I’ve been fascinated by some of the overwrought “revolution!” language that the usual Christian right trolls are using regarding the case against Prop 8 being considered by SCOTUS. It’s not that I’m comfortable that the pendulum has swung so far that there’s little resistance to marriage equality—it’s that I just don’t see that many people be invested enough to start a civil war over it. Regular folks just aren’t thinking about gay folks getting married all the time. It doesn’t really impact them because, well, it just doesn’t. Gay people getting married doesn’t raise anyone’s taxes or take away any right that any has previously enjoyed.
I think we’re going to win these cases. But say the worst happens and we lose in a broad way – that means that the Court somehow does a Roe, aRoe v. Wade, on marriage and says that all these state constitutional amendments are overturned, gay marriage is now a constitutional right – well, we’re going to press forward on a Federal Marriage Amendment. We’ve always supported a Federal Marriage Amendment, and there’s a lot of misconceptions about it. Some people try and argue, ‘Well, this is against federalism.’ No, our founders gave us a system where we can amend the Constitution. We shouldn’t have to do this, we shouldn’t have to worry about activist judges, you know, making up out of thin air a constitutional right that obviously none of our founders found there and no one found there until quite recently. But if we do, for us, the Federal Marriage Amendment is a way that people can stand up and say, ‘Enough is enough.’ We need a solution in this country, we cannot be, as Lincoln said, half slave, half free. We can’t have a country on key moral questions where we’re just, where we don’t have a solution. And if the Court forces a solution, the way we’ll amend that is through the Federal Marriage Amendment.
“Half slave, half free.” I can kind of understand wanting to do a Lincoln quote-pull because Lincoln, you know, was kind of a big deal. It’s just funny that Brown seems to think that people living in the states where marriage equality is recognized would be morally the people living in the “slave states”. Because those poor beset-upon long-suffering religious people would lack the freedom to…
So, Claire McCaskill announced her support for marriage equality this weekend. Brave move from a Senator in a red state? Craven bandwagon-jumping?
McCaskill can be exasperatingly Blue Doggy, but I think she deserves credit for openly supporting marriage equality, even if she’s hardly the first Dem out of the gate. Consider that she would have almost surely lost in 2012 to dead-eyed loon Todd Akin if he hadn’t been stricken with that peculiar strain of Rape Commentary Tourette’s that plagued last year’s crop of GOP candidates.
Even if the announcement is less than a profile in courage, it’s still a victory. Good for McCaskill.
Andrew Stiles at NRO implies that Secretary Clinton is dancing for donations from gay puppet-masters:
Big Money Backs Clinton on Gay Marriage
Former secretary of state and potential 2016 presidential contender Hillary Clinton announced her support for gay marriage on Monday in a video posted online by the Human Rights Campaign, one of the Democratic party’s most prolific campaign donors over the years.
The Human Rights Campaign has contributed more than $10 million to Democrats since 1990, and has spent more than $21 million on lobbying since 1998, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which describes the group as a “heavy hitter” in federal elections.
On what planet does $10 million in campaign contributions over 23 years qualify as “big money?” Hell, Sheldon Adelson shook $20 mill out of his sofa cushions for Gingrich’s Quixotic primary run before going on to spend serious cash on the actual nominee. And he’s just one dude in one election cycle.
The consensus for marriage equality is accelerating, thanks to the Democrats, notably President Obama. Conservatives like the nitwits at NRO still can’t quite believe this is happening, so they’re casting about for alternate explanations.
Republicans who have the most well-developed sense of political self-preservation will climb off the bigot bus toot sweet, leaving sad busybodies like NOM’s Brian Brown holding a pile of white sheets and “God Hates Fags” signs.
Ever since the Republican Party’s post-2012 election pursuit of sanity, some very peculiar things have been happening on the national level.
For example, taxes were raised, “Dreamers” were embraced and, just yesterday, in a somewhat jarring demonstration of Fellow Americanism, Rep. Eric Cantor (one of the older-and-wiser Young Guns) took the Republican gospel of self-reliance to “urban” schoolchildren (already on the right track because they attend a charter school). Americans can be forgiven any cynicism regarding these measures, but, you know, at least they’re trying.
Evidently, remoter Republicans toiling away in the “laboratories of Democracy” haven’t received the memo yet because they are still displaying batshit-craziness that, if anything, appears to be somewhat amped-up. Maybe they’re afraid the grown-ups will prevail?
