SCOTUS, same-sex marriage, and the electoral viability of the GOP

By Richard Barry

It is axiomatic that the GOP will need to expand its base with younger and non-white voters if it hopes to capture the White House any time soon. The problem, of course, is that any movement towards positions that appeal to these constituencies risks alienating the party's older, whiter, and more culturally conservative base.

Nate Cohn at the New York Times argues that one development that could work in the GOP's favour is a Supreme Court ruling supporting same-sex marriage.

With the legality of same-sex marriage being argued on Tuesday, the court could allow Republicans to abandon an unpopular position without abandoning their principles or risking a primary challenge. History would effectively be bailing out the party.

He compares this to the end of the Cold War, which, some would argue, assisted Democrats, long considered weak on national security, by helping take the issue off the table.

This year, if the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, the court could free Republicans from defending a policy that makes it far harder to confront their generational and demographic challenges.

My sense is that Mr. Cohn is giving the Republicans far too much credit. I would also suggest that the comparison with the Cold War doesn't work. 

A Supreme Court ruling will surely signal that the battle by same-sex marriage advocates has been won, but this will simply make the issue more contentious for the many who will refuse to accept defeat. In other words, I think the issue will be even more difficult for Republicans to manage than if SCOTUS hadn't ruled to support it (assuming they do). 

And I do not imagine the Republican base will look kindly on any candidate who says that the Supreme Court has decided the matter, so let's move on. If the Supreme Court sanctions same-sex marriage, it will make opponents demand it be talked about incessantly, and in the most energetic ways, thus exacerbating the GOP's "generational and demographic challenges."

Unlike the end of the Cold War, which really was an end, this will be the beginning of something new and important, and a culture war marker of epic proportion, which the Republican base will not let go easily.

Louisiana judge exposes his ignorance (and bigotry) in upholding state's same-sex marriage ban

By Michael J.W. Stickings

With most of the country moving in a progressive direction on same-sex marriage, you knew you could count on a retrograde place like Louisiana to strike a blow for good-ol'-fashioned stupidity, bigotry, and medievalism:

People who think gay Americans do not deserve the same rights as straight Americans finally have something to celebrate.

After a disastrous losing streak in the federal courts — every single federal court to consider the question after the Supreme Court struck down the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 2013 has sided against marriage discrimination — Team Anti-Gay finally found a single court in Louisiana that was willing to stand up for the the principle that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry. Judge Martin Feldman, a Reagan appointee to the federal trial bench, has now written the only federal court decision in the country holding that gay couples are not entitled to the same rights as straight couples.

Oh, but it took some of the usual right-wing ignorance to make it happen:

Political operatives seeking to cast aspersions on Feldman's approach to gay rights will find a lot to work with in his opinion. At one point, he describes being gay as one of several "lifestyle choices" a person can make. At another point in his opinion, he compares same-sex marriage to marriage between "aunt and niece," "aunt and nephew," or "father and child." He also likens marriage equality to polygamous marriages.

And on and on. ThinkProgress goes on to pick apart what turns out to be a remarkably unlearned opinion, an opinion obviously rooted not in an appreciation for the law, nor in an understanding of the issue at hand, but in the judge's own biases, an opinion that screams right-wing judicial activism. It's bigotry with respect to gay rights, but also astonishing ignorance with respect to the law, as well as to the basic elements of judicial review.

But this guy's a Republican. What else did you expect?

Craziest Republican of the Day: Karen Mueller

By Michael J.W. Stickings

ThinkProgress:

A Wisconsin Republican congressional hopeful warned Tuesday that a federal court ruling striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage could lead to the legalization of marriage between siblings.

Karen Mueller, an Eau Claire attorney whose practice has focused on opposing abortion and defending those "discriminated against and harassed in the workplace, the school, college and/or the public square because of their faith," is one of three Republican candidates seeking to challenge Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI). At a Republican Party of Monroe County candidate forum, she denounced the ruling and warned that it would create a slippery slope.  

