An Welcome Solution

(Cartoon by Joel Pett/Lexington Herald-Leader (2/27/14) and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge)

Another skirmish in the battle for human rights in this country is over, and this time the good guys won.  Arizona Governor Jan Brewer finally vetoed the bill which would give businesses the right to refuse service to gays on the basis of religious beliefs.  Given all of the ink and electrons spilled over the bill nationally, the veto came as no surprise.  What was a surprise was where the pressure to overturn the state legislature came from. 

I think Bill Dwyre got it right:

The issue had a number, SB (Senate Bill) 1062. It also had a label, the anti-gay bill. It was passed by the Arizona Legislature recently but vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer on Wednesday night. As written, it said that for religious reasons a business person may legally withhold services from gays, lesbians and transsexuals.

It was, of course, a hot topic. Prominent people weighed in. It didn't seem to have any political lines, just across-the-board amazement that it was passed by the state Legislature and disgust that it took so long to veto.

Those opposing the bill seemed to merely be battling stupidity.

The biggest wedge seemed to come from the leverage of sports. The Super Bowl is scheduled here next year, and the NFL's stance seemed quite clear.  [Emphasis added]

While it is true that those other businesses which benefit from tourism were also against the bill (it might very well have cost them millions, if not billions), it was the veiled threats from the NFL and MLB (a lot of major league teams hold spring training in Arizona) that provided the capstone.

So, while the reasons for the veto may have been based in greed, the outcome was a victory for human rights.  And that was a welcome reminder that the boycott, even the threat of one, is still a handy tool for political change.

I'm Still Optimistic

(Editorial cartoon by Jack Ohman and published 3/27/13 in the Sacramento Bee.  Click on image to enlarge and then please return.)

Doyle McManus had an interesting column up this past weekend.  It was sort of bifurcated, dealing with two separate issues, but I still think it hung together nicely.  Here's the first segment.

The court seems ready to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, while ruling quite narrowly on California's Proposition 8, allowing a lower-court decision to stand. Such an outcome would make gay marriage legal in California without deciding whether state bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional.

And that would allow more of what we've seen up to now: a growing number of liberal blue states moving to legalize gay marriage, and a growing number of conservative red states enacting bans.

But there will be one big difference: Gays who live in states that allow gay marriage may have an array of federal privileges unavailable to those living in states that ban such marriages. And that raises complex questions.    [Emphasis added]

 If that is how the Court rules in the two cases, there will indeed be some complex questions and some chaos, at least for awhile.  Even so, however, I don't believe for long, and that's where the second part of McManus's column comes in.

... Most Republicans still oppose same-sex marriage by a wide margin, with only about a quarter in favor in a recent Pew Research Center poll. But the survey also suggests that the issue will grow as a wedge that divides the party, in part because of a big generational divergence: 76% of Republicans over 65 oppose gay marriage, while only 54% of those under 30 do.

And when the question is changed from marriage to equal rights, the wedge potential is even clearer: Republicans divide right down the middle as to whether homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples, 49% to 48%, with young people again more permissive than older voters.

One leading GOP fundraiser described the conflict to me as "between the Christians and the donors" — Christian social conservatives who want the party to stand forthrightly against gay marriage, and donors who want the GOP to broaden its appeal to young people and moderates as a path toward winning the next election.

Speaking on condition he not be identified, this veteran of conservative campaigns noted that the GOP needs to keep all those groups inside its tent, which will make gay marriage a problem for any would-be presidential candidate in 2016.   [Emphasis added]

The Republican Party wants a big win in 2016: White House, Senate, and House, but that isn't likely if the the Religious Reich and the Tea Party loons continue to drive the agenda.  Party stalwarts don't want to be left out in the cold the way they are in California.

Furthermore, public opinion on equal rights for gays is moving quite rapidly, far more rapidly than it moved on a prior contentious issue, inter-racial marriage.  Atrios has a post up on that, one with a graph which makes the point clearly.

And that's why I'm still optimistic. 

EEK! Teh Gaii!

(Click on image to enlarge and then return, or else.)

David Horsey's column on the gay marriage cases before the Supreme Court of the US is an interesting one.  He uses an analogy that is a bit different than the one usually cited.

During oral arguments, some of the nine justices appeared uncomfortable jumping into the gay marriage debate at all. Much time was spent arguing about whether the petitioners on the pro-Prop. 8 side had legal standing to bring the appeal. Determining that they do not, the court could let the lower court’s ruling stand. They could also simply uphold the 9th Circuit’s decision. Either way, the justices could avoid a broader judgment that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry in all 50 states.

Also wanting to stop short of that outcome, yet still urging the justices toward a somewhat broader middle ground, Solicitor Gen. Donald Verrilli Jr. offered a position that would open the way to same-sex marriage only in states such as California that already give homosexual couples every legal benefit accorded married persons except the right to marry. Because such states have essentially conceded that there is no societal harm in established domestic partnerships, those states cannot reasonably contend there would be harm in letting same-sex partners marry, Verrilli argued. ...

Oddly, no one pointed out that homosexual couples actually are producing children through sperm donors and surrogate mothers. They are also becoming parents via adoption. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that, in California alone, 40,000 children are being raised by homosexual parents. In the modern world, there is more than one path to parenthood.

Seeking more solid ground for their skeptical view of same-sex marriage, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the other court conservatives rallied around the idea that moving too fast on same-sex marriage would be unwise because it is a novel idea that breaks with tradition. Theodore B. Olson, representing the anti-Prop. 8 side, offered the obvious and most pertinent rejoinder: interracial marriage was illegal until the Supreme Court invalidated laws against it in 1967. Such laws enforced a traditional view and were supported by large majorities, not just in the South, but all over the country. Yet the court went against the majority of Americans and against the status quo in that decision.   [Emphasis added]

Most have used the analogy to Roe v Wade, which fundagelicals have long decried as coming out of left field with no juridical precedent.  These cased are  closer to that of inter-racial marriage and the abolition of slavery in which there really was no precedent and in which there was no public outcry.  In that respect, Horsey has nailed it.

He is, however, pessimistic on the outcome.

Me, I'm a bit more hopeful.  One of the justices is in an inter-racial marriage ... one of the (ahem) more conservative ones.

Uncivil War

Earlier this week, David Horsey took a look at the CPAC conference and noted the rather dramatic split in the Republican Party.  The basest base wants to maintain the purity of a party for the rich and white, while the rest of the party would like to start winning elections.

A new report commissioned by the Republican National Committee reads like an anti-GOP critique from the “lame stream media.” It describes the party as too rigidly ideological, too in thrall to greedy corporations, too disconnected from nonwhite and young voters, and in desperate need of new ideas. ...

