Basura en nuestras playas

Hace diez años, tomé un curso de buceo para el cual practicábamos en Crash Boat. La playa era una pocilga, por la basura que había por todos lados. Tristemente, nada ha cambiado. Da vergüenza. La solución requiere de nuestro gobierno que ponga en vigor las leyes que prohíben tirar basura en las playas. Tan sencillo como eso. Pero también requiere de todos nosotros que pongamos nuestro granito de arena (por asi decir), regañando en el momento a toda persona que veamos afeando nuestra patria.

Rosselló y Burgos: el nádir de la desobediencia civil

El concepto de la desobediencia civil, teorizado por Henry David Thoreau y famosamente puesto en vigor por Mahatma Gandhi y luego Martin Luther King, ha sido malinterpretado en Puerto Rico.

En años recientes, por ejemplo, el conflicto en torno a la salida de Vieques de la Marina federal fue caracterizada por lo que los partícipes equivocadamente llamaron desobediencia civil; digo equivocadamente porque, al atacar al Tribunal de Distrito Federal por castigar a los desobedientes, hacían caso omiso a que una de las premisas esenciales de la desobediencia civil es que se castigue al desobediente, ya que es precisamente el castigo lo que revela la injusticia de la ley. Los desobedientes boricuas se quedan cortos cuando los comparamos con la valentía de Gandhi y de King, quienes serenamente se sometieron a los castigos que les impusieron, así demostrando la superioridad moral de los principios que defendían. Al pelear tan vigorosamente sus sentencias, los desobedientes restaban eficacia a su propia gestión.

Ahora bien, aunque los activistas anti-Marina andaban un poco confundidos en torno a lo que significa desobediencia civil, por lo menos estaban intendando desplegar la táctica en circunstancias meritorias. Al igual que no se debe utilizar un fusil para matar una mosca, no se debe recurrir a medidas tan drásticas como la desobediencia civil o la huelga de hambre para lograr objetivos de poca importancia. Tiene que haber una proporcionalidad moral entre la magnitud de la injusticia y de la medida que se adopte para atenderla. Además, aún cuando sean importantes los objetivos, no debe emplearse esta táctica a menos de que no existan otras maneras de resolver el conflicto. En el caso de Vieques, sin embargo, ambas condiciones estaban presentes: estaban en juego la salud y libertad de miles de puertorriqueños, y la experiencia de haber convivido con la Marina por décadas dejó claro que los métodos formales de resolver conflictos no tendrían éxito. Solamente la desobediencia civil, al generar presión pública, a nivel tanto local como nacional e internacional, podría tener éxito.

Pero mi insatisfacción con la forma en que los activistas anti-Marina interpretaron el concepto de desobediencia civil es de minimis, cuando se compara con la náusea que sentí cuando leí que el Senador Pedro Rosselló González y la Senadora Norma Burgos hicieron un llamado a la desobediencia civil si el Tribunal Supremo de Puerto Rico decide que la tasa total del IVU (estatal y municipal) debe ser 7% y no 5.5%. ¿Cómo se atreven?

No voy a entrar en los méritos de la disputa, pues en pocos días el Tribunal Supremo decidirá el asunto. Mi preocupación es otra - es que, aún si Rosselló y Burgos tuviesen algo de razón en cuanto al IVU (lo cual seriamente dudo, pero sigamos), sus expresiones demuestran una irresponsabilidad pasmante, particularmente viniendo de un ex-Gobernador y una ex-Secretaria de Estado.

Para empezar, el relieve moral de esta controversia no es remotamente comparable con el de las luchas de Gandhi y King en contra del colonialismo británico y del discrimen racial, respectivamente. La desobediencia civil es como los antibióticos - si se utilizan con demasiada frecuencia o para atender problemas menores, pierden efectividad. Una disputa que gira en torno a la tasa impositiva no puede justificar una respuesta tan radical.