According to the Tomah Journal, Mueller said that the ruling might set a precedent that any two people can marry: "We've got, for instance, two sisters, and these two sisters want to get married. They love each other. They are committed to each other. They want to spend the rest of their life together." Lawyers, Mueller explained, would be able to argue "'We can just do away with that state law the same way we did away with sodomy laws,'" noting that "once you do away with that, you reveal what is really going on here."

Mueller also suggested that the court's ruling will be overturned on appeal because the state's ban is not really discriminatory against gay and lesbian citizens. "They can get married. They just can't get married to each other," she argued.

In other words, Mueller -- who is only a small-time pol at this point but who is obviously active on the bigoted theocratic right -- is a massive idiot spouting the same old Rick Santorum-style nonsense about how allowing gays and lesbians to marry will unleash the sort of wet-dream sexual chaos that gets fundies all revved up into frothing-mad hysteria, because apparently they just can't help thinking about all that sibling, not to mention inter-species, sodomizing. They get so hot and bothered about it you'd think they all want to go fuck their pet dogs.

So of course she's a Republican.

Religious belief doesn't trump law

By Frank Moraes 

The United Church of Christ (UCC) has been performing same-sex marriages since 2005. So they decided to pursue a legal challenge to North Carolina's ban on same-sex marriages. They are arguing that the state is violating their freedom of religion. That is too delicious not to talk about.

But I think the case is very clear. People's rights to free expression do not trump laws. The Rastafarians believe very much that they should be allowed to ingest cannabis, but that has never stopped one of them from being imprisoned for that "crime." So I don't think that the UCC has a religious right that trumps North Carolina law. Of course, there may be details in the law that would push me in the UCC's direction. But as it stands, it seems pretty simple.

I am just being consistent here. I also think all of these religious based attacks on Obamacare should have been thrown scornfully out of court at the very beginning. And there are lots of similar cases, like where a Christian pharmacist claims he has the right not to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. The Rastafarians have a far better claim to their drug rights than do hobby stores who want to micromanage their employees' healthcare coverage.

But given all the time and efforts that conservative Christians have put into destroying Obamacare using such arguments, you would think that they would be in support of the UCC. After all, it is a matter of religious liberty. It shouldn't matter that it is in the name of a specific policy that they don't accept. But, of course, it does matter. North Carolina Values Coalition (NCVC) executive director Tami Fitzgerald said in a press release that because a majority of the voters in the state voted for the law, the UCC should have no rights. She then went on to talk about how she was the ultimate arbiter of what Christianity is and that the UCC is just wrong.

Of course, when Hobby Lobby was before the Supreme Court, Fitzgerald was firmly behind it, urging people to Pray for Hobby Lobby. But I'm sure that is not the only bit of hypocrisy that Fitzgerald and the NCVC have in store. Right now it is all about the fact that 61% of the electorate of North Carolina voted to ban same-sex marriage. As soon as the people become in favor of same-sex marriage, she will be using a different argument. And it won't be long. Last year, the people of North Carolina were against same-sex marriage by a tiny 45%-44% margin.

We'll see what happens to this case. I wouldn't be at all surprised if conservative judges find that a same-sex marriage ban did not violate the UCC's religious rights even while they find hitherto unknown religious rights of hobby stores. Luckily, the same-sex marriage issue will be resolved by the people very soon. 

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Vast majority of conservatives are still against gay marriage (and the Pope is still Catholic)

By Richard K. Barry

According to a survey conducted by a Republican polling group, conservatives are still overwhelmingly opposed to same-sex marriage. 

The poll, by Wilson Research Strategies, found a whopping 82% of the GOP’s base (which included right-leaning independent voters) defined marriage as between a man and a woman, while 75% disagreed that politicians should be seeking to “redefine marriage.” In both cases the majority of respondents felt strongly or even “definitely” about the issue.

