Give Us A Reason

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) on the question of marriage equality:

While recognizing that “our history is marred by discrimination against gays and lesbians,” Rubio argued that “traditional marriage has such an extraordinary record of success at raising children” and must be perpetuated to the exclusion of same-sex unions.

“[T]oday, there is a growing intolerance on this issue, intolerance towards those who continue to support traditional marriage,” Rubio observed, citing the firing of the CEO of Mozilla, following revelations that he supported California’s campaign to ban same-sex marriage, and other instances where opponents of marriage equality suffered economic consequences. “And I promise you that even before this speech is over, I will be attacked as a hater, a bigot or someone who is anti-gay,” he added. “This intolerance in the name of tolerance is hypocrisy.”

Rubio then sought to shield himself from accusations of homophobia, by linking his position on the issue to President Obama’s.” “Supporting the definition of marriage as one man and one woman is not anti-gay, it is pro-traditional marriage,” the junior senator claimed.

It takes more than a little gall to shed crocodile tears over discrimination against gays and lesbians and then turn around and explain in detail why he does it.

I've heard the "traditional marriage" line so many times that I'm not going to bother to once again remind him that what he calls traditional marriage -- i.e. one man and one woman -- isn't all that traditional.  It certainly isn't that way in the bible, nor is the idea of two people falling in love and getting married as opposed to an arranged marriage between two fathers as a business deal.  Read some Shakespeare or download Fiddler on the Roof.

His claim is that "traditional marriage" must be preserved to the exclusion of all others because it of its "extraordinary record of success in raising children."  This claim may be true; it's nice to have a mom and a dad.  But there are a lot of single parents who do just as good a job with their kids as anybody else.  So they shouldn't be allowed to raise kids because they're not married?  What about straight people who for whatever reason choose not to have children?  If you're going to exclude same-sex couples from marriage because they can't reproduce the old-fashioned way, why not exclude the straight ones who don't have kids?  Must all marriage licenses require proof of fertility?

Mr. Rubio implies that "traditional marriage" is under attack.  By whom?  Advocates for marriage equality don't want to stop straight people from getting married.  It's not some zero-sum game wherein one is traded out for the other.  How can advocating for committed unions between two people who happen to have the same form of genitalia threaten those marriages between two people who don't?

That's where the intolerance comes in.  Pro-"traditional" marriage people don't want same-sex couples to have the benefits of marriage, whereas those of us who are pro-marriage equality want everybody to have the benefits.  So who is the intolerant one?  Saying that same-sex marriage somehow denigrates or mocks straight marriage is yet again another sign of intolerance because that's saying that the people in that marriage are less than worthy of respect simply because of their orientation.  Again, who is the intolerant one?

And then there's the church.  Mr. Rubio doesn't say it, but the implication is that marriage equality violates religious freedom by forcing Christians to accept something they don't approve of.  However, not all Christians accept the idea of banning same-sex marriage.  In fact, there are a number of Christian denominations, including mainline Protestants, who welcome and perform same-sex weddings, as do a number of Jewish synagogues.  Why do some Christians get to tell others who they can or cannot celebrate in the bonds of holy matrimony?

But let's be fair.  If Sen. Rubio can give us a valid reason based in law as to why same-sex couples should not be joined in matrimony, let him speak now.  So far, though, more than twenty state and federal courts have heard arguments for and against marriage equality since the Supreme Court handed down their decision in United States v. Windsor which struck down DOMA, and not one court has ruled in favor of his position.  In fact, the prevailing opinion of all those courts with judges appointed by everyone from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama is that state bans on marriage equality are violations of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution, and some of the rulings have said that the bans are in place for no other reason than to deny those protections to same-sex couples and serve no valid state purpose other than to enshrine gay-bashing in the law.

Sen. Rubio says that he will be labeled as is "a hater, a bigot or someone who is anti-gay" because he opposes marriage equality.  So let us give him the benefit of the doubt.  He can prove he is not by giving us a reason to oppose marriage equality that isn't based on bigotry, discrimination, and intolerance.  We are all anxious to hear it.

Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Just do it!

By Capt. Fogg

Perhaps Fred Phelps Jr. is getting slow, or perhaps he has to type with one hand because he's so exited at God's wrath being inflicted on Moore, Oklahoma.  The very thought of little children being crushed or torn to pieces as they scream in terror must excite him past the point of self control. It took him hours to inform us that this disaster was the result of Oklahoma City Thunder basketball star Kevin Durant’s public support for gay basketball player Jason Collins.  God works in mysterious ways, but there's nothing mysterious about Fred unless you're interested in the chemistry of foul smells.

But there's light at the end of the drain and maybe a suggestion for people like Fred with more demons than synapses in their skulls. Dominique Venner is billed in the press as a right-wing historian, although some may prefer to call him a hate-filled pervert obsessed with other people's sexual preferences,  or an ultra nationalist militiaman because of his past involvement with a paramilitary Secret Army Organisation which fought against France giving up colonial rights in Algeria. A gay hating enemy of human rights and freedom, in short. Mr. Venner walked into Notre Dame de Paris Monday, placed a letter on the altar and then blew his brains out with an illegally owned pistol.

