Perhaps one reason conservatives and Christianists don't like elections very much is because they don't always get their way. Spain's socialist prime minister not only won re-election, but his party picked up seats in the legislature, in spite of a concerted effort by the Catholic Church and the conservative Popular Party, which doesn't seem to be so popular after all. Observers credit Zapatero's progressive social policies, including same-sex marriage.
But voters turned out in force to endorse the progressive social agenda that Zapatero championed in his first term -- including new laws on women's rights, divorce and gay marriage -- and returned him to office for another four years. The Socialists increased their seats in the Congress of Deputies, falling about seven short of an absolute majority; they may now rely less on coalitions and compromises with smaller parties, strengthening Zapatero's position.
"I will govern thinking first about those who don't have everything, working for the aspirations of women, giving hope to the young, and giving help and support to the elderly who have worked all their lives for it," Zapatero told cheering supporters in his victory speech. He promised to "govern with a firm hand, but an extended hand."
I'm reminded of election results in Vermont and Massachusetts, when Christianists targeted legislatures who had voted, in the first case, for civil unions, and in the second, against an anti-marriage amendment. Guess what -- the voters didn't buy it. You'd think by now they'd take the hint.
Speaking of marriage, the Norwegian government has introduced legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in that country. In fact, it goes somewhat farther:
The new legislation amends the definition of civil marriage to make it gender neutral.
It also says that when a lesbian who is married to another women becomes pregnant through in vitro the partner will have all the rights of parenthood "from the moment of conception".
The legislation additionally states that in cases of adoption, both partners, gay or lesbian, would have complete joint parenting rights.
We still have states trying to ban adoption by gays based on the lies told by James Dobson and Tim Wildmon. There's something to be said for education after all.
Closer to home, I never thought I'd see the Senate actually moving to repeal Jesse Helms' ban on HIV+ visitors. There are reports that the White House will not oppose the repeal, which I'll believe when the Deciderer actually signs the bill. The administration proposals stink:
There are 12 proposed requirements of visitors and immigrants to this country who have HIV. They would require disclosure of HIV status to consular officials in the individual’s home country; certification that the individual has in their possession all medication necessary for the duration of their stay in the U.S.; certification that no symptoms are being exhibited; and a commitment to avoid all high risk behavior while in the U.S.
In addition it is left to the discretion of the consular officers who often do not have the medical knowledge to make these decisions. No guidelines are given on how to make these determinations and there is no appeal process. If an HIV positive individual is given asylum in the United States, that person is not allowed to obtain a green card or become a U.S. citizen – even if their asylum was given because of their HIV status.
The United States is one of only 13 countries that have an HIV travel ban.
One of only 13. Any guesses what the other 12 are?
This got some attention: James Dobson is worried about where all the baby bigots are. Seems he's finally figured out that he and his fellow trolls are going to die off, and the younger generation isn't quite "Christian" enough: they're worried about things like stewardship of Creation and feeding the poor, and not about the good fight against the Hommaseksual Agenda. (See below, under "more dangerous than terrorists or Islam.")
A final update on Sally Kern: Chris Crain, in an otherwise sensible post, feels impelled for some reason to doubt the authenticity of the Letter from Tucker. I can understand wanting to verify sources -- after all, I hunted down the original post and comment myself. However, I think Crain is headed off in the wrong direction here:
Unfortunately, no one has any sort of evidence authenticating the letter, much less Tucker and his aunt Elizabeth. Both OMG and the Victory Fund told me in response to inquiries that they have no idea if the letter is legit, and I have a similar inquiry into Pam Spaulding.
To their credit, the Daily Kos diarist warned there was no verification and Pam's House Blend indicated the source was the comments section to the News 9 story. But more ought to be done to clear up whether the letter and these individuals are legit.
It's really unfortunate, of course, if the letter is a fake. The points about the comparative risks of terrorism and the "homosexual agenda," and even the domestic threat from Islamic extremism vs. Christian extremists, would be perfectly valid even if they weren't made by a teenager who lost his mother in the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building.
Crain seems to be taking the tack that such a letter couldn't have been written by a seventeen-year-old. Frankly, I've known some high-school kids who could write something like that, and all you need to do is look around the blogosphere at kids like Matt Zeitlin to see that there are teenagers out there who most certainly are not slow on the uptake at all, and are able to express themselves both eloquently and forcefully.
I certainly understand the concern that Right Blogistan will run with it if the letter is not "legit," but the counter is fairly easy: there's nothing in Tucker's letter that isn't true for someone in Oklahoma: the loss, the danger, the hurt are all tangible and very real for too many people. There is nothing in Sally Kern's remarks that is true for anyone, anywhere: the threat is nonexistent. As long as we're talking "Truth" here, let's keep that in mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment