Sacked in Sacramento

California didn't quite have the guts yesterday to join Massachusetts in same-sex marriage. A bill to permit it failed 37-36. One Republican and seven Democrats abstained. A majority of 41 votes would have been sufficient to pass it.

The San Francisco Chronicle has the vote tally and a wrap-up of the rhetoric on all sides.

It was pretty much a party vote, with Republicans solidly opposed. Nearly a quarter of the Democrats joined them to scuttle the bill. This version would have amended the state family code to define marriage as between two persons.

Some hid behind the 61% voter support for DoMA Proposition 22. That non-binding ballot initiative passed in 2000, with the gist of "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Others were plain about their emotional basis for their votes. For example, Assemblyman Dennis Montjoy, Republican-Monrovia, was blunt in saying, "What the homosexuals in the state of California and in the United States want is not rights, they want acceptance. They want my children to be told that homosexuality is OK, that it is natural. I'm here to tell you that it is not OK, and it is not natural, and I will not have my children taught that."

He is in a position to legislate his emotions. It appears most California voters would agree with him.

Now there is a race by both sides. The cons want to put a DoMA constitutional amendment on next year's ballot. The pros are looking for resolution through court suits challenging the constitutionality of the ban on same-sex marriages.

This defeat was but a diversion.

Unite Free or Die

What report will the majority anti-gay-marriage commission do in New Hampshire if its public hearings are pro gay marriage? The 15-member commission held its first hearing and heard the herd say go for civil unions. It is supposed to turn in its report to the legislature in December.

The detailed Boston Globe article on the commission is reprinted here. The wire services have their own versions of the first hearing.

From the coverage, we learn:

1. Most of the appointed commissioners are anti-same-sex marriage and anti-civil unions.
2. The audience at the first of the four hearings was overwhelmingly in favor of civil unions or same-sex marriage.

The Democratic governor is in favor of same-sex marriage, but the legislature is a much harder sell. In the state famous for its Live Free or Die motto, it will be fascinating to see how the lawmakers react if the other three hearings are as tolerant and laissez faire as the first in Littleton on Tuesday.

About 100 showed up and stayed for the two and one-half hour meeting. Many spoke in favor, three against, and the Roman Catholic church mailed in its opposition from the Manchester Diocese. One minister was among the anti forces. Local Christ Church Rev. Curt Hanners claimed accepting homosexual unions or marriages would harm families.

Several other ministers disagreed. One pointed to neighboring Vermont's five-year track record of civil unions. Vermont UU Rev. Brendan Hadash said straight marriages are stronger. "Since civil unions were legalized in Vermont, the number of straight weddings I have performed has almost quadrupled.

The commission chair is Rep. Tony Soltani, who has opposed changing the state marriage law and last year spoke in favor of a gay-marriage ban. He seems only mildly mean in contrast t the vice chair, Scott Earnshaw. The latter heads the New Hampshire Traditional Marriage and Family Institute.

With Massachusetts at its feet and Vermont rubbing it back, New Hampshire must sleep fitfully.

By the Company We Keep

If you thought the anti-kiddy picture book people were weird, just wait until the Westboro Baptist Church gets to Lexington to support them. [Warning: The pamphlet linked here includes anti-papist slurs and images, as well as coarse language.] The Topeka, Kansas, based group says it will send its protestors for Saturday through Monday, June 4th through 6th.

They intend to picket local Roman Catholic, Methodist, Episcopal and Baptist churches. The hate highlights will be, as the group's flyer puts it, "picketing the fag-infested Estabrook School and the Lexington Public Schools administrators Mon. June 6 (and) the dog kennels and leper colonies masquerading as Lexington churches."

They must assume that subtlety is wasted on anti-homosexual folk.

The local religious groups and school staff are receiving short-course training in non-confrontational protest, according to the local weekly, the Lexington Minuteman. Parents of the elementary-school students got notes about the protests and will get at least one more.

While mad dad David Parker and his lawyer say his anti-same-sex-family stance is not about hate, the WBC make no such pretence. It castigates the local churches for complicity in not safeguarding their community. Again from the flyer:

The unfaithful, apostate churches are mostly to blame for creating the Satanic zeitgeist where in filthy, militant fags & dykes have seized control of Massachusetts government, sending feces-eaters to Congress, and same-sex marriage is law.