Segundo, no se trata aquí de personas que carecen de otras opciones. Se trata de una controversia en torno a cómo interpretar el texto de un estatuto. Digamos que ellos tengan razón, y que el estatuto dice 5.5%, en vez de 7%, pero que el Tribunal Supremo se equivoca y resuelve que es 7%. ¿Y? La solución es fácil: legislar nuevamente, para enmendar la ley y reducir la tasa al 5.5% que ellos buscan.

Teniendo esa salida, ¿cómo se atreven a alentar a que los ciudadanos violen la ley? Por razones puramente político-partidistas, están socavando los cimientos de nuestra sociedad, e incumpliendo crasamente con el deber de todo oficial electo de proteger la cosa pública (la 'res publica'). Han traicionado a su país.

Presumption of paternity vs DNA

In the most recent edition of Findlaw's Writ, Prof. Joanna Grossman of Hofstra University School of Law argues that the Florida court of appeals ruled correctly when it "held that a man can, against his will, be deemed a father and obliged to support a child born to his wife during their marriage, despite the fact that the two have no biological or adoptive relationship." (Joanna Grossman, Paternity Misrepresentation: A Florida Court Rules That a Husband Waited Too Long to Disprove Fatherhood, and Reaffirms His Status as the Child's Father, Writ, December 27, 2005). I respectfully disagree.

The presumption of paternity is an ancient rule that arose in the context of a particular scientific reality: paternity could not be proven with certainty. Circumstances have changed dramatically, however: now certainty *is* possible. It would seem, therefore, that the presumption is obsolete. A rule that would choose fiction over fact seems to me unjustifiable.

To her credit, Grossman does not dispute that the original justification for the rule is no longer valid. She argues, however, that the presumption should remain applicable, on the basis of a justification that had lain the background but that should now move to the fore: that the "best interests" of the child are served by enforcing the presumption against contrary DNA evidence and the husband's interests.

From a formal standpoint, the argument is not invalid, because it is not inherently illogical to argue that the interests of the child can sometimes trump those of his or her parents. Nevertheless, a heavy burden lies on those who would argue that the best interests of the child should trump the rights of a cuckolded husband. Given the importance of the issue, I would have expected this argument to be developed to some length. Instead, however, Grossman disposes of it in one sentence:

"While it is easy to see Richard's side of the story here, let's not forget another party's side: As the Parker court noted, disestablishment of paternity might satisfy Richard, but would likely also trigger 'the psychological devastation that the child will undoubtedly experience from losing the only father he or she has ever known.'"

At best, this is a woefully inadequate discussion. But in addition, the justification seems wrong - why would we *ever* suppose that the child will not otherwise find out that the "father" is not his or her biological parent? It would seem that in typical circumstances, the child is almost certain to find out - and it is THAT discovery, and not the judicial determination of paternity, that would cause "psychological devastation". The causal nexus is clearly missing here. No court decision can force a father to love a child that is not his.

In sum, it seems to me that the rule followed by the Florida Appeals Court is obsolete and should be jettisoned: instead, it should have held that a father's right to rebut the presumption of paternity is not defeasible.

And yet... what to do about the child support payments? That is another matter altogether. In THAT context, the interests of the child are much stronger. The key here is to disaggregate the fact of paternity from the obligation to pay child support.

As a matter of public policy, it is much less objectionable to tell a man that, even if a child is not biologically his, he must pay child support if the child was born during his marriage. After all, the man's decisions were to some degree voluntary, whereas the child's are clearly not. There is a residual degree of unfairness here, of course, because the cuckolded husband is likely to resent having to make the payments. But having a financial liability for child support payments does not infringe on his rights to the same extent as having to live with a court order saying that he is the father of a child that is not his.

Moreover, there are ways to mitigate the unfairness: for example, the biological father could be brought in as a third party, declared the father, and ordered to make the child support payments, and so on... (if he were unable to pay the full amount, the husband might have to make up the difference, but again, these are adults, and with respect to finances, the child's interests should come first).