Since the Sarah Palin/Rush Limbaugh wing of the party was clearly not represented on the committee, it may not be surprising that conservative purists sustained the biggest hit in the report. Still, the fact that the five took suggestions from 50,000 rank-and-file party members gives the report some weight. And the authors would have been fools if they had ignored information gathered from focus groups that indicates a great many Americans perceive Republicans as a bunch of narrow-minded, out-of-touch, homophobic, stuffy old white men who are interested only in the welfare of rich people. ...

CPAC actually provided a vivid example of the fevered, insular mindset that the RNC committee sees as a huge problem for the party. “The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself," the committee’s report says. "We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue.”

Yet, while the RNC is saying it is time to open the doors to new people and new ideas, the lineup of CPAC speakers was composed almost entirely of insular ideologues, gay-bashers, gun fetishists, religious fundamentalists, birth control foes and devotees of wacky conspiracy theories. CPAC stars such as Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Allen West, Donald Trump and the National Rifle Assn.'s Wayne LaPierre do not represent a new direction for the GOP; they represent exactly what the Republican National Committee is warning against.    [Emphasis added]

One wag at Eschaton suggested that CPAC stood for "Crazy People Acting Crazy," and I think that summarizes it nicely.  Recent polls show that a majority of Americans want better background checks for gun purchases, have no problems with gay marriage, and are in favor of immigration reform even if it provides a pathway to citizenship for those undocumented immigrants already here.  That the Republican Party wants to tap into those majorities for votes makes perfect sense. But Palin and Rush are not about to give up, at least not yet.

If the RNC report is ignored and the Tea Party activists continue to hold a knife against the throat of the rest of the party, the GOP may find itself shut out all over the country the way it was shut out in California in 2012. 

And wouldn't that be a shame.

Moral Degenerates

(Click on image to enlarge and then please bring your eyes back here.

The Supreme  Court has agreed to hear two cases dealing with gay marriage:  one concerning the Defense of Marriage Act and the other concerning Proposition 8 in California. Although the legal issues of the two cases are different and may have a decisive impact on each case, the subject matter is, of course, the same.

David Horsey has a very sane and a very compassionate column on the two cases and what ultimately stands behind them.

The Supreme Court will be deciding whether to uphold the appeals court ruling that struck down Proposition 8. In addition, the justices will be deliberating on the constitutionality of provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that deny legal benefits to same-sex couples who are married. A range of outcomes is possible including a broad decision that opens the way to same-sex marriage in every state or a narrow ruling that says Proposition 8 supporters lack legal standing. Many legal experts say the odds favor elimination of Proposition 8 and reinstitution of the California Supreme Court’s ruling that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in the Golden State.

Throughout this country’s history, the high court has often been the arbiter that sorts out knotty social disputes. The burgeoning conundrum now is that there is a growing number of American citizens who are legally married under the laws of several states (including California before passage of Proposition 8). Yet, these people are unable to gain the full benefits of marriage because either the federal government or states that do not recognize same-sex marriage deny them those benefits. Is such unequal treatment constitutional? The court is set to grapple with that question.

Horsey notes the usual arguments from the Religious Reich:  homosexuality is an affront to the Omnipotent God;  gay marriage is a sign that our society is in a disastrous moral decline, just like ancient pagan Rome;  one man and one woman is how we have been designed.  All of these arguments ring hollow when we look to the very people making these arguments and to the divorce statistics in this country. 

That Omnipotent God created homosexuals, as scientists discovered decades ago.  What, is that Omnipotent God some kind of monster, designing people to suffer, to fail, to go to Hell?  And what about those "holy" people who have been caught engaged in homosexual trysts.  I'm talking priests and preachers, congresscritters and Villagers.  Or the serial monogamists who add to the divorce rates with astounding regularity (I'm looking at you, Newt!).  Why should not all of us have access to the benefits of a recognized marriage contract so that we can avail ourselves of tax laws and custody laws and even the right to sit at the bedsides of our dying partners?  Why does a civil government, one which was founded on the principle of the separation of church and state, intrude on the issue, telling us who we can marry?

Horsey's conclusion is more sanguine than I am as to the outcome than I am (Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and who knows which of the other five), but it does summarize the argument beautifully:

The naughty old Romans are always dragged out as an object lesson by people who think society is going astray, but I must say that what happened in Washington was not a celebration of something wrong. The fact that couples who have spent years, even decades, together in loving partnerships have finally been given the chance to make their bonds legal seems very much like what DeWolf described as Christian values. Same-sex marriage is an affirmation that people – all people – are made for better things, are capable of charity and concern for one another, are enhanced by living a life of virtue.

If America believes marriage is, indeed, an institution that binds the nation together, can it be wrong to bring more citizens into that virtuous circle? Perhaps the Supreme Court will settle the question once and for all. In the meantime, voters in states that are progressive (not pagan) are deciding for themselves that the law must give everyone a shot at wedded bliss.

Yes.

Heart Hurt

(Editorial cartoon by Joel Pett / Lexington Herald-Leader (July 25, 2012) and featured at McClatchy DC. Click on image to enlarge and then kindly return.)

Journalist and documentary film-maker Lisa Biagiotti has a heart-breaking op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times. There's an international AIDS/HIV conference being held in the US and most folks are busy congratulating each other on the fact that we finally seem to have a handle on this dread disease in terms of treatment, and some signs that we may have a vaccine in the pipes to prevent the infection to begin with.

Ms. Biagiotti reminds us that those congratulations just might be a little premature, especially in this country.

The South has the highest rate of AIDS deaths of any U.S. region. It also has the largest numbers of adolescents and adults living with HIV and the fewest resources to fight the epidemic.

The disease there is concentrated largely in poor minority communities. Diagnoses tend to be late and often only after the infection has progressed to AIDS. Treatment is less effective at that stage, and that's assuming it is even available. Thousands of those living with the human immunodeficiency virus are unable to get the medications they need, waiting in limbo for slots to open up in state AIDS drug assistance programs. President Obama recently pledged to eliminate these waiting lists, and I hope he does.

In Mississippi, the AIDS death rate is 60% higher than the national average, and about 50% of the people who know they are living with HIV are not receiving care, about the same percentage of nontreatment as in Ethiopia. [Emphasis added]

As if the racism and poverty aren't bad enough, those infected face the additional burden of homophobia from within their own family and culture.

I have spent time with and interviewed many black gay men living with HIV in the South, and they tend to tell similar stories. Their families have shamed and shunned them; their churches have condemned them. The schools they attended failed to provide even the most basic sex education.

The culture, they say, has forced them into hiding. Some marry; some have girlfriends. They try to be invisible in a culture that can accept black men as prisoners, drug dealers, gangsters, adulterers, absent fathers — but not as gay.