Perhaps we should appreciate the smallest positives. Unlike the Mass Resistance/Article 8 folk, the WBC does not use quotes around same-sex marriage.

One would hope that Parker would be insightful enough to see how he is on a spectrum of bigotry, much closer to the WBC than to the New Testament teachings of love and tolerance. His words are nowhere near as strident, but we are all known by the company we keep. Will he distance himself from those putting his feelings into the worst possible words or will he look at his sneakers and hum a hymn?

Don't Sit When You See The Whites of Their Eyes

The mad dad of Lexington, David Parker, doesn't seem to get the nature of civil disobedience. At his pretrial hearing yesterday in Concord, he and his lawyer tried the old not-guilty-because-it-was-a-good-cause ruse.

I am embarrassed for him. In the spirit of Emerson and other Transcendentalists from those very towns, he should take his lumps. Protesters have paid the fine, probation or other trivial penalty for such sit-ins for centuries. I hope he bones up on cause and effect and on action and responsibility before his trial on August 2nd.

Of course, he's guilty prima facie and in law. He wanted to make his (very control-freak silly) point and chose to occupy a public building for hours after closing to do so. He engineered his arrest for trespassing. Pay the man and go about your business, Davy.

According to the report on the hearing in the Boston Globe, Parker's lawyer claimed, ''...there are issues relative to necessity, justification, and the exercise of civil disobedience in this case that override whether he was technically trespassing or not." The lawyer is Jeffrey Denner Denner O'Malley, Boston.

Coverage in both the Globe and the Boston Herald, noted parents on both sides appearing at the court. A couple were for Parker and perhaps a dozen opposed him. The groups had delightful suburban names – Lexington Parents for Respect and Lexington CARES (Community Action for Responsible Education and Safety). Those are ever so much more genteel than Queers Can't Tell Us What to Do, and We're Not All Crazies Here. Although these latter seem more precise for this issue.

I would hope that the hardheaded Mr. Parker, backed by the intractable Brian Camenker of the Article 8 Alliance, does not cut a deal on this petty charge. I for one would love to hear his explain how the school system is obliged to give every concerned parent say-so over any scheduled or spontaneous discussion in his kid's classroom on subjects tangential to his specifications.

If there was ever an argument for home schooling, this is it. This guy wants absolute control over any aspect of same-sex relation mentions, precisely as he defines the term. If he expounds publicly on his reasoning, it could become a classic in logic classes.

Busy in Austin

The Texas legislature completed its 79th session Tuesday, May 31st. In what surely must be a touchstone for their peers throughout the country, their work included SCR No. 8 on the official vehicle:

The vehicle resolution's highlight is:

RESOLVED, That the 79th Legislature of the State of Texas hereby acknowledge the important value of preserving the chuck
wagon and designate the chuck wagon as the official vehicle of Texas...

It also passed the HJR (joint resolution) No. 6, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The key text of this is:

SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:

Sec. 32. (a) Marriage[0] in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

This puts the issue on the ballot in the next general election.

This must surely fall in the having-solved-all-other-problems class. Note that the chuck-wagon vote does not require voter approval.

Wikipedia Resource

You can find a nice overview of same-sex marriage in the United States in Wikipedia. It comes complete with a timeline and links to articles on same-sex marriage in other countries.

That has such goodies as that South Africa at the end of last year received an order from its highest court to change the laws to legalize same-sex marriage.

Given the fluidity of Wikipedia entries, I suspect this will be worth checking from time to time for news one might have missed.

With Many One?

Just when it seemed the anti-same-sex-marriage folk had the oddest interpretations, along comes the polygamy people. One lenghty essay asserts that both pro and anti folk support multiple-partner marriages. It picks the parts it wants from the Supreme Judicial Court decision to make its case. Then it turns to the anti folk.

For a flavor the carefully chosen arguments, read the whole work. An abbreviated argument for the latter group includes.

First, polygamy creates an even more "favorable setting for procreation."