Marriage -- not separation -- of Church and State in Puerto Rico
Every year, as December approaches, Puerto Rico's politicians try to outdo each other in trying to show the public how enthusiastic they are about everything having to with Christmas. Back in 1999, for example, former Senate President Charlie Rodríguez (NPP) proudly announced to the local press that he had personally ordered a ceramic nativity scene from an Italian manufacturer for installation and display inside the Capitol rotunda. Last month, I had the dubious pleasure of reading about how the current President of the Senate, Antonio Fas Alzamora (PDP) arranged for the purchase and installation of an angel (yes, an angel) to hang in mid-air in the Capitol's rotunda.

I think it may be the symbolism that offends me the most. Those of you who are not from Puerto Rico probably do not know this, but lying at the very center of our Capitol's rotunda is a copy of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Both of these legislators had the gall to introduce blatantly religious installations in our Constitution's sanctuary, even though Section 2 of Article II of that document provides, among other things, that "[t]here shall be complete separation of church and state." (See here for the full text of the Puerto Rico Constitution, in Spanish).

[Aside: The local political angle is curious, too. Given that the founder of the NPP, Luis Ferré, was a conservative Catholic, perhaps one should not be entirely surprised by Charlie Rodríguez's actions. But Tony Fas does surprise me. He cannot possibly have forgotten the 1960 election, during which the founder of his party, the late great Luis Muñoz Marín, had to defend himself against a concerted attack by the local Catholic hierarchy, which threatened to excommunicate any Catholic who voted for Muñoz. And yes, you read correctly - this happened in 1960, not 1860. For additional details, see Finkelman, Paul (ed.), Religion and American Law: An Encyclopedia, at 400-402 (Garland Publishing 1999); Alonso, María M., Muñoz Marín vs. the bishops: An approach to church and state (Publicaciones Puertorriqueñas Ed., 1998)].

To belabor the obvious, we now have an angel floating over the text of the document that makes it unconstitutional for that angel to be there in the first place. But that is not all. The Capitol's grounds are teeming with tacky lawn ornaments of saints, angels, and nativity scenes. Across the street, families stand in line for hours to climb the "Loma de los Vientos" to visit the Three Kings. And all of this paid with taxpayers' money (more than $500,000 this year, according to one newspaper article).

Everyone knows that these installations are unconstitutional, but no one says anything, not even the ACLU (whose silence is deafening). It's embarrassing that Alabama, of all places, is more progressive on this matter (my apologies to Southerners, but, let's face it, the South is not known for being a hotbed of liberalism). So, what is wrong with our legislators? Since most of them are lawyers admitted to practice, one must assume that they passed their constitutional law courses. But if they cannot claim ignorance, then what we are faced with can only be blatant pandering and scrounging for votes. They are afraid of being labeled Scrooges, of being targeted as anti-religious by Catholic and Protestant leaders alike, ... of standing up for what is right.

The sad thing is that everyone is missing the point. There is nothing wrong with celebrating Christmas. But it should not be the government that celebrates it. Ironically, the separation of Church and State was intended to protect religion, for the framers of both the United States and Puerto Rico constitutions were keenly aware that the greatest threat to religious freedom was posed by the government. This is most obvious when the government espouses one particular religion. But it is equally true when government tries to support religion, in general.

Government, by its very nature, is political, worldly, messy, and very often dirty. No matter how pure the intentions, any involvement in religion by government necessarily contaminates religion. Catholics who favor statehood should remember how betrayed they must have felt when the Archbishop recently issued a letter on the subject of Puerto Rico's nationhood. And evangelicals who favor independence or commonwealth should remember how embarrassing it was to see former Governor Rosselló being anointed by an evangelical minister.

These views are not new: Locke, Madison, and Jefferson, among others, wrote extensively on this subject. But, to judge from the annual orgy of constitutional violations that our Legislature engages in, it appears that they must be repeated, in the hope that some might realize the harm that is being done to our republic.