The famous Cathedral has been the site of many demonstrations and protests over the issue of gay marriage which became legal last week. Catholic conservative Venner certainly made his point to the horror of the tour groups present and one has to wonder about the dedication of lesser nobles like Phelps for not martyring himself for his ridiculous cause.  I presume God has to wonder too.

So what about it Fred?  I mean you don't need to go to Paris or even to bloody up someone elses Church, you've got one of your own. Take your dad along, make it a father and son thing, or take the whole flock along, but Just do it!

(Cross posted at Human Voices.)

Voting rights

By Mustang Bobby.

New Jersey's legislature is on the verge of voting on marriage equality, and Gov. Chris Christie (R) is threatening to veto the law should it pass.  His stand is that it should be voted on by referendum, not "121 people in Trenton."

That's a weaselly way of getting out of it the discussion.  He's doing it so he doesn't have to take a stand and come across as a homophobic right-winger; hey, it's not the law, it's the process.  That's a typical chickenshit way out for a politician.  So far so good.  But then he goes and steps on the rake.

...he said, there's nothing "so special about this particular issue that it must be handled by a legislature."

"The fact of the matter is, I think people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South," he said.

That didn't go over too well with some of the people who remember all too well what it was like to fight for civil rights.

The comment outraged many African-American leaders in the state, who pointed out that such a referendum never would have passed in the south during the 60s — and that many black people were also disenfranchised at the time.


“People were fighting and dying in the streets of the South for a reason,” Oliver said. “They were fighting and dying in the streets of the South because the majority refused to grant minorities equal rights by any method. It look legislative action to bring justice to all Americans, just as legislative action is the right way to bring marriage equality to all New Jerseyans.”


“The governor’s comment is an insult to those who had no choice but to fight and die in the streets for equal rights,” she added.


Newark Mayor Cory Booker (D) had a similar take. “Dear God, we should not be putting civil rights issues to a popular vote, to be subject to the sentiments, the passions of the day. No minority should have their rights subject to the passions and the sentiments of the majority. This is the fundamental bedrock of what our nation stands for.”

Gov. Christie sounds like someone who has never faced any kind of discrimination. He has never lived a day in his life with the knowledge that there are laws that were written in such a way as to deny him a life with all his basic rights intact. Must be nice.

Rights are not something you vote on.  That's why they are rights; they are fundamental to the foundation of our country.  They are the essence of freedom; they don't restrict us, they liberate us.  And that is why a lot of people didn't like the idea of black people voting in the South -- or anywhere else -- and that's why they don't like the idea of same-sex couples having the same rights and responsibilities as straight couples.  It's not the act that enrages them (although some of them are really hung up on gay sex); it's the fact that they cannot abide the idea of people they hate and fear having the same rights as they do.

I'll give Gov. Christie the benefit of the doubt; after all, he just appointed an openly gay man to the state supreme court.  He's a privileged white guy who doesn't have the insight to know or understand what it's like to live without something, so it's easy to dismiss the call for a right that he's never been without.  That doesn't make him a homophobic bigot; it just makes him a jerk.

Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

That Vatican Rag

By Capt. Fogg

People have argued that Science is just another kind of faith, or at least another but equally valid way of telling truth from fiction; establishing fact from a confusing universe. I suppose that Pope Benedict would be suggesting such a 'fair and balanced' approach by suggesting that same sex marriage would be a "threat to the future of humanity itself."

I would argue that science is the best method we have of keeping our beliefs honest by constant examination of the data -- and that data as concerns the cohabitation of couples, or triples for that matter does not in any way suggest that the Holy Father's predictions are based on what happens in this world when such things are not prohibited by law or even custom.

“This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself,”

he said to some 180 diplomats at the Vatican yesterday. The education of children needs proper “settings” and “pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman.” I'm not quite sure that personal pride in being traditional and obedient to dogma constitutes justification for regulating private life in a free society, but then a free society is the definition of a heretical society and it wasn't long ago that Catholics were threatened with excommunication for voting for political leaders. I'm sure the rationalization for that was much the same farrago of gold embroidered, incense scented rubbish as was the persecution of Galileo and the scientists of the Renaissance -- to cite the less egregious examples.

The fact is, that children raised by gay couples can't be shown to have turned out as Benedict predicts and since gay people have been around since the dawn of humanity and a bit before -- and long before the shaman, that oldest of professions, told them they were evil -- we can assume that human dignity hasn't been much affected. The indignities of the Crusades and Inquisitions and centuries of war and tyranny might have done some harm, but I won't go into that here.

As I said, science rejects propositions, predictions and proclamations that do not produce the results claimed. I might suggest Mein Herr, that there's a bit of egg on your face and blood on your robes from trying to stifle that heresy with force of arms, torture and murder, but so far, nothing you or your predecessors have predicted has ever been demonstrated to be the truth. So how long caro padre, will you go on predicting that if we do A, then B will happen, because we've been doing A for a hell of a long time and there's no sign of you being right so far.