The underlying problems of stigma, discrimination and homophobia are palpable, and they exacerbate the crisis. One black pastor I filmed urged his flock to see HIV/AIDS as a punishment: "Some say that homosexuality is not a sin," he intoned. "It is. AIDS is God's curse to a homosexual life."

That's a rough road, one that needs to be addressed by all the smiling scientists and sociologists and politicians at that international meeting.


[Note: "deepsouth", Lisa Biagiotti's documentary on HIV in the South, premiered this week. More information on the film here]

A Welcome Shift

No doubt about it: President Obama's announcement that he supports gay marriage and the rights attendant to that is the biggest news of the week so far. While I admit to wishing he had left the crap about "states' rights" out of his speech, I think that his announcement is important and might very well make a difference, a welcome difference.

No, I'm not going to say much more than that, but not because I don't have anything to say. It's just that others have said it so much better than I could. For example, David Horsey has a cartoon and a column that is terrific, especially as it recognizes the risk the president is taking (about which, more in a bit). And Amanda Marcotte has a brilliant analysis of the predictable backlash led by allegedly Christian churches and why it matters. I urge you to read both.

No, what I want to talk about is the shift from talk about the economy and the budget (both of which are important), to what I consider to be a more basic, root issue: civil rights. That is what the whole business of "gay marriage" is about: extending the same protections to same-sex couples that "married" heterosexual couples enjoy, from health insurance coverage, to tax breaks, to probate laws, to visitation rights when one of the two is hospitalized.

Civil rights is an issue that has been ignored for more than a decade as the haves and have-mores have tightened the noose around the necks of the rest of us. We are supposed to sit still as our emails and cell phones calls are surveilled, as drones observe us overhead, as a few of us are targeted for assassination. And if we are superficially "other" (more melanin-enhanced), we can expect lots of police attention.

Take, for example, Maricopa County, Arizona (please). The feds have once again filed a civil right suit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department.

The Department of Justice sued Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Phoenix law enforcement department Thursday alleging a pattern of abuse and racism against Latinos, especially immigrants, and asking a federal judge to force the 20-year, often outspoken and brazen sheriff to stop racially profiling Latinos and abusing them in his jails. ...

Among the findings by Justice officials in the suit are that Arpaio allowed and encouraged his deputies to randomly profile Latino motorists and stop them for little reason. ...

Other alleged violations detailed Thursday were not providing language assistance to Spanish speakers in the jails, and Arpaio’s retaliatory actions against local critics, which have included judges, lawyers and community leaders.

As an example of what he called pervasive demeaning behavior against Latinos, Perez said deputies once circulated a picture of a Chihuahua dog in swimwear, with the caption, "A rare photo of a Mexican Navy Seal." ...

It asks a federal judge to "put in place any remedies to correct the violations" by naming an independent monitor to oversee the sheriff’s office, develop reform policies and possibly find Arpaio and other top sheriff’s officials in contempt of court if they do not comply.

Sheriff Joe's behavior over the years has been chronicled, but more for its amusement factor than for its devastating effect on Latinos, both documented (including citizens -- some native-born) and undocumented. Targeted harassment and abuse get downplayed because, oh, I don't know, Joe is so colorful? And little has been done about it.

The DOJ did file a previous civil rights suit against this department, but it settled once Joe promised to behave. Unfortunately, the DOJ didn't provide for any kind of monitoring, so things were back to 'normal' in short order. This time, the relief sought includes a monitor, and any settlement will also require one. If DOJ holds firm, even if Joe decides to fight the issue, there's a good chance things will change.

My point is that the economy isn't the only crucial issue facing the nation, and some leadership from the White House on civil rights is both overdue and welcome. Here's what David Horsey had to say (link above) about the president's announcement on gay marriage:

The president probably lost votes by speaking up for gay marriage, but, at least with half the country, he won new respect. Obama came into office with expectations he would be a transformational president. On this issue, at least, that is what he is becoming.

Now we need him to extend that to the other areas of civil rights.

Gay Gay Go Away

(Click on image to enlarge and then return.)

A lot of ink and electrons were spilled this week over the resignation of openly-gay Richard Grenell as Mitt Romney's foreign police adviser. David Horsey had a few thoughts on the issue.

Richard Grenell had the right resume to be Mitt Romney’s spokesman on foreign policy -- a stint as communications director for four of the George W. Bush administration’s U.N. ambassadors, a degree from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, his own international PR firm and frequent stints on TV as an expert on international issues. Too bad for him he has a boyfriend.

Grenell was the first openly gay spokesman for a presidential candidate, but he never got to speak. Before he even officially started the job, enraged homophobes in the so-called pro-family community spooked Romney’s campaign staff. The campaign aides tried to stuff Grenell into a metaphorical closet until things blew over. During a major conference call with reporters in which President Obama’s national security policies were dissected, Grenell was forced to sit in silence. [Emphasis added.]

Since Mr. Grenell's resignation and the flap it engendered, Mitt Romney has gone out of his way to 'splain. He really didn't want Grenell to leave. He tried to talk him out of it. He's disappointed that Grenell is gone.

Yeah, right.

When you have a very competent spokesperson and then diss him by telling him to keep his mouth shut during a conference call with reporters on foreign policy issues lest the base-base get their tighty-whities in a bunch, you can expect him to take a hike because that is the message you sent him.

As Horsey points out, ultra conservative (for his time) Barry Goldwater warned the GOP that caving into the Religious Reich was going to mean trouble for the party in the future:

As far as I know, Richard Grenell’s wrists are firm. I can’t say the same about Romney and his team. Romney is about to become the leader of his party and, perhaps, leader of the Free World. It would be nice to see him man up and tell the medieval wing of his party that it will not dictate to him about whom he hires to run his foreign policy. Instead, as he has for months on the campaign trail, Romney continues to suck up to the anti-gay religious activists, most of whom find his Mormon beliefs repugnant.

Barry Goldwater would not have dumped Ric Grenell; he would have told the carping Bible-thumpers to go to hell. ...

After his retirement from the Senate, Goldwater warned that his party was being taken over by a “bunch of kooks.” Well, the kooks are in charge now, and, apparently, Mitt Romney knows who is boss.

Ordinarily this would give me some satisfaction, but not this time around. You see, Romney's opponent isn't much better on the issue. Obama refuses to endorse gay marriage as a civil rights issue. Most recently, he refused to issue an executive order requiring government contractors to refrain from discrimination based on sexual orientation. He's also pandering to the Religious Reich, even though those people will never vote for him and even though a majority of Americans don't harbor the same anti-gay bigotry.

Tell me again where we get these candidates and why we put up with them. When you've got the answer, pound on my bedroom door and maybe I'll pull the blankets from over my head.

