Barack Sends Me Email

I don’t know, you could be living in a box or under a rock. If so, you have no idea that yesterday, my President, the first sitting president ever, has announced that he favors gay marriage. He simply believes that NOT to recognize that gay couples have equal rights under the law is just as prejudicial as demanding that people of color sit at the back of the bus. Drink from separate public drinking fountains. Attend separate, and by the way, unequal schools.

It is ironic, I think, that African-Americans are slightly anti-gay under some polling results. Proposition 8 passed in California because of a huge black turnout in California with President Obama on the ballot. They voted for that abomination. They voted for it despite the fact that the rights denied to them and their ancestors are miniscule compared to the rights denied to gays and lesbians.

Minority oppression is minority oppression whether you accept the validity of the minorities. Government cannot, by definition, use the Christian Bible to determine who does, and who does not have rights, including rights to marriage.

That is the purview of churches. If they don’t want to marry gays and lesbians, well God bless them. And may Jesus forgive them for taking on Godlike qualities of judging their fellow man. If the Bible says that being gay is a sin, let God deal with that.

Here is what my President wrote to me yesterday. It is very eloquent. He had no need to do this. Nothing in this will change the outcome of the election. I think, in the end, he must have come to that realization and put an end to the farcical search for an evolved philosophy.
“Hal --

Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:

I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I hope you'll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:

http://my.barackobama.com/Marriage

I've always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn't dawn on them that their friends' parents should be treated differently.

So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

If you agree, you can stand up with me here.

Thank you,

Barack”

Oh, and Gays…

 Here is the North Carolina marriage law that was amended in yesterday’s vote in that fair state.

 51-3. Want of capacity; void and voidable marriages.

All marriages between any two persons nearer of kin than first cousins, or between double first cousins, or between a male person under 16 years of age and any female, or between a female person under 16 years of age and any male, or between persons either of whom has a husband or wife living at the time of such marriage, or between persons either of whom is at the time physically impotent, or between persons either of whom is at the time incapable of contracting from want of will or understanding, shall be void. 

14-178. Incest between certain near relatives. The parties shall be guilty of a felony in all cases of carnal intercourse between (i) grandparent and grandchild, (ii) parent and child or stepchild or legally adopted child, or (iii) brother and sister of the half or whole blood. Every such offense is punishable as a Class F felony. (1879, c. 16, s. 1; Code, s. 1060; Rev., s. 3351; 1911, c. 16; C.S., s. 4337; 1965, c. 132; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1, c. 179, s. 14; 1993, c. 539, s. 1192; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

14-179. Incest between uncle and niece and nephew and aunt. In all cases of carnal intercourse between uncle and niece, and nephew and aunt, the parties shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (1879, c. 16, s. 2; Code, s. 1061; Rev., s. 3352; C.S., s. 4338; 1993, c. 539, s. 118; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

14-180. Repealed by Session Laws 1975, c. 402.

14-181, 14-182. Repealed by Session Laws 1973, c. 108, s. 4.

To which they added:  "Oh, yeah, and gays, too."

New Jersey Assembly OKs Gay Marriage Act

Well today the state of New Jersey became the latest state to join the exclusive club  of states that permit gays and lesbians to marry one another. This Reuters piece affirms that the vote was decisive at 42 for and 33 against. The bill awaits Governor Chris Christie’s signature, one that won’t be forthcoming, and the vote margins in either of New Jerseys houses are insufficient to override his veto.

Chris Christie, a self-avowed anti-big government governor, apparently isn’t anti-big government when it comes to legislating morality. When it comes to deciding that the love of one’s life cannot visit their loved one in his or her hospital room, or be included on his or her health insurance policy.

But Christie is clever. Or so he thinks. Christie wants to put the question to a popular vote. That is, representative government is not qualified to decide what the people want – a key principle in representative democracy. This issue, it seems, is so important to Christie that he thinks it should be put on a referendum.

Christie thinks it’s clever because he can duck out of being the Republican governor who bent to the will of the people by signing this legislation into law. But here is the key flaw to his logic.