(Cross posted to Human voices)

Yes you can, no you can't

By Capt. Fogg

Private morality does not seem to me to be the state’s business unless it compromises the public welfare.

-Bishop Shelby Spong-
_________

Yes you can, no you can't, yes you can, no you can't. It must be infuriating for California's same sex couples looking for stability and security in their lives. Gay marriage opponents have again succeeded in blocking further unions pending yet another appeal for reasons known only to themselves -- although most seem happy to tell you why they're against it.

Do the objections make sense or are they simply a reflection of a selective morality with perhaps a bit of personal anxiety adding a note of passion? The appeal that came quickly after the judicial decision to overturn the ban tells us that

"California, 44 other states, and the vast majority of countries throughout the world continue to draw the line at marriage because it continues to serve a vital societal interest."

And what would that social interest be? Why,

"to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring, stable unions for the sake of responsibly producing and raising the next generation."

Astonishing, isn't it that the conservatives behind this can still make a living challenging the right of the State to serve social needs while advocating it so vociferously in this instance. Doesn't Social Security and Medicare and welfare and don't income taxes serve a societal interest? Is there any evidence anywhere of a negative effect on the public welfare of allowing gay marriage?

Sure, I could ask silly questions about why older couples past child producing age are allowed to marry or people who don't want to or are unable to have offspring are exempt from the Biblical mandate to go out there and get pregnant. I could ask why the State of California can find a right anywhere in its constitution or the Federal Constitution to promote Christianity and I could snicker at the fact that it really doesn't matter whether people are married -- they make babies anyway and I could point out as well that stable, married gay couples seem to do as well if not better at raising children, but we both know I wouldn't get a sensible answer because the position isn't about any of those things. It's about a personal repugnance concerning the private behaviour of other people with its origins in a religious tradition not recognized or supported by the government of the United States. Preventing a social contract between same sex couples serves no more legitimate a societal interest than outlawing interracial marriage, segregating public facilities, keeping Jews out of Palm Beach hotels or preventing women from voting. Yet that same rhetoric was used to defend those things and worse.

Pace the nauseous nattering of people like Sarah Palin and a large number of Republican hypocrites, there is no clause in the constitution saying "insert the Bible here." The objections are an excuse and nothing more and they are neither supported by facts or reason.

Another frequent argument is that the court which overturned the ban was " ignoring the will of the people" which of course is part of the job description of the legislative branch; that being another bulwark against the mob rule our founders were so rightly worried about. That is, or should be embarrassing to those who have made careers bloviating about "activist judges" since what they're calling for is a judge who rules on personal and political sentiment rather than a strict interpretation of the law. Is this hypocrisy or duplicity? Does it matter?

Marriage isn't about breeding, it's about property and responsibility and the right of one person to care for another without legal hindrance. The law isn't about bringing a Christian or Jewish or Muslim utopia to the world in preparation for it's destruction. I agree with bona fide Libertarians that the role of government in promoting some vision of public good needs to be limited and its ability to intrude into the most private and intimate parts of the human experience needs to be restricted to matters of the utmost need. There is no need or evidence of need here. There is no logical or factual consistency here and the allegedly conservative position isn't conservative. It's everything conservatives tell us they hate: an intrusion into life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by a self appointed group of moralizers. Morality is not the government's business. Sin is not the government's business: It's God's business. God can handle it.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Speaking of "ick"

By Mustang Bobby.

Mike Huckabee, destined to be the Campaign 2012 version of a folksy Pat Buchanan, is against gay marriage because of what he calls the "ick factor."

"I do believe that God created male and female and intended for marriage to be the relationship of the two opposite sexes," Huckabee said in a recent New Yorker profile. "Male and female are biologically compatible to have a relationship. We can get into the ick factor, but the fact is two men in a relationship, two women in a relationship, biologically, that doesn't work the same."

Actually, the only ick factor is that apparently Mr. Huckabee is incapable of thinking beyond his adolescent obsession with what other people do with their naughty bits. People who have a healthy understanding of marriage and the relationships between two people realize that there is more to it than what happens in the bedroom.

He later goes on to say that "No culture in the history of mankind has ever tried to redefine marriage." So he thinks marriage today is the same as it was back in the days -- in the Old Testament for example -- when a man had as many wives as he could afford, fathers sold their daughters off as part of a business transaction, and arranged marriages were made between families in order to settle feuds? I guess that means all those June brides and grooms in the Society pages who are getting married for silly reasons such as love and mutual respect are radicals who are redefining marriage, and even the churches are going along with it. Oh, the horror.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

As Maine went...

By Mustang Bobby.

Yes, I am disappointed that Maine voted down keeping the marriage equality law that was passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor last May. Any time a referendum that limits the rights of people gets a majority of the vote, I'm disappointed.

