Many readers keep cavilling that the evidence of torture and prisoner abuse committed by American forces is nonexistent. They are tragically wrong. Recall this part of the Taguba report, the official investigation into Abu Ghraib. Here’s some of what happened:

“Breaking chemical lights and pouring phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall of his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.”

There is incontrovertible evidence of actual rapes and murders. Prisoners under American command have been killed. Now we hear the following from the Washington Post:

“The memorandum said that the Defense Intelligence Agency officials saw prisoners being brought in to a detention center with burn marks on their backs and complaining about sore kidneys.”

This was after the Abu Ghraib scandal came to light. Some Defense Intelligence Agency officials witnessed one Special Forces officer “punch a prisoner in the face to the point the individual needed medical attention.” And part of the response to the complaints was to threaten the investigators. Just put it all together. We have a problem here.

Ending Domestic Partnerships

That’s what is now happening in…Massachusetts. No, not some right-wing plot to attack gay couples; but a natural and simple response to the fact that gay couples now have the right to civil marriage. From the Boston Globe:

“Large employers terminating or phasing out domestic-partner benefits for some or all Massachusetts workers include IBM Corp., Raytheon Co., Emerson College, Northeastern University, the National Fire Protection Association, Boston Medical Center, Baystate Health System, and The New York Times Co., which owns The Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. ‘We’re saying if you’re a same-sex domestic partner, you now have the same option heterosexuals have, so we have to apply the same rules to you,’ said Larry Emerson, Baystate’s vice president of human resources.”

Amen. My first piece on marriage rights for gays – 15 years ago – was written precisely because I was worried that the plethora of domestic partnerships arrangements, civil unions, etc., was bound to weaken civil marriage as a social norm. Give ’em marriage. And once gays have marriage, you can and should then dismantle all other civil arrangements. At the time, this was theory. But now we see it happening in practice: clear proof that letting gays marry can strengthen, rather than undermine, the existing institution. Gay activists should quit their whining. Religious right activists should reconsider their opposition. Gay marriage really is the best option for all of us.

Chemicals by Chance

Here’s a philosophical tangle that gets to the heart of the debate about steroids. It’s an observation by Slavoj Zizek in the London Review of Books:

“We see it as perfectly justified when someone with a good natural singing voice takes pride in his performance, although we’re aware that his singing has more to do with talent than with effort and training. If, however, I were to improve my singing by the use of a drug, I would be denied the same recognition (unless I had put a lot of effort into inventing the drug in question before testing it on myself). The point is that both hard work and natural talent are considered ‘part of me’, while using a drug is ‘artificial’ enhancement because it is a form of external manipulation. Which brings us back to the same problem: once we know that my ‘natural talent’ depends on the levels of certain chemicals in my brain, does it matter, morally, whether I acquired it from outside or have possessed it from birth? To further complicate matters, it’s possible that my willingness to accept discipline and work hard itself depends on certain chemicals. What if, in order to win a quiz, I don’t take a drug which enhances my memory but one which ‘merely’ strengthens my resolve? Is this still ‘cheating’?”

If we’re all chemicals, why prefer the ones we have by chance rather than those we have by design? I doubt whether Barry Bonds pondered this matter for very long; but that doesn’t mean we can’t.

Quote for the Week

“To the extent that the left is still vibrant, I am suggesting that it has mutated into something else. If what used to be known as the Communist International has any rough contemporary equivalent, it is the global media. The global media’s demand for peace and justice, which flows subliminally like an intravenous solution through its reporting, is – much like the Communist International’s rousing demand for workers’ rights – moralistic rather than moral. Peace and justice are such general and self-evident principles that it is enough merely to invoke them. Any and all toxic substances can flourish within them, or manipulate them, provided that the proper rhetoric is adopted. For moralizers these principles are a question of manners, not of substance. To wit, Kofi Annan can never be wrong.” -Robert Kaplan, “The Media and Medievalism,” Policy Review.

Mr. Sullivan writes every day for www.andrewsullivan.com.