But, while the voting conservative public may have a clear view, many in the conservative leadership know that this is a problem for the future of the GOP. 

As reported in the Washington Post:

Fred Sainz, a spokesman for Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, agreed that “a tectonic shift is taking place in the Republican Party on marriage equality.” He cited several polls showing shifting support and the growing number of lawmakers in favor of dropping opposition even as top leaders remain opposed. “For the Republican hierarchy it's a very straightforward question,” Sainz said. “How can they attract the next generation of voters and not support an issue young people have made their minds up on?”

How indeed.

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.

Kansas doubles down on its anti-gay bigotry instead of joining the civilized world

By Michael J.W. Stickings

What's the matter with Kansas? What the fuck is the matter with Kansas? Well, in large part because of its Republican majority, it's a shithole of bigotry, and while much of the rest of the country moves to eliminate discrimination, this fucked-up state prefers to entrench it:

Denying services to same-sex couples may soon become legal in Kansas. 

House Bill 2453 explicitly protects religious individuals, groups and businesses that refuse services to same-sex couples, particularly those looking to tie the knot.

It passed the state's Republican-dominated House on Wednesday with a vote of 72-49, and has gone to the Senate for a vote.

Such a law may seem unnecessary in a state where same-sex marriage is banned, but some Kansas lawmakers think different.

They want to prevent religious individuals and organizations from getting sued, or otherwise punished, for not providing goods or services to gay couples -- or for not recognizing their marriages or committed relationship as valid.

The bill's proponents and others who share their anti-gay views can try to spin this as being about religious freedom, about the "right" to oppose homosexuality, but when you strip away that veneer of bullshit what this really is is bigotry, plain and simple, and the state's authorization of discrimination. And it's just as bad that the target is same-sex couples as it would be if it were, say, Jewish couples or mixed-race couples.

Kansas, grow the fuck up.

Wait, gay marriage in Kentucky?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Really? Yes. Well, maybe:

In a ruling that could open the door to gay marriage in Kentucky, a federal judge has struck down the state's ban on recognizing same-sex unions performed in states where it is legal.

U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II ruled Wednesday that Kentucky’s prohibition violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law by treating gays and lesbians "differently in a way that demeans them."

*****

Heyburn's decision strikes down part of Kentucky's marriage amendment, enacted in 2004 by 74 percent of the voters, which says "only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky."

In the 23-page opinion, Heyburn said the state and groups defending the amendment offered no evidence that recognizing same-sex unions would harm opposite-sex marriages, individually or collectively.

That's because there is no evidence. It's bigotry rooted in religious ignorance, combined with sexual delusion and personal psychosis. (Something like that.)

Anyway, this is certainly a giant step forward, even if we're probably still a long way off from seeing marriage equality in Kentucky, a state with great whiskey, excellent college basketball, a famous horse race, and a Corvette museum with a large sinkhole in it, but one not exactly known for its progressivism and commitment to civil rights.

Virginia is for lovers, finally!

By Carl 

This item popped up last night:

New Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring says his decision to challenge his state's ban on gay marriage, rather than defend it on behalf of the state, is part of an evolution in his views on the subject.

Herring announced his decision to side with plaintiffs in lawsuits challenging the state's ban on Thursday, a reversal from the position of his predecessor, Republican Ken Cuccinelli.

The Democrat, who was elected in November and took office this month, said though he voted against same sex marriage in the past, his views have changed.

Think of it as evolution in action. While I'm not sure I like the political theater involved – either you're for it or against it, and expediencies should be damned – this is a better outcome than the reverse, pursuing such cases more actively.

See, it does two things, one good and one bad.

Read more »

Federal judge rules Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This is happening -- in Utah, now in Oklahoma. Federal courts are weighing in on state laws that are inherently discriminatory, and what they're finding is that those laws ought to be struck down, that in essence those laws are profoundly un-American: 

U.S. Senior District Judge Terence Kern ruled Tuesday that Oklahoma's ban on marriage equality is unconstitutional.