New Jersey residents overwhelmingly support gay marriage. It’s in all the polls. Passage of a referendum on this issue is all but assured. But here we have Chris Christie on the one hand complaining about excess government spending and on the other demanding additional expense of public funds to hold a referendum on a settled issue.

An issue whose only additional expense, at this point, is the price of the ink that would have been used to sign the bill into law.

Chris Christie is rapidly becoming a poster child for Republican hypocrisy.

New York’s Marriage Equality Bill Up for a Vote Tonight

Just out is the announcement by New York State Senator and Majority Leader Dean Skelos that he will bring New York’s marriage equality bill to the floor for debate and an up or down vote this evening.

The vote will be close, much closer to the 2009 vote on virtually the same bill. This year some Republican state senators who voted against the gay rights bill last time will change their votes “for reasons of conscience and a duty to ensure civil rights.”

Sticking points this year are that some religious groups fear discrimination lawsuits if they refuse to perform a marriage for a gay or lesbian couple. The bill now has these protections built into them with all 32 senate Republicans voting for them.

Another key provision in the bill is that there is no residency requirement in order to be granted a marriage license, meaning, of course, that New York could become another regional destination for gay/lesbian couples who might like to get married at say, Niagara Falls.

If the bill succeeds in the Senate it will easily pass in the House and marriage ceremonies in New York can begin in 30 days.

UPDATE: At 9:30PM CDT, 33 Aye 29 Nay. Marriage Equality will be the law of the land in New York. Side note, this weekend in New York is Gay Pride weekend. Party if you are gay, I think. Or even if you are straight. This was a vote for human equality, after all.

Is It Illegal to Say “Gay” In Tennessee?

It was in the news last night that apparently the Tennessee state legislature has passed a law making it illegal to say the word “gay” in Tennessee. And things are getting so nutty in this country, I didn’t even question the veracity of that bit of news.

Of course, backward backwoods Tennessee would enact such a law.

It even got Mr. Sulu back in the news as he has launched a new website at Itsoktobetakei.com. There’s a hilarious video at You Tube of Mr. Sulu, aka George Takei, who has offered his own name in place of the word “gay.”

But when I googled the keywords “Tennesee sb 49” I found a link to a PDF of the bill that just passed in their state senate. It is here.

And there is nothing in the bill about the word “gay.”

The bill just forbids discussion of non heterosexual human sexuality in elementary and middle school. Here is the key section:

“Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality”

See? It is still OK to say “gay” in Tennessee. You just can’t say it to a child in school between the ages of 5 and 14.

So what’s my point? It goes back to what I wrote at the top. Things are utterly bat guano crazy right now because the rightwing idiotic fanatics have truly taken over at many levels of government these days. Things are so crazy right now that if someone writes that “it’s illegal to say ‘gay’ in Tennessee” something so crazy and something so factually inaccurate, that it is thoroughly believable.

A sad comment on our times.

Obama: No Defense for DOMA

I was stunned and delighted today to hear that President Obama has directed the Attorney General to no longer defend in court the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA. This hateful act, an act that goes out of its way to marginalize a small sector of our society because of the religious beliefs of some people needs to be placed on the trash heap of history along with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

It signals a reversal of policy and reflects the fact that society is simply moving on with this previously controversial issue.

Basically, what is behind the decision is the fact that section 3 of DOMA seems to violate the equal protection clause of the 5^th Amendment. Section 3 deals with gay couples legally married in states where marriage between gays is sanctioned.

Upon hearing of Obama’s reversal, John Boehner labeled it “bad timing.”

“While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation.”

Isn’t that just the most precious thing? All the Republicans have done since taking the House is legislate one divisive social issue after another.

And the timing couldn’t have been better. Two federal cases were all set to go to trial. This directive will save time, trouble, money, and an inevitable over-turning.

