Bruce Jenner is a courageous idiot

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There isn't much about the Kardashians and their bubble of cultural degradation and egomaniacal excess that I respect, but I do respect Bruce Jenner's decision, if one can even call it that, to come out as a woman (he is still a "he" for now, but he says that he is a woman, and the "he" may soon become "she"), that is, his courageous coming to terms with, and acceptance of, his sexual identity. Even now, in 2015, it is not an easy thing to do, in private let alone in public, where you subject yourself to speculation and ridicule, if not worse, as much as to admiration and respect.

Now, I don't know Bruce Jenner. I watched part of his interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC as it's been a story on CNN this afternoon and I caught it flipping through the channels, and I can only take him at his word, and I can only give him the benefit of the doubt. That is, I can only assume that he is being sincere, that he has spent the better part of his life struggling with his sexual identity, and that his coming out as a woman -- cosmetic surgery and hormone treatment but not yet, and perhaps not, full conversion -- isn't yet another publicity stunt on the part of the Kardashian Klan, of which is, of course, a central member. Needless to say, the Kardashians, Jenner included, are long-time publicity whores, and it wouldn't be a stretch for Jenner to use his transgendered status to get some attention, not least with another reality show coming up.

But again, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. I do not know what it's like to be transgendered, nor to struggle with one's sexual identity, and he does seem genuine.

But if I credit him with courage, I must also debit him for his idiocy. Because there is so much of it:

After months of speculation that he was transitioning into a woman, Bruce Jenner confirmed the news in an interview with Diane Sawyer that aired on ABC Friday night, clarifying that he is also a Republican and a Christian.

When asked about Barack Obama addressing LGBT rights in his State of the Union, the 65-year-old former Olympic athlete said that didn't affect him much.

"I've always been more on the conservative side," Jenner said.

*****

Jenner said he is a Christian as well.

"I would sit in church and always wonder, 'In God's eyes, how does he see me?'"

But now, he said, he's realized that maybe this is part of his purpose.

"Maybe this is my cause in life."

"This is why God put me on this earth... to deal with this issue."

That's from The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson's right-wing toilet paper, and the tone of the piece suggests that it is rather gleeful that this famous transgendered person is Republican and Christian, as if that somehow sticks it to the left. In any event, let's address the idiocy here:

Read more »

Rand Paul doesn't believe in gay rights because he's an idiot (and a bigot?)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Rand Paul, supposed libertarian but really not, doesn't much care for the gays. And he certainly doesn't think they have rights:

Sen. Rand Paul said he doesn't buy into the concept of gay rights because they are defined by a gay person's lifestyle.

"I don't think I've ever used the word gay rights, because I don't really believe in rights based on your behavior," the Kentucky Republican told reporters in a videotaped interview that has received little attention since it was recorded in 2013.

But it's unclear how far — and to whom — Paul extends the argument that rights cannot be defined by behavior.

Practicing religion, for example, is a behavior enshrined as a primary American right. Free speech is behavior protected by the Bill of Rights. Likewise, a person's right to be free from discrimination for his or her nation of origin — which entails the behavior of moving from one country to the United States — is embedded in America's civil rights laws and broader code of values.

Exactly, Buzzfeed's Dominic Holden. Exactly.

And of course, contra the anti-gay rhetoric of the right, gay rights does not mean special rights but rather equal rights: the right to be married just like heterosexuals, the right not to be discriminated against (and so to be treated fairly, equally), etc.

And when you've been viciously persecuted throughout history, including in the U.S., and when you still face vicious bigotry, when one of the country's two main parties is basically against you, I think it makes sense to fight for your rights and demand that you be treated fairly and equally.

Even, or especially, if that means doing everything you can to defeat Rand Paul and his vicious ilk.

On marriage equality, federal judge rules that Texas must be pulled out of the medieval shithole it inhabits

By Michael J.W. Stickings

CNN:

Texas on Wednesday became the latest state to have a federal judge strike down its same-sex marriage ban, thanks to a sweeping decision holding that its current prohibition has no "legitimate governmental purpose."