Today I thought it might be instructive to introduce one Todd Kincannon, Esq., one of the Republican Party’s bright young things waiting in the wings. Young Guns, I think they call themselves, as they noisily racket around trying to reinvent the GOP for the eleventy-eleventh time.
By my reckoning the GOP change-meisters have managed—by hook or by crook—to drag the party into the 20th century and appear to be hell-bent on emerging into a solidly 1950’s mindset. What next?
The annals of jurisprudence, like all other repositories of human endeavor, contain some really great stuff along with a sprinkling of silly rubbish. Think “Prohibition” or “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Or, how about the biggest loser of all time: “The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)”?
Americans have been living with this legal albatross around their necks for a long time now as it slowly wended its way from bad idea, enacted September 21, 1996; to political football; to indefensible travesty of law until, finally, it has been dumped on the US Supreme Court, along with its evil twin, California Proposition 8, for [probable] disposal.
Both of these stinkers arose from the conservative belief that “the best offense was a good defense.” Since it might not play well to the whole country to declare same-sex unions anathema, they did the next best thing—define legal marriage as pertaining only to opposite sex couples, thereby excluding same sex couples from the 1,100 or so legal and financial benefits that accrue to marriage partners in our society.
Both DOMA and Prop 8 have been found wanting when challenged numerous times in lower Federal Courts. Both have long, well-documented records of legal challenges that, nearly always, result in findings of “unconstitutional.” DOMA is such a loser that President Obama ran, in 2008, on a platform that included repealing DOMA.
I don’t anymore, and this sort of ignorance is exactly why:
What the hell is “taxpayer-funded abortion pills”? Taxpayer dollars don’t fund any kind of abortions under the Hyde Amendment. Now, because he is ignorant, he might have the singularly stupid idea not unpopular with fundies that birth control pills are abortifacients—they are not. They are contraceptives in the sense that they prevent conception, which in turn means they actually prevent abortions. And yes, those are provided by government dollars under Title X and without co-pay as a part of insurance plans under the ACA. But even somewhat anti-science, also strong social conservative LA Gov. Bobby Jindal just recently published an op-ed endorsing over-the-counter birth control. Now, of course Jindal’s op-ed is for the purpose of divorcing the birth control issue from government altogether so tax dollars are not even second or third hand involved—but at least he isn’t calling them “abortion pills”.
But listen again, and this is a very short clip, but packed dense with Kulturkampf dummkopf-ery, he is talking about things we “used to call disorders”, that we “now call normal”—whatever could that be? I am pretty well-persuaded by my general knowledge about Huckabee’s bullshit that he’s talking about LGBT* people. It’s sinful that gay and trans folk are treated as regular human beings, he’s saying. That’s what I think he was getting at.
I know I’ve said this before, but really, ginormously hump a bunch of Mike Huckabee. But this time, I think I mean, there ain’t no poll numbers in 2016 gonna support no kind of Mike Huckabee. He is reinforcing his FOX Mushroom Farm cred, but really at the expense of anything in the way of political viability. And if that is the way he feels, well—
Good. Happy death of political career to you. “Godspeed” you to irrelevance. Happy trails. And don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split ya, because that is probably some kind of sodomy, and stuff. And I care about Huckabee just enough to want to preserve his ass from understanding just how sinful he really is as a gluttonous grasping hypocrite so he’ll continue providing me with glurgy blogfodder. Forever and ever. Amen.
That is about the size of it—the people who oppose gay marriage are dying out. There really is an age-related demographic trend to support of marriage equality. Call me a born romantic—I’ve been head-over-heels about posts I’ve seen this weekend like this, and have a hard time imagining how anyone would actually not want to see consenting adults happy and in love and able to make the committments they want to—legally and all that. I know NOM and them exist—I just don’t understand how they think they have any business trying to forbid it. Who do they think they are? Where does their feeling of moral superiority come from? And how can they want to stick that supposed superiority in the faces of couples who may have even been together longer than some of those bigots have even been alive?
I do note there is an interestingly similar demographical relationship—and that would be regarding the ages of your Fox Mushroom Farm viewership. Come to think of it, I’m reliably certain there’s an age bias regarding GOP membership, as well. This isn’t necessarily a post where I gloat in my cynical Generation X fashion about my enemies’ bodies floating on a river past me. Oh no. It’s just a celebration of life.
Which does march on, and only love remains—which is why I’m so puzzled when people try to fight it. We’re only human, and mortal. Why do we ever fight love? It beats the alternatives.