An Improvement?

Paul Thornton's blog post in the opinion section of the Los Angeles Times suggests that the anti-gay rhetoric coming from the GOP candidates for president may actually be a sign that things are actually improving when it comes to gay rights. I'm not so sure, but he does raise some interesting points when it comes to the homophobia expressed by Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and even Mitt Romney. Their opinions are not being treated by the press and the public as they have been in the past.

Could this be the biggest gay-bashing election in recent history? Doubtful, since President George W. Bush set such a high bar in 2004. Quite the contrary: Call me an optimist, but I see such highly publicized gay-baiting as a positive development.

Why? Not so long ago, the virulently homophobic views offered by some candidates were treated almost as viable alternatives to the positions taken by less anti-gay politicians. It was as if all those views came from the same menu of Reasonable Points of View Worth Debating. Now, the radical ideas espoused by Bachmann, Perry, Santorum and others are held up not for genuine consideration but for scorn (notwithstanding the last GOP debate in Iowa). Perry's and Bachmann's views aren't weighed against President Obama's "evolving" stance on same-sex marriage; rather, they are simply ridiculed. It says as much about our society as it does the candidates. [Emphasis added]

I realize that many of the anti-gay comments being made by the candidates are offered as red meat to the extremist fringe of the Republican party, the Religious Reich. I also realize that public opinion has moved towards acceptance of gay rights, including gay marriage, even if that movement has been glacially slow. I am not so certain, however, that we have gotten beyond the menu of "Reasonable Points of View Worth Debating" presentation by the press after such events as the recent Iowa debate and the coverage of speeches given after the straw vote. While Mr. Thornton and a few others have held the homophobia up for scorn, most of that is buried deep within the paper or in blog posts which show up on line, but not the paper editions being perused at the breakfast table.

Still, Thornton's post is filled with links which do show at least the start of a change. For that, I am grateful.

All Are Precious In His Sight

The title of this post comes from a children's song:

"Jesus loves the little children,
All the little children of the world.
Black or yellow, red or white,
All are precious in his sight.
Jesus loves the little children of the world."

Unfortunately, there are those who don't love all the children of the world, who allow unspeakable things to happen to them if they are too different. Those who are gay or look like they are gay are prime targets for such people.

I was stunned by this article in Mother Jones about the epidemic of suicides among young people in Minnesota, stunned. And not in a good way.

So stunned that I was tempted to reproduce the entire article because once you start reading it you can't stop. I urge you to click on the link and read it. Here's a taste to get you started.

The first was TJ. Then came Samantha, Aaron, Nick, and Kevin. Over the past two years, a total of nine teenagers have committed suicide in a Minnesota school district represented by Rep. Michele Bachmann—the latest in May—and many more students have attempted to take their lives. State public health officials have labeled the area a "suicide contagion area" because of the unusually high death rate.

Some of the victims were gay, or perceived to be by their classmates, and many were reportedly bullied. And the anti-gay activists who are some of the congresswoman's closest allies stand accused of blocking an effective response to the crisis and fostering a climate of intolerance that allowed bullying to flourish. Bachmann, meanwhile, has been uncharacteristically silent on the tragic deaths that have roiled her district—including the high school that she attended. ...

There's no sure way of knowing why any of the kids took their own lives, but gay rights activists quickly honed in on one factor they saw as contributing to an unhealthy climate for at-risk kids. Anoka-Hennepin has a policy on the books known colloquially as "no homo promo," which dates in back to the mid-1990s. Back then, after several emotional school board meetings, the district essentially wiped gay people out of the school health curriculum. There could be no discussion of homosexuality, even with regard to HIV and AIDS, and the school board adopted a formal policy that stated school employees could not teach that homosexuality was a "normal, valid lifestyle."

Later the policy was changed to require school staff to remain neutral on issues of homosexuality if they should come up in class, a change that critics said fostered confusion among teachers and contributed to their inability to address bullying and harassment, or to even ask reasonable questions about some of the issues the kids were struggling with, like sexual orientation. Both policies were put into place at the behest of conservative religious activists who have been among Bachmann's biggest supporters in the district. They include the Minnesota Family Council (MFC), and its local affiliate, the Parents Action League, which has lobbied to put discredited "reparative therapy" materials in schools.

That's the sort of counseling reportedly practiced by Bachmann & Associates, the mental health clinics run by Michele Bachmann's husband, Marcus. The clinics reportedly counsel people on how to "pray away the gay" to become straight. Before entering politics, Bachmann served as the education advisor to the MFC-affiliated Minnesota Family Institute, a relationship she has continued. This spring, she headlined a fundraising dinner for MFC, along with Newt Gingrich.

Bullying the gay away if praying it away doesn't work: hey, these kids are gay (or might be), what's the problem?

The problem is that they are our children and if they are struggling in any fashion with their sexual identity or any other adolescent issue, the peer bullying can be, and clearly is in many cases, devastating, so devastating that suicide is the only option these tormented kids can see. And the school district is doing nothing, NOTHING, to stop it. Neither is Michele Bachman.

May God forgive those committing this evil. Right now, I find that I cannot.

Bush Lite

The New York Times asks a pretty good question in one of its editorials today:

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is indefensible — officially sanctioned discrimination against one group of Americans imposed during an election year. President Obama seems to know that, or at least he has called on Congress to repeal it. So why do his government’s lawyers continue to defend the act in court?

Why, indeed? Especially why, now?

The law, signed by President Bill Clinton, denies married same-sex couples the federal benefits granted to other married couples, including Social Security survivor payments and the right to file joint tax returns. When December’s repeal of the noxious “don’t ask, don’t tell” law goes into effect, gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans will be able to serve openly in the military but may not be entitled to on-base housing or a spouse’s burial in a national cemetery.

Gays can openly risk their lives in the military, but can't live together on base? Life partners aren't entitled to the same benefits that straight spouses are?

The majority of Americans don't feel terribly threatened by gays, married or unmarried, and most don't ultimately care if gays get the same benefits the rest of the nation is entitled to. Nor should they. Most Americans understand that this discrimination is wrong and is based solely on the fantasies promulgated by the Religious Reich and amplified by the conservative politicians eager for a talking point during election years.

What the Obama Department of Justice should be doing is what any Department of Justice should do: fight discriminatory practices vigorously. Instead, Attorney General Holder is fighting vigorously to keep those practices alive and well.

It's time for that to stop.

Shunning Teh Gaii

ZOMG!!

There's a new GOP homosexual group and they've been invited to a major conservative conference as GUESTS and SPEAKERS!!!

THIS MUST NOT STAND!!!

An estimated 10,000 people are expected to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, to hear aspiring presidential candidates and vote in one of the first straw polls of the 2012 cycle.

