Maryland, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

By Michael J.W. Stickings

WaPo:

A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland was approved by the state Senate, which advanced a measure that narrowly cleared the House of Delegates last week.

The final vote by the state Senate ended a yearlong drama in Annapolis over the legislation, and marked the first time an East Coast state south of the Mason-Dixon line has supported gay nuptials.

With the vote, the measure moves to Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), who has said he will sign it.

Maryland would join the District and seven states in allowing same-sex marriages. Supporters have cast the bill as a major advance in equal rights. Opponents have called it a misguided attempt to redefine the institution of marriage.

Opponents, of course, are bigots. Period.

(And, yes, that includes the bullying blowhard known as Gov. Chris Christie of my former home state of New Jersey. He's better than most Republicans on this issue, to be sure, but separate but equal isn't good enough.)

End of the world or just the Republican Party?

Guest post by tmcbpatriot 

Ed. note: His first guest post, on how it's about the vagina, stupid, was on Monday, and two days later we're running his second. I'm a big fan of his blog and we're happy to have him on board. -- MJWS

********** 

tmcbpatriot's informative and always entertaining blog, Take My Country Back, emanates from somewhere out in the Midwest. He writes passionately and as often as possible about a confused, mindless right wing hopelessly lost in the abyss of endless lies and misdirection.

So I'm reading the news the other day and I see this: "Dick Cheney lobbied for Maryland gay marriage bill." I stared at it for a while in disbelief. Is the world ending? Did that pastor finally get it right? Then I did a Google search to find out just what the hell was going on.

We know from his Bush days that Cheney has a gay daughter. But as it turns out The Evil Emperor is also a huge supporter of gay rights! Yes, it's true! While it's hard to believe, and while Cheney has said he would never have gone against a Bush push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Cheney did publicly voice his disagreement with the idea back in the day. You can read about it here, here, and here.

The recent story has it that the Dark Lord lobbied GOP legislators in Maryland to "urge their support for the same-sex marriage bill that squeaked through the state's House of Delegates Friday." This was all too much for me to take in and it made me wonder, why are we reading about this now? News like this does not just happen by coincidence. This is really a big deal. How did this story make it into the current news cycle, a news cycle filled with anti-gay, anti-contraception, anti-women headlines? A news cycle that saw Rick Santorum become the frontrunner in the neverending campaign for the Republican nomination.

After giving it a think, I came up with three possible scenarios, laid out in random order... or are they? 

Scenario #1: Cheney is at death's door.

Darth Cheney has not been looking well recently. He looks gaunt, thin, a shadow of his shadowy self. And this is a man who has survived five heart attacks! Perhaps the time is nigh for him to return to the crossroads and pay the devil his due.

It got me thinking that maybe this Maryland gay lobbying thing is perhaps Cheney's last attempt to right all the wrongs in his gay daughter's eyes and to prove to her that he does in fact have a heart and a soul. I know, it's a long shot, but nevertheless...

Scenario #2: The GOP establishment REALLY wants Romney.

Let's be real for a moment. I don't care what the polls say or how few caucus voters actually vote for Mitt Romney. At the end of the day the GOP establishment is not as dumb as the people who vote for them. They live to see Obama voted out and they know that Rick Santorum has no chance of beating Obama in a general election.

Perhaps the Cheney gay lobbying story was leaked last week as a way to prove to the general voting public that conservatives are not as extreme as Santorum has been suggesting. If Santorum were to become the nominee, it would prove to so-called "independents" and especially to women that the GOP has in fact been taken over by the Tea Party.

While in most elections Republicans count on white, old, racist men and dimwitted suburban housewives at the polls, this past week we heard things like this: 

-- Rick Santorum on rape: "I believe and I think that the right approach is to accept this horribly created, in the sense of rape, but nevertheless, in a very broken way, a gift of human life, and accept what God is giving to you. As you know, in lots of different aspects of our life we have horrible things happening. I can't think of anything more horrible, but nevertheless we have to make the best out of a bad situation. And that is making the best of a bad situation."