The ruling is stayed pending appeal, meaning marriages will not occur immediately in Oklahoma.

In striking down Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage, U.S. District Judge Terrence Kern described it as "an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit."

"Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed," Kern's 68-page decision says. "It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights." 

Republican Gov. Mary Fallin points out that the ban was passed in 2004 with 75 percent popular support, but of course majority rule does not supersede Americans' foundational rights. (Slavery was once a popular thing, too, remember.) Perhaps Fallin and her fellow bigoted Republicans ought to read the Constitution they claim to hold in such high esteem. (It's also rather hypocritical to be so democratic when it suits their far-right agenda.)

I still think it's important for democratically-elected legislatures to legalize same-sex marriage and thereby to put a democratic stamp on marriage equality. But there's also a role for the courts to play alongside legislatures, and it's good to see federal judges like Kern taking a firm stand against what is nothing other than blatant discrimination that treats gays and lesbians like lesser citizens, if citizens at all.

Who said anything about "rebranding"?

By Mustang Bobby 

All that talk about rebranding the GOP after the beatdown in last year's election was just that: talk.  They really didn't mean it, according to RNC Chair Reince Priebus:

Speaking with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network posted today, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus confirmed that the party will try to reach out to groups like gays and lesbians by simply appearing to be more respectful without actually changing its views on issues such as marriage equality.

After Brody said conservative evangelical voters are nervous that the GOP thinks "we have to be more tolerant," Priebus said there is nothing to worry about. "I don't know if I've used the word 'tolerance,' I don't really care for that word myself. I don't have a problem with it, I just think it has another meaning politically that can go the other direction," the party chairman said.

"It's not what you say, I think, it's sometimes – like our moms used to tell us – it's how you say it. And I think that's really the issue. And quite frankly, I think some of that has been overblown."

Priebus assured Brody that the GOP will continue to represent "things that are very square with our beliefs as Christians" and recognize that "there's only one sovereign God."

How very reassuring. For a while there we had a hope that they might become tolerant and open-minded, which would have been a major change and might even attract voters who previously saw them as sniveling patriarchs and bigots who saw the error of their ways. Not to worry; they're still the same old cranks.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Ernie and Bert and the meaning of marriage equality

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's one of the greatest magazine covers ever. In its quiet way, it its expression of love, it explains what the whole fight over same-sex marriage, over equal rights, is all about. I find it deeply moving.

Vienna Teng: "City Hall" -- a celebration of same-sex marriage

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Now would be a good time to post a clip of the wonderful Vienna Teng performing "City Hall," a pre-Prop 8 celebration of same-sex marriage.

It's off Vienna's 2006 album Dreaming Through the Noise (her best, in my view), and here she is performing the song at the famous Sun Studio in Nashville.

Some of the lyrics:

Outside, they're handing out
Donuts and pizza pies
For the folks in pairs in the folding chairs
My baby's lookin' so damned pretty
With those anxious eyes
Rain-speckled hair
And my ring to wear

Ten years waiting for this moment of fate
When we say the words and sign our names
If they take it away again someday
This beautiful thing won't change

Oh, me and my baby driving down
To a hilly seaside town in the rainfall
Oh, me and my baby stand in line
You've never seen a sight so fine
As the love that's gonna shine

At City Hall

The bigots are trying to take it away, even after this past week's historic Supreme Court rulings, but the country has changed, public opinion is on our side, and we're not going to let them take it away. Period.

Love shall prevail.

Anti-bullying

By Mustang Bobby

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) responded to the Supreme Court's ruling on DOMA by standing up against bullying... of bigots.

My hope is that those of us who believe in the sanctity and uniqueness of traditional marriage will continue to argue for its protection in a way that is respectful to the millions of American sons and daughters who are gay. It is also my hope that those who argue for the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex marriage will refrain from assailing the millions of Americans who disagree with them as bigots.