Mike Huckabee was even more outraged.“

It may destroy him [Obama], may destroy his credibility, may destroy his campaign and candidacy and ultimately his term in office," Huckabee said. "It takes more than one president to destroy marriage.”

Translation: Jesus hates gays, and now He hates Obama, too.

To the extent that He will destroy my president.

Oh lucky day.

I’ll Call You Out as a Liar . . .

Read this FortBendNow article and see if you can make heads or tails of it.

Apparently FBISD Trustee Marilyn Glover felt called upon to threaten the media not to misquote her about her apparent lack of understanding of the gist of a resolution that the school board was considering.

A resolution about adolescent and pre-adolescent bullying.

A resolution about bullying those who are perceived to have different sexual orientations.

Bullying that has led to the tragic suicide of several young people.

That she did so is somewhat of a mystery to me, and can only be interpreted as a defensive act: one where a school board trustee exposed their lack of knowledge or understanding of things that are very much a concern to educators in this new century, where LGBT causes are poised to become mainstream, if not already mainstream.

But then, you get what you vote for.

Hell Freezes Over and DADT is Repealed

Well you could knock me over with a feather. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, a monstrosity of a policy that was about as useful as a sack of snot has finally been repealed by a lopsided vote in the Senate.

All 57 Senate Democrats voted for the repeal of a law that promoted nothing less than blackmail and gay bashing in the military, and they were joined by 6 Republicans.

Gays and lesbians in uniform are still being told, however, not to make any public declarations just yet. Not to come out of  the closet, not yet anyway. This is because the way the law was structured it simply enables the President and the military to inform congress that they have “reviewed the findings of a Pentagon study regarding an end to the ban and that the Defense Department has drafted the policies and regulations necessary to stop enforcing it. Those changes must not impact troop readiness, cohesion or military recruitment and retention, according to the law. ”

And even then it’s not gone. Another 60 days must elapse after receipt of the written notice.

And like not setting a timetable for bringing the longest war in US history to a close, they are not setting a timetable for the end of second-class citizenship for gays in the military.

Why put things off I wonder? My guess is that even when change is for the good, we fear change nevertheless.

Is DADT Done?

A San Diego federal judge has struck down the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law as unconstitutional and has issued a “worldwide injunction” against enforcement of the law, a law that was once hailed as a path for gays and lesbians to serve in the military, as long as they didn’t reveal their sexual orientation, and the military didn’t ask about it.

In issuing her injunction, Phillips observed that DADT has a “direct and deleterious effect” on the military’s ability to attract and retain service members during time of was, and has resulted in the loss of valuable and critical skills by discharging gay service people.

US District Judge Virginia Phillips, also said this, courtesy of the Associated Press (as seen in the Houston Chronicle):

“Furthermore, there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent the continued violation of servicemembers' rights or to compensate them for violation of their rights.”

By this, I believe she is referring to the proactive efforts by anti-gay personnel in the military to expose gays who are serving in the military – essentially undermining the “Don’t Ask” part of DADT.

In formulating the policy it was President Clinton’s intention to just make the issue go away by ignoring it, something that anti-gays in the military simply had no intention of doing. From ThinkProgress:

“Clinton was assured that the military would not pursue witch hunts against gay soldiers, but his policy led to that and resulted in hundreds of other abuses. The regulations prevent the military from initiating cases, but they instruct commanders to begin investigations once a servicemembers’ orientation is known. As a result, the history of DADT is riddled with witch hunts and with discharges that feel like with hunts. Soldiers were both unintentionally outed by circumstances outside of their control or illegally pursued by their commanders.”

So it really is a moot point. Enforcement of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is impossible because the law offers no remedies for soldiers who fell victim to the ill-intent of their commanders and fellow servicemembers.

The spirit of DADT, in essence, became perverted. A worldwide injunction is right and just.

I just wonder if a federal district court judge has purview over military regulations.

I thought it didn’t work like that.

For once I hope I’m wrong.