Beyond the analysis of who voted for or against the measure and what part of the state they lived in, one of the questions that arises is whether or not such a question should even be put to a popular vote. Are there some rights that are so fundamental that leaving them up to the whims and the machinations of the campaign trail puts them in danger? Do you really think that the people of Kansas would have repealed state laws that allowed school segregation in 1954? What would the state of civil rights be if, in 1964 and 1965, Congress had not passed federal legislation that established fair housing and voting rights and had instead left them up to the states? Would Virginia have repealed their miscegenation laws without the ruling from the Supreme Court in 1967? Would women have the right to vote had it been left up to the states like it was in 1920 before the passage of the 19th amendment?

The response of a lot of people is that the voters should have the final say, and if they pass a referendum, that's it. That is a noble sentiment, but that's not the system we have. We have a representative democracy; we elect people to go to the city council, the county commission, the state house, and the United States Congress to do our business for us and to do more than just be a rubber stamp. And we have an equal part of our government in the judiciary that oversees whether or not the laws that are passed by the people or the legislature are fair or are equally applied. Just because a majority of voters cast a vote for an issue doesn't make it right; our history is replete with unjust laws that have been voted through. Case in point, Colorado's odious Amendment 2 that "would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action from recognizing gay citizens as a Protected class." It took a Supreme Court ruling in 1996 to say yes, indeed, in some cases, gay citizens have the same rights as everyone else and can sue for discrimination. In short, the voters can -- and have -- made mistakes. They can be swayed by emotional arguments that have no bearing on the law, and as is the case of marriage equality, fear and loathing of Teh Gay isn't far beneath the surface.

The opponents trot out the old canards such as the "slippery slope" that same-sex marriage leads to all sorts of iterations of marriage, including polygamy; except that even someone whose only legal education is watching re-runs of Law & Order knows that a contract can be legally limited to the number of people in the contract. If the state wants to say only two people can be married to each other at one time or set an age limit to the parties involved, that's legal. What should not be legal is limiting the parties based on something that is innate such as gender identification or race.

They claim that people will be able to marry their dog. However, in order to have a valid contract, both parties have to be able to understand the terms of the contract and sign it. If you can find a dog that does understand the terms of the contract and can write his or her name, then getting married would probably not be a priority; you'd have a talking dog with opposable thumbs, and your next stop would be David Letterman.

They say that allowing same-sex marriage would require that schools teach about all the aspects of said marriage, complete with descriptions of intimate behavior. But since the contents of the public school curricula are left up to the state and local school boards and there are likely very few of them that already teach the granular aspects of heterosexual marriage to elementary school children, the chances are remote that the passage of marriage equality would require the overhauling of school curricula.

They claim that marriage equality would force churches that are doctrinally opposed to such unions to perform them or face legal action. But since churches are already free to not perform marriage ceremonies for straight couples that are not part of their congregation -- for example, the Roman Catholic church can refuse to marry a man and a woman if either one of them is not Catholic -- then they are perfectly within their rights to do the same for a same-sex couple. Besides, having the blessing of a religious ritual is not a prerequisite for a valid marriage. All you need is a license and witnesses. The rest is, so to speak, icing on the cake.

The most insidious argument is that somehow same-sex marriage is a perversion of "traditional marriage." Yet they never tell you what tradition they are talking about. Marriage throughout the ages has been more of a business deal, and to read about it in the Old Testament, it was between a man and as many wives has he could afford to accumulate. In the biblical tradition, fathers sold their daughters off to their friends as a trade-off for real estate (which led to the old Henny Youngman one-liner, "I got a dog for my wife. Best trade I ever made"). Arranged marriages were the norm for all classes of people -- where do you think King Henry VIII got his first wife? -- and in some cultures, they still are. The idea of a marriage based on love alone is both a modern and Western invention that is out of step with history and tradition; it's only Christian chauvinism and capitalism that makes it an inviolable tradition.

As for same-sex marriage being a "perversion," that's based on the theory that being gay or lesbian itself is a perversion, and that, above all, is the unspoken truth of the matter. All of the previous arguments are just excuses; a lot of people still have to overcome their own ignorance and homophobia before they can objectively look at the idea of applying all of the laws, rights, and responsibilities of citizenship including marriage to all citizens. When it comes right down to it, no one has yet put forth a valid reason for denying marriage equality -- or all of the other rights that are by law denied to gays and lesbians, such as child adoption in Florida -- to the LGBT community other than the arbitrary canards listed above. Not one. And yet they are able, by lung power and fear-mongering, to get voters to pass laws that do exactly that.

What the election in Maine proved is that even in a state that is known for its practicality and common sense, people can be swayed by lies, misinformation, and religious dogma. It should be obvious that the next recourse has to be through the courts and a chance to make the case for marriage equality based on the facts, not on the emotions. While same-sex marriage has an 0-31 record at the hands of the voters, it has prevailed in the courts in Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Iowa and made into law. The opponents claim that "activist judges" are making up the law and imposing their will on the people; they should only interpret the law as it is written. Well, here is how the law is written:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If it is activism to live up to the simple precepts of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, then let us make the most of it.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A conservative argues for marriage equality

By Mustang Bobby

Theodore Olson made the case for Bush in Bush v. Gore and served as Solicitor General for the George W. Bush administration. So you would think that he would be a strong advocate for keeping marriage defined as that being between one man and one woman.

