Michael Reagan says activist should be killed for treason
WASHINGTON — June 26 — Nationally syndicated conservative radio host Michael Reagan called for the murder of a political activist on June 10. Reagan, a frequent guest on cable news shows and the son of President Ronald Reagan, singled out 9/11 activist Mark Dice by name and called several times for his assassination.
Reagan had learned that political activists had reportedly been sending letters and DVDs to troops in Iraq, advancing the theory that the U.S. government had carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks. For promoting this unpopular view, the talkshow host advocated that these activists should be killed as “traitors”:
“We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that’s what they are, and you shoot them dead. I’ll pay for the bullets.”
Even more troubling was the call for violence against a specific individual:
“How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don’t blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice.”
Reagan subsequently had Dice on his show (6/16/08) as a guest and stated, “I’m sorry for what I said.” As an explanation, Reagan offered, “Sometimes radio hosts we get fired up and angry and we say things that are actually stupid, and we make mistakes.”
Reagan’s “mistakes,” unfortunately, have repeatedly involved advocating murder to his audience. On August 15, 2006, Reagan called for violently killing babies who were reportedly being named for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah:
“Naming their children ‘Hezbollah.’ You know what I’d get ‘em for a first birthday? I’d put a grenade up their butts and light it. Happy birthday, baby. Bye bye.”
In response to a caller who pointed out that children are not responsible for the names they are given, Reagan repeatedly asserted, “So what’s wrong with killing the mothers and the babies?”
On December 5, 2005, Reagan said Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean “should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq War.” (Watch clip on the Media Matters website) This was in response to Dean’s statement (WOAI-AM, 12/5/05) that “the idea that we’re going to win this war is just plain wrong.”
Reagan’s distributor, Radio America, also distributes the G. Gordon Liddy Show. Liddy, a former Nixon aide sent to prison for the Watergate break-in, also has a history of calling for violence over the airwaves, repeatedly advocating that listeners shoot federal law enforcement officials in the head. For example, on August 26, 1994, Liddy told his listeners:
“Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they’re going to be wearing bulletproof vests…. They’ve got a big target on there, ATF. Don’t shoot at that, because they’ve got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots…. Kill the sons of bitches.”
Needless to say, calls for violence against those one disagrees with are dangerous and corrosive to the public discussion. A responsible distributor has rules against such on-air death threats — and consequences when such rules are violated.
ACTION:
Ask Radio America to explain its policies regarding calls for violence on its nationally syndicated programming. Does the company really permit its hosts to call for murder on the air?
Reagan’s show is broadcast on “more than 150 stations,” according to Radio America. If the show broadcasts near where you live, contact the local station management and ask them to stop broadcasting death threats on your local public airwaves.
Sapph says: Why aren’t these people behind bars? Why are they allowed out on the streets, and on the air? Oh, and, by the way — while this is a minor issue compared to calls for murder, the question is valid: Is there anyone left (looking in Barack Obama’s direction) who still doesn’t understand the need for the Fairness Doctrine?
Believe it or not, my editorializing is at a bare minimum here. I think you’ll be more than able to “hear” the tone for yourself; i.e.: “Ask not what Obama will do for the LGBT community — ask what the LGBT community can sacrifice to get Obama elected.”
Suffice to say: The O Camp has a long, long way to go to convince me of anything — and its chances of convincing me to vote for their guy is next to… oh, how shall I put it? Nuthin’.
I called in at 2:57 p.m. and, after enduring the most craptastic on-hold music until 3:05 p.m., the call started at 3:06 p.m., led by Steve Hildebrand, Deputy Campaign Manager of Obama for America.
Hildebrand began by telling us this is “a very important time for our country, and for our party, and for Senator Obama, and for Senator Clinton…” and noted that while the announcement for the conference call was on short notice, nearly 1,200 people were listening in.
There will be another conference call within the next two weeks, which Obama himself will join.
Hildebrand continued: “This has obviously been a very long… exciting… painful, challenging… historic” primary process, “very historic,” between the Democratic Party’s first female and first African-American candidates. “The fact that these two candidates raised enormous sums of money” and brought in “enormous… record numbers” of new voters and volunteers “is really quite ‘impactful’ for the progressive community, [and] for the Democratic Party… [which] bodes well as we go into the general election.”
Hildebrand expressed the hope that the Hillary Clinton supporters on the call could “wrap your head around the situation, to hopefully join Barack and his venture,” moving forward at whatever pace was comfortable, while he recognizes “the pain that goes with this.”
“Know that you have a welcome home here, and that we need your help, we want your help, and we will take you whenever you’re ready — if you get to that point.”
After explaining that the call would be limited to 30 minutes (because it was an expensive call), and there would be no Q&A (although you could still submit questions via the Web), Hildebrand introduced Elizabeth Birch, former executive director of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and Clinton supporter.
(Birch, of all people — I mean, I really respect the woman — pissed me off to no end. See if you can figure out why.)
Birch:
“I was asked by the Senator Obama campaign to try to articulate what the Hillary Clinton people are feeling at this juncture… I was surprised at my own reaction… On the night of June 3rd I was in San Francisco… and I burst into tears… I was so upset… and it was sort of — it was a painful moment, and it was acute, and I hadn’t expected it.
“I had come to admire Senator Obama a great deal… [but] it was extra-complex in our family.” Birch explained that she and her partner are the parents of two nine-year-old, biracial twins — “so we had to be careful about how wildly enthusiastic we were about [Clinton] in front of the children. … It was complex and emotional…
“On June 3rd, I think there were three things going on, at least for me. … [While I don’t speak for everyone], I think I speak for a lot of women, and men as well…
“[First], just the emotions that burst up, when you gave a vanquished warrior — and [Clinton] has been a warrior. Say what you will; this woman has been tested and tested and tested, again and again. …
“[Second:] And then I started to think: to know my daughter, at the age of 9, at this early and formative age, won’t get to see a woman president.
Third, Birch reflected on being a “scrappy 12-year-old” herself, and (I could only surmise from the context) having grown up during the first wave of feminism: “There was an enormous amount of estrogen operating in those days… We felt we could do anything… take the world by storm. [We didn’t want to be better than men, but] if we could just rise to these highest offices, it would set a tone for life.
“So there’s a heartbreak in [Clinton] losing — but it’s not all about [Clinton] herself. It has to do with the lives of women… who are projecting [themselves onto] this grand screen.
“As a mother, I know deep, deep in my heart, that [it’s as important] for my kids to see a woman take the helm as to see a very wise, very strong, very effervescent man, who is black and white like them, take a leadership position in this country.”
Asking for “patience” from Hillary supporters, Birch concluded: “We will be able to turn our hearts over to the other equally important dream and necessity of electing the first African-American [president].
“Most important, none of us will tolerate for one more minute a third Bush [term] — which is what McCain represents.”