The ruling, by San Antonio-based Judge Orlando Garcia, will not take effect immediately: Its enforcement has been stayed while the case works its way through the appeal process, meaning same-sex couples in Texas cannot get married for the time being.

Still, gay rights supporters and activists believe the judgment -- because of what it says, how it follows similar rulings in other states and where it happened, in one of the most conservative states in the country -- has special significance.

Texas Democratic Party chairman Gilberto Hinojosa called Wednesday "a historic day for the LGBT community and the state of Texas," while the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's head predicted the ruling "hastens the day when all loving couples who simply want the ability to share the benefits and responsibilities of marriage can."

For all the courageous progressives who are there, fighting to make their home better, Texas is one of those retrograde states where the adoption of marriage equality will take time and meet an enormous backlash from the Republicans who run things.

For now, public opinion in Texas is generally against marriage equality. That may change, and likely will, over time, but rights are rights regardless of public opinion and that's where, like it or not, these rulings are necessary, the federal judiciary stepping in to strike down discriminatory state laws, just as was necessary during the civil rights era when both legislatures and public opinion were resistant, to say the least, to change.

I'm not sure just how "historic" yesterday was for Texas, but this ruling, coming in one of the reddest of red states, is certainly a huge step in the right direction.

Dear Leader (and Chief Republican Bigot) Rush says Brewer is being "bullied" into vetoing Arizona's hate bill

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It appears that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will soon veto the "religious freedom" (i.e., hate) bill the state legislature passed last week, SB 1062. She may or may not support the bill personally -- as a Republican extremist she probably supports this Republican bill -- but there has been growing pressure on her to veto it, including from a few Republican legislators who voted for the bill but have been having second thoughts, while the bill has become a national issue, perhaps the most prominent of the various state efforts to authorize anti-gay discrimination, directing a great deal of criticism at her state.

Dear Leader Rush said today that Brewer is being "bullied" into vetoing the bill "by the homosexual lobby in Arizona and elsewhere. She’s being bullied by the nationwide drive-by media, she's being bullied by certain elements of corporate America in order to advance the gay agenda." This is, as is usual from him, incredibly stupid. And, of course, bigoted.

First, it's not like Brewer has no say in the matter and will just kowtow to public and media pressure. She has every right to sign the bill into law but of course she also has every right to consider what is truly in the best interests of her state, and it's significant that some in her own party have changed their minds and are now advising her to veto it.

Second, there is no "homosexual lobby" as he thinks there is. There is a movement to advance gay rights and marriage equality, but this is no more or no less a lobby than any other political movement, and it's actually an extremely diverse one -- and one so large, it would seem, that it includes the national media and much of corporate America alongside activists and others who just happen to care about human and civil rights, which is actually, as we're seeing more and more, the vast majority of the American people. There is also no "gay agenda" as he thinks there is. The fight for equal rights, for fairness under the law, is hardly some nefarious agenda. But of course Rush probably would have accused Martin Luther King of having a "black agenda" just for saying that children shouldn't be judged by the color of their skin.

Read more »

It doesn't really matter if the NFL is "ready" for a gay player: Thoughts on Michael Sam

By Michael J.W. Stickings

With the Olympics on, I've been spending more time than usual on Twitter, but over the past 24 hours what I've tweeted about most isn't Sochi but Michael Sam, the Missouri college football player who, ahead of this spring's NFL draft, announced publicly on Sunday that's he's gay.

My quick thoughts are as follows:

Michael Sam is a courageous young man. He may only be projected to be a third- or fourth-round pick, and there may be questions about his ability to succeed at the pro level, but he's obviously a leader of superior character. He was a great college player, but he was also the respected captain of a successful team. And it says a lot that his team was fully behind him all season after he came out to them last year.