You would be wrong.

“For conservatives who don’t like what I’m doing, it’s, ‘If he just had someone in his family we’d forgive him,’ ” Mr. Olson said. “For liberals it’s such a freakish thing that it’s, ‘He must have someone in his family, otherwise a conservative couldn’t possibly have these views.’ It’s frustrating that people won’t take it on face value.”

While Mr. Olson came to the case by a serendipitous route that began late last year with Rob Reiner, a Hollywood director widely known for his Democratic activism, he said his support of same-sex marriage stemmed from longstanding personal and legal conviction. He sees nothing inconsistent with that stance and his devotion to conservative legal causes: The same antipathy toward government discrimination, he said, inspired him to take up another cause that many on the right applauded — a lengthy campaign to dismantle affirmative action programs.

A hearing in the marriage case, filed on behalf of two gay couples, is scheduled for Wednesday in federal court in San Francisco. Practicing his opening argument recently, Mr. Olson declared that California’s ban is “utterly without justification” and stigmatizes gay men and lesbians as “second-class and unworthy.”

“This case,” he said afterward, “could involve the rights and happiness and equal treatment of millions of people.”

Actually, the idea of marriage equality is right in line with the conservative ideas of limited government and the rights of the people to make their own decisions.

And I like the idea of someone standing up for happiness. You don't often think of that aspect of life when you think about laws and the government -- even though it's mentioned in the Declaration of Independence -- but when it comes down to it, keeping people happy is probably one of the basic goals and duties of a civil society. And given the tone of "discourse" in recent months, we could use a little happiness in our lives, especially some of the more obstreperous conservatives who, to quote Alice Roosevelt Longworth, all seem to have been weaned on a pickle.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Quote of the Day

By Creature

"I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage." -- Gov. John Baldacci, making sense and making Maine the fifth state to allow same-sex marriage. Well done.

Being out in public

By Mustang Bobby

As expected, some people are not happy that the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that banning same-sex marriage in the state was unconstitutional. Rod Dreher at beliefnet laments,

This morning, I had breakfast with some guys, including a lawyer. We weren't aware of this decision, but we talked about this issue. The lawyer said that as soon as homosexuality receives constitutionally protected status equivalent to race, then "it will be very hard to be a public Christian." By which he meant to voice support, no matter how muted, for traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality and marriage. To do so would be to set yourself up for hostile work environment challenges, including dismissal from your job, and generally all the legal sanctions that now apply to people who openly express racist views.

First, being a "public Christian" does not mean being a pompous, arrogant, and sanctimonious prick. A lot of people who profess their faith in public are supportive of the basic concept of Christianity, which, according to the words attributed to Jesus Christ, is to "love thy neighbor as thyself." And a lot of Christians, including a lot of denominations, support the basic concept of constitutionally protecting all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation, from discrimination and granting them the same rights as everyone else. And these Christians welcome gays and lesbians into their congregations and celebrate their marriages and families. So I guess the "public Christians" this lawyer is talking about are just the loud-mouthed asses who hijacked the faith and proclaimed themselves to be the true believers. But isn't there something in the bible that warns against false prophets?

Second, as the Anonymous Liberal notes, if Mr. Dreher's friend thinks it's tough to be a "public Christian," he should try being publicly gay. Even in enlightened cities or workplaces where discrimination against gays is illegal, there's still the stigma against being out in public, or "flaunting it" with such outrages as putting a picture of your partner on your desk or talking around the water cooler about your Friday night date with someone of the same sex. Smiles become fixed and awkward laughter ensues. Compared to the public displays of Christian faith that are accepted as the norm -- Christmas decorations, desktop nativity scenes, iconic jewelry -- being gay in public is still considered cutting-edge. Most of us still have memories of what it's like growing up gay and remember all too well the scorn, derision, and outright hatred we got from the so-called "public Christians."

So forgive me, Mr. Dreher, if I really don't give a popcorn fart about you and your offended sensibilities about not being able to publicly speak out against your fellow citizens and having to take responsibility for your bigotry and medieval superstitions. I know you're shocked at the radical idea that all citizens are entitled to the equal protection of the law, but that's how we do things in a country that aspires to democracy, not theocracy. If someone gets fired for calling someone a "faggot" the same way they would if they used the N-word around African-Americans, well, that's just the price they pay for being a "public asshole."

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Nothing less

By Mustang Bobby

An op-ed in The New York Times written by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch advocates a reconciliation of sorts between people in favor of same-sex marriage and those against it:

IN politics, as in marriage, moments come along when sensitive compromise can avert a major conflict down the road. The two of us believe that the issue of same-sex marriage has reached such a point now.

We take very different positions on gay marriage. We have had heated debates on the subject. Nonetheless, we agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

[...]

Yes, most gays are opposed to the idea that religious organizations could openly treat same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples differently, without fear of being penalized by the government. But we believe that gays can live with such exemptions without much difficulty. Why? Because most state laws that protect gays from discrimination already include some religious exemptions, and those provisions are for the most part uncontroversial, even among gays.