Our hens raided the container garden during their free-range jaunt yesterday:
I never participate in the garden threads because my husband does every bit of the gardening around here. I couldn’t even grow a Chia pet or keep an air fern alive.
Anne Laurie’s early morning open thread featured the image of commenter Hitchhiker’s lovely cat in front of a Christmas tree. But instead of going, “Awwwww,” I went, “Sweet mother of fuck! It’s almost Christmas, and I haven’t done a damn thing!”
My fake tree and all the decorations are still in the shed. I haven’t ordered the Christmas dinner prime rib yet. We haven’t even quite wrapped up our kitchen renovations (although it’s mostly done – we lack cabinet toe-kicks and the backsplash only at this point), and our dining room still sports a bare concrete slab as we haven’t gotten around to laying the tile. Oh, and I haven’t bought the first present yet.
Why? Well, the home renovations have become a convenient excuse for being slobs. Why bother dusting or sweeping when there’s 70s-era glue on the walls where we ripped out the old laminate backsplash and bare concrete underfoot? We’ve actually enjoyed the respite.
As for the lack of Christmas spirit, it just doesn’t seem Christmas-y yet, partly because it’s been so warm. I’m a native Floridian, so warm Decembers aren’t a foreign or unwelcome concept to me. But it does seem unusual to get this far towards the solstice without once having to put on a pair of socks or rifle the closet for a jacket. There have been a few flannel-shirt-over-the-tee-shirt days, but I haven’t had to bust out the woolies. Nonetheless, there is work to be done.
Romneys Spread Loser Stink
Speaking of indolent people, Mitt and Ann Romney are continuing their loser tour. Noted fans of “sport,” the Romneys took in the Pacquiao-Marquez boxing match last night:
I don’t follow boxing, but I think Pacquiao was favored to beat Marquez. That was before Romney visited Pacquiao in his dressing room, exuding a giant cloud of loser dust:
“Hello Manny. I ran for president. I lost,” Romney told the fighter, according to Pacquiao publicist Fred Sternburg.
Then this happened:
“LAS VEGAS — Manny Pacquiao never saw it coming. He never saw the punch that snapped his head back Saturday and dropped him to the canvas and left him sprawled there momentarily, face down, while his wife sobbed uncontrollably and the packed crowd at MGM’s Grand Garden Arena rose to its feet in shock.
With that, a rivalry known for its lack of a definitive triumph suddenly had the most definitive ending of them all.”
I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really hope Mitt and Ann Romney decide to pay the Notre Dame locker room a visit prior to the BCS title game.
Speaking of Losers
Remember the group One Million 51,700 [homophobic] Moms (OMM)? No? Me neither, but this spring, they failed spectacularly in a bid to get Ellen Degeneres fired as JC Penney spokesperson. After that effort flopped, OMM director Monica Cole announced that the breeder klatch was “moving on.”
But a JC Penney commercial featuring Ellen and several Christmas elves attracted their ire again last week.
It wasn’t that Ellen groped a female elf in the ad or anything. It’s just that everyone knows she’s a lesbian, and think of the chiiiiildren!
Because the commercial that occasioned the protest was so innocuous, onlookers found the OMM action confusing. (Pro tip: When you have to explain why you’re taking umbrage, you’re not successfully inciting it.) So OMM declared that the group is “moving on.” Again. Maybe someday they actually will.
I thought witnessing the Great PUMA Tantrum of Aught-Eight in real time was fun, but it turns out that was just the bagged crudité tray before the grand schadenfreude banquet that is the Colossal Wingnut Bed-Shitting of 2012. Good times!
But among all the very many reasons to be happy today, one of my favorite things is the stunning progress we’ve made on LGBT equality, symbolized by a few of last night’s election results. NOM has a sad today, and that’s a Good Thing. They used to crow about their “36-0” record, and to give the devil their due, they were remarkably successful in advancing the cause of bigotry and defacing various state constitutions with anti-gay graffiti.
That streak is broken. Marriage equality won in Maine, Maryland and Minnesota (and maybe Washington state too). Tammy Baldwin is the first openly gay senator elected in US history.
This particular moral arc of the universe has been bending toward justice for a long time, thanks to the brave and tireless efforts of millions of people over decades. And although it has bent more sharply recently, we still have a long way to go.
But is there any doubt that having a sitting president come out in favor of marriage equality made a difference? Is there any doubt that President Obama’s successful drive to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell changed things?
Thank you, President Barack Obama. Well done, sir.