Among the missing will be the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group and once a sponsor of CPAC; the Heritage Foundation; and the American Family Assn., which opposes same-sex marriage.

The Family Research Council has been disenchanted for several years with CPAC, said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the group's legislative arm. Among its complaints: A new gay conservative group has been invited for the second year in a row, and CPAC has refused to schedule a panel about traditional marriage.

"Conservatives and homosexuals cannot coexist in a movement predicated on social values," wrote the group's president, Tony Perkins, in an e-mail to supporters. "Organizations whose whole reason for existence is to promote the forced public affirmation of homosexual conduct should not be welcomed at CPAC."

A spokesman for the Heritage Foundation said his group thinks CPAC has strayed from its principles.

"We want to promote economic freedom, a strong national defense and social conservativism. We think these policies are indivisible," said Mike Gonzales, the think tank's vice president for communications. "It's not a boutique. You can't pick one and not the other."

Take that, my gay brothers and sisters. You may be fiscal conservatives, want the government out of your bedrooms and your lives, even libertarian in your leanings, but you just aren't pure enough for a sizeable chunk of the party you have embraced.

You have voted regularly, worked on campaigns, held down jobs and paid your taxes, served on juries, perhaps even served silently in the military, but you don't qualify because you are disgusting in the eyes of the sanctified and their god.

Well, at least you won't have to contend with such as the Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Foundation when you try to show that you are entitled to the same basic rights as any other citizen, and that your party ought to recognize that entitlement.

Good luck.

[Note: Robin Abcarian's article is an excellent one. Go read it in its entirety.]

A Three-fer

This weekend's Watching America had some of the best articles I've seen there in quite a while. There were so many solid essays that I had trouble selecting just one for comment this morning, so this week I'm going to present three. There's no particular order involved in my presentation.

The first is from Columbia's El Tiempo and it examines the implications of WikiLeaks.

It seems that the Americans’ worst enemies are themselves; this is proven by the recent and immensely embarrassing public disclosure of hundreds of communications between the North American government and its different diplomatic relations throughout the world. In spite of all the attempts to minimize the importance of the rumors in which American diplomatic arrogance puts its most hallowed mantra, “freedom of expression,” on display — a mantra which they defend tooth and nail — in this case it works against them. Seemingly no one can detain the leaking of documents to WikiLeaks, nor can they detain one of its founders, the Australian Julian Assange, in London on charges of sexual abuse brought against him by Sweden. ...

With respect to the position of American society, that’s a problem that worries the government. Americans fanatically defend their First Amendment and one of its most powerful points: freedom of expression. Nevertheless, when referring to its national and political security, they find it problematic justifying the actions of their government. Whether Americans want it to, their government possesses enormous infiltrative power, which it has used at an international level, and whose level of use still remains unclear at the national level. It shouldn’t surprise us that in the future, it will come to light that the government has spied on many of its citizens, political opponents and businesses in an indiscriminate manner and without judicial authorization. This would present an enormous problem for the administration (or administrations) responsible for said actions. ... [Emphasis added]

It is precisely that "enormous infiltrative power" which Wikileaks intended to expose, especially in its highly secretive nature. What this opinion piece does is to make the necessary and the obvious link to the government's use of that infiltrative power on its own citizens, something that should concern us all.

The second article is more timely: it has to do with air travel in the US under the new security measures. From Mexico's La Cronica:

Now that the Christmas season is here, the great dilemma for the four million people that will travel by air in the United States is deciding whether they should allow themselves to be x-rayed, with the possibility of being seen totally nude, or if they prefer having their most private parts touched in public. ...

Opponents argue that his administration seems committed to trying to stop what has already happened but is not focused on creating a new security system that might prevent further tragedies. Some experts refer to these measures as “theatrics.” They also say that the terrorists will simply change tactics while the administration diverts economic resources that might be used for better intelligence. [Emphasis added]

That, of course, is an accurate reflection of what many of us assert, especially since those fancy new x-ray machines are being pushed by lobbyists who just happen to be former federal officials. Somebody is making a lot of money by literally exposing the flying public, while terrorists are merrily exploring new ways to torment their imperialist enemies. [Note: the picture accompanying the article is alone worth the visit to the site of the article.]

Finally, a rather snarky yet perceptive commentary on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell appeared in Spain's El País.

This is a piece of legislation that both richens and updates the story of freedom in America, with its core values reinforced and then shown to the world. It’s even possible to conclude that this renewal confirms the exceptionalism of America — the idea that the United States is a nation apart, always destined to bring to reality the most ambitious dreams of humanity. But the entry of gays into the military will also raise a question, one which the New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has already discussed in "A Gay Commander in Chief: Ready or Not?"

The Commander in Chief is the president. Two years ago, many American citizens still doubted that their country was ready for an African-American president. More than a few people interpreted the result of the primaries as an anti-feminist reflex, as if the country wasn’t yet ready for a female president. Nobody can doubt that it certainly is, both for the one and for the other. Now the question is whether it is thinkable for a self-declared homosexual to appear among the next candidates, and whether we would be introduced to a partner. And then, there's following doubt: Which is better, killing two birds with one stone and electing a lesbian president, or merely electing a gay man?

Now, I'm not real happy that the article refers to Maureen Dowd's rather immature column on the issue, but the fact is that this Congressional vote did move the US one step down the road to equal rights for gays and lesbians, making it possible to conceive of a time in this country when one's sexual identity is no more a basis for judgment of character than the color of one's skin.

All in all, a good week for Watching America. By the way, if you have any cash left over this holiday season, you might consider directing it Watching America's way. Of course, you might also consider sending it my way, because I can always use it, but Watching America is trying to raise funds to cover costs.

Bringin' On The Hate

Tim Rutten nailed it again, and his timing is perfect. While the Defense Department, administration, and Congress continue to dither over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Mr. Rutten came to the defense of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and, by extension, to the gay and lesbian community.

Last week, the law center added the Family Research Council to its list of more than 930 active hate groups, citing the anti-gay rhetoric of its leaders and researchers, which have included calls to re-criminalize consensual sex between individuals of the same gender. The Southern Poverty Law Center defines a hate group as one with "beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."

The Family Research Council, which is essentially an extension of the Religious Reich and one of the more influential conservative groups in Washington, was infuriated by the inclusion on that list. Howls of protest about the attack on "protected speech" emanated from the group and its supporters. Yet this group has been doing more than just talking or preaching in church, as Rutten points out in graphic detail.

...Over the years, it has published statistical compendiums purporting to quantify the "evils" of homosexuality. One of its pamphlets is entitled, "Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle." At various times, its spokesmen have spuriously alleged that the gay rights movement's goal "is to go after children" and that child molestation is more likely to occur in households with gay parents. Last week, one of its senior fellows, Peter Sprigg, told reporters on a conference call concerning repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that "homosexuals in the military are three times more likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals are relative to their numbers."