So there you have a bully begging not to be bullied for being a bigoted bully.

Rand Paul thinks dog marriage is next

By Frank Moraes 

As you all know, I have major problems with real libertarians -- to a large extent because most of them have a good understanding of the problems of governing and I don't see why they don't recognize their very clear blind spots. But people who claim to be libertarians who don't understand the philosophy and just throw the word around because it sounds cooler than "conservative" are another matter. I hate them.

The most prominent pretend libertarian is Rand Paul. This doesn't mean that I don't agree with him from time to time. Hell, I agree with Rick Santorum now and then. One nice thing about real libertarians is that you can usually predict where they stand on any given issue. But not so with Paul. He is anti-abortion, for example. Now I understand that some libertarians are anti-abortion. But I don't get it. A 16-cell zygote has equal human rights to the mother? Really?!

But there are many more clear examples. He isn't, for example, in favor of drug legalization -- just cannabis. Now, I'm all for legalizing cannabis. But at this point, the argument isn't the libertarian one that people should be allowed to make their own choices. It is the (true) conservative argument that cannabis is no more dangerous than other legal drugs. At least Paul's father, Ron Paul, acts like a true libertarian in this regard.

And now, Rand Paul is making the media rounds to complain about the Supreme Court's overturning the Defense of Marriage Act. He was on Glenn Beck's show (another pretend libertarian) warning that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy. I actually agree with him that this ought to lead to polygamy. I'm very much a libertarian on this issue: people should be able to enter whatever contracts they want with each other. But Paul brought this up as a note of caution: polygamy is bad.[1] This is clearly not a man who believes that people's lives are their own.


Read more »

Chris Christie hates DOMA ruling, reveals abject ignorance of American constitutionalism

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you may have heard, sometime Republican superstar Chris Christie, the bullying blowhard (and media-friendly) governor of New Jersey, isn't terribly impressed with the Supreme Court for striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The ruling is an "example of judicial supremacy," he said yesterday. "I don't think the ruling was appropriate," he opined. "I think it was wrong."

He criticized the justices, or at least five of them, for replacing "the judgment of a Republican Congress and a Democratic president" with "their own judgment," adding: "I thought that Justice Kennedy's opinion was, in many respects, incredibly insulting to those people, 340-some members of Congress who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, and Bill Clinton."

Okay, we already knew Christie was a bigot -- yes, if you're against same-sex marriage, that's what you are, period. But what he showed with these comments is that he's an ignorant fool as well, with little regard for the checks, balances, and the rule of law.

Does he really have so little understanding of the Constitution, the history of the Supreme Court, and the concept of judicial review, particularly as established early on with Marbury v. Madison, one of the country's defining cases? 

This is what, in essence, the U.S. Supreme Court does. It rules on the constitutionality of federal laws, providing a check on the other two branches of government. And what it said on Wednesday is that DOMA is unconstitutional. It had every right to do so. It's in the fucking Constitution.

Read more »

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)

Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island, and the fight for marriage equality (and against Republican extremism)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yesterday, Rhode Island became the tenth state to legalize same-sex marriage.

The state's governor, the man who signed the Marriage Equality Act into law, is Lincoln Chafee.

Governor Chafee, now an independent, used to be a Republican, serving in the Senate from 1999 to 2007. He was defeated in 2006 by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse and left the Republican Party for good in 2007.

"It's not my party anymore," he explained at the time.

The following year, in an interview with Mother Jones, he said that he "saw the Republican Party change over [his] lifetime" and agreed that he had more in common with the Democrats than the Republicans.

And, to be sure, his views on issues ranging from abortion to Israel are quite progressive. The thing is, they always have been. But he was a Republican when a lot of Republicans were fiscally conservative and if not progressive on social and other issues at least not rigidly right-wing.

Which is to say, once upon a time, it made sense for Chafee to be a Republican, particularly in a blue state like Rhode Island. It would make zero sense now. Which is why he left.

Read more »