Second, polygamy empowers wives who want to stay home with the children, equally empowering other wives who want to work. It motivates men to profound maturity and responsibility. Children can be raised at home by family members who love them - rather than being raised by low-paid strangers at daycare. Unquestionably, that creates an "optimal setting for child rearing."

Third, polygamy can free abandoned single moms from the "work-just-to-pay-for-day-care" cycle, empowering them to leave or avoid the welfare trap. That helps to preserve "scarce State and private financial resources."

Where’s Joseph Smith when he’s needed?

Princess of Justice

"Respect for the rule of law is deeply embedded in our American experience, but it is not embedded in our DNA," Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall told the graduating class of Brandeis University in Waltham yesterday.

Of course, she was alluding to the attacks from our POTUS and from local crazies. The idea that judges are negatively activist when they do their jobs has led to the most irrational view of the judicial system. Anyone who took a civics class learned that legislators, executives branch members and judges each play their roles.

She had no problem with criticisms of judges or their decisions. However, "I worry when people of influence use vague, loaded terms like 'judicial activism' to skew public debate or to intimidate judges," she said. "I worry when judicial independence is seen as a problem to be solved and not a value to be cherished."

Marshall was a voice of reason in this otherwise emotional atmosphere following her court's interpretation of Massachusetts law allowing same-sex marriages starting a year ago. She noted that "Our courts function as a pressure valve to defuse political and social tension." She was calm considering recent threats against judges here and the murder of the family of a U.S. District Judge in Chicago.

Most tellingly and accurately, she concluded, "Individual rights and human dignity are vulnerable when they depend on protection on the will of the majority or the good faith of those in power."

Try, for just a moment, to imagine the current White House being as reasonable or fair.

V State Spitting Contest

Vermont and Virginia are at it. Both claim jurisdiction on a child-custody case with all the trappings of a made-for-TV movie.

The short version is that

1. a lesbian couple joined in a civil union in Vermont
2. they returned to Virginia
3. they had a child by artificial insemination there
4. they returned to Vermont
5. love waned and they dissolved their union in Vermont
6. the biological mom took their kid to Virginia
7. she sued for full custody
8. Virginia courts granted that

Now the stew festers and all the rotten ingredients boil to the surface.

In this corner, the ex, the ACLU, Virginia Equity, and LAMBDA want visitation and shared custody. In the other corner, the ever flaming Liberty Counsel and the mom (who claims to have become both straight and born-again) nah nah nah nah nah. Vermont says it was already considering custody and therefore Virginia has no right to even discuss it. Virginia says it doesn't recognize same-sex marriage or even civil unions. Tough bananas, kiddies.

Both corners have filed briefs in the ex's appeal of custody. This will be a battle.

For Virginia, the home of Patrick Henry, the place where the majority of the Civil War was fought, the ideal of states' rights, this is actually a disgrace. To try to tramp on another state that way is a real disgrace.

Check out one side here, the news version here, and Liberty Counsel's version here.

The theater of the Liberty Counsel is always entertaining. Their fabulous Matt Staver paints this not as a custody case or as proof that the reactionaries are nasty, but his statement is, "Same-sex unions will inevitably cause havoc among the states when one state law collides with another. Since children are caught in the middle of this battle, Congress should move quickly to pass a bill to amend the United States Constitution to preserve traditional marriage. Let the people vote and put an end to this madness."

You'd hope for the mom's case that they don't let him argue anything.

Doyle Foiled

What was he thinking? The persistent-in-the-face-of-the-facts C. Joseph Doyle got the Massachusetts high-court rejection we all expected. Today, the Supreme Judicial court rejected his flimsy appeal of his failed effort to block all further same-sex marriages until maybe the issue gets to a commonwealth constitutional convention and just maybe again passes.

As executive director of the Catholic Action League, Doyle argued oddly that because his folks and others were fighting the marriages, that these activist judges (smirk) should halt the marriages...just in case.

Of course, their is no legal basis for his argument, just shots in the dark. However, Mr. Doyle was not put off by that. A single judge, Roderick Ireland, had already turned him down. He then had to fight on the even slimmer appeal that maybe something was wrong with that decision. The law had been fully explained to Doyle; he just didn't like the answer.

Doyle says he'll fight on, aiming for the amendment to the constitution. Ho hum.

Salem Solution?