It is disappointing that some of the reaction from the NFL has been negative, mainly from anonymous team officials but also from idiots like Herm Edwards, but in general I've been impressed with the support Sam has received -- from the league, from players, from commentators in the media. I suspect that there are many who are keeping quiet because they fear what would be said about them, and to them, were they to be open about their views, but that, too, is a sign of just how much things have changed.

Will Sam have an easy go of it in the NFL? No, of course not. First, it'll be tough for him to make an opening day roster, though, as I said, his leadership and character should not be discounted. Second, if he does make it, I'm sure there will be those in the locker room, among the fans, and throughout the NFL and society generally, who reject him given their bigotry towards his sexual orientation. But let's not think that NFL teams are dominated by bigots. I suspect that, despite some initial questions from some who don't know what to make of him, he'll quickly be welcomed by his team, just as he was at Missouri. Support for gay rights, and for acceptance, is very much a generational matter, after all, and most of the players in the league are really young. Being gay just isn't the "problem" it is for some of the league's older personnel, like GMs and scouts. And ultimately I suspect it will all be a non-issue, even if the media try to make a great deal of it.

Read more »

Equal rights

By Mustang Bobby

Alex Roarty in The Atlantic wonders if gay-rights laws are trampling on freedom of religion.

Conservatives may have found another way to stem the rising tide of rights for America’s gays and lesbians. Rather than a frontal assault on the constitutionality of, say, same-sex marriage, they’re taking another tack — asserting that their own civil rights are violated when they’re forced to treat gay couples like straight ones.

Take the case of Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, co-owners of a small Albuquerque, New Mexico, photography company. Last month, the New Mexico Supreme Court determined the couple had acted illegally in 2006 when they refused to take pictures of a commitment ceremony (held in lieu of a still-illegal marriage) between a gay couple. Noting that state law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, the state court decreed that accommodating different types of people was the “price of citizenship” in America.

It was yet another victory for gay-rights advocates, who have watched public opinion swell in their favor in recent years. But to the Hugeunins and those who have rallied to their cause, the case represents something else: a rare opportunity to shift public opinion in the other direction.

The Huguenins argue being forced to photograph the ceremony amounted to a persecution of their faith and an infringement on their First Amendment rights. “This idea that people in America can be compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives as the ‘price of citizenship’ is an unbelievable attack on freedom,” Jim Campbell, an attorney for the Huguenins, told National Journal. “Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin were simply trying to live their lives and operate their business in accordance with their faith.”

No, treating other people like shit because your mythology and bigotry says you should is not an excuse or a right. You can believe whatever you want, but when you open a business to the public, then you have no expectation of exclusion.

On the other hand, the Huguenins could open a megachurch and discriminate against whomever they choose. Not only that, the money’s better.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

After DOMA, the fight for marriage equality moves to the states

By Mustang Bobby 

Florida Gov. Rick Scott on the repeal of DOMA:

Look, I've been married since I was 19. I believe in traditional marriage.

This was, in his lizard-brain reaction, his way of saying that the repeal has no impact on the laws of Florida and its constitutional amendment passed in 2008 banning same-sex marriage.

But Mr. Scott is predicting the next battle for marriage equality. The fact that he is (we assume) happily married doesn't mean anything other than there is connubial bliss in the Scott household, and his marriage doesn't have any bearing on the people next door. Equal rights is not a zero-sum game. Granting marriage equality to a gay couple doesn't take it away from the straight people. (Please don't let's rehash the slippery slope argument of man-on-dog marriages. That will only happen when a dog has the ability to comprehend and accept the terms of a contract. Dogs may rule, but that's not a part of the deal.)