Rick Perry’s Campaign Cash Spends Well - - - On Drag Entertainers

I received a hot tip from the people over at Proud of Who We Are. A website that is dedicated to the “coming out” of politicians who make it their business to bash gays, deny gays the rights that everyone else in the country enjoy, and generally badmouth the whole lot for political points among the dimwits of the extreme rightwing of the Republican Party.

Today they have a story about our governor it seems.

Governor Rick Perry.

Now Rick Perry is down on record as being anti-gay and pro-secession. And maybe the two go hand in hand. A couple of weeks ago, as Perry was stumping up and down the byways of Texas, in Temple, Texas specifically, Rick Perry got up and praised the state that he is supposed to be leading. Praised it in such a way as to feed the homophobic appetites of his followers.

From the Texas Tribune:

Now flash back to April 13, 2009. On that day we find that Rick Perry was attending a “business meeting” at a place in Key West, Florida called the Cabaret at La Te Da. There, Rick Perry, courtesy of his Texans for Rick Perry campaign fund had a fine time as he ran up a tab for $78.26. The people at Proud of Who We Are contacted the folks at La Te Da, a well-known “travel destination for top-flight drag entertainment” (female impersonators for those of us who live in a box) and were told that the entertainment that evening was a very good Cher impersonator.

No one knows whether Governor Perry had a good time or not, but he apparently had a good enough time to split a couple of Lone Stars with his entourage. $78.26 worth.

And yes, his campaign had the good sense to report the expenditure. Here is a screen capture of the Texas Ethics Commission report from the July 2009 filing.

Now I am not one to be judgmental over the sexual orientation of anyone. That’s not something I do, nor do I think it is the purview of any government bureaucracy to do so. That’s just simply bad taste in my opinion.

If Rick Perry likes to watch men perform impressions of famous female songstresses, well that’s up to him. I just think that it is in poor taste not to practice during a “business meeting” what one preaches on the campaign trail.

After all, one man’s Cher is another man’s cherie.

“Social issues might be in the back seat, but they're still in the car: ‘There is still a land of opportunity, friends — it's called Texas. We're creating more jobs than any other state in the nation. ... Would you rather live in a state like this, or in a state where a man can marry a man?’”

At the Fort Bend County LGBT Caucus Inaugural

I just came back from an event where there were gay people there.

Now in truth, every event that I have ever attended has had some gay people in attendance as well, but this was a singular event in that it was by and for the gay community of Fort Bend County.

And their straight friends and supporters.

Being of the latter persuasion, I found myself woefully ignorant of the fact that their keynote speaker, Houston Mayor Anise Parker, found her political beginnings and her political voice in the Houston gay movement. Her ability to remain calm in what would ordinarily be a contentious meeting extends from her experiences and actions within the movement.

Now in total, I recorded about 20 minutes of speechifying by Ms. Dawson and Mayor Parker and while I know maybe some of you will want to see all of it, I also know that many can’t take much of that. So I have been selective and include what I consider to be the high points of both deliveries. It still runs over 11 minutes so bear with me.

Proposition 8 Blowback

I and others are still waiting for the thunder and lightning to start in California. And not the thunder and lightning from an infuriated deity raining death and destruction on a state that says it’s OK for gays and lesbians to get married.

The thunder and lightning from the righteous evangelical rightwing.

I expected something slightly less than a shooting war to break out over this. Instead, this is what you get:

Crickets.

Could it be that the logic and reasoning found in Judge Walker’s 138-page decision, including 80 findings of fact, was just too much for them? I doubt it. When was the last time that a conservative evangelical shied away from an argument simply because they didn’t have any facts on their side?

Crickets.

OK, I lied. I did come across two issues that have been brought up. Issues that are so ridiculous on their face that they’ll soon go away.

Issue Number 1: The judge struck down Proposition 8 because he, himself, is gay. “Gay and out” is the proper term, meaning that he doesn’t hide the fact that he is gay. They say that because he is gay that he failed to be impartial in the case.

So does this mean, by that line of logic, that black judges can’t preside over the trial of an African-American accused of a crime? Because they might be impartial? What about a female judge not being able to rule in a sexual harassment case because one of the litigants is a female?