Oregon is still trying to dance its way to a same-sex-marriage solution. The most recent effort, House Bill 3476 gets a hearing next week.

It would provide some important rights to couples, short of permitting marriage. The gist of it is that if you cannot legally marry, you can contract to agree to such rights as:

• Make funeral arrangements
• Inherit Property
• Visit in emergency rooms

In operation, the resulting law would require the state to create a contract form and permit such agreements among those who meet the simple requirements:

1. Each party must be at least 18 years of age;
2. Each party may not be married or a party to another reciprocal beneficiary relationship;
3. The parties must be prohibited from marrying each other under ORS chapter 106;
4. Each party must consent to the reciprocal beneficiary relationship, and the consent of a party may not be obtained by force, duress or fraud; and
5. Each party must sign a declaration of reciprocal beneficiary relationship as provided in section 5 of this 2005 Act.

While mostly for gay couples, the bill provides examples, "... such individuals (as) two individuals who are related to each other, such as a widowed mother and her unmarried son, or two unrelated adults of the same gender."

In a state like Massachusetts where marriage has always been a civil contract legally, this seems harmless enough. I'll watch the Oregon reaction though.

New Boston Mugwump

Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly is about out of chances. He made another effort to please everyone yesterday. As he runs for governor, he is likely to find that he just cannot accomplish that.

The subject yesterday was the 1913 law about marriage that Gov. Mitt Romney dusted off to attack same-sex marriage. (Shame on that cowardly man with the fancy hair.)

The law forbids marrying folk from other states here if the marriage would be illegal in their home state(s). It was written to prevent interracial marriages and keep the peace with discriminatory, anti-miscegenation states. Since that form of bigotry is not longer on the books, the law (Chapter 207:Section 12:CERTAIN MARRIAGES PROHIBITED) has not been enforced for decades.

Reilly tells Democrats, liberals and interest groups that he supports same-sex marriage as the law of the land, while telling Republicans and reactionaries that he supports the 1913 statute as the law of the land.

Republican Party Executive Director Tim O'Brien got Reilly to bite on that one yesterday. He had a letter delivered asking whether the AG would defend keeping 207:12 on the books. Gay-rights groups want it repealed.

Reilly wasted no time in having First Assistant Stephanie Lovell email a reply. According to the Boston Globe, the reply included:

It is our job to defend the laws of the Commonwealth. This is what we have done from the beginning of this case, and is what we will continue to do.

Of course, both as AG and gubernatorial candidate, the gutsy, visionary response would have been that following the implementation of same-sex marriages here, such laws that conflict need to be dropped or changed. Yet, Tommy wants it all ways.

Reilly's office has until June 24 to file its brief in the Cote-Whitacre case on this matter. In February 2006, the Supreme Judicial Court will hear GLAD's appeal of its loss at the Superior Court level in an effort to overturn 207:12.

The other announced candidate for governor, Deval Patrick, will unquestionably benefit from Reilly's failed gambit. Yesterday, his statement was strong and to the point, as a governor should speak. "It's a shame that we are spending any more time on the subject...This is old politics all over again. The court got it right. Let's move on."

The cochair of the Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, Arline Isaacson, was less kind. "I think it is deplorable that the highest-ranking elected official in the Democratic Party in this state would act this way. Tom Reilly has to decide what he really thinks and feels about this issue. Defending an obviously antigay application of this law is reprehensible."

Family Coming Out

One Massachusetts same-sex marriage that was good for all involved appears in Our family's values by Anne and Chad Gifford. The op-ed column appeared in the Boston Globe on May 17th.

One of their four kids is a gay man, who married his partner a year ago. The family is better off than most (dad is chairman emeritus of the Bank of America), but had the same hopes and expectations of most for their children.

The parents fess up that it took them some years to come to terms with their son's homosexuality. Now though a year after his marriage, they write:

Gay marriage conjures strong feelings on all sides. For many, religious beliefs simply prevent the acceptance that two individuals of the same sex should be legally married. We understand that change can be threatening, and in fact, we must respect differing opinions. However, we believe that same-sex or equal marriage is a right that must be supported and preserved. Why is this simple human desire, this simple human right, so difficult to accept?