The fact that DOMA is now dead means that states that do not recognize all marriages no longer have much of a leg to stand on in denying spousal benefits when a married couple named Fred and Paul from Massachusetts relocates to Palmetto Bay, Florida. And in a way, Justice Antonin Scalia, in his rant against the ruling, predicted the next shoe to drop. Marriage equality at the state level is coming up next.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

SCOTUS rulings on DOMA and Prop 8: A great day for gay rights, equality, and America's noblest ideals

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(photo from the San Francisco Chronicle)

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 was quite the day:

Well, a really good, and potentially historic, day for gay rights, equality, and the ideals to which America professes to aspire.
— Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) June 26, 2013

No, not a perfect day in these terms:

-- SCOTUS's Prop 8 ruling was based on standing, not on the merits of the case, and so not in and of itself a validation of same-sex marriage. The lower court ruling against Prop 8 stands, meaning that same-sex marriage is now legal in California, but this has no impact on other states.

-- SCOTUS did find the odious DOMA unconstitutional in that it violates the Fifth Amendment, and this is a much greater victory, but state laws against same-sex marriage remain in place and states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

The hope is that the argument against DOMA -- "deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment," Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority -- ultimately applies in some form to states as well.

But here's also a sense that the Roberts Court as currently constituted may simply want to move on from this. It didn't block progress, and didn't pull a Dred Scott (issuing a terrible ruling that will be widely ridiculed in future). It struck down a federal law as many lower courts had done, and it stayed out, more or less, of a state matter. Sure, we know where Scalia, Alito, and Thomas stand on the matter, but as a whole SCOTUS, perhaps rather predictably, fell short of making a sweeping decision and sent the matter back to the states to deal with. Which is to say, it took a generally conservative view of federalism and waved progress along without interfering too much, nudging it back on the right track.

In any event, these two rulings add up to a major, historic victory for same-sex marriage and, more broadly, as I tweeted, for the ideals to which America professes to aspire.

With so much of the political landscape dominated by Republican extremism, obstructionism, and scandalmongering, with so little being done to address America's problems (including its culture of rampant gun violence), with President Obama pushing an old-fashioned moderate Republican agenda instead of progressive change (we can believe in), and with so much recent attention on the NSA and the growing surveillance state, and the erosion of civil liberties that that entails, I must say I had lost a great deal of whatever hope and optimism I had left, which wasn't much but still something to cling to.

No, the world didn't change yesterday, but for once things seemed to get a whole lot better.

**********

Here, from TPM via Mustang Bobby, is the day, a great day, in 100 seconds:

Vive la France! Down with Texas!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Progress is on the march. In countries like Portugal and, of course, France:

France's president has signed into law a controversial bill making the country the ninth in Europe, and 14th globally, to legalise gay marriage.

On Friday, the Constitutional Council rejected a challenge by the right-wing opposition, clearing the way for Francois Hollande to sign the bill.

He said: "I have taken [the decision]; now it is time to respect the law of the Republic."

It wasn't easy:

Mr Hollande and his ruling Socialist Party have made the legislation their flagship social reform since being elected a year ago.

After a tortured debate, the same-sex marriage and adoption bill was adopted by France's Senate and National Assembly last month.

The bill was quickly challenged on constitutional grounds by the main right-wing opposition UMP party of former president Nicolas Sarkozy.

But the Constitutional Council ruled on Friday that same-sex marriage "did not run contrary to any constitutional principles," and that it did not infringe on "basic rights or liberties or national sovereignty".

Indeed, while France is a generally progressive country (e.g., on health care), the right is still very strong, with conservatives well to the right of Sarkozy, and issues like gay rights and immigration prove to be deeply divisive.

Still, it's done, a victory for liberty and equality (and, for that matter, fraternity), and that's more than you can say about the U.S., which includes retrograde states like Texas:

A Republican Texas Judge has ordered a lesbian couple to live apart or give up custody of their children. According to Think Progress, Judge John Roach of McKinney, Texas has given Page Price 30 days to move out of the home she shares with Carolyn Compton and Compton's two children from a previous marriage because he does not approve of Compton and Price's "lifestyle."

Roach has placed a "morality clause" in Compton's divorce papers, which forbids Compton from having anyone she is not related to "by blood or marriage" in her home past 9:00 p.m. if the children are present. Same sex marriage is illegal in Texas, so by law, Compton cannot live with Price if she wishes to retain custody of her children.

That's not Saudi Arabia, that's Texas. And that's right, this bigot of a judge, reinforcing the bigotry of that state, is denying this woman her liberty and her equality (and, for that matter, her fraternity).

Truly, utterly shameful.

Progressive Portugal

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Portugal has had a long and complicated political history. In the last century, it was ruled by a brutal right-wing dictatorship from 1926 to 1974. The non-violent Carnation Revolution (or "25 April") of 1974 put an end to that tyranny, and the country held its first democratic election in 50 years a year later. But there was little stability in those early years of democracy, the country swinging back and forth from left to right, a new constitution adopted in 1976 and then revised in 1982 and 1989. And yet, through it all, stable and legitimate parliamentary democracy took hold. Looking at it now, from our current vantage point, it all seems quite remarkable. After decades and deades of oppression and terror, Portugal was able to build a healthy, sustainable democracy without all that much turmoil and bloodshed.

What is also remarkable is that this mostly Roman Catholic country that little to no experience with, nor appreciation for, diversity, a country with a long history of repression and exclusion, and worse, has become a beacon for progressive values. Maybe that can happen when you've been through what Portugal went though, and when you can start anew in a more progressive time, but it is remarkable nonetheless.

And one of the areas where it is most progressive is gay rights:

Portugal has offered marriage equality to same-sex couples since 2010, but until now had not allowed those couple to adopt each other's children. Today, the Portuguese Parliament passed a bill 99-94 to allow adoption, ending the discrepancy in what it means for same-sex couples to be married. Portugal is one of the few countries in the world that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in its constitution.

Again: Catholic country, long history of brutal tyranny, relatively new democracy.

And it puts the United States, supposedly, we are constantly told, the greatest country ever, a beacon of liberty, to shame.

You deserve our admiration, Portugal, and our praise.

(image: a flag for a more inclusive Portugal)

Final Republican casualty

By Frank Moraes 

Today over at The Plum Line, Jamelle Bouie discussed an issue that is close to my heart, "Don't Expect the GOP to Change on Gay Rights Anytime Soon." I think all this talk of the Republican Party moderating itself is nonsense. It is all a kind of mass pundit delusion. Moderates especially really want to think that the Republicans will be reasonable. And by that, they mean more liberal on the social issues that moderates care about.

Remember when Bobby Jindal created a stir about how Republicans had to stop being the "stupid party"? And what did he do to prove he wasn't stupid? He almost destroyed his political career by proposing an end to the state income tax to be replaced by a regressive sales tax. Republican claims at reform are nothing by a desire that the electorate won't notice all the terrible things they are trying to do.

Bouie noted that the Republicans are not going to moderate on same sex marriage even though a plurality of Republicans favors it. The problem is that the most consistent voters, the old, white, bigoted evangelicals really hate same sex marriage. And so the Republican Party is trying to appeal to them. But I wonder. Does that really explain it?

After all, the conservative base doesn't vote so consistently because they love the Republican Party. You see that in polls. About 30% of the electorate think of themselves as Republican. But often, the party only gets an approval of about 20%. The difference isn't people who are tending toward the Democrats; they just think the Republicans are being too liberal. These people are still going to go to the polls and vote Republican, even if they think the party has turned communist.

So why doesn't the GOP change?

Read more »

Thoughts on the marriage equality conversions of Senators Carper and Kirk

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There were two high-profile endorsements of same-sex marriage today from two senators who have "evolved" on the issue:

Democratic Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware:

As our society has changed and evolved, so too has the public's opinion on gay marriage — and so has mine. I pray every day for God to grant me the wisdom to do what is right. Through my prayers and conversations with my family and countless friends and Delawareans, I've been reminded of the power of one of my core values: the Golden Rule. It calls on us to treat others as we want to be treated. That means, to me, that all Americans ultimately should be free to marry the people they love and intend to share their lives with, regardless of their sexual orientation, and that's why today, after a great deal of soul searching, I'm endorsing marriage equality.

Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois:

When I climbed the Capitol steps in January, I promised myself that I would return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others," Kirk wrote on his blog.

Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back -- government has no place in the middle.

Okay, my thoughts:

1) Great. Wonderful. Fantastic. Public opinion has been shifting rapidly in support of marriage equality, but it still needs all the help it can get, including from those on Capitol Hill.

2) I realize that "evolve" is the word being used by politicians to explain what might otherwise be seen as a Romney-style flip-flop, but, really, it's not so much evolution as it is (often belated) reaction to shifting public opinion. Which is to say, it's "safe" now to come out in support of same-sex marriage, and indeed politically dangerous in many cases not to, so politicians are doing just that. This is not to say that people can't grow, and can't change their minds, but in many cases all this just smacks of political convenience as opposed to sincere conviction. And, yes, that goes for President Obama as well. (And, yes, I get political convenience. Politicians need votes and so much paner to public opinion. I'm just saying.)

Read more »

Freedom to choose

By Mustang Bobby

David Brooks thinks that he's clever by saying that marriage equality is actually a loss of freedom for those who want it:

Recently, the balance between freedom and restraint has been thrown out of whack. People no longer even have a language to explain why freedom should sometimes be limited. The results are as predicted. A decaying social fabric, especially among the less fortunate. Decline in marriage. More children raised in unsteady homes. Higher debt levels as people spend to satisfy their cravings.

But last week saw a setback for the forces of maximum freedom. A representative of millions of gays and lesbians went to the Supreme Court and asked the court to help put limits on their own freedom of choice. They asked for marriage.

Marriage is one of those institutions — along with religion and military service — that restricts freedom. Marriage is about making a commitment that binds you for decades to come. It narrows your options on how you will spend your time, money and attention.

Whether they understood it or not, the gays and lesbians represented at the court committed themselves to a certain agenda. They committed themselves to an institution that involves surrendering autonomy. They committed themselves to the idea that these self-restrictions should be reinforced by the state. They committed themselves to the idea that lifestyle choices are not just private affairs but work better when they are embedded in law.

And far from being baffled by this attempt to use state power to restrict individual choice, most Americans seem to be applauding it.

Except that Mr. Brooks misses the larger point, which is that being denied the right to limit your own freedom is in itself a limitation on freedom. Straight couples have the right to choose to get married or not. They know going in that they may lose some of the freedoms that they had when they were single, but that's a choice they get to make. Same-sex couples don't have that choice.

It sounds as if Mr. Brooks is telling us in the LGBT community, "be careful what you wish for." Yeah, well, I think most people over the age of majority have pretty much figured out that, to quote Lawrence and Lee in Inherit the Wind, "Progress is never a bargain. You have to pay for it." In this case, however, I think a number of us would be willing to sacrifice something in order to be treated the same way as everybody else. At the very least, give us the choice.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Supreme Court may dismiss Prop 8 case

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the Times, it looks like a majority opinion may be emerging on the Supreme Court regarding the same-sex marriage case currently before it:

As the Supreme Court on Tuesday weighed the momentous question of whether gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry, six justices questioned whether the case, arising from a California ban on same-sex marriages, was properly before the court and indicated that they might vote to dismiss it. 

"I just wonder if the case was properly granted," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who probably holds the decisive vote, in a comment that showed a court torn over whether this was the right time and right case for a decision on a fast-moving social issue.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to share that concern. "If the issue is letting the states experiment and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction," she said, "why is taking a case now the answer?"

This would hardly be the optimum outcome for same-sex marriage supporters such as myself. But it wouldn't be a bad one, and it may be the best possible one from this court. 

Read more »

Farewell, gay liberals

By Frank Moraes 

I'm interested in where the gay rights movement is going. I will always feel a great kinship to my gay brothers and sisters. What's more their cause of gender orientation equality will always be my cause as well. Although this particular cause is definitely liberal, the LGBT community, is not. In fact, in many ways, it is conservative. And so, as time goes on, I'm afraid that I will have to say goodbye to many of my gay colleagues as they are more and more at odds with me on important issues. (I mean goodbye to them from the liberal movement; I'm not talking about cutting off people from my life just because we have policy disagreements.)