And while most Americans who favor keeping marriage as it has customarily been would prefer no legal recognition of same-sex unions at either the federal or the state level, we believe that they can live with federal civil unions — provided that no religious groups are forced to accept them as marriages. Many of these people may come to see civil unions as a compassionate compromise. For example, a PBS poll last fall found that 58 percent of white evangelicals under age 30 favor some form of legal same-sex union.

[...]

In all sharp moral disagreements, maximalism is the constant temptation. People dig in, positions harden and we tend to convince ourselves that our opponents are not only wrong-headed but also malicious and acting in bad faith. In such conflicts, it can seem not only difficult, but also wrong, to compromise on a core belief.

With all due respect to both Mr. Blankenhorn and Mr. Rauch, this idea has "separate but equal" written all over it, and I think we have a pretty good idea in this country how well that theory of social engineering has worked in the past.

So I have a better idea. How about we give every citizen in the country equal protection under the law, and not grant religious organizations the privilege of being able to dictate the laws of the land according to their precepts? Oh, wait; we already have those. They're called, respectively, the Fourteenth and First Amendments to the Constitution. See how easy that was?

Seriously, while I appreciate the attempt at arriving at a reconciliation, in order for it to work you have to have both parties working from reasonable positions. The people in favor of same-sex marriage have the concept of equal rights on their side, while the opponents have little more than religious fundamentalism on theirs. That makes it difficult to arrive at a middle ground: it's tough to argue with people who cite the scriptures of mythology as their source authority. And if you strip off the mask of religious dogma, you often find that you are dealing with the mindset of people who just don't like gays and lesbians for reasons ranging from a fear of the unknown, an obsession with the sex lives of strangers, or an unhealthy oppression of their own natural instincts that have been forced by society or religion to conform to some expectation of what someone else has told them what "normal" and "traditional" is. That is not a foundation on which to write laws that have an impact on an entire community.

The authors make the case for religious conscience clauses that would allow churches to opt out of performing same-sex weddings or providing benefits to the same-sex partners of employees. They cite the case of Catholic hospitals being allowed to not perform abortions without legal entanglements. To compare abortion to same-sex marriage is a stretch at best and a straw man at worst. An abortion is an urgent medical procedure that should be done under strict medical supervision and as a last resort. Two people making a commitment to each other to share legal rights and responsibilities isn't the same thing, and to offer them as equally taxing on the religious conscience is superficial and insulting to those in favor of reproductive choice and those who oppose it. Besides, no one is advocating that churches, synagogues, or temples be forced to perform ceremonies that go against their religious tenets. There are quite a few denominations that welcome and perform same-sex marriages, and chances are the happy couples that want a church wedding know or even belong to one of those congregations.

State and federal governments have the obligation to provide for equal rights for all the citizens of the state. They also have the authority to dictate the terms of a contract by limiting the number of people who may enter into certain contracts -- thus outlawing polygamy -- and by setting age limits of the people who may sign the contract -- thus preventing underage marriage -- or by requiring that both parties who enter into the contract be capable of understanding the terms and conditions of the contract and be able to affix their signature to it -- thus putting an end to the fears that people could end up marrying a barnyard creature. But the government has no business dictating the terms of a contract based on the innate qualities of the parties -- race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation. Nor should they allow the terms of a contract be dictated by religious or social custom solely because it might offend some people who otherwise have no standing in the matter. In other words, if it's not your name on the dotted line, keep your nose out of someone else's life.

Mr. Blankenhorn and Mr. Rauch are nobly offering a short-term solution while the nation comes to terms with the idea of same-sex marriage. The problem, however, with stop-gap measures is that they often become permanent and never resolve the question to its fair and logical conclusion. The truth is that despite setbacks in Florida and California and repeated attempts by the Religious Right to demonize, marginalize, and terrorize the LBGT community, equality for all citizens is only a matter of time. There will always be those who fight against it, but that makes it all the more worth it.

In the case of gay marriage, a scorched-earth debate, pitting what some regard as nonnegotiable religious freedom against what others regard as a nonnegotiable human right, would do great harm to our civil society. When a reasonable accommodation on a tough issue seems possible, both sides should have the courage to explore it.

All anyone is asking for is equality. We expect nothing more, and we will accept nothing less. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A trip down Hillary lane -- 2006 edition

By Edward Copeland

I've gone through the archives of my barely breathing political site the Copeland Institute for Lower Learning to compile what I've caught and kept on Hillary and Bill in relation to all sorts of issues, to remind Democrats what these megalomaniacal charlatans have done in the past. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it or, even worse, will get stuck with a McCain presidency and the final rightward tilt of the Supreme Court. It's lengthy, so only 2006 entries for this installment.

JAN. 26, 2006

Some Democrats acted similarly following the 2004 election. Many Dems started mealy-mouthing their pro-choice positions, despite the fact that the polls continue to show a majority of Americans supporting abortion rights.
Hillary goes nutso and starts endorsing legislation against flag burning and for fines for retailers who sell video games to minors.