Back to Hildebrand:
“A quick update… In the process of moving very quickly into general election mode, [we have] spent [about] the last six weeks putting together [plans for] a budget [and] processes to quickly move into general election mode, should we get to that opportunity.”
Hildebrand then went into plans for “state operations in all 50 states”; the Obama campaign will not be focusing solely on “battleground states,” but will be “teeing off of what Howard Dean has done” [with his 50-state strategy].
Then came a plug for the Obama Web site (for those who want to get involved on the ground), and then Hildebrand went back to the 50-state plan: “There will be extensive offices — not just one per state, [but] several hundred. We also have very quickly joined forces with the Democratic National Committee, and [with] the Democratic National Convention staff.”
Next, Hildebrand appeared to be illustrating Obama’s gay cred with a list of notable LGBT activists who had joined the Obama campaign in an official capacity (the descriptions of who these people are, are mine; Hildebrand seemed to assume that everyone on the conference call would know every one of them by name alone):
• Brian Bond, Executive Director of the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council (GLLC), will be joining the Obama campaign next week in Chicago, “not just for [LGBT] outreach, but [to head] all constituency operations.”
• Joan Garry (former executive director of GLAAD) and Kevin Jennings (founder and executive director of GLSEN), co-chairs of Obama’s LGBT finance operations, “need as much help as possible to put resources together…”
Hildebrand then acknowledged the efforts of Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin, “fighting for our rights in Congress, and what they have done to be such leaders for us… We look forward to working with them.”
Then Hildebrand thanked Providence, Rhode Island, Mayor David Cicilline, head of the Democratic Mayors Association, “one of our most prominent gay elected officials.” (I’m not sure what he was thanking Cicilline for, but I’m guessing because the mayor is heavily involved with the Obama campaign.)
Then Hildebrand announced that Melissa Etheridge had agreed, about six weeks ago, to be “one of about a dozen” co-chairs of Obama’s “50-state registration and mobilization campaign.”
“We have formed teams in all 50 states to put together what we hope [will be] the most successful voter registration drive… We’ve had incredible success in… Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina… Literally hundreds of thousands of new voters want to be active, ’cause they know how much trouble our country has been facing.”
Coming back to the Clinton supporters: “I also want you to — when you’re ready — to become very involved with our campaign… We need the help — there’s no question about that.”
In his many conversations with gay people, Hildebrand said, “we certainly recognize [Clinton’s] strength with gay voters. … I think there’s a lot of information we need to provide on Barack’s… ‘rock-solid’ [positions on gay rights]… There are a lot of people who question [Obama’s commitment to the LGBT community]. … [We need] a significant education program.”
Hildebrand then turned the mic over to Human Rights Campaign head Joe Solmonese (who, to his credit, was calling in from the road, literally; he was on his bike, in the midst of the California AIDS Ride).
Solmonese started by expressing surprise that the one thing “most people” have been talking to him about this week is the LOGO debate held last summer. That the debate was attended by all the candidates (never mind, Joe, that you excluded Mike Gravel, until you were pressured to include him) illustrates the power of the LGBT community on the national stage.
Solmonese launched right into an appeal for all LGBTs to join the Obama campaign, citing “the degree to which our community has moved onto other campaigns” (meaning, as the other candidates dropped out of the race).
He praised Hillary Clinton, saying there is “no greater hero” to the LGBT community, and that he knows “many people are disappointed… but it speaks to the real power of our community that we have such an ally as [Obama],” and that Obama “has a vision of America that includes us. He sees us — he sees we are part of the fabric of America. … He has told me… that he sees it as his calling bring disparate communities together.”
Then (and it was surprising no one had mentioned it yet) Solmonese brought up Obama’s speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church, and how Obama “told the congregants that they should do a better job of embracing their [LGBT] brothers and sisters.”
Next, Solmonese rattled off the usual laundry list illustrating Obama’s commitment to LGBTs: Obama favors the Matthew Shepard Act, wants to see equality in the workplace, wants to repeal DADT, and thinks there “ought to be more funding for HIV.”
Then it was onto waxing poetic about what an “incredibly exciting … transformative moment [this is] in American politics.”
And then came the standard unity pitch: “It’s time for everyone … to show our power, and come forward and work toward a common goal.”
And then came the usual fearmongering: “The consequences could not be clearer.” Solmonese noted that John McCain opposes the Matthew Shepard Act (and opposed it when Senators Levin and Kennedy attached it to another bill to try to get it passed), opposes ENDA, thinks DADT “works just fine” — and, while he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, stating that marriage was “best left to the states,” McCain endorsed the constitutional marriage ban in his home state of Arizona.
Solmonese went back to the unity pitch for a moment (”[We have to] rally together to show ourselves to be the powerful community [we are]”), and then mentioned that the “young people” inspired to come to the polls to fight the California marriage amendment are the same young people who will vote for Obama.
Hildebrand came back to praise Solmonese for HRC’s endorsement of Obama, and then turned the call over to longtime civil rights activist (and longtime Clinton friend) David Mixner.
Mixner:
“I understand what many of you are going through. I was a strong John Edwards supporter… We [Edwards supporters] did find a home [in the Obama campaign]. I think you will find a warm home here. … Two things:
“[First:] Senator Obama has already opposed the California and Florida initiatives.
“[Second:] We’ve had moments in our history as a community where we have an opportunity to create great change. This is such a moment … with [the California and Florida anti-gay initiatives], to build a power base, to replace the Republicans…
“Probably for the first time since the ‘92 [Democratic] convention, we have the opportunity to make history as a community. We must gather and unite in our opposition to McCain … to create something special in this country.”
Next up, Tobias Wolff, civil rights lawyer and Chair of the Obama National LGBT Policy Committee:
To Hillary Clinton supporters, Wolff said he understands that there is an “issue of trust, and trust in the LGBT community” regarding Obama. “As a community, I think we have learned that we have to demand [leaders] earn our trust and earn our loyalty.
“Senator Clinton came into this race with a reputation in our community [of having earned that trust] through long years of advocacy, [while Obama’s] longstanding commitment to [the LGBT community] was less well known outside Illinois. Obama took the same approach with LGBT voters — he set out to earn their support, and earn their trust.”
Citing Obama’s “extraordinary work making LGBT equality and fighting homophobia a part of his message all over country,” Wolff opined that Obama’s appearance at Ebenezer Baptist Church was a “genuine expression to his commitment to our community, and recognition that he needs to earn our trust.”
Wolff said that in speaking with Obama “one on one, at length,” Obama “knows the issues, and he knows us, and he feels these issues in his bones. And the courage he has shown in giving our rights a prominent platform [shows that] this is a community that deserves to be courted.
“And the promise I want to make to all of you… We will continue to work to be worthy of your trust and of your support. We certainly don’t take it for granted.”
Hildebrand ended the call right at 30 minutes, with this:
“We will follow up with all of you and make sure you have contact information in the campaign. We want to invite you to get involved locally… We’ve got a lot of work to do…”
My initial reply to Will, by email, was that, in short:
It will be used against Democrats by the Republicans, and against all LGBTs by the same Democrats who have blamed us for every electoral loss since 2000 — no matter whether a Democrat wins the WH, or how many congressional seats Dems pick up in November.