Our initial period of concern and confusion and the subsequent learning has, at times, been tumultuous. But how could we as parents not do all we could to embrace our child? How could we not do all we could to strengthen our family? Many object to equal marriage because it represents an attack on family. This is tragic and wrong. Family means love and support for all, not the marginalization of one member of the family.

That certainly takes it out of the realm of self-rightenousness and disdain.

They note that when their son came out to them in 1993, they found their stereotypical hopes dashed. Yet a dozen years later they say those hopes have been fully realized. They conclude, "What more could we have wished for than to have our son find happiness and share his life with someone he loves?"

Shrinks Expand

Down in the annual conference in Atlanta, the American Psychiatric Association's advisory group urged support of same-sex marriages. If the APA's board approves this as expected in July, it will be a boost to the cause. It would become the first major medical association to do so.

[It was not that many years ago – until 1987 – that the APA classified homosexuality as a mental illness.]

The advisors are the 250 representatives in the APA's Assembly. Five years ago, they recommended and the board passed support for civil unions. The key idea behind both is that discrimination is bad for mental health.

This weekend's amplification was evolutionary, reports the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

In the wake of Vermont's adoption of civil union and Massachusetts' same-sex marriage, it became clear that the two notions are not equal, said psychiatrists who voted for gay marriage.

Same-sex marriage supporters say a civil union is tailored by each state, comes with fewer benefits and is not recognized by other states with the same measure. Marriage, theoretically, is recognized universally even though states do not accept Massachusetts' approval of gay marriage at the moment.

"Civil unions are more restrictive to strengthening the couple and family. They're not transportable. Marriage is transportable from state to state, from country to country," said Jack Drescher, a New York City psychiatrist in charge of the assembly's committee on gay issues...

Yet while a sizable majority of the shrinks approve, some are gun-shy and not too eager to offend. The article quotes a West Virginia psychiatrist F. Joseph Whelan as saying, "Marriage has a lot of Judeo-Christian connotations" attached..."Many of us did not see it was appropriate for APA to be a vanguard to change that."

Those many were outvoted.

Chasing the Chaste

Now that same-sex marriage is permissible in Massachusetts, I think chicken hawks who want to wed their kiddies may fall under CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER. It reads:

Section 1 Enticing away person under 16 for marriage

Whoever fraudulently and deceitfully entices or takes away an unmarried person under sixteen from the house of such person's parents or elsewhere, without the consent of the parent or guardian, if any, under whose care and custody such person is living, for the purpose of effecting a clandestine marriage of such person without the consent of such parent or guardian, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or both.

If your pubescent love object is pregnant or has the parents' permission and a judge's approval, you may still be able to marry him or her. However, being a sneak and snatching a child for marriage is out of bounds here and has been for a long time.

The locals can laugh about the hillbillies and the Jerry Lee Lewises of the world, but that law is on the books for good reason — and based in experience here.

Burned Waffles

While I was in Seattle, Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi assessed the Massachusetts Democratic Party's formal incorporation of a same-sex-marriage plank in its new platform. (Unfortunately, you need to be a subscriber or pay to read the Globe archives...no link here.)

She mused on how badly John Kerry got burned in the last presidential election by seeming to change his opinions on major issues. In this case, the conviction shown by the Democrats raises such questions as:

• Do voters really want a firm position or was that just an excuse?
• Will the fear of same-sex marriages alienate more voters than the honesty and humanity of the plank?
• Will stating a strong position attract voters who are undecided about the issue?
• Is a controversial position a liability

Vennochi writes:

However, there is risk in this gay marriage resolution, in Massachusetts, too. Advocates argue same-sex marriage is a pressing civil rights issue. But is it really the most pressing issue in this state? Even people who support same-sex marriage may conclude that with this emphasis, the Democratic Party is losing its focus on economic issues that win elections. In that case, the party nomination could be worthless, especially if the nominee is viewed by the general electorate as a pawn of one special interest group.

For those who watch politics, it is an interesting laboratory test case of conviction versus expediency, of boldly pushing left rather than safely hugging the middle. In a party filled with equivocators on controversial social issues, the liberal Democrats who run the party here are taking a liberal position and sticking with it, without apology and without regard for those who call them out of touch and worse.