Right, that piece of logic is absurd on its face. It even lends support to Judge Walker’s conclusion that denial of the right to marry presumes that gays are inferior. The presumption is that gays can’t rule in a gay rights trial but a Catholic judge is perfectly able to rule in an abortion trial.

Issue Number 2: Marriage functions in our society based on (as we see in this Christian Science Monitor piece)  this argument:

“Heterosexual relationships need marriage because of inferiority: the physical inferiority of sexual defenders to sexual attackers and the moral inferiority of male sexual attackers. Marriage is not about couples or lovers – it’s about the physical and moral integrity of women.”

Get it? Without marriage, weak but virtuous women would be subjugated by brutish men with no moral compass. That, and not procreation, is the sole purpose of marriage.

Fine.

If that’s the case then I guess we should outlaw the marriages of the elderly.

Or really, outlaw the marriages of any couple who can demonstrate that the male has trouble decking his bride-to-be, or for that matter, the female can demonstrate her ability to successfully clock her groom.

If marriage is all about who is the victor of a inter-spousal knock-down drag-out, then yeah, you win.

California’s Proposition 8 Struck Down

In what is sure to be a blow to the many homophobic religious zealots that populate our country, California’s Proposition 8, the referendum on gay marriage that appeared on the November 2008 ballot, was struck down today by 9th Circuit Court Judge Vaughn Walker.

Walker could find no reason, logical or illogical, to forbid gays and lesbians to have the same rights to form a family as straights.

“Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.”

That is, just because a marriage between same-sex couples, or even intimate relations between them is harshly criticized in a book that was written thousands of years before America was even suspected to exist does not mean that America, or its states have the right or duty to enforce those ancient ideas.

Because to suggest that they do have that right or duty is to suggest that it is perfectly OK to enforce Islamic Sharia Law in America as well.

Irony: 10th Amendment Used to Strike DOMA

If you ask your run-of-the-mill Teabagger what is contained within the Bill of Rights you will get them to recite at least one and a half of them: the second half of the Second Amendment (…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) and the Tenth Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people).

Indeed, the Teabaggers are a wholly owned subsidiary of “The Tenthers,” a political stratum in America who holds that many actions of the federal government are unconstitutional because they are not specifically allocated to the federal government by the constitution.

You know, things like Medicare and Social Security. Those things, if you listen to the Tenthers, are unconstitutional.

So it might come as a surprise to the Tenthers that someone in an unanticipated corner is listening to them, specifically US District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro.

Because yesterday Judge Tauro, in deciding the case of Nancy Gill and Michelle Letourneau et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al. ruled that Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional as it denied people legally married in the State of Massachusetts of equal protection of the law. A PDF of the decision may be read here.

Massachusetts, which recognizes the union of same-sex couples as a marriage in the same way that heterosexual couples have enjoyed, and allows same-sex couples the same benefits of marriage as heterosexual couples, affords same-sex couples the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. The federal law, however, forbids the federal government to make federal benefits available to the same couples.

This, Judge Tauro ruled, was in violation of the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment.

Judge Tauro, in analyzing DOMA’s intent, found that its underlying principle was arbitrary and irrational:

“As such, a law must fail rational basis review where the “purported justifications ...[make] no sense in light of how the [government] treated other groups similarly situated in relevant respects.”

But Tauro went further, ruling that, as any Tenther would agree, it is the states that have purview over marriage. Marriage is not something that is mentioned even once in the US Constitution.

“There can be no dispute that the subject of domestic relations is the exclusive province of the states. And the powers to establish eligibility requirements for marriage, as well as to issue determinations of martial status, lie at the very core of such domestic relations law. The government therefore concedes, as it must, that Congress does not have the authority to place restrictions on the states’ power to issue marriage licenses.”

Indeed, Tauro points out that state marriage laws vary from one state to another, and the federal government has never sought to standardize any aspect of marriage until it enacted DOMA.