A lot of Dems who claim to be pro-equality are already hitting us with the cry, “Why NOW?! You’re going to kill us in November!” — as if we ever have anything to do with the timing of any court decision. (This one took four years, btw.)
Happens every election cycle. You can set your watch by it.
When asked if the decision could “hurt” the Democratic Party in November, this is what San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom had to say:
I’m fed up with tactics. I’m fed up with being a member of the Democratic Party that cares more about winning than what it is we’re supposed to do once we win.
If we can’t stand up on the principle of supporting gay and lesbian rights, then how dare we claim to support civil rights, or human rights, or women’s rights? That’s the basis of the foundation of our party.
And so, for me, with all due respect, those that are playing tactical games, that are concerned about the politics today or tomorrow, there’ll never be a good time to do this. It wasn’t good two years ago during the congressional mid-term elections. It wasn’t good enough four years ago because of the presidential election, it’s not good enough today, it won’t be good enough two years … from now, for the governor’s race. It’s never the right time, and that’s why it is the right time. We have an obligation, a moral and ethical one.
And I’m just proud to be part of it, a small part, and I couldn’t be more proud of the State of California for taking the leadership yet again, entwining ourselves with the good work Massachusetts did a year or two ago.
Amen.
There will be (and always is) the same rending of garments and gnashing of teeth as there was immediately after the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in November, 2003, which got much worse once Mass actually started issuing marriage licenses in May, 2004 — not even six months prior to the last chance we had to throw George W. Bush out of office.
Comments at Democratic Underground
From 2003:
“I am not anti-gay rights but…. I don’t think this is a good time for the gay-marriage issue.”
“Oh God! The Gay Marriage Ruling Is Likely To Help Bush in ‘04.”
“Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not gay, but I’m not homophobic either. I’m just thinking that this decision is bad, bad timing politically. How many assholes will seize on this to boost Bush? In other words, for all the trouble in Iraq, the economy etc, a lot of people will think this is more important. I have no problem with the decision. I just wish it had occurred after the ‘04 election. Now the democratic hopefuls will be asked to give an opinion on the decision. Woe is us.
“And this is not to say that the court should have ruled the other way because of the timing of it. I’m just lamenting the fact that we (the democratic) party are going to get an awful backlash from this one. Especially when you consider the other rulings lately about the ten commandments, etc.”
“It is too soon for gay marriage”
“Why not advance the idea of civil unions first. Let people get use to that idea and then push for marriage.”
“This isn’t the time. Our number one priority has to be getting bush the hell out of office. This won’t help that cause.”
“it hurts Democrats.”
“I’ve never met anyone, liberal or not who didn’t express utter disgust at the idea of gay marriage. This includes people I know who are otherwise open-minded and liberal on most every other issue.
“Some form of gay rights such as a civil union of some sort would be more acceptable. But for 99% of the people out there the very idea of gay marriage is just repulsive with capitial R. The gay marrige issue would severely cripple any democratic candidate’s to beat Bush if they support it. Let’s not go down that road.
“There are people dying in Iraq and people losing their jobs here at home. These are much more pressing issues then whether a gay person should be allowed to marry. I’m not homophobic, but I feel that gays ought to think about the well-being of others much less fortunate than themselves.”
“How should we handle wedge issues? Like gay marriage, flag burning & abortion… I say we dismiss them completely. Firmly say that it’s manufactured to divide us & leave it at that. When pressed, just say you won’t take the bait. If someone feels so strongly about it, they can join a special interest group.”
From 2004:
“The gay marriage issue hijacked our party. I think the gay and lesbian community decided to make this a visible issue on state ballots because they thought they could ride on the coattails of the Mass. court decision and Kerry. They ended up hurting him. They could have waited until an off Presidential election year to go ballistic. This issue ended up being identified directly with Kerry on the Ohio ballot and ten other states. Many Democratic Christians who would have normally voted for Kerry went with their family and moral values. I’m not homophobic…”
“You DO need to get over it! You are a citizen of the United States before you are gay. You owe a responsibility to your country FIRST!! Yeah, you’re gay, many people are, we cannot allow the you know who’s to use gays as the new ‘blacks’ to divide our country with the gay marriage issue.”
“This Becomes an Issue: (IE the Democratic Party takes a position in support of gay marriage), and the Democrats go down in flames in November. The constitutional amendment–which Sen. Frist is going to force Kerry to vote on–will easily pass. In fact, the worse of the two amendments will pass. Even if that doesn’t pass–but believe me it will– Bush will get to appoint up to 6 Supreme Court Justices.”
“I think the Democratic Party should not even come close to this issue. The farther away the better. If this becomes a major issue with leading Democrats crusading for gay marriage, George McGovern will end up looking like a successful candidate.”
“my gay friends, delay marriage … Just delay till December. Why hand Republicans 5 percent more of the vote, when you can stay quietly on the sidelines and deny them this issue?”
“this is not the time to deal with this issue and the right just is using it as a scare tactic.”
“I Am Outraged By Gay People … Well, not really. But I am kinda annoyed by their (meaning those forcing the issue, not all gays) impeccably bad sense of timing. … By pushing this into an unpopular culture war during an election year, these gay activists are screwing up their own agenda. If they demonstrated a few months of patience, it would serve them well.”
“The gay marriage issue is a disaster waiting to happen. We will lose on this issue if we allow it to become an entrenched part of the debate. So here’s the question: will the gay community, and those who heavily support gay rights, keep quiet during the primaries and the election? Will they trust the Democratic party to do the right thing once they are in office? In essence, will they take a play out of the conservative movement and allow a wink, wink throughout the campaign?”
“I know these social issues are what hurt us. I know because I live in a sea of right wingers who say they wouldnt vote for us because of the gay and abortion issues. The country is not ready for this yet. Maybe in a decade, not now.
“Suit yourselves though. I have no problems with these issues but I do know its why we are losing our asses.”
“IMO these should be personal issues. They would get MORE support by not being associated with either party.”
“Keep believing that the gay marriage issue didnt cost us Ohio, when it clearly did. Since Ohio cost us the race well what else can I say. … The turnout in southern Ohio was beyond the wildest dreams of Karl Rove and they all turned out for the gay marriage ban.”
“Homos will just need to have a little patience and trust us in the long run.”
From 2005:
“You [gay people] are impatient.”
“It’s political suicide to come out in favor of gay marriage.”
“Everyone just needs to shut up about their ‘own issue’ and stand behind the party.”
“Get a grip on reality! This is not a winning issue right now.”
From 2006:
“This issue is going to lose us elections right now and we should lay off until a good chunk of the old farts who oppose it die off. In about 10 or 15 years the Nation will be ready for this fight but right now it’s too early.”