A large part of this is simply that as a group, gays and lesbians are more economically successful. Why this is, I'm not sure. The lack of unplanned pregnancies undoubtedly helps. And the lack of gender limited roles can't hurt. But the fact is that gay individuals and even more so gay couples are wealthier than their straight counterparts. We all know: the rich vote Republican. And as the Republican Party slowly gives up on its absurd anti-gay policies, we will see more and more of the LGBT community join it. 

Dan Savage 

There was an interesting moment on Up with Chris Hayes the other day. Hayes asked a question that I must admit has occurred to me a few times: is it possible that the Supreme Court will vote overwhelmingly to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. On one level, it seems like a no-brainer. I don't even understand the constitutional argument for upholding it.

But gay activist and liberal pundit Dan Savage called out the lie in that kind of thinking, "Thomas, Alito, Scalia: they will twist themselves into any shape to avoid -- I think -- overturning DOMA. I think they're partisans and I think they're Republican hacks and I don't think they're justices who can be trusted to do the constitutional thing. I have no illusions; it's going to be very close; it's not going to be Brown [v. Board of Education]." Of course he's right. I am, however, curious to see what those jackasses will come up with to justify their bigotry.

Read more »

Heightened scrutiny

By Mustang Bobby

As you may have heard, last week the Obama administration filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case against Prop 8. Greg Sargent explained why this is a big deal:

The key to the brief is that it makes two arguments. The first is that it agrees with the ruling of a lower court — which found Prop 8 unconstitutional — that challenges to the constitutionality of such laws should require that they are subjected to "heightened scrutiny." That means the court should hold their rationale for discriminating to an extremely high standard, and strike them down if they fail to have a credible justification. The brief does that here, in a reference to previous Supreme Court ruling in cases involving challenges to discriminatory laws:

[C]lassifications based on sexual orientation call for application of heightened scrutiny. Each of the four considerations identified by this Court supports that conclusion: (1) gay and lesbian people have suffered a significant history of discrimination in this country; (2) sexual orientation generally bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society; (3) discrimination against gay and lesbian people is based on an immutable or distinguishing characteristic that defines them as a group; and (4) notwithstanding certain progress, gay and lesbian people — as Proposition 8 itself underscores — are a minority group with limited power to protect themselves from adverse outcomes in the political process. [...]

Because a classification based on sexual orientation calls for the application of heightened scrutiny, petitioners must establish that Proposition 8, at a minimum, is "substantially related to an important governmental objective."

The second key to the brief is that it argues that when you apply "heightened scrutiny" to Prop 8, it is found to violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

What this means is that the government, while focusing its brief on Prop 8 itself, has, for all practical purposes, asked the Supreme Court to set a precedent that can be applied to all state laws banning gay marriage — the arguments that these laws must survive "heightened scrutiny," and that they violate the Constitution.

If the Supreme Court strikes down Prop 8 based on the heightened scrutiny argument, then it could invalidate all the laws in the country that ban marriage equality, much in the same way that Brown v. Board of Education invalidated school segregation in places other than Topeka, Kansas. It would set a precedent for overturning other laws that discriminate against members of the LGBT community, such as the adoption restrictions in Florida, already pretty much ruled unconstitutional by lower courts.

Read more »

Bobby Jindal says Republicans can still be anti-gay bigots and win

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As ThinkProgress reports, at least one leading Republican, a major contender for the 2016 nomination, is refusing to back down on the party's long-standing anti-gay bigotry: 

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) -- a possible Republican candidate for president in 2016 -- rejected former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman's argument that conservatives must embrace marriage equality for gays and lesbians if they want to survive as a party and reiterated his support for "traditional marriage."