It seems that because the GOP managed to motivate its conservative base better, media figures and politicians interpreted that as a sign that they must kowtow to the right, some for votes, others for ratings.

Paul Begala on this week's Meet the Press promoting his book with James Carville told a very interesting story of what Bill Clinton told him on Election Night 2004 about how Dems should follow Barack Obama's lead, not by flip-flopping on their issues but by showing how their positions are consistent with faith and values.

I guess that Fox News Channel has won then, unless the other news outlets and candidates wake up. Do they think that if they act more like Fox (or Republicans), they are going to win over Fox viewers or the most rabid of right-wing voters?
To paraphrase Harry Truman, when given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts likes a Republican, voters (or viewers) will always choose the Republican.

From my blog post concerning CNN and MSNBC's attempts to lure right-wing viewers

MARCH 29, 2006

We can police ourselves, they insist, defeating the bipartisan measure in a bipartisan 67-30 vote. It's worth noting that of the potential 2008 Democratic presidential candidates, only Hillary Clinton voted against the Office of Public Integrity. Of the potential Republican presidential candidates, only John McCain voted for it. Meanwhile, the Senate is also moving on an ethics bill with less teeth.

MAY 7, 2006
Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos, in case you don't know) had a good op-ed piece in today's Washington Post about our Hillary problem.

By Markos Moulitsas
Sunday, May 7, 2006; B01

Hillary Clinton has a few problems if she wants to secure the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. She is a leader who fails to lead. She does not appear "electable." But most of all, Hillary has a Bill Clinton problem. (And no, it's not about that. )

Moving into 2008, Republicans will be fighting to shake off the legacy of the Bush years: the jobless recovery, the foreign misadventures, the nightmarish fiscal mismanagement, the Katrina mess, unimaginable corruption and an imperial presidency with little regard for the Constitution or the rule of law. Every Democratic contender will be offering change, but activists will be demanding the sort of change that can come only from outside the Beltway.

Hillary Clinton leads her Democratic rivals in the polls and in fundraising. Unfortunately, however, the New York senator is part of a failed Democratic Party establishment -- led by her husband -- that enabled the George W. Bush presidency and the Republican majorities, and all the havoc they have wreaked at home and abroad.

MAY 9, 2006

By Caroline Daniel in Washington

Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media mogul whose New York Post tabloid savaged Hillary Clinton’s initial aspirations to become a US senator for New York, has agreed to host a political fundraiser for her re-election campaign.

The decision underlines an incongruous thawing of relations between Mr Murdoch and Mrs Clinton, who in 1998 coined the phrase “vast rightwing conspiracy” to denounce critics of her husband, such as Fox News, the conservative cable channel owned by Mr Murdoch’s News Corporation.

Mr Murdoch will host the fundraiser, due to be held by July, on behalf of News Corp.
One person involved in the event said it reflected his views of her as a senator, rather than as a presidential candidate. “They have a respectful and cordial relationship. He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York. I wouldn’t say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together.”

MAY 10, 2006
Sure, she'd been pressed to come up with something nice to say about Dubya, but if she believes King Idiot has charm and charisma, how can you trust her judgment on anything?

By DEVLIN BARRETT
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Asked to say one nice thing about President Bush, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton went one better: She named two things.

"He is someone who has a lot of charm and charisma, and I think in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I was very grateful to him for his support for New York," Clinton said Tuesday night during a talk at the National Archives about her life in politics.
Clinton, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, said that despite their "many disagreements about many, many issues," she has always had a good personal relationship with the president.

"He's been very willing to talk. He's been affable. He's been good company," said Clinton, D-N.Y.

JUNE 28, 2006

The Senate barely rejected a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration in a vote so close it can hardly be called a victory for free speech.

Further proving that she stands for absolutely nothing, Hillary Clinton voted against the amendment mere months after backing the idea.

JULY 9, 2006
Apparently the ambitious and principle-free New York senator didn't have enough time to hold her finger to the wind to decide what she thinks after New York's top court rejected same-sex marriage.

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton -- widely considered a 2008 Democratic presidential favorite -- was surrounded in San Francisco on Friday by Democrats outspoken on the issue of same-sex marriage: a mayor who issued a landmark city decision to declare same-sex unions legal, a state assemblyman at the forefront of same-sex marriage legislation, and the party's pro-gay marriage candidate for governor.

But even standing alongside San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and state Treasurer Phil Angelides, the Democratic candidate for governor, on the morning after New York's highest court upheld a state ban on same-sex marriage, Clinton steadfastly ignored questions about the issue.
It was a marked contrast from a visit to San Francisco on a 1996 book tour, when the then-first lady expressed her views without reservation.

"Children are better off if they have a mother and a father,'' Clinton said in the San Francisco interview with the then-Hearst-owned San Francisco Examiner. "My preference is that we do all we can to strengthen traditional marriage ... and that people engaged in parenting children be committed to one another.''

But Clinton refused to revisit the topic Friday morning at a meeting with reporters after a $1,000-a-person fundraiser for Angelides' campaign. But her views now appear surprisingly similar to those in a majority ruling from New York's highest court; the decision's author, Judge Robert Smith, suggested children are better raised in so-called traditional families.