This post isn’t really intended to be a troll of you fine Roasters—clearly, I wouldn’t seriously suggest a literal endorsement of Les Mittserables in the least, but I did want to expand on Betty’s “How Low Will they Go?” post and especially Big Bad Bald Bastard’s comment regarding David Frum’s actual endorsement of a person who, to the very best I can estimate, we have only about a 47% chance of guessing at any time how he will act on any given issue. That’s well within a practical margin of error of a coin flip, no? That makes him the Schroedinger’s Candidate for the purposes of this election—and if one of our economic problems is uncertainty, I don’t like the looks of Mitt for either our short-term or our long-term problems.
But let’s seriously examine what a Romney presidency really means in a situation where the US Congress is likewise GOP-controlled, supposing that people actually did knuckle under and vote for Count Mittula out of a kind of Stockholm Syndrome:
The Teabaggers already have progress tied up in the basement, and if we don’t vote for Romney, they’ll start beating it with wet ropes! Or dry ropes! Or copies of Atlas Shrugged! It could get ugly! Oh noes!
I’m not in the mood to negotiate with hostage-takers just yet (what do I look like, the Reagan Administration?) Now, if you were to ask me, this would actually be more of a stellar argument against having a GOP-controlled anything. I would vote for Obama to particularly spite those bastards, and vote against any Republican just on the general principle that you can’t do me like that. After all, there are some GOP Senate candidates that are actually advertising on the hopes of Obama having coat tails, and a divided government becoming the hot, bipartisan thing. Fuck all that. (Actually, as a Smark going back a handful of years, screw a bunch of Linda McMahon.) Even if you don’t love Obama—I’d say the best thing is for people to vote for Democrats because Republicans in charge of the House have seriously sucked. Their suckage is not about a failure of the White House. Their suckage is about thinking legislating ladyparts creates jobs because Jesus. Mitt Romney is not the guy who can fix that. Why? Because he at least half the time pretends to believe it—if he doesn’t actually believe it. It’s hard to say.
So what is left for the people who want to endorse Romney to rely on? His business acumen? Seriously? As if that creates jobs! It didn’t when he was governor of Massachusetts and it’s dubious that it did when he was CEO of Bain. His job was to make money as the Bainiac-in-Chief, and as the Head Manager in Charge of The People’s Republic of “Taxamachusetts” (where he earned the title Governor FeeFee) he didn’t exactly earn plenty of points for either bipartisanship or fiscal awesomeness. Actually, in his only elected position, his veteoes were overruled by the majority Democratic state legislature more often than not, (No wonder he spent the half of his term that he spent thinking about being a part of the 2008 GOP presidential primary instead of being MA Governor bad-mouthing Massachusetts altogether, amirite?) And then there’s his record on civil rights. Which is so bad compared to what he promised when he ran for MA Senate against liberal lion Ted Kennedy, you know?
See, despite the wishful thinking of the Log Cabin Republicans, Mitt would be a garbage disaster for LGBT* people, because he gave money to NOM, for one thing. and he didn’t realize that gay couples might want to raise families for another. If anyone thinks he would stand up against bullies against LGBT folks, well, he’s okay with acknowledging the LGBT folks, except for the B and the T . Or really being, you know, helpful towards them. (What can I personally say about that? Um, as a former teen who is bisexual and was bullied, I can from experience say more education and acknowledgement about and of bisexuality might be helpful.) And I don’t think you need to read “binders full” about women to know he doesn’t stand in your corner if you are a feminist. Or just a woman, in general.
So what it comes down to, for me, is that, even leaving aside all Obama’s accomplishments and the ways in which (understanding foreign policy, macroeconomics, not being a mouthbreathing tool amongst other nations’ leaders) he’s simply superior, Romney is manifestly not the guy for the job. A serial lying bigoted know-little can’t understand why the job is even important, let along behave is if it was something more than the penultimate Big Deal on his CV. So I am manifestly not endorsing Mitt Romney. Not to talk up Obama, which I could, forever! But to point out that whenever I see someone who supports Romney, I think so much less of that person. Uck. Him. Such a lying sack. After the Election—good riddance!
Republicans, this week, are busily deciding which “planks” to slap onto their rickety platform. They treat this process as a super-secret convention of policy leaders but, as such things go, the ship of state eventually springs a few leaks. By convention time, next week, there should be few surprises. Certainly there won’t be any in regard to marriage equality. Politico reports that the meeting on fighting “teh Gayz agenda,” which Republicans are fond of calling Protection of Traditional Marriage, was a predictably raucous one.