"Look, I believe in the traditional definition of marriage," Jindal said during an appearance on Meet The Press on Sunday, and went on to claim that Republicans don't have to make the case on social issues to attract young voters and win future elections and instead should continue focusing on economic issues. "We lost [the 2012 election] because we didn't present a vision showing how we believe the entire economy can grow, how people can join the middle class. We're in aspirational party and we need policies that are consistant with that aspirational private sector growth."

And of course he's hardly alone on this. While some Republicans are indeed moving to support same-sex marriage (including the handful of enlightened conservatives like Huntsman), if not out of principle then as a result of partisan political calculation, most of the party isn't budging.

The Republicans are on the wrong side of history on this issue, as on so much else, as well as increasingly on the wrong side of public opinion. And while Jindal may want the party to run on an "aspirational" platform based on failed right-wing economic policies (i.e., they aspire to plutocracy), rights and fairness issues like same-sex marriage and women's health really do matter because they say a lot about a party's, or a candidate's, priorities and intentions.

If you don't understand that, if you think you can still run proudly on your bigotry, and if you don't understand you lost in 2012 because of far more than failing to "present a vision" (as if it was just a communications problem), you're a fool, and worse.

All the same

By Mustang Bobby

Outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has some good news for same-sex couples serving in the military:

Seventeen months ago, the United States military ended the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We have implemented the repeal of that policy and made clear that discrimination based on sexual orientation has no place in the Department of Defense.

At the time of repeal, I committed to reviewing benefits that had not previously been available to same-sex partners based on existing law and policy. It is a matter of fundamental equity that we provide similar benefits to all of those men and women in uniform who serve their country. The department already provides a group of benefits that are member-designated. Today, I am pleased to announce that after a thorough and deliberate review, the department will extend additional benefits to same-sex partners of service members.

There are still some benefits that aren't available thanks to the odious Defense of Marriage Act, but for now this is yet another step towards equality. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Good Scouts

By Mustang Bobby 

(Ed. note: For more on this, see Carl's post from yesterday, "Scout's honor." -- MJWS)

Via NBC:

The Boy Scouts of America, one of the nation's largest private youth organizations, is actively considering an end to its decades-long policy of banning gay scouts or scout leaders, according to scouting officials and outsiders familiar with internal discussions.

If adopted by the organization's board of directors, it would represent a profound change on an issue that has been highly controversial — one that even went to the US Supreme Court. The new policy, now under discussion, would eliminate the ban from the national organization's rules, leaving local sponsoring organizations free to decide for themselves whether to admit gay scouts.

Good for them to finally realize something that has been true as long as there has been boys and scouts: some of them are gay.

Read more »

Progressive America: Reflections on Obama's Second Inaugural

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm really not sure how and to what extent President Obama will follow through on the progressive commitments he made in his Second Inaugural yeterday, but there's no denying that his vision was clear and that his rhetoric was in the right place.

Of course he has often been criticized by those of us on the left for not being enough of a man of the left, enough of a leader for progressive change, and deservedly so. Too often he has been a leader, or follower, of of the Beltway center, the compromiser willing to sell out core progressive principles for the sake of getting a deal done, too often willing to give in to an opposition that itself has no interest in working with him in good faith.

And yet there is hope as he embarks now on his second term.

And it is possible, just possible, that he will do for the left what Reagan did for the right, that he will indeed be, or at least try to be, the transformative figure many of us know he can be.

This was a speech of substance, unlike Bush Jr.'s second, which promised a global crusade but had nothing to back it up. It was a speech about America, about what America is -- what it was meant to be, what it has become, what it can be. It was a speech that proudly articulated a liberal-progressive understanding of America, and of America's promise, in stark contrast to the conservative view that has, in large part thanks to Reagan, come to dominate, and corrupt, the American politico-historical narrative.

This is America, the president said, a liberal America, a progressive America. A great deal has been accomplished in the face of steadfast, regressive opposition, and a lot remains to be done, but, yes, there is hope, hope grounded in the progressive vision of the Founders and in the accomplishments that have defined a nation.

Read more »