourself afterwords? How do you know that you aren’t going to start pulling it in inappropriate situations?” I missed a nubmer of his questions because he was going so fast.

I began to realize afterwords that both the police and the civilian use of firearms have significant concerns to them. There exists in both situations the possibility of misuse, and a possibility of remorse afterwards. I gave a lot of thought to that, and consequently I have more respect for police officers - this is an issue that they would have to confront during their training.

As for myself, I have carried an asp (collapsable steel batton) with me for the last 4 years. I tend not to carry it with me when I am around town, but when I am out late, in a bad section of the city, am travelling, or am in an unfamilliar section of the city I will carry it with me for personal safety. This is the most powerful weapon that a person can carry around in Canada with them for self defense without a *huge* amount of paperwork and a lot of luck. Both stun guns and pepper spray are prohibited in Canada (unless you get bear spray, which is pepper spray, but that doesn’t go over too well with the police). I have had to consider using it.

I have had to de-holster it on a few occasions, though it has never gotten to the point that I had to extend or strike anybody with the baton. Once was with a group of students heading home late at night in downtown Toronto when a homeless man started begging for money. We ignored him (students don’t have spare money) but the man started pawing at members of our group. I then moved my baton from it’s holster into my hand in the event that he became violent. Fortunately, he decided to go back to his space on the sidewalk and to leave us alone. My baton returned to it’s holster without any comment. Another situation was when a lady I knew had to leave her appartment because another tennent in the appartment building went on a drug rage and started damaging the property. When I was in the building (it was quite small) helping her move her stuff out, I kept the baton in my hand should he burst out of his unit and go crazy. He never did.

People who decide to carry weapons for personal protection need to realize that those weapons are only effective if they are willing to use them. They may not have to, but they need to be prepared. Pointing a gun at a purse snatcher or a rapist or a serial killer may work. It may not. It depends on the mental situation of the attacker. If you are planning on carrying a weapon for self-defense, prepare a plan of action ahead of time. Figure out when you will use your weapon, and when you won’t. Try to resolve the situation without violence if possible. But if necessary, be prepared to kill the attacker. Years of therapy is a lot easier to handle than death for eternity. But give credit to those who have chosen to carry a weapon. Most of them have made that discision knowing the possible outcomes. It’s never an easy decision, but it is a personal one. And remember that it may not be their life they end up saving, but yours.

I’m heading out of town on Wednesday to go handing out resumes in Ottawa, so I have been pretty busy preparing for that. I’ll be back around the 15th, and I hope to have more then.

The astronauts or the idea?

President Bush asked congress for a bunch of money (billions over the next few years) with the goal of returning to the Moon, and eventually going to Mars. Nice idea, but it isn’t a serious idea right now, despite the propaganda.

The first reason I think this is nothing more than a PR stunt is because congress essentially cut funding from NASA for the upcomming budget. To do expensive stuff, you need funding. But beyond that (maybe they’ll start next year, after all) it’s simply a dumb idea at the moment.

If the US government (or any other government) is going to go to Mars, it had better have a pretty good reason for going. When we went to the Moon, the goal was to show up the soviets. We wanted to show to the rest of the world that our society was better than that of the soviets, and that they should side with us in the cold war. It was a way of winning the cold war without actually fighting a battle. But now there is little reason. There are only three governments which have independently put people into space. A dozen others or so have put people into space using the US or Russian programs. One one country has had a private individual go into space - the US. The US is on top of the world, so to speak. They no longer have anything to prove.

Science, or more precisely scientific research, is the current justification for going to Mars. But nobody has put forth the actual research that they want to do, and justified why they need to send people to do it. After all, robotic explorers, even with all of their faults, are a cheap way of doing a LOT of research. And any research which requires special equipment (such as deep core drilling) would have to be sent for mission sucess. It is a lot easier to attach some solar panels and computer equipment to your drilling equipment than it is to attach a human being and all of the support equipment needed for the human. It also costs a lot less.

The other issue which is being waved around is ‘our need to explore’ We spent billions going to the Moon, and now we are likely looking at trillions (yes trillions) of dollars to go to Mars. There is the argument of “spend the money here instead of there” which is valid. There is also the “don’t spend the money at all” argument. The question is one of “who’s need to explore?” Most people have never visited anouther country. Is this a way of averaging things out? Send 5 people millions of miles will average out with millions of people who frequently haven’t travelled 100 miles away from home? If it is your need to explore, then you finance it. Don’t spend my money for your need to explore. Unless I get to go to Mars too.