In other words, this powerful lobbying group has been trying to affect public policy by their religious beliefs and shabby "scholarship." By targeting homosexuals in this fashion, the group deserves to be on the list, even if the group is essentially a church based organization.

Rutten concludes, and rightly so, that while the group is entitled to its religious beliefs, it is not entitled to impose those beliefs on the rest of us by government action:

So long as even the most objectionable religious dogma stays under the church roof, it's a constitutionally protected view. People's religious beliefs — even when noxious — are a private matter. Our churches are free to order their internal affairs as they will — to set the terms of sacramental marriage as they see fit, to discriminate in the selection of their clergy, to racially segregate their membership or to separate the sexes in their schools or places of worship.

However, when a group sets out to impose its views on the rest of society by lobbying for public policies or laws, it can no longer claim special protections or an exemption from the norms of civil discourse simply because its views are formed by religious beliefs. This is precisely the dodge the Family Research Council has been running.

Beautifully stated, Mr. Rutten.

The New Beginning

I found a lot of interesting articles over at Watching America this morning. While there was no overall theme (it was a relatively quiet week), some of the themes from past weeks have reappeared. Several articles on President Obama's Cairo speech cropped up, and one, from Egypt's Al Masry Al Youm for the almost wistful hope it expressed. The author, Yasser Abdel Aziz, asks "Is the 9/11 Era Over?"

...in considering the explicit and implicit meanings of Obama's historical speech and making from them a title to the speech, there is no better title than “A New Beginning.” Obama signified to the Islamic world, through this visit and speech, the initiation of a new era in the relationship between America and the Islamic world. That is, between an America that has unprecedented powers and capabilities and an Islamic world that penetrates the every fiber of society in all four corners of the globe with its 1.5 billion Muslims, ideas, principles and values.

Without a doubt, Obama did not apologize for the sinful policies of Bush and his administration. However, he assured us of his willingness to completely change these imprudent policies, to defuse conflicts, to speak the language of common interest and mutual respect, to abandon the talk of hollow victory and good-for-nothing arrogance, and to have the courage of confrontation in place of lies and manipulation. ...

In summary, the 9/11 era is over. Or, rather, is about to be over as long as Obama confirms his good intentions and nice gestures through steps that put Israel and Iran on the same level in regards to nuclear nonproliferation. Most importantly, Washington must both firmly and softly intervene by pressuring Israel to grant Palestinians the legitimate right to live within a state that enjoys recognized borders, resources, security and integrity. [Emphasis added]

So far, President Obama has shown amazing maturity and sensitivity when it comes to this country's foreign policy and most of the rest of the world has felt it safe to exhale in relief. His overtures to the Islamic world and to Cuba and the rest of Latin America have defused much of the huff-and-puffery of those who use the excuse of US imperialism and unilateral international action for their own malfeasance (e.g., North Korea and Russia).

And it hasn't just been talk at this point: he has made it publicly clear to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that the US will no longer just accept the ongoing building of settlements in the West Bank and has reiterated the concept of a two-state solution in the Middle East most forcefully. He has accepted the offer of Cuba to re-open discussions on travel and monetary transfers between the two countries. For this we and the rest of the world should be both impressed and grateful. At least in foreign policy, the 9/11 era does indeed appear to be over.

Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case when it comes to domestic policy. President Obama has shown that he prefers to follow the Bush doctrine of Angst Uber Alles when it comes to constitutional issues, from the restricting of the Freedom of Information Act, to the release of the torture pictures, to the "State Secrets" defense, and to the expansion of snooping on Americans (see my post from earlier today).

He seems more anxious to curry favor with those who harbor him nothing but ill will than in keeping the promises he made to those who elected him. It took millions of signatures on a fairly innocuous petition to get him to realize that the majority of Americans want a public health plan, not a minimally tweaked set of private plans. Yet even with that, the most he is willing to back is such a plan as a possible alternative. He has turned his back on the GLBT community that raised millions for his election and come to the defense of both "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the "Defense of Marriage Act."

While I have to admit that we knew what we were getting, a centrist politician who was a whole damned-sight better than the alternative, I still am disappointed. Barack Obama has shown that he knows better. He has shown the instincts of a decent man, but he has allowed the savvy-politician to over-ride the decency. At some point, that savvy-politician might do the same when it comes to foreign policy, and that will put us back to 9/12/01.

No, the 9/11 era isn't over. Not just yet.

The Wrong Kind Of Change

Last week we got treated to a real study in irony, something that was not lost on columnist Joan Vennochi of the Boston Globe. Here's what she had to say:

PRESIDENT OBAMA had much to say about the glass ceiling he is smashing on behalf of Hispanics and nothing to say about the glass ceiling the California Supreme Court is reimposing on gays.

On Tuesday, Obama announced that he would nominate Sonia Sotomayor, a federal appeals judge in New York, to the Supreme Court. In nominating the daughter of Puerto Rican parents to become the nation's first Hispanic justice, Obama said that when she "ascends those marble steps to assume her seat on the highest court of the land, America will have taken another important step towards realizing the idea that is etched above its entrance: equal justice under the law."

Those are stirring words, and ironic ones, too, given the day's other momentous judicial news: The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, last year's ballot initiative prohibiting same-sex marriage. [Emphasis added]

Stirring words indeed. That has been the ideal and the as-yet unattained goal of this nation from its inception. You would think that the first African American president introducing the first Hispanic American nominee to the US Supreme Court would have something to say about the devastating news from the California Supreme Court, but you would be wrong. His press secretary ducked the question when asked about the president's response to the news, and it's been crickets from the White House ever since.

President Obama wasn't always so reticent on the issue, however.

...Earlier this year, the political website politico.com produced a questionnaire Obama filled out in 1996 for a Chicago gay and lesbian newspaper. "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages," Obama wrote in a typed, signed statement.

But that was then. Now he has settled into the politically expedient and oh-so-comfortable "middle" on the issue, as he has on various issues:

In what is becoming a pattern, his thinking evolved to a less-liberal stance. As president, Obama has been less than eager to take up a campaign pledge to grant equal federal rights for gay couples; or to reconsider the military's don't-ask-don't-tell policy.

In fact, he couldn't even be bothered to travel to California to speak to the issue of extending "equal justice under the law" to gays and lesbians. Apparently this state is important only for fund-raising, not consciousness raising.

That's not the kind of leadership we were promised.