Indeed, Tauro points out that sixteen states maintained miscegenation laws up until 1967 when the US Supreme Court ruled that these laws denied mixed-race couples “constitutional guarantees of equal rights and due process.”

In short, DOMA introduces complexity in a situation that should be straightforward. A same-sex couple should have all rights and benefits afforded to heterosexual couples notwithstanding the fact that some rights or some benefits originate from federal programs. Where heterosexual couples have no problem, same-sex couples who are legally married in the eyes of state law do.

Clearly this is because the federal government overstepped its purview, and sought for the first time in history to define marriage only in terms of the awarding of benefits under federal programs.

This is using federal law as a tool to discriminate against a sub-population of Americans, something that should be anathema to all freedom-loving citizens.

Finally, Judge Tauro rules DOMA unconstitutional:

“To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Now, one would ask, will this be appealed? President Obama has stated that he wants DOMA to be repealed, but I doubt that will happen now. It will be up to the Justice Department to decide whether they will pursue an appeal, but really they have no choice.

A federal judge has overturned a federal law. An appeal is guaranteed, almost as much as it is guaranteed that the case will find its way to the Supreme Court. And from there we’ll just have to see how or whether the five conservative justices are willing to allow big government to intrude on what has historically been a province of the states.

Oh how the worm has turned.

Rush Limbaugh: Guns, God and Gays?

I don’t know which of these two is harder to believe: that Sir Elton John would lower himself to sing at the wedding reception of longtime homophobe Rush Limbaugh, or that Rush Limbaugh would elevate himself enough to ask the openly gay rock star to sing at the celebration of his 4th marriage.

Both notions absolutely floor me.

That notwithstanding the fact that Sir Elton got a cool million dollars for his one night performance.

But I haven’t paid much attention so I don’t know how Sir Elton is fixed financially. Maybe like his fellow semi-famous compatriot, Fergie, who solicits cash to arrange a sit down with her ex, he’s got a few too many bills to pay.

Or it could be that since he has announced to the world last February in Parade magazine that Jesus Christ was a “super-intelligent gay man” there has been some backlash. For example because of that statement Elton John’s previously scheduled performance in Egypt – a country with wall-to-wall homophobes in it – was cancelled.

So maybe he has to entertain the notion of not being too picky about who wants to hire him to perform. But then what about Rush Limbaugh? Isn’t he also offended at having his Savior being labeled gay?

Or any of the other guests at the reception? Karl Rove? Clarence Thomas? Sean Hannity? Rudy Giuliani?

Well, OK, on that last one, granted Rudy Giuliani is famously known for his cross-dressing so who knows what he thinks about gays.

Or maybe, just maybe, the whole neoconservative thing is just a clever way for Rush Limbaugh to make lots and lots of money because God knows there is no money in being a principled opponent of the right wing.

I can personally attest to that.

A Modest Proposal to Pass the Public Option for Healthcare

I just figured out how we can pass healthcare reform in the US Senate with 60 votes to bring the measure to the floor.

Stuff it in something Republicans absolutely slobber over.

The epiphany came this afternoon as I was casually reading my weekly email message from Congress.org. In it I learned, to my great surprise, that both of my US Senators voted for passage of a provision “that extends the definition of federal hate crimes to include crimes in which victims are targeted because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.”

“By Jesus H. Christ Himself,” I said to no one in particular, “now that’s progress.”

Then I looked at how both of my senators voted to “repeal the Medicare physician payment formula that results in annual cuts that Congress reverses every year.”

And to my shock and dismay (but no particular surprise) they both voted “NO.”

Voted “NO” to a provision that usually flies through congress like bacon grease through a goose.

And I sensed a disconnect. What was going on here?

Well, it turns out that anything having to do with healthcare, including this non-issue is going to get a thumbs-down from every Republican and a few “Conservicrats.”

So how do we get this first progressive measure through the Senate, one that makes it a hate crime to target our GLBT brothers and sisters for violence, and not get this second measure through – one that was a no-brainer for passage (during times past)?