-- Rick Santorum on states outlawing contraception: "The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have."

-- Rick Santorum on sex in general: "I think the dangers of contraception in this country... It's not okay because it's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

This type of rhetoric plays great to the religious nuts, but telling women that your candidate thinks rape is God's gift to you? That is not a good plan for the Republicans to go with in any year. That said, Romney is still the only candidate who can compete over the long term. Sure, he is a horrible candidate, but as Grover Norquist said recently: "We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go." And when Romney is compared to Santorum he still has an ace in the hole with his choice for VP. My money has always been on Chris Christie, and Romney is the only candidate who could pull that off.

As John McCain said recently: “We’re dumb, but we’re not stupid.” So true, John, so true. 

Scenario #3: The GOP has seen its future, and it doesn't wear shades.

If you have been following this Republican nomination circus or just been paying attention to the last few years, you might be wondering if the Republicans plan for November is to simply hope for a landslide victory of white, male, rich, middle-aged, senior citizen, racist votes.

Let's also review what the GOP has taught us it hates this election season. The answers that quickly come to mind are health care, illegals (aka Mexicans, or anyone with dark skin in general), gays, abortions, environmental protections, the unemployed, the poor, anyone having sex, black people, Muslims, and, of course, black presidents. Did I miss anything/anyone?

Following this train of thought, what will the GOP look like in the next twenty years when the majority of our citizens are Latino, black, and/or Muslim? Or perhaps when all three are married to their same-sex partners? And provided global warming doesn't make New England into a tropical region, all those young hip northerners will eventually age and move southward for warmer climates. Goodbye, Southern Strategy. It is already happening.

In our world of political correctness, Occupy movements, and information from multiple sources 24/7, the GOP's go-to base of racist ignoramuses is inevitably going to give way to acceptance by a more tolerant and more skeptical society. When that happens, the GOP will be a quaint memory, like smoking on airplanes. And what about Latinos? You think illegal immigrants are all going to be kicked out of this country? Ha! Call me when an American citizen is willing to do the work that these poor people do for their pittance. We will scream and shout about illegals until the moment our food is not at the supermarket, our lawns are not mowed, or we decide that washing dishes for less than minimum wage is a respectable career. By then many of them will have either found a path to citizenship, or have had so many children while in this country who will grow up to not only vote but also be staunchly anti-Republican. Finally, last I checked we have a black president who is going to have a second term. Unless the GOP succeeds in its current effort of voter suppression, they will be, and are already, outnumbered. So you see, it's hopeless.

What, then, is the correct scenario? Who knows? It could be a little of all three. What is certain is that what we are now seeing within the Republican Party are baby steps. With the Dick Cheney revelation, the GOP is trying ever so slightly to get on board with an already unstoppable movement. It is a tiny chance for them to say they are not as hateful and intolerant as someone like Rick Santorum. It is a chance for them to say that one of their most beloved, and one of our most hated, Republicans supports gay marriage. In other words, "please stop supporting Rick Santorum... please!" Once that problem is solved, over the next twenty years they can get the gays to hate some other group, at least until they find a way to include the Mexicans, too. That may take a bit more time, though. Hell, it worked with the Irish and the Jews. Why should this be any different?

Best Republican of the Day: Jerry Sanders

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In the past, we've gone with "Smartest Republican of the Day." But why not just "Best"? It's not every day there's a "best" Republican, but it's important to recognize Republican goodness when we can find it, however rare.

And today the award goes to San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders for being, unlike most in his party, not a bigot on same-sex marriage:

When a coalition of mayors launched a campaign to push for marriage equality a month ago, there were about 70 individuals signed on to it. Now, there are 153 involved in Mayors for Freedom to Marry, with the Republican mayor of one of the nation's largest cities serving as a co-chair.

"This is an equality issue, nothing more, nothing less," San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders (R) told The Huffington Post during a sit-down interview on Wednesday. "History is going judge us 10, 20, 30 years from now. I think it's going to be very different then. We're seeing the landscape change dramatically."