AUG. 7, 2006
A new poll of New Yorkers find that Hillary's Senate re-election is secure, but hypothetical polls that put her up against Rudy Giuliani or John McCain for the 2008 presidential race, finds her trailing both men in New York.

AUG. 23, 2006
She claims it's because of cuts in funding to New York, but critics see Sen. Nothing-But-Ambition's maneuver as involving other critical 2008 electoral states as well. Still, her move has mystified and angered AIDS/HIV activists.

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 23, 2006; A01

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is holding up renewal of the primary federal law that battles HIV/AIDS, the 1990 Ryan White Act, causing a rift among activists on the subject and threatening approval of the legislation this year.

Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she opposes the measure because it would lower funding for her home state. But some AIDS groups also see broader political motives at work. Other states that would lose out include California, Florida and Illinois -- all places Clinton would need to win if she seeks the presidency. Her critics also note that many of the states that would receive higher funding under the new formula are rural and Southern, which tend to vote Republican.

Crazy like Mike

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Mike Huckabee rose to prominence seemingly out of nowhere, skyrocketing up the polls, capturing Iowa, and emerging as the presumptive frontrunner, all the while becoming a media darling -- remember that Frank Rich called him the Obama of the GOP -- but, as his star fades, as the phenomenon withers, as his candidacy collapses, the man is getting more and more extreme, more and more disgusting. Or, perhaps, the real Huckabee is coming out, the real Huckabee who worked to parole a convicted rapist while governor of Arkansas, the Christianist Huckabee, ignorant and stupid, the bigot, the fool.

It is desperation, perhaps, that is brining out the real Huckabee. He may have won Iowa, but he is, in this race, a loser, and what he is doing, I think, is trying to attract the hardcore Christianist vote, more broadly the social conservative vote. Thompson and Romney have secured much of that vote, but Huckabee's only chance of turning around his failing campaign -- and it is slim, to say the least -- is to out-crazy them. (And to out-good-ol'-boy them: He seems to have a certain George Allen-like fondness for the Confederate flag, even saying this: "[I]f somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell them what to do with the pole, that's what we'd do." Charming. And rather un-presidential, no?)

The other day, as many of you surely know by now, Huckabee declared that the Constitution should be amended "according to God's standards," that is, that America should be a Christianist country with Christianist laws governed by a Christianist man (and it must be a man), that is, a country governed by him and the laws of his god as he understands and enforces them. (Note: This is Christianist, not Christian. Christianism is the right-wing political ideology espoused by fanatics like Huckabee. See Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg.)

What would it mean to bring the Constitution, and the country, into line with "God's standards" (as Huckabee defines them)? In an interview with a religious website, as reported by TPM's Greg Sargent, Huckabee shed some light on this, as well as on some of his core beliefs (and political opinions):

QUESTIONER: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

HUCKABEE: Well, I don't think that’s a radical view to say we're going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.

Yes, that's right. Huckabee, channelling Rick Santorum, connected homosexuality to polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality. His view, like Santorum's, and a common one among not just among Christianists but on the right generally, is that allowing gay marriage would be the thin end of the wedge. After that, there's just no stopping anything and everything from being admitted into the definition of marriage -- and from being sanctioned generally. Broaden the definition of marriage to include gay couples and, before long, you'll have marital (and sexual) anarchy.

Have I mentioned that Huckabee is ignorant and stupid, a bigot and a fool?

No wonder so many Christianists love him, failing campaign or not.

**********

I suggested yesterday that a possible, and potentially quite formidable, GOP ticket is Romney-Huckabee (or perhaps McCain-Huckabee). Now I'm not so sure. Huckabee, who may be too crazy for the veep spot anyway, seems to be crazying himself out of consideration.

**********

Some of the saner conservatives out there aren't amused:

Andrew Sullivan: "I think of Huckabee as almost a comic vindication for those of us who have worried about the rise and rise of unopposed Christianism in the GOP. Except he's not a joke. He could actually win this thing." I don't think he can, but Andrew's point is well-taken. And, obviously, Andrew is liberal on this issue.

Stephen Bainbridge: "Mike Huckabee joins Mitt Romney on my personal list of candidates for whom I would not vote even if the only alternative is Hillary Clinton (in which case I’ll just sit home and complain)." Huckabee is a Christian Reconstructionist (see Goldberg's book), "which is pretty damn scary".

Eugene Volokh: "Huckabee seems to be deliberately trying to make an appeal to supposedly universal (at least nearly universal) traditions that go beyond just rejection of same-sex marriage. And that appeal is just factually unfounded, as his own religious histories and his own profession (as minister) should teach him." Eugene does not comment on Huckabee's "moral claims," which are simply appalling.

Michelle Malkin, who isn't sane, just hates him for his (relatively sane) positions on immigration.

**********

For more on Huckabee's views on homosexuality and gay marriage, see Steve Benen, RadicalRuss, John Aravosis, Will Bunch, and Kyle Moore.