The question before the committee was whether or not to go with a shift in the general public’s opinion on marriage equality and relent on the GOP’s “traditional marriage” position as espoused in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The proposed concession would be to “allow” civil unions for hetero- and homosexual couples (so as not to give gays anything special; it’s hard to imagine a heterosexual rush on the Civil Unions office). A thin group of supporters, notably the anomalous endangered species known as the Log Cabin Republicans, aggressively supported that move.
But, as Politico reports:
They were overpowered and outmaneuvered by social conservative groups like the Family Research Council. FRC President Tony Perkins, for example, is Louisiana’s male representative to the platform session.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach opposed the amendment on the ground that government routinely regulates behaviors like drugs and polygamy.
“We condemn those activities even though they’re not hurting other people, at least directly,” he said.
Indiana representative Jim Bopp called civil unions “counterfeit marriage.”
Just to not be posting something about Mitt Romney, because Oh MY Gawd that Guy! I’m going to be posting an innocent picture of former VP candidate and former half-term governor, Sarah Palin, along with the Former First Dude, Toad, who are very excited to be sharing a picture of themselves having just made a purchase at a chain restaurant.
See? There they are, each holding some warm bags of chicken because that is what they do. They have pictures taken of themselves inside fast food places. Because they’re regular folks, is what. And because they support businesses, is why.
Now, some people might contend that this is a political statement in favor of a business that does discriminate against people, that they’re using this business to show support of the larger “cause” of homophobia, and some might even go so far as to suggest that they’ve aligned themselves with the “chicken winger” cause du jour because it makes them seem relevant to a backwards movement against the freedom of a select group of people to make choices particular to their families and their lives, in support of what could be labelled hate speech against those people. And there may very well be reason to believe that not only is Sarah Palin a virulent homophobe, but she’s raised her own children to be, and her own grandchild is being raised to be as well.
But mostly, I think the Palins simply believe that there is essentially nothing that they can or should do anymore that isn’t digitally recorded and broadcast, whether it be dancing amongst the pseudo-stars or even buying sundered, deep-fried poultry bits linked to hate. Maybe some folks want to call that “family values”—but I don’t think that’s what you call saying some people aren’t valuable enough to make families.
I don’t care if she’s supposedly politically irrelevant—what she is taking a stand for isn’t, yet. But it ought to be. And she obviously wants attention—so here. Attention is paid.
The Boy Scouts of America has reaffirmed its longtime policy of barring openly gay boys from membership and gay or lesbian adults from serving as leaders. The decision, announced on Tuesday, came after what the organization described as a wide-ranging internal review, and despite public protests.
Apparently the decision came down from a super-seekrit committee formed in 2010 for, presumably, the purpose of trying to figure out how to keep the antiquated policy alive in a matter that they could justify. Since obviously it cannot be justified they just told the American public to FOAD, we’re sticking with our own version of DADT. And this is despite the fact that the Girl Scouts, the Boys and Girls Clubs and even the frackin 4-H clubs* all have anti-discrimination policies.
Well, voting with your wallet always helps. Do not support the Boy Scouts financially and do not buy their popcorn (or whatever it is they’re selling these days). And seriously consider if this is an organization you want your kids affiliated with.
* I am not a 4-H hater by any means. My only point is this is an organization that operates primarily in rural areas that you would expect to lean red and they are even more liberal than the Boy Scouts.
Sometimes wedge issues can give you the mother of all wedgies.
“Well, when these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name,” Romney said during a visit to Fort Lupton. “My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not.”
I have the same view on marriage that I had when I was governor. I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.
This is a very tender and sensitive topic as are many social issues, but I have the same views I’ve had since running for office.
To the Members of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts:
I am writing to thank the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts for the advice and support you have given to me during my campaign for the U.S. Senate and to seek the Club’s formal endorsement of my election. The Log Cabin Club has played a vital role in reinvigorating the Republican Party in Massachusetts and your endorsement is important to me because it will provide further confirmation that my campaign and approach to government is consistent with the values and vision of government we share.
I am pleased to have had an opportunity to talk with you and to meet many of you personally during your September meeting. I learned a great deal from those discussions and the many thoughtful questions you posed. As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for Americas gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.
I am not unaware of my opponent’s considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent’s record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.
We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and the bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.
As we begin the final phase of this campaign, I need your support more than ever. By working together, we will achieve the goals we share for Massachusetts and our Nation.