“Why not take what you can get with bills like Howard Deans for the meantime and hopefully in two years you will get someone like Dean or Gore as President, who will change the law and give you all the same rights Married people have without changing the name and pissing off all the fundies?”
“Goddamn it…gays I love ya’, but couldn’t you have waited. WTF. Why is it that the gay marriage issues always crops up right before the election. I fully support homosexual rights, but this ruling by the NJ Supreme Court just energized the Christofascist vote and will likely result in an erosion of Dem wins in Nov. Next time, can we just table the homosexual marriage thing until mid-election cycle?”
“[T]his victory is likely to cost us control of Congress or the Senate. What good is this victory when it just sets us all back and puts more anti-gay politicans in office? Make NO MISTAKE there will be push-back on this…just like in 2004.”
“THis is really going to be a problem and the righties are going to exploit it ASAP. It really may turn the tide. We are struggling as it is just to keep the momentum going and the ROve machine is just moving into second gear as witnessed in Tennesee. WE may be fucked now.”
“Politically speaking this victory just handed Rove a MAJOR campaign issue.”
“[T]he Christian fundamentalists are sure to turn out in droves because of this decision now. They were the ones who might have helped us win the election, by staying home. So I wouldn’t be surprised in the next week or so that it becomes widely accepted we are going to lose. Worst fucking time for this, you have to wonder why this happened right before the election and not after the election.”
“It’s a slippery slope. Since if this causes us to lose elections in other states, we may never make progress in those states due to the loss of influence and election. Even with the original civil rights movement, they didn’t need a hammer to break an egg. The timing of this is conspicuous.”
“The timing of this ruling SUCKS politically. I know it is a correct decision, but it will hurt our chances in taking back Congress.”
“You will see. I would say this decision has put a Democratic win in the House in Jeapordy.”
“Just watch how the GOP base and our worthless media react to this story. It’ll bump Iraq from the public debate. And it will get the fundie base to the polls just like it did in 2004.”
“There’s an election in two weeks, and pretending that the GOP isn’t supported by a vast mob of semi-literate homophobes won’t make the problem go away.”
“The Civil Rights Act cost the Democrats the South for a generation.”
“Right now, the priorities are different in this country, and if gay marriage can detract from other, more pressing issues, yeah, the Democrats are going to eat it yet again in November, because the diversion will have worked. And gay marriage can kiss its own ass goodby for another decade or two.”
“Timing is all, and now is not the time.”
“Why couldn’t the court in New Jersey contemplate the case until mid-November?”
“Yep. Bad timing. Fundies will be voting in force.”
“All the special interest issues on the ballots like gay marriage helped keep bu$h close enough that swapping a few thousand votes made it harder to prove it was stolen.”
“It was those gay marriage amendments that brought out the funide vote”
“How many of those people wouldn’t have even come out to vote if those initiatives weren’t on the ballot? Besides, they see the Democrats as the party of the queers anyway, so it doesn’t matter whether or not Kerry was against it. He’s guilty by association.”
When the New Jersey civil-unions decision came down just two weeks before the November, 2006, mid-term elections, the howls of doom became deafening. The timing was somehow our fault, and it was our fault the Dems were going to lose the mid-terms, big-time. (As I told some hysterical naysayer at the time: “If only we queers had as much power as you credit us with, we’d rule the world. What do you think we did, influence a state supreme court by mass telepathy?”)
Contrary to all the Criswell-like predictions, Democrats swept the 2006 mid-terms, picking up 31 seats in the House (putting Republicans in the minority for the first time in twelve years), the largest gain for the Dems since 1974.
Meanwhile, Democrats replaced Republicans in five open gubernatorial races, and booted the Repub incumbent, Robert Ehrlich, out of Maryland’s governor’s mansion.
Not a single Democratic incumbent in Congress, or in any gubernatorial race, lost his or her seat.
We’re still waiting for an apology from all those Democrats who opened with the usual disclaimer, “I’m not homophobic / Some of my best friends are gay / I think you deserve equal rights, but…,” and then went on to blame us uppity gays for what was sure to be a huge loss for the Dems.
We’re not holding our collective breath.
Now, you could surmise (and you’d be right) that the good people of the United States were just so fed up with Republicans, nothing would have stopped them from 86ing the bums. You could also guess (and you’d be right) that the 2006 mid-terms were in no small part a backlash against George W. Bush himself, two years after voters (and that resounding failure known as John Kerry1, whose election it was to lose) missed the opportunity to make the 2004 presidential election a referendum on Bush’s colossal cock-up of a first term.
Or you could say that marriage equality just wasn’t that big an issue in 2006, because Republicans didn’t make it an issue. And you’d be right about that, too.
A fact that always gets lost amidst all the finger-pointing after a Dem loss is this: We queers did not turn same-sex marriage into the divisive issue it is today — the Republicans (specifically, evil genius Karl Rove) did.
As I wrote to someone who questioned “the big [marriage] movement at that particular point in time” in 2006, which served only to strip gay and lesbian Americans of rights we never had in the first place:
You have to understand something.
There was no “big movement” from the LGBT side; we were quite aware that full equality was a process of baby steps. The “big movement” was a [right-wing] attack tactic, and once they dropped it in our laps, what were we supposed to say? “Thanks, but no, we don’t want to get married” - ?
I feel quite confident in stating that most of us would have been quite happy with “just” equal rights in housing, employment, hospital visitation, inheritance, and (my personal issue) immigration, et al., and then, ultimately, civil unions. To be honest, I never thought we’d get full-fledged marriage in the U.S. (and now, I know we never will, at least not in my lifetime), and I for one wasn’t pushing for it when the whole anti-marriage movement came crashing down on our heads.
It wasn’t strange timing at all. It was perfectly timed, by the anti-gay brigades.
I stand by that, and I’ve repeated it countless times: There was no concerted effort on the gay side to win marriage equality; we were just trying to make inroads in the areas of basic protections, when the Rove Machine came up with the bright idea of making marriage the issue to whip the radical religionists into a frenzy. And now that the marriage war has been foisted upon us, we can’t very well sit back and not fight.
In any case, by 2006, the Republicans had overplayed the anti-gay card — they downright wore the damned thing out. It’s not that the country suddenly came to its collective senses and stopped passing anti-gay legislation (although there has been some progress in making John Q. Public understand that “gay” does not equate to “Baby-Jesus-hating child molester and sworn enemy of baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet”) — it’s that we’ve been legislated into permanent second-class citizenship in so many states, there just aren’t that many left where wholesale persecution of gay and lesbian Americans is going to fly with the general public. About the only thing left is to put us on the trains and send us to the camps. (Nah, don’t worry; I’m not giving the haters any new ideas — there are plenty who already propose doing just that.)
In 2004, the Radical Right managed to get same-sex marriage bans written into the constitutions of twelve states (Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, and Utah). In 2006, another seven states (Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin) jumped on the bigotry bandwagon. (As of today, a total of 25 states have constitutional marriage bans. Twelve prohibit recognition of any form of same-sex unions, and 20 more have statutory DOMAs. Put them all together, and 37 states have some form of prohibition on marriage equality; that’s just one less state that would be needed to ratify a federal constitutional ban.)
But a curious thing happened in 2006: voters in Arizona defeated a constitutional ban — albeit narrowly (51.4% to 48.6%). Proponents (and their far-right cohorts) blamed the loss on the fact that in addition to banning same-sex marriage, Proposition 107 would have also denied all unmarried couples any legal status whatsoever (similar to Virginia’s draconian amendment, which prohibits recognition of any legal contracts between “unmarried individuals” conferring benefits that could be interpreted as “marriage-like”).
In other words, explained the disappointed righties, heterosexual Arizonans realized the amendment would invalidate their relationships, so the straights voted it down in their own best interest, and not out of any solidarity with, or even compassion for, their gay and lesbian neighbors.
That may be true, but if it is, it doesn’t explain why heterosexual Virginians didn’t vote down their amendment. Oh, you can debate the reasons if you like, but at some point, the argument is going to come down to one of two things: Either 1) Arizonans are better informed than Virginians, or 2) Virginians are more mean-spirited than Arizonans.
Or is it all about religion… as usual? Anybody who knows Arizona knows that while the Grand Canyon State fits like a puzzle piece into California’s southernmost nether regions, the only thing the two states have in common is a whole lot of empty, hot desert.2 (If proximity to California had any influence on a state’s level of tolerance for diversity, Oregon wouldn’t be filled with wild-eyed fundy radicals. In terms of the state’s climate for queers, Oregon is nothing more than Colorado with an ocean view.) Arizona is chock-full of Mormons; last time I checked, Arizona (23rd in population out of the 50 states) hovers around the number-four or number-five spot among states with the highest number (close to 200,000 in 1990) and percentage (over 5%) of Latter-Day Saints. And, as we all know (or should), Mormons are among the most actively anti-gay religious factions in the nation.
Yet, in 2006, Arizona became the first state in the union to reject a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In the meantime, and in the wake of victories both large and small (such as the passage of civil unions in Connecticut, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s order for the city to recognize out-of-state and out-of-country same-sex marriages) both in the U.S. and elsewhere (e.g., all-encompassing legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada and South Africa, passage of the U.K.’s Civil Partnership Act), New Jersey passed its “near-beer” civil unions, causing nary a ripple in the results of the 2006 mid-terms.
The optimistic view is that straight society has finally figured out that acknowledging our right to be just as happily (or miserably) wed as everybody else does not result in legions of heterosexuals suddenly waking up and deciding they want one-a them homer-sex-shul weddings too, ’cause, goldurnit, it’s just so much easier to be a queer. And they’ve had four years to observe that the Bay State has not been consumed by God’s wrath and disappeared into the Atlantic.
That doesn’t mean that certain factions of the Democratic Party aren’t still predicting doom and gloom for the 2008 presidential election. You’d think, what with the Iraq War now in its sixth non-stop year and the U.S. economy in the toilet, Americans might find another whipping boy besides us uppity homos — like the Republicans, maybe. You know, the people who started the war, and murdered the economy.
Of course, if your side loses, you can be brutally honest and examine where you went wrong: Has the party been dragged too far to the right, alienating the center-left (and further cementing the likelihood of never winning back the far left)? Did we nominate the wrong candidate? Did the supporters of the nominee alienate (and humiliate) the supporters of the opposing nominee so badly that, human nature being what it is, the latter dug in and simply refused to vote for your party’s candidate? (I’m not naming any names; I’m just looking in the direction of the Obama camp and waving.)
But brutal self-examination is just too humbling — the obliteration of one’s own cognitive dissonance is just too much for most people to stand without a near-psychotic break. So you’ve got to make sure you have (to mix metaphors) all your scapegoats in a row, pre-game.
That said, if the Dems lose the White House (and if Obama is the nominee, we’re likely looking at President McCain for the next four years), the “my party, right or wrong” types will disburse the blame, like the world’s largest lawn sprinkler, far and wide.
After they wear out the obligatory meme “The Republicans stole the election!”3 they’ll turn to a number of other tried-and-tried defenses.
First up will be to pin the blame on Hillary Clinton and her supporters. It’s entirely possible that enough HRC supporters refusing to vote for Obama will indeed cost the Dems the White House; whether that will be the “fault” of Hillary supporters for refusing to jump on the bandwagon, or Obama’s fault for failing to win over the HRC supporters, or his supporters’ fault for doing everything in their power to alienate HRC supporters — well, I’ve written about all this extensively, so you know what I think: Obama’s loss will be the result of all three factors, albeit with the first caused directly by the second and third. (In other words, I will fault both Obama and his supporters.)
But I’m certain that we queers will not escape the wrath of (some as-yet-unknown number of) Dems looking for someone else to blame for any Democratic loss.
Predictably, some have already begun to line up the scapegoats. Here’s a sampling of doom-and-gloom predictions from Democratic Underground, culled from the first three days after the California Supreme Court ruling on May 15th:
Handing a huge wedge issue to the GOP … let’s see how the gay community feels knowing they helped put McCain in the White House this November. they will be lucky to have civil unions, much less gay marriage, when that happens.
This is 2004 all over again. Talk about history repeating itself. WOW. Kerry had his Massachusetts. Obama will have his California. I knew this was going to happen. Well, it was a nice dream anyway.
MA did not help in 2004 … Facts are facts.
I’m All For Gay Rights, Women’s Rights And Getting Our Privacy rights back but I think it would be better to wait till after the election to push these issues.
If we lose the election, none of the rights will come to pass and we will lose even more. Grow up and have some patience. What the hell is another 6 months when you’ve waited this long already?
Perhaps, you [gay] guys should calm down, quit putting down your supporters, shut up and lay the necessary ground work to make gay marriage a reality.
After we win, we can press Obama and the Congress to do what is right and long over due.
“Personally I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.” –Barack Obama
I think he speaks for most of us. I have nothing against gay rights, but marriage is something that should be reserved for man and woman. But to press for it during an election in this country is the best way to lose it, both the election and not just gay rights, but EVERYONE’S civil rights. It is political suicide. You have to be an imbicile to not see that. At least Obama and Hillary are much more supportive of gay rights. But if you want to inflame the social conservatives by making gay marraige an issue this election season and help McCrazy get elected in the WH, then you won’t have any gay rights left to speak of, never mind gay marriage.
Obama supports states rights in regard to gay marriage. McCain and the republicans want a constitutional amendment to ban it. Therefore, your priority should be to get a Democrat in the WH first. THEN make gay marriage an issue. Self-righteous indignation accomplishes nothing for gay rights except handing the GOP a massive divisive wedge issue that will almost guarantee another democratic defeat in November.
And the Democratic Party just possbily lost California in November
Can We Just Win First
Then we can take on all the civil rights issues. Why throw fodder for the GOP in before the election?