Well guess what, the progressive measure that would increase the penalty for violence on a person if that violence was because of how that person self-identified sexually was buried in another bill. A bill, as it turns out, that has nothing to do with hate crimes, gay and lesbian issues, or anything close to them.

It was a Defense Department appropriations bill.

OK, I admit it, I cherry picked for effect. Here is the entire message on how my two senators voted:

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010

http://capwiz.com/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=327&chamber=S&congress=1111votenum=327&chamber=S&congress=1111

Vote Agreed to (68-29, 3 Not Voting)

The Senate gave final approval to this bill authorizing defense spending, which also contains a provision that extends the definition of federal hate crimes to include crimes in which victims are targeted because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison voted YES

Sen. John Cornyn voted YES

Lesson learned? If we want healthcare reform anytime soon we have to stuff it into another bill that Republican senators absolutely can’t help themselves when they push the “Aye” button.

It has got to be a good one though, or I don’t think they are going to go for it. Maybe it should be in the way of a bill to declare atomic war on the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Arnold Schwarzenegger Signs Harvey Milk Bill

I didn’t even hear about this on the news this week. Earlier this week, on October 13 to be exact, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the Harvey Milk Bill into law. The bill designates May 22nd, the former San Francisco City Supervisor’s birthday, as Harvey Milk Day.

Harvey Milk, it may be recalled was one of the first openly gay persons to be elected to public office in America. We now have a few more, with the promise of more to come in the future, but Milk was one of the first, and tragically became the first openly gay office holder to be murdered, ostensibly because he was gay.

Harvey Milk became the first office holder, but obviously not the first person, to suffer from what Barack Obama has called the last legal discrimination policy in America. Milk was a victim of the ultimate in this kind of discrimination when he received 5 bullets fired into him by a former rival on the Board of Supervisors, a truly disturbed man named Dan White.

Dan White, a double murderer (he also killed San Francisco’s mayor, George Moscone), was sentenced to 7 years and 8 months behind bars for this offense, having been found guilty of voluntary manslaughter by a mostly anti-gay conservative jury. White’s defense lawyer mounted what is still considered to be one of the most outrageous criminal defenses in human history, a defense that completely dismissed White's heinous crime – arguably because one of his victims was gay, and probably needed killing.

It was called the “Twinkie Defense.” The jury, which probably would have bought any old argument, was told that Dan White was not really responsible for the killing of those two men because he was chronically depressed, the evidence of which was that he ate copious amounts of junk food.

It was a black day in California history with gays rioting and attacking police, and vice versa. A day made blacker when Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the Harvey Milk Bill when it arrived at his desk last year. It took a year, President Obama’s posthumous award of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Milk, and an Academy Award-winning film on the life of Harvey Milk, to change Schwarzenegger’s mind.

The bill was opposed by The Campaign for Children and Families, calling it "the strongest impetus yet for loving parents to remove their children from anti-family public schools."

Wow. There is yet another great reason for teaching in public schools in California.

Parents like that self-select and remove their children from publicly funded schools.

How great is that?

Tom DeLay’s "Second Act" Premiers Tomorrow Night

I had to laugh when David Gregory, moderator for Meet the Press asked House Minority Leader John Boehner about whether he would follow in the “dancesteps” of former House Majority Whip Tom DeLay as the man we all used to call “The Hammer” prepares for his debut on ABC’s Dancing With the Stars tomorrow night.

From this morning’s MTP transcript:

MR. GREGORY: Finally, Leader Boehner, before you go, if you work hard, if you legislate, work with your colleagues, this can all be yours. Put it up on the screen. There he is, one of your predecessors, Tom DeLay, “Dancing with the Stars.” What a second act, huh?

REP. BOEHNER: I’ll pass.

MR. GREGORY: You’ll leave, you’ll leave the dancing to him?

REP. BOEHNER: All—it’s all his.