Then again, it may work in Massachusetts. That could be more from the obvious that it has become a less powerful issue. We've had same-sex marriages for a year. Thousands have benefited directly and no one has been harmed. What's the problem and why is it even an issue?

Ban Ban at Con Con?

Same-sex marriage supporters, particularly gay spouses, are not counting their friends until the votes are compiled. According to Can These Marriages Be Saved in the latest Bay Windows, the issue is far from settled.

I may be impatient, but I'm willing to call the defeat of the amendment that would put a ballot question reversing gay marriage in favor of civil unions a certain thing. Several recent articles in the Boston Globe also counted up the newly elected pro-same-sex legislators and noted that the Speaker of the House is pro.

Not so fast, reads the Bay Windows piece. Gay-rights politicians, organizers, and mostly married homosexual couples are actively engaging legislators, particularly those who voted for the amendment last year.

State Rep. Marty Walsh (Dorchester) says the left wing has become complacent. According to the article:

Walsh suggests that now is the time to ratchet up lobbying efforts. "It's very close," he says of the upcoming vote. "Seats have been picked up. And I think a lot of people took a vote against gay marriage last year that took a very bad vote. They feel very bad about the fact that they voted that way and they're on the cusp of realizing it."

Lord knows, the anti folk are certainly calling and visiting.

Grannies in the Aftermath

What rights do grandparents have when their children divorce? It is no concern, except for that small group who suddenly faces it.

The Massachusetts Bar Association has a nice piece on it here. Note that when last accessed, it referred to the law as Chapter 199, when it is actually 119.

The salient points are:

Since 1972, Massachusetts Law has provided for visitation rights to certain grandparents of unmarried children (who can visit their grandchildren):
–If the parents of the child are divorced, married but living apart, or under a temporary order or judgment of separate support.
–If either or both parents are deceased.
–If the child was born out of wedlock and the paternity of the child has been established by a court or the father has signed an acknowledgment of paternity.

They are out of luck if the minor grandchildren are adopted by someone other than a stepparent.

The full statute is available here. It is Massachusetts General Law Chapter 119, Section 39D. It includes the petition procedures for in and out-of-state grandparents.

Really, Reilly?

Get off the fence, Tommy, say both Democrats and Republicans in Massachusetts. Poor Attorney General and declared candidate for governor Thomas F. Reilly wants it all ways on same-sex marriage. Nobody wants to let his dissemble.

At last weekend's state Democratic convention, he still would not declare. He is in a strongly Roman Catholic state and understandably wants to please those voters (who have a wide range of opinion on the matter, regardless of the Pope's position). His party put a pro-gay-marriage plank in its platform.

Last year, when the court mandated legalization of the marriages came under his jurisdiction, he twitted Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, saying it was the law of the land and as chief law enforcement officer, he'd see it was obeyed.

Yet privately, he has told several people he favors civil unions.

Yesterday, U.S. Rep. Michael E. Capuano, a Democrat, took his shot at Reilly as quoted in the Boston Globe. "I'm not happy that the current front-runner doesn' know whether he's for or against (same-sex marriage)."

Capuano himself has declared. He's in favor. Also, he has not ruled out running for governor.

On the Republican side, they are having a good time drawing attention to Reilly's gutlessness, saying he runs from the issue like its "the plague."

By trying to please all, Reilly seems to have offended all.

Joy v. Spite

One year on, Massachusetts saw glad and mad demonstrations to mark the anniversary of legalized same-sex marriage. A big, happy group celebrated and a sad, strange, little one protested.

On the Boston Common, several hundred couples and their kids cheered, laughed and celebrated. A short distance away at the State House, about 16 protesters staged a bit of street theater. Led by the every dour and always self-righteous Brian Camenker, the anti forces included a woman parodying Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ripping up a fake commonwealth constitution. The cons get the art points.

Camenker, executive director of the Article 8 Alliance, is dedicated to firing the four judges who declared same-sex marriage legal here. Despite any supporting evidence, he called the past year "frightening, illegal and despotic." His best trope may have been, "The people of Massachusetts are living under a reign of madness."

Of course, from where he was wailing, one could hear the cheers and joy of the happy families. Take your choice.