Instead of emulating a Lyndon Johnson, who helped the country through the tragedy of John Kennedy's assassination by implementing Kennedy's dream of a more equitable nation via the civil rights legislation he pushed through (after being pushed by those who saw that need), President Obama appears to be satisfied with a Gerald Ford approach: the nightmare of the Bush Administration is over. Let's move forward by papering over the pain of the past. Here, have a bandaid.

That's not leadership, that's capitulation to the monolithic status quo.

I am gravely disappointed and disgusted, and I am becoming increasingly angry.

Wimps

Reading the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times frequently raises my blood pressure, even when I essentially agree with much of what the editorial board (that august "center left" body) has to say. Too often the last part of the editorial completely dilutes the fairly sensible argument of the first half. Today was one of those days.

The subject was the attempt by Proposition 8 supporters to keep secret the names and addresses of those who contributed to the campaign to suppress gay marriage. This week a federal judge held that the information had to be revealed. Here's the first half of the editorial:

The Political Reform Act of 1974, passed overwhelmingly by California voters during the Watergate era, was meant in part to end secret donations to political campaigns. Californians had reason to worry about such things after oil companies secretly donated $85,000 (which was a lot of campaign money back in the day) to defeat a 1970 public-transit measure.

The intent of the reform act -- to give the voting public full knowledge about who is behind the ever more confusing array of ballot initiatives -- is too important to weaken with special exemptions, even considering the rightful anger of Proposition 8 proponents who say they have been harassed and threatened by opponents since their donations to the same-sex marriage ban were made public. U.S. District Judge Morrison England summed up the matter neatly in his ruling against the proponents, saying: "If there ever needs to be sunshine on a particular issue, it's a ballot measure."

The Proposition 8 committee had sought to forestall the scheduled disclosure of donors who gave from $100 to $999 to the campaign in the last weeks before the vote. It now intends to appeal its case in search of a ruling that might, for example, keep donors' addresses confidential in this and future campaigns. This attempted incursion into open government should be stopped at every legal pass.

It's pretty hard to fault that, well, except for the "rightful anger of Propsition 8 proponents". That phrase really sets up the balance of the editorial in which the editorial board does a rather swift 180.

The committee complains that pro-Proposition 8 businesses were subjected to boycotts and picketing, and that individuals and organizations were threatened by mail and telephone and saw their buildings vandalized.

There are two types of revenge here, and they have to be separated. Boycotts and pickets are venerable aspects of a lively if sometimes messy democratic process; we may not always like them, but they deserve protection. Threats and vandalism are another matter, repugnant and illegal. Advocates of same-sex marriage should be aware that such actions hurt their cause and gain them no new allies. Sadly, some of them are too angry to care about what the public at large thinks of their tactics.

But law enforcement should care. Ordinarily, a threatening phone call is considered a minor offense, but when it is intended to silence speech, it should be seen not as simple harassment but as political intimidation. Those who have been subjected to illegal acts of revenge should contact authorities, who should in turn investigate and, when possible, prosecute. The best way to stop the harassment is not to curb legitimate forms of protest speech or roll back important disclosure requirements, but to show would-be perpetrators that there are consequences to thinking their anger excuses all behaviors.

Those poor, poor donors. All they did was exercise their right to contribute to a campaign they believed in and now they are victims, VICTIMS of harrassment by those evil gay people hellbent for revenge.

Oh, please.

While the editorial does distinguish between protected forms of "revenge" (interesting word choice, yes?), and unlawful forms, the reader is left with the sense that the good guys in the matter are those homophobic bigots who wanted to keep gays where they belong: way, way down on the social ladder with as few rights as possible. That gays might object to that by picketing businesses isn't fair. Free speech is free speech, but only when engaged by the "right" kind of people.

But wait, there's more.

The editorial accepts at face value the claims of personal threats, and suggests police intervention. Fine, make the bigots prove it. Produce phone records or police reports. Hell, call the FBI; chances are they taped some of those calls. If such evidence was produced at the federal district court hearing, then mention it in the editorial. If it wasn't, then mention that. That should take only a minimal amount of leg work. That's what reporters do for the front page.

And newspapers wonder why they're losing subscribers and readers.

Gah!

Speaking Up On Warren Invocation

Another voice long known for intelligent leadership in extension of rights to all individuals, Kathryn Kolbert of People for the American Way, has spoken out about Rick Warren's giving the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration.

The announcement that Pastor Rick Warren has been chosen to give the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony landed with a thud in my inbox.

Many people who know Warren as the affable megachurch pastor and best-selling author may be confused about the anger and disappointment that his selection has generated among progressive activists who worked so hard to help elect Obama. Here's my explanation; you can find plenty of other voices online.

Warren enjoys a reputation as a bridge-building moderate based on his informal style and his church's engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa.

He took grief from some of his Religious Right colleagues when he invited then-Senator Obama to his church for a conference on AIDS a couple of years ago. And, in August he hosted presidential candidates Obama and McCain at his church.

Warren has worked hard to cultivate a moderate public personality but his views are very similar to those of traditional Religious Right leaders.In an email sent before the 2004 election he wrote a Falwell-esque message proclaiming that, for Christian voters, the issues of abortion, marriage for same-sex couples, stem cell research, cloning and euthanasia were "non-negotiable." In fact, he said, they are "not even debatable because God's word is clear on these issues."

And while some Religious Right leaders were nervous that Warren would give Obama a platform to talk about poverty and the environment at the August event, Warren thrilled them by eschewing those issues entirely in order to emphasize issues like abortion and marriage that worked to McCain's advantage with the evangelical audience.
(snip)
...Warren has been divisive and dishonest on the issues of marriage equality and religious freedom -- and on other issues important to many Obama supporters, as well.

I will repeat what I said this morning in comments at Eschaton:
Televangelists are the worst sort of vultures, using a pose of religiosity to rake in profits from the weakminded, always has been a particularly offensive sort, and to put one up at the inauguration is an insult to actual 'values'. There are a lot of real theologians of eminence in this country who ought to be letting Obama know that this demeans every real believer, every churchgoing person in the U.S.

Rick Warren Invokes Hate

Rick Warren stands for several things that are destructive of progressive goals. For me, televangelism is an evil, and one I have suffered directly. It diverts particularly those who are alone and confused, and turns them to the uses of a cult group. The hate it uses to activate fundraising has traditionally been turned against progressives, and has particularly hit on abortion/women's rights and gay rights as unifiers of the 'flock'. His recent activities to lead a drive for Proposition 8 is an insult to the real Jesus Christ.

Proposition 8 was about denying gays the rights they are entitled to as American citizens for the reason that they do not have everyday sexual inclinations. Anyone who espouses this kind of measure may make any kind of qualifying statement about personal beliefs, but qualifications are specious: this is espousal of hatred.