Well done, Mr. Mayor. We, at least, will judge you well.

(See also this article at SD's LGBT Weekly, where I found the photo.)

Reading the ruling on Prop 8

By Mustang Bobby

It's kind of fun to read the reactions among the wingers over the ruling yesterday in California that struck down Prop 8 as unconstitutional. The way they tell it, a bunch of activist judges rode roughshod over the rights of 7 million Californians and in one fell swoop imperiled the laws in 43 states. While this kind of knee-jerk reaction is typical in cases like this, it might be a good idea for the pearl-clutchers to actually read the ruling itself before going off on their predictable fund-raising rants.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it takes a law degree to understand the ruling itself. Essentially, the majority upheld the lower court ruling that Prop 8 violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by depriving a specific class of people -- gays and lesbians -- the right to define their relationships with the word "marriage." Since California already had domestic partnerships and afforded same-sex couples all of the same benefits of marriage without calling it that, taking away the right of same-sex couples to use the word "marriage" in describing their unions was a denial of equal protection. The court also went to great pains to cite another landmark case, Romer v. Evans, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that Colorado's Amendment 2, passed in 1992, unfairly targeted a specific group and deprived them of a right -- in that case, the right of cities and municipalities in Colorado to pass anti-discrimination laws -- without just cause: "[T]he amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint." Yesterday the judges held that the voters of California did the same in passing Prop 8.

The court did not grant same-sex couples a "special right." The court did not endanger the millions of straight couples' marriages in the state of California. The court did say that Prop 8, which promised to protect and enhance the institution of marriage and the future of California's children, did no such thing; depriving a class of people from using a word did not magically strengthen the family or prevent schools from discussing same-sex marriage. The court did not legislate from the bench, nor did it re-write the marriage laws of the state. All it did was say that the state, by legislation or referendum, could not take away a right from a group of people for no other reason than the fact that they are "disfavored" by a majority of the voters. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection, and Prop 8 violated it.

All of that will be lost on the anti-gay crowd, and I fully expect to hear all sorts of carrying on from them about how the Supreme Court will strike this down once and for all and at last put those icky queers and whatever it is they do in their bedrooms in their place in Hell. But if the Supreme Court does hear the case -- and there's no guarantee that they will -- it will be interesting to see how they could overturn a ruling that relies heavily on Romer v. Evans as precedent.

Meanwhile, Prop 8 still remains in effect: same-sex couples can't get married again in California... yet. But it's only a matter of time. 

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

BREAKING NEWS: Federal appeals court rules California's anti-gay Prop 8 unconstitutional

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via twitter: 

BREAKING: Federal appeals court finds California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional. (link)

-- TalkingPointsMemo (@tpm)

Great news, indeed. But let's keep our excitement in check.

First, it's my understanding, without having gotten into the weeds, that the ruling is fairly narrow.

The issue is that California granted the right to marry and then took it away, hence Judge Reinhardt's view that:

Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for "laws of this sort."

Which is to say, this is not a ruling on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage but rather on giving (or acknowledging rights) and then taking them away.

Though certainly the ruling is not without its implications. If you're taking, even in legal fashion, about "the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians," it would seem that you support same-sex marriage and consider its illegality under any circumstances unconstitutional and unjust.

Second, the 2-1 ruling was made by a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. Prop 8's proponents can petition to have the case reheard by the full 11-judge panel.

Or, third, they could just appeal directly to the Supreme Court, and you know how that might go with a 5-4 conservative majority. (Yes, I'm counting the right-leaning Kennedy, the supposedly moderate swing vote, as a conservative.)

We shall see, of course, but for now at least we can applaud a truly fair and just ruling.

Santorum compares homosexuality to polygamy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Nothing new here. This is Rick "man-on-dog" Santorum, after all.

But it nonetheless deserves repeating, now that he's a big-time Republican gobbling up media attention after a surge that led him to a tie (if not a win) this past Tuesday in Iowa, that this strident theocrat is an unabashed bigot opposed not just to same-sex marriage but to homsexuality generally.