You had to see his face when he answered. Priceless. Clearly Boehner thinks that Tom DeLay has gone off the deep end in his latest project. A project that happily enough, premieres tomorrow night.

ABC is really hyping this, and DeLay is milking this for all it is worth.



Now, here is the problem. I am a Keith Olbermann fan and I don’t do TiVo. So I have a choice to make. Getting Olbermann’s take on the events of the weekend, or watching Tom DeLay make his foray into the world of looking completely gay.

An interesting turn of events if ever there was one.

This Sanford Story Just Won’t Die, Will It?

Now normally, when you get one of these evangelicals, political or not, caught out there in the open with their pants down and messin’ around they make a public statement that usually includes an apology, sometimes a tearful one, and then they clam up and get out of sight waiting and hoping for the furor to die down.

And it usually does, because America is fickle by nature, and usually by Day 3 something new has happened, like say, the drug-related death of the King of Pop, and like a bunch of fox hounds, off the newsies go barking down a new path.

But there is a trick to this. And the trick is you have to stop talking about it. A trick that South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, and now his wife, have yet to learn.

It’s almost neurotic the way both Sanford and his wife can’t stop talking. First Sanford goes on record in an interview with an Associated Press reporter saying that he has had close encounters of a sexual kind with several other women who were also not his wife.

“There were a handful of instances wherein I crossed the lines I shouldn't have crossed as a married man, but never crossed the ultimate line.”

Crossed the ultimate line?

Is that actually what evangelicals call “doin’ the nasty?”

Actually I liked “hiking the Appalachian Trail” better.

All this did was bring all of those morally erect evangelicals back out again, demanding his resignation because apparently Mark Sanford is a repeat offender.

The man likes his ladies.

And then today, Jenny Sanford decided that she hasn’t yet had enough press or public exposure of the jilted wife who still holds her head high because she has the high moral ground, here.

But instead of looking every bit the lady whose pride is unbroken, she came out today and leveled a bony finger at the gay community. The gays ruined her marriage.

“‘Of course I’m not saying that Mark is gay,’ Sanford said, ‘but he may as well be. The moral decay in this country has claimed another victim and this time it was my family. Our marriage was perfect until these laws started passing around the country. Clearly the slow dissolution of the sanctity of marriage in America seeped into Mark’s psyche until he no longer felt compelled to abide by our vows.’”

In other words, I guess you can say that Jenny Sanford just slipped off of her proud public pedestal and is just another evangelical who runs to the Evangelical Republican play book and pulls out some spin.

In this case, Spin #13: when someone strays, blame the gays.

Because if you blame the gays for troubles that are obviously homegrown then you don’t have to blame yourself, right?

I ran this You Tube video some time back, but I think it’s time to put it back up as it has become relevant again.

New Hampshire Governor Signs Gay Marriage Bill

Just a few minutes ago it went up on the wire services that New Hampshire will become the 6^th state to allow gays to marry within the state’s borders.

The bill, first passing in the senate, then narrowly in the state house, was signed into law by New Hampshire Governor John Lynch this afternoon. He previously threatened to veto the bill unless it was amended so that churches could not be forced to officiate at a gay marriage because of their opposition to it.

A moot point, really. Who on Earth would want to get married in a church that viewed you as an abomination before God?

This follows on from the lead of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa who have all become safe zones for gay marriage in the United States.

I think the quote of the day goes to State Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, R-Windham, who in the hour-long debate very beautifully explained why this bill must pass.

As found in the Washington Post:

“If you have no choice as to your sex, male or female; if you have no choice as to your color; if you have no choice as to your sexual orientation; then you have to be protected and given the same opportunity for life, liberty and happiness.”

People, gay people are not gay by choice. They are gay at birth. If you don’t believe that then you are going to have to accept the fact that there are people out there who choose a sexual orientation that is immediately disadvantageous to them in almost every aspect of their lives as they interact with society.

People are killed, fired, not hired, snubbed, beaten, and ostracized all because of their un-Christian “sexual preference.”

Yeah, that happens every day.