And my favorite:
The gay community is fucking it up for everybody else.
I think that answers your question, Will: The ruling will fuel the fire of Democrats who were never our allies in the first place, looking for a scapegoat in a loss that hasn’t happened yet.
As to whether it will actually affect the outcome of the presidential election, I think the 2006 Dem sweep of Congress is a fair indication that any impact will be negligible.
The real concern is how the presidential election will impact the California ruling. As I’m sure you know, the radical gay-haters are in the process of getting a constitutional amendment on the state ballot in November; if this were only a mid-term election and not a major general election, its chances of passing would be much less than they already are. As presidential elections bring more voters to the polls, there will be more voters deciding whether or not we deserve the same rights they already have.
I’ll tell you something that’s very disheartening, ‘though: I’ve already seen certain Obama supporters using the November referendum as blackmail fodder against gay Hillary supporters.
I don’t think I’m reading too much into this recent comment:
you should hope that [we Obama supprters will] be out in force in November, too…
That’s when the referendum that threatens to overturn this ruling will come up for a vote.
That sure sounds like a veiled threat to me. But then, I’m naturally far more attuned to this sort of thing — and in light of the Obamaites’ constant citation of Roe v. Wade in an attempt to scare female voters into voting for Obama, I don’t think I’m reading too much into comments like that at all.
Well, all I can do is hope that the Obama supporters — even those who stoop to the level of suggesting, oh-so-subtly, that they might turn against California LGBTs out of revenge for not supporting Obama — will live up to their own standards of doing what they think is the right thing, and voting down the marriage ban.
Otherwise, that would be like me taking out my anger on women who support Obama by actively trying to get Roe v. Wade overturned (which I wouldn’t do, no matter how much the Obamanauts piss me off).
But whether the Obama people do the right thing or not, you have to ask if the November ballot measure can have any effect on last week’s marriage ruling.
I’m no lawyer, but I’ve read the ruling from beginning to end, and it appears to my layperson’s eyes that the court did a damned good job of pre-empting any attempt to invalidate the decision.
In short: How can you enact, by any means, a constitutional amendment in a state where any such amendment has already been ruled a violation of that state’s constitution?
Green Greenwald has written one of the most reasoned opinions on the ruling I’ve seen so far, addressing both the extent of the ruling itself, and the potential for overturning it by referendum:
Given the controversial nature of this ruling, there are certain to be all sorts of myths being spouted by pundits and various advocates who object to the outcome here. Thus, it is vital to note:
(1) No rational person can criticize the Court’s decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of — and contempt for — how the law works.
As the Court made clear, whether someone believes that “marriage” should include same-sex couples is completely irrelevant. It is equally irrelevant whether one believes that the U.S. Constitution can be read to require same-sex marriages. There is one issue, and only one issue, that matters here: are the provisions of the California State Constitution, in light of how they have been interpreted by that state’s Supreme Court in prior decisions, violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal institution of “marriage”?
To be able to answer that question, one must have read and understood the key cases on which the Court relied, such as Perez v. Sharp (1948), Brown v. Merlo (1973) and numerous others. For reasons I’ve written about before, anyone who criticizes the Court’s decision without reference to California constitutional law is engaged in rank sophistry or, to use a more familiar term, pure “judicial activism” (i.e., judging a constitutional question based on one’s preferred outcome rather than the requirements of binding constitutional law). Put another way, those who criticize the Court here of “judicial activism” without bothering to familiarize themselves with relevant California constitutional law are themselves engaged in the purest, and lowest, form of “judicial activism.”
(2) Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges “overriding” the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their “marriage” laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed “it is up to the state Supreme Court” to decide the issue. …
(5) Each time there is a court decision recognizing the constitutional rights of gay couples, all sorts of hysterical political commentary ensues. In October, 2006 — right before the midterm elections — the New Jersey State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that its Constitution requires same-sex couples to be given the same set of marital rights and privileges granted to opposite-sex married couples (though it ruled, by a 4-3 vote, that it need not be called “marriage”).
As I noted at the time, all sorts of pundits and right-wing hacks shrilly predicted that the New Jersey gay rights ruling would lead to a major voter backlash that would mobilize social conservatives and destroy the Democrats’ chances for victory in the midterm elections. Needless to say, for reasons I pointed to at the time, nothing of the sort happened. Our national elections are simply not determined by a decision by the state of California — or New Jersey, Vermont or Massachusetts — to extend equal rights to their gay citizens. …
Just to underscore how exaggerated is the significance of gay marriage as a political weapon, here is a 2006 fear-mongering ad run in Arizona — featuring John McCain — urging Arizonans to amend their constitution to ban same-sex marriage…
Despite scare-mongering ads of that sort, conservative/libertarian Arizona voters became the first to reject a state-wide ban on same-sex marriage, reflecting the fact that exploitation of this issue is far less politically potent than it once was. And, of course, the 2006 New Jersey Supreme Court ruling weeks before the midterm elections did nothing to help the GOP stave off crushing defeat.
Can the court’s decision be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court?
No. The decision was based on the California Constitution, and the California Supreme Court has the final say in cases brought under the California Constitution. …
Will the federal government recognize marriages of same-sex couples who marry in California?
No. Under current federal law, the federal government does not recognize marriages of same-sex couples. This means that married same-sex couples currently do not have any of the rights, benefits, or protections that federal law gives to married heterosexual couples, such as the ability to file joint federal income taxes or receive federal spousal benefits through social security or other federal programs.
However:
Could right-wing forces take away the freedom to marry at the ballot box in California?
Yes. Because the court based its decision on rights guaranteed by the California Constitution, right-wing groups are trying to amend our state Constitution to eliminate these fundamental constitutional protections and take away the basis for the decision.
These groups, which have received significant funding from out-of-state right-wing organizations, are placing an initiative on the November 2008 ballot that will ask voters to amend the California Constitution to reverse the court’s decision and deny gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.
Already, many state leaders are expressing their opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment. For example, in a public statement on April 11, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger stated that an initiative to amend the California Constitution to ban gay and lesbian couples from marriage was “a waste of time,” adding “I will always be there to fight against that. It will never happen.”
We agree with Governor Schwarzenegger that these outsiders are wasting their time and money trying to turn California into a state that would use its Constitution to take away civil rights and hurt families. But it will take every one of us to stop this antifamily initiative. For more information about how to get involved, contact Equality For All at www.EqualityForAll.com.
What can we do to help preserve the freedom to marry we have just won?
We urge you to get involved today! For more information about how you can help, please contact Equality For All at www.EqualityForAll.com. Now that we have won this victory, all residents of California are better off, because strengthening any group of families makes stronger communities for everyone. All people who value families and fairness have a stake in preserving the freedom to marry for lesbian and gay couples. We cannot afford to wait, please act now.