He recently compared romantic same-sex love to the love he has for his mother-in-law, brother, and friends. Since those relationships aren't marriage, gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. (Huh? Yes, this is what passes for logic, it seems, in Santorum's mind.)

Now he's comparing same-sex marriage to polygamy:

So if you're not happy unless you're married to five other people, is that OK?" Santorum asked one student [yesterday in Concord, New Hampshire]. "Reason says that if you think it's okay for two [individuals to marry], then you have to differentiate for me why it's not okay for three," he argued later.

Perhaps an argument can be made for the marriage (or civil unions) of three or more people, but that would be separate from the issue of same-sex marriage, which isn't some "gateway" relationship that, if sanctioned, would require the legalization of polygamy or, say, human-canine marriage. 

In any event, at ThinkProgress rightly points out:

To be clear, Santorum's offensive and circuitous responses are all meant to reject the natural desire of two same-sex individuals to join in a union and enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples.

He's not actually making an argument about human relationships broadly and about what should and should not be permitted, he's just tying same-sex relationships to illegal (and extreme) relationships so as to discredit them.

"What, you're gay? So you must like to fuck sheep." That's basically the, er, "argument" he's making.

Like I said, he's a bigot. That's abundantly clear.

**********

Oh, and he might just be taking a swipe at Romney, the Mormon with the family history of... yup, polygamy.

(photo)

Mitt's moment of awkward

By Mustang Bobby

In case you missed it, earlier this week Mitt Romney sat down with Bob Garon, a Vietnam veteran, at a coffee shop while on a campaign swing in New Hampshire. Apparently Mr. Romney assumed that Mr. Garon would be a staunch supporter of the GOP; after all, he's a veteran in his sixties, it's New Hampshire, and he looks like the kind of guy who would be in his corner.

Heh. It turns out that Mr. Garon is gay and had some rather tough questions for Mr. Romney on marriage equality. Watch:

The fun part is where Mr. Romney realizes what's happened; he looks like he's trashed his shorts. He tries to get out of it gracefully, but he only makes it worse by declaring that gay veterans don't have the same rights as straight vets, and you can see the relief on his face when an aide tells him it's time to go get interviewed by Fox News.

It's rather enlightening that Mr. Romney thinks that because the Founding Fathers didn't write marriage equality into the Constitution, the spouses of gay veterans don't have the same rights as everyone else. (The Founding Fathers also counted slaves as 3/5ths of a person, and look how that turned out.)

Mitt Romney can think whatever he wants about gay people, but when he blithely dismisses the idea that they're entitled to equal rights under the law, I am seriously worried about the possibility of him getting close to the Oval Office.

Via.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Iowa high school students debate Michele Bachmann over same-sex marriage

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Two Iowa high school students, Jane Schmidt and Ella Newell, admirably challenged Michele Bachmann on same-sex marriage (and her opposition to it) at a campaign event yesterday:

BACHMANN: Well, No. 1, all of us as Americans have the same rights. The same civil rights. And so that's really what government's role is, to protect our civil rights. There shouldn't be any special rights or special set of criteria based upon people's preferences. We all have the same civil rights.

JANE SCHMIDT: Then, why can't same-sex couples get married?

BACHMANN: They can get married, but they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they're a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they're a man.

JANE SCHMIDT: Why can't a man marry a man?

BACHMANN: Because that's not the law of the land.

Bachmann's legalistic opposition to same-sex marriage is silly. Is the law always right? What if the law says, for example, that Jews are not allowed to own property. Would Jews not being allowed to own property be right just because that's what the law is? Of course not. Law is convention. It is made by human beings and is therefore imperfect, and often wrong.

Now, same-sex marriage is actually legal in some states now, including Iowa. Does this mean that Bachmann is fine with it in Iowa but not in a state that forbids it? Of course not. She was being either ignorant, dishonest, or some combination of the two. In truth, she opposes it everywhere. Because she's a bigot. And all her talk of "tolerance," by which of course she means tolerance for "religious-based values" (i.e., bigotry), is bullshit.