The pastor, known for having amicable relationships with people he disagrees with, explained that he is opposed to redefining marriage.

“For 5,000 years that term, marriage, has represented a man and a woman,” Warren said. “And so, even some of gay leaders like Al Rantel, KABC, and others, have said why would we redefine marriage?”

But everyone should be given respect regardless of their lifestyle, religious beliefs and any other beliefs, Warren added.

“I think we live in a pluralistic society where we have to get along with each other and show common grace to each other. But I just didn't believe in redefining marriage,” he said.

Of course marriage in the Bible often was between a man and a woman and another woman, and then maybe several other women, depending on the ability of the particular patriarch to support others in his tents. There is no exact definition of marriage in the Bible. This whole argument sounds to me like we ought to live in the desert because that's what the biblical figures lived in. Of course, that's what the West is rapidly turning into, so maybe the televangelist sees divine will working its way in climate change. When he says we 'have to get along' he re-enters the door he just closed, verbally separating his own circle from those he disagrees with.

Rightwing religions have made the issue of gay bashing a uniting one, and fought against their rights. Proposition 8 is yet another instance of this activity. The depiction of the gay community as evil has been an activity that has appealed to 'church' people as no good works ever has. Any leader who chooses to lead in this direction is diverting his 'flock' from the good they could be promoting. While it unifies the 'flock' by giving it a purpose to serve, even more it serves as a great fundraising gimmick. Rick Warren is visibly making that a major function of his 'church'. Those funds are hardly being used for good works when they are directed against gays. Anyone who can cite any passage of the Bible that calls for uniting to make gays be what they are not, please let me know.

Waking up, getting online, and finding out that some one promoting recidivism and making his personal fortune off of it is going to be a featured speaker at Obama';s inauguration makes me really annoyed. I was excited about the inauguration, volunteered to assist with staffing it, and would have already bought my ticket except that I am working on getting the price down. A lot of us who comment and get together under the eschatonian family tent were getting together, as well as some of The Seminal group, while I am in the D.C. area. I'm not sure about that, now.

I got on the Obama/Biden website this morning, began a blog, and made this entry:

Televangelist Warren
By Ruth Calvo - Dec 18th, 2008 at 7:21 am EST

I am someone who has watched an aging elderly relative be drawn into the trap of trusting the godliness of a wealth-directed televangelist, Pat Robertson. She was enticed into giving all her extra cash and listening only to telephone communications from the organizations, rejecting news, family, and reason on the grounds that only the voice of Satan would oppose the healing graces from tidewater Virginia. This is a degrading end, and that relative now lives in a house that is falling down around her, desperately trying to believe she has followed the voice of god when that is not so, obviously.

Rick Warren is an insult to anyone rational, and I will bring extra shoes with me on the off chance I can get a good angle to heave one at him.

I understand there are other opinions on this, and hopefully I will always be able to have an open mind in all things. I keep up a dialogue with those I disagree with. I do, however, condemn those who take advantage of and live off of the weakminded. And my work for the Obama campaign is sullied, that my support has been used to elevate the kind that work against progressives and human rights.

Interesting Choices

President Elect Obama has made some interesting choices for his energy and natural resources team, although the selections are not "official" yet. The new president will be making an announcement next week on the people chosen. At the top of the list is Stephen Chu, a Nobel-laureate in physics and currently head of the Lawrence Livermore Lab in California, as Energy Secretary. Imagine! A scientist for that position.

Mr. Obama is also poised to name three women to the team, one of whom, Nancy Sutely, holds a significant post in Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's administration. She's an interesting pick for several reasons, not the least of which are her qualifications. I did a brief survey of three newspaper accounts of her selection. First, the NY Times:

The officials said Mr. Obama would name Steven Chu, the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, as his energy secretary, and Nancy Sutley, deputy mayor of Los Angeles for energy and environment, as head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. ...

Ms. Sutley, who will direct the Council on Environmental Quality, is now the top environmental adviser to the mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio R. Villaraigosa. She has years of experience in managing water supplies and water quality in California and has also worked on energy-saving construction rules for the City of Los Angeles.

She was a special assistant to Ms. Browner at the E.P.A.

OK, nice recitation in an article geared more to Mr. Chu's selection and the selections of the other, more familiar, women.

Here's where it gets a little more interesting: from yesterday's Sacramento Bee:

The president-elect has selected Steven Chu for energy secretary, Lisa Jackson for EPA administrator, Carol Browner as his energy "czar," and Nancy Sutley to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Democratic officials with knowledge of the decisions said Wednesday. ...

- Sutley, the deputy mayor for energy and environment in Los Angeles and the mayor's representative on the Board of Directors for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, is the first prominent gay to earn a senior role in Obama's new administration. She was an EPA official during the Clinton administration, including being a special assistant to the EPA administrator in Washington. She also previously served on the California State Water Resources Control Board and was an energy adviser to former Gov. Gray Davis. [Emphasis added]

Interesting bit of information, eh? An openly gay woman (I prefer the term "lesbian," but this will do).

But, wait, there's more. Here's the Washington Post on the story:

... Nancy Sutley, a deputy mayor of Los Angeles for energy and environment, will chair the White House Council on Environmental Quality. ...

Sutley, who has a long record on environmental and natural resources policy, will head a group that has a very limited regulatory role and a small staff. But from its offices on Lafayette Square near the White House, Sutley could be a player in shaping the new administration's policies on climate change and the environment.

Sutley, a top aide to Browner at the EPA dealing with air-pollution issues, supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries. She previously served in California as an energy adviser to then-Gov. Gray Davis (D) and as a member of the State Water Resources Control Board, where she was responsible for protecting water quality and resources throughout the nation's most populous state.

Sutley, whose mother is from Argentina, identifies herself as a Latina. She was a member of the California Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender steering committee of Clinton's campaign and is the first openly gay nominee for a top job in the Obama administration. [Emphasis added]

That last paragraph is also the last paragraph in the WaPo story, so, in a sense, the information was buried, but it is there.

Readers of the online edition of the Sacramento Bee went a little crazy on the inclusion of Ms. Sutley's sexual orientation in the story, complaining that it was irrelevant and inflammatory. Although I haven't yet checked, I imagine some commenters at the Washington Post will also kvetch at the news (if they read the entire story). And, to be honest, up until last month, I probably would have agreed with them.

Last month, however, voters in California put a big slap on the gay community by passing Proposition 8 which would deny gay couples the right to marry and enjoy the various privileges that status bestows. In the face of that hateful result, President Elect Obama still chose Ms. Sutley for a position that she is clearly qualified for. I think that fact is newsworthy and should be included.

I am reminded of the chants the Act Up characters used some 20 years ago:

We're Queer,
We're here,
Get over it.

It seems appropriate right now.