For more information about the court’s ruling, legal information for couples, and action steps to help protect the freedom to marry, please contact:
Since 2003, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down archaic sex laws and the Massachusetts high court ruled that gay couples had a right to marry, we’ve heard right-wing activists and politicians, including President, Bush denouncing “activist judges” and “judicial tyranny.” But even when a state court allows the legislature to decide whether or not to call family protections for gay couples “marriage” — as was the case in Vermont seven years ago and is the case in New Jersey now — right wing leaders cynically complain.
The Christian right’s reaction to the New Jersey court ruling on marriage for same-sex couples proves that no matter how our governmental institutions address this issue, right-wing leaders will attack these institutions and scapegoat gay people.
When the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples deserved equal benefits, leading to the creation of civil unions in 2000, former Family Research Council director and then-presidential candidate Gary Bauer called the decision “worse than terrorism.” When Republican Governor Jane Swift offered Massachusetts state workers domestic partner health insurance in 2001, the Bay State Republican Council denounced these limited benefits as “special privileges” for “homosexuals.”
Opponents of same-sex marriage have argued for years that it is the legislatures, not courts, that should decide how and whether to recognize same-sex couple families. But when the California legislature passed a bill legalizing marriage for gay couples in 2005, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it, saying — without the slightest sense of irony — that the issue should be left up to the courts. …
One of the biggest election stories of 2006 was the non-story of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision to offer the equivalent of Civil Unions to gay couples. What was most striking about the ruling was the lack of shock value compared to the tidal wave of raw emotion that gripped the nation when Vermont’s high court mandated a similar judicial remedy in 1999.
The news broke at 3PM, so I expected major coverage that evening on the network news. However, the story did not air on NBC until the broadcast was more than two-thirds finished. And, when the topic was finally addressed, it was a short reader from anchor Brian Williams. If you quickly pranced off to the bathroom or momentarily zoned out, you might have missed the story altogether.
Meanwhile, the mess in Mesopotamia dominated the first two blocks of that same newscast, with October’s death toll of American troops surpassing one hundred. This is a nightmare for a Republican party desperate to make hay out of all things gay by focusing obsessively on New Jersey. But things are now so bad in Baghdad that even Karl Rove, the master of homophobic campaigns, is having a difficult time averting the nation’s gaze to focus on the gays.
The laughable line that conservative pundits are now pushing is that the Garden State ruling will mobilize previously depressed social conservative voters. The conventional wisdom is that this was a shot in the arm that will jumpstart the Pat Robertson crowd to vote in force.
This expectation is as irrational as it is unreasonable. Why would a weak and politically safe New Jersey civil unions ruling provide motivation to vote if 8,000 real marriage licenses already issued in Massachusetts weren’t doing the trick? Sure, it did put the issue back in the headlines, but it was merely an ephemeral two day story that likely had no lasting impact. I’m not saying that the timing of the ruling was helpful, but it is turning out to be more of a wedgie than a wedge issue — a minor annoyance, but certainly not a divisive debate that could determine the outcome of a crucial election.
If anything, the New Jersey decision weakened the religious right’s overplayed hand on this issue. It is hard to make the case that Kansas is in danger of honeymooning homos when the GLBT community can’t even win full marriage rights from one of the most liberal courts in the nation.
The dust is nearly settled and it appears that the path to marriage rights will run through state capitals. In the next fifteen years we are likely to hear less about marriage, while we see the enactment of Civil Unions or domestic partnership laws.
This is because the GLBT community has finally convinced mainstream Americans that they are worthy of similar relationship benefits, such as hospital visitation and inheritance rights. However, we have not cleared the tall hurdle of persuading a majority that we can share the M-Word without wrecking the institution more than they already have.
Of course, we will eventually win this battle. But it is increasingly apparent that GLBT people will be forced to run the requisite minority obstacle course until the masses finally understand that creating a system of different laws for different people is inherently unfair and discriminatory. …
As you can see, there’s a running suggestion here that LGBT folks need to be patient and to wait, lest there be a backlash of some sort in two years if we push too hard for pro-gay legislation that has languished under Republican rule. This, of course, was after [Howard Dean] mentioned more than once during his speech that no Dems who took a position against the federal marriage amendment lost — a real disconnect, huh?
I hate to say it, but the room was also full of too much backslapping during Dean’s speech over the Dem takeover of the House and Senate; I couldn’t believe it when Chairman Dean positively glowed over the fact that a third of evangelicals crossed over to vote Dem in this election. I hate to break it to him, but in the states with amendments on the ballot, those evangelicals, even as they crossed over because they were digusted with the GOP, still chose to vote for a marriage amendment. Is he ok with that? While that crossover might bring on cheers in another venue and encourage the party to further court The Base, for LGBT folks that’s not exactly comforting.
What we can celebrate is that the changeover in Washington and many state houses means no active legislation further eroding our rights, but whether we will see actual gay-positive legislation passed is another matter with the historically gun-shy, spineless Democratic Party that has run from serious discussion of gay issues as fast as it can in the past. As we’ve said before here on the Blend, Dems at the national level will only advocate once the coast is clear, having had their fingers in the wind to see which way it’s blowing. Leading isn’t a strong suit in this area; they’ve been content to take our money and do zero as amendment after amendment has passed.
Dean cited the Arizona amendment as a victory for the community, not mentioning of course that the organizations responsible at the grassroots level for successfully defeating the ballot measure, almost immediately released a statement saying it received no help from national organizations. It’s hard to take credit for a “win” when they had to work in isolation.
The big national gay organizations have been notably absent there, and the campaigns have been smart about attracting voters from both conservative Phoenix and liberal Tucson with targeted messages and tactics. “We did this with no national help,” says [Cindy Jordan, chair of No on 107], “this grassroot’s effort was local.”
The amendment failed because of a couple of factors, which I mentioned while at the conference: 1) the voters were targeted about how the amendment would affect unmarried seniors and heterosexuals, and almost completely ignored the “fairness” argument, avoiding the use gay couples in promotional materials, and 2) Arizona has a libertarian, government-out-of-my-business streak that further eroded support for the amendment. The latter is one of the reasons that the amendment nearly failed in South Dakota.
The fairness argument was used extensively in Wisconsin; gay families were prominently featured by Fair Wisconsin, and the anti-amendment forces were well-funded and organized, yet the measure easily passed. The difference? — people vote their self-interest. Sad, but true, fairness really isn’t enough of an argument unless you have a critical mass of het allies who are well-informed and motivated to do the right thing — our movement, desperately needs to educate our allies; way too many straight folks simply don’t have equality issues on their radar even in states like Wisconsin, where people thought there was a chance to defeat an amendment.
Which brings me to the other matter that Dean didn’t talk about — the party’s “endorsement” of putting the civil rights of gays and lesbians on the ballot — Howard Dean giddily mentioned how “the voters have spoken” in tossing out the GOP control of the Hill. Unfortunately, the voters have also spoken on our rights because both the Democrats and the Republicans at the national level have no problem with “leaving it to the states.”
This is morally wrong, and the responsibility for the strategic political decision to punt on the civil rights of gays and lesbians by allowing candidates to hide behind a position of “leave it to the states” lies at the Democratic Party’s door. We have 27 states that now have marriage amendments in place, many that precluding any civil unions or domestic partnerships. Those measures profoundly affect the lives of everyday, working class gay families who don’t have any political power aside from their vote — and they are in the minority.
The overarching view from the establishment perspective is that the patchwork of rights granted will end up in SCOTUS and eventually be resolved there, which is true OK, then what do you say to gays in Tennessee, for example — its amendment passed with 80% of the vote? Move? “I’m sorry, but it’s too damn bad?”
Now that eight more states have gay-marriage bans written into their constitutions — 45 states ban it through amendment or statute — are we done playing politics with gay people’s lives? Is the public done being duped to vote for those measures because they think two women committing to each other for life before the law somehow threatens their own marriage or commands their churches to reinterpret their Bible? …
“One man, one woman: let the people vote!” chant those in Massachusetts who want to reverse the right gays and lesbians have had for more than two years to marry. Yes, yes, our civil rights should always be subject to the personal prejudices of the masses — that’s democracy. But for the decision of some “activist judges,” blacks might still be legally considered two-thirds of a person. …
To paraphrase what an openly gay state senator from Massachusetts, Jarrett Barrios, said recently in a debate that, I hope, finally, ended their gay-marriage debate: You don’t have to like me, you don’t have to live next to me, but I have every right to enjoy the same rights that you have enjoyed for time immemorial.
I am done with those who hold that only in the case of gays and lesbians can separate be equal. If it’s not called marriage, it’s not recognized across state lines and not by the federal government. That means my marital status depends on which state I’m standing in, I cannot file a joint tax return with my wife, I would not be able to receive her Social Security benefits if she dies, and I would not automatically be considered the legal parent to our child if my wife is the one who gives birth. Take your pick — there are 1,138 rights that the federal government confers upon married, not civil-unioned (is that even a word yet?) people.
Do you still think civil unions are plenty good enough for gay folks? I challenge any married heterosexual person to trade in his or her marriage certificate for a civil union certificate. Would you do it? When you got engaged, would you have squealed with delight at telling your family and friends, “We’re getting civil unioned!” …
1 Yes, John Kerry was a resounding failure of a candidate. His campaign was laughable: He let himself be swiftboated with nary a peep, his duck-hunting photo-op was his Dukakis-in-a-tank moment, and — this is absolutely unforgivable — after promising that every vote would count, he conceded the race to Bush without a fight, and then disappeared. He abandoned the Democrats who worked so hard for him — as well as those of us who voted for him solely because we would have given anything to get Bush out of the White House. See, folks, Kerry is what you get when you let the DLC-controlled DNC pick your candidate for you: an unelectable figurehead with no backbone. But more about Barack Obama later.
2 Mind you, I love all that empty, hot desert, and so does Buffy. Thanks to a near-lifetime of four-wheeling and ghost town hunting, I doubt there’s a single square mile of Nevada I haven’t explored. As for Buffy, on our cross-country trip to move her and her car out west, I had to keep distracting her with singalongs and car games every time we passed another Native American outpost, all the way from Oklahoma to the Mojave Desert, or it would have taken us another week to get home. Yes, I’m lying about distracting her, just because I know she’ll be reading this, and I feel like being a brat — but she really does love the Southwest, and all that Southwestern arty stuff that goes with it. Which is fine with me; I think we can work out a rather nice decor scheme by blending Kokopelli in with the Mission and Stickley furniture I’d love to buy (but can’t afford yet).
3 Election theft is, of course, a very valid complaint, when it’s very likely true. I don’t doubt for one second that the 2000 presidential election was rigged, and the results of the 2004 election were highly questionable. Bottom line is, however, that if an election so close that it could be tipped by nefarious means, then it was too close to begin with — i.e., the Democratic Party did not do its job, whether by running the wrong candidate, failing to sell the right candidate in the best way, or any number of other reasons — and in the end, the Democratic campaign just wasn’t good enough to win by such a wide enough margin that no amount of chicanery could negate that win.
In my experience, it’s only been within the past year or so that you could opine online, without getting flamed alive, that John Kerry is a good Senator but a lousy choice for President, and that his campaign “strategy” was flawed from the outset. After you finish railing against the swiftboating and the Ohio results, you have to admit that in the wake of the first term of the Bush regime, Kerry should have won by a landslide. Bottom line is, he just didn’t convince enough voters that his way was the right way, and he lost. (Yes, I’ve said the same of Al Gore; while he did indeed win the popular vote, and while SCOTUS handed Bush the presidency on a silver platter, Gore’s win should not have hinged on a mere couple-hundred thousand votes in Florida.)
A lot of Dems will call me a traitor for saying that, but I’ve grown so accustomed to being labeled a “traitor to the Democratic Party” lately — smiling and waving at the Obamanauts) — I really don’t care.
Dean’s Statement on Sen. Santorum’s Offensive Remarks
In an interview published yesterday with the Associated Press, Rick Santorum, the third highest ranking Republican in the Senate, compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. I am outraged by Senator Santorum’s remarks.
That a leader of the Republican Party would make such insensitive and divisive comments — comments that are derogatory and meant to harm an entire group of Americans, their friends and their families — is not only outrageous, but deeply offensive.
The silence with which President Bush and the Republican Party leadership have greeted Sen. Santorum’s remarks is deafening. It is the same silence that greeted Senator Lott’s offensive remarks in December. It is a silence that implicitly condones a policy of domestic divisiveness, a policy that seeks to divide Americans again and again on the basis of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation.
It is a policy that must end, and it is a policy that will end with a Dean Presidency. This Saturday, April 26th, marks the third anniversary of the signing of the Civil Unions bill in Vermont. I signed that bill because I believe no human being should be treated with less dignity than others simply because that person belongs to a different category or group. I also believe that, as Americans, it is our duty to speak up when others are treated wrongly — especially when others are treated wrongly by a member of the Senate leadership.
I urge all Americans, and members of both parties, to join me in condemning Sen. Santorum’s remarks. They are unacceptable, and silence is an unacceptable response. By standing up against such divisive rhetoric — whether one is gay, lesbian, or straight — we can begin to achieve the American ideal of equal rights for all people.
The Senate Democrats’ political organization on Tuesday called for Republican Sen. Rick Santorum to resign his leadership position after the lawmaker compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery.
One day after gay-rights groups urged GOP senators to consider removing Santorum from his leadership post, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee said the two-term Pennsylvania senator should step down as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the No. 3 job in the party leadership.
The DSCC called Santorum’s remarks “divisive, hurtful and reckless” and said they “are completely out of bounds for someone who is supposed to be a leader in the United States Senate.”
In an interview with The Associated Press, Santorum criticized homosexuality while discussing a pending Supreme Court case over a Texas sodomy law.
“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,” Santorum said in the interview, published Monday. …