In order to sustain human life some distance away from Earth, there are four major resources which are needed: Air, water, food, and electricity. Having unlimited amounts of three will allow you to produce the other with relative ease. Being short two is very difficult to overcome.

There are two ways to manage the mission: send all consumables for the entire trip on the trip. Thus all of the food, water, air, and fuel requried to land on Mars and return to Earth safely would be on the initial flight from Earth. The other option is to send much of the resources required for the return trip ahead to Mars using systems similar to those used to land the current rovers. Those systems are fairly reliable, and show definite progress that things are being done. They are also great in that they can be done at the same time as the rest of the program (is spacecraft building) is done. The third option is to produce the required food/air/water on Mars for the return trip, thus saving us the difficulty of shipping it there ourselves.

Any Mars mission is likely going to be multi-segmented, much as the Apollo missions were - a large spacecraft will remain in orbit which will be responsible for going from Earth to Mars and back again, and the astronauts will take a much smaller descender down to the surface. This also means a smaller craft to come up again afterwards. With the consumables for the duration already on the surface, the descender can be much smaller. It also means more simplicity on arrival - the astronauts simply need to go and pick up the packages, though that may take some time if everything is spread over a 50km area.

But before anything like that can happen, we need to decide where on Mars we are going, and why. Neither of those two questions have been addressed. We will see real action when we start lobbing supplies at Mars in preparation for people to land. After all, event if it’s not considered to be critical to the mission, having spare food, air, and duct tape is always a good thing.

Originally, I was going to write about this issue a few days from now. However, both Den Beste and Floyd The Chimp have addressed this issue recently, so I must push up my press schedule. I’ve been mulling the gay marriage debate over in my head for quite some time, without comming to a complete and thorough argument in either direction. The purpose of this post is not to advocate a position (I support legal gay marriage), but to put forth issues which need to be addressed in hopes of raising the level of debate.

The fourteenth amendment to the US constitution provides that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It has been pointed out that if you take that to mean that any person may marry a willing partner of the opposite sex, this is absolutely correct. That is, both straight as well as gay people can marry a person of the opposite sex with equally marginal impediments to doing so. However, that assumes that the best way to describe the equal protection issue is of people marrying those of the opposite gender. Yes, that is currently protected, but that may not be the issue at hand.

An alternative way phrase the issue would be the ability to marry the consenting partner of their choice. This brings up other issues, which I will get to in a moment. Under such an interpretation of the issue, gay marriage would have to be logal under fourteenth amendment protection. Straight people currenrly are permitted to marry the consenting partner of their choice, but not gay people who choose a gay union.

Should gay marriage become a reality, we have to consider what impact this will have. Undoubtibly this will be a shock to some. After all, it is redefining a core part of society. However to some, this calls for an instant cry of bad. After all, what was before was just as good (for them). It fit their personal or religious requirements. Which leads me to ask - why was marriage defined the way that it was in the western world? Is this the best possible definition? And what truely objective definition should we use?

Throughout much of history, a wife was considered to be not quite property and not quite a free person. In most cases, marriage was the transference of an obligation which was jump-started through dowry. In some cases, such as in ancient, the pharoahs were known to marry closest kin, typically brother and sister, so as to keep the dynasty in the familly.

In current western culture marriage is between one man and one woman. However, one must ask why only one of each. Historically, it was one man so as to be able to determine the lineage of the children, especially for the purpose of inheritance. With DNA testing, this in no longer an issue. So why only one of each, especially if all of the parteners involved are consenting to the new addition. One can point out to the potential internal choas that this can present, but that all boils down to the consenting part. And a good cliche: you made your bed, now you must lie in it. How appropriate. But I digress. Many societies provided specific circumstances for polygamous relationships, including islamic, jewish, morman and egyptian. Why are these barred?

I have thought for some time that a better definition of marriage is: a social institution which legitimizes in society sexual relations between the members, and provides protection of permanance for any children which arise from the union. However, that raises other questions. Why do sexual relations need to be legitimized in the firstplace? What if the couple is infertile? What happens if they can’t have sex? Is permanance the best thing for children? How should adultry be treated? Will polygamy be allowed, and under what conditions? Will incest be allowed?

Some of the above question are easier to answer than others. Justifying them is harder still. I also refuse to accept a religious arguement on any side of the arguement. The is in part due to the First amendment protections against the establishment of a state religion. Personally, it is because I am an atheist - religious arguemtents don’t fly with me.

If we are going to change how society looks at marriage, we need to do more than just decide if we want gay marriage. We need to look at the whole institution and from first principles decide and justify why we want it to encompass certain aspects listed above, but not others.