Happy Fourth!

I've just had my ritual 4th of July hot dog, with cole slaw, and am determined to take it easy for the rest of the day, after my second visit to the emergency room in ten days.

I thought it might be a good time to ruminate on just what the holiday means, because it obviously means different things to different people. Take this little rant from Brian Brown, of the hysterically mis-named National Organization for Marriage, via Joe.My.God. I'm going to do a little parsing on this one.

First, the headline with graphic:

Who said we have to? No one on our side of the fight. I can be gay and American at the same time, and there are millions like me, much as it might sour Brian Brown's stomach. Any guesses as to who is trying to cast whom as "The Other" (cue scary music, with storm clouds)?

We're a nation where citizen rights come from God, not from government, and where the people are sovereign, not politicians or judges.

And that happens to be whatever god you worship. The government merely recognizes those rights, which is what the two cases that have raised Brown's blood pressure lately were about. Oh, and the people do not have unlimited sovereignty and never have -- we have this little thing called "The Constitution of the United States of America," which among other things guarantees those rights, in spite of everything "the people" might do to circumvent them. See in that regard Romer v. Evans.

But those principles are under siege, by the culture, by our federal government and, increasingly, by the US Supreme Court. We need your help to fight to preserve America's founding principles such as religious liberty which is greatly at risk wherever marriage is redefined.

Let's see, "under siege" by "the culture" -- that would be "the people," if I remember correctly. The members of a society are, after all, the ones who determine the culture's direction.

As for religious liberty being "greatly at risk wherever marriage is redefined" -- what the Supreme Court did, in both Perry and Windsor, is to restore the religious liberty of those whose beliefs were being dismissed by the government, although the question was never couched in those terms. Think of it this way: if a sectarian idea of "morality" and/or "marriage" is imposed on society as a whole, particularly a society as diverse as ours, by definition the beliefs of those who do not hold that sectarian idea are being violated. That's a no-no. See Lawrence v. Texas.

Our opponents blithely claim that religious liberty and same-sex 'marriage' [sic] can peacefully coexist, but experience shows that is not the case. Anybody who doesn't abandon their faith principles and fully cooperate with the new gay marriage regime is likely to face consequences.

Of course religious liberty and same-sex marriage can co-exist. The ones who are having problems with it are the ones who want to impose their personal religious beliefs on everyone. No one is stopping them from believing what they wish, nor from worshipping as they wish. No clergy is being forced to solemnize a same-sex wedding against the doctrines of their religions. What Brown is attempting to do is conflate same-sex marriage with existing non-discrimination laws governing public accommodations. That's the new mantra from the right, and it applies equally to pharmacists who don't want to dispense birth control to business owners who don't want to pay for insurance coverage for family planning, to bakers and florists who do not want to "participate" in same-sex weddings. (Which frankly I think is laughable -- you're being asked to provide goods, not be part of the wedding night.)

As for the "consequences" -- yeah. People are going to think you're a small-minded bigot. Know what? You are.

I think one reason my blogging has fallen off as marriage has risen to the front of the civil rights debate is simply that the likes of Brown and Perkins and their ilk have gotten terrifically repetitive. The didn't have very good "arguments" (see, I can use sarcasm quotes too) to begin with, and they haven't come up with anything new. It gets pretty boring refuting the same bullshit over and over again.

At any rate, I think Brown gets a Tony Perkins Award for this one. It's pretty much a lie from the beginning to the end.

M.I.A.

I know -- one of the biggest news weeks in gay history, and I missed it. I was in the hospital, and am still recovering. There is so much to catch up on that I'll probably never manage it, although I may hit a story or two that points up something egregious.

In general, though, the reaction is about as expected: the Obama administration is moving very fast to bring regs into line with the Windsor decision -- the first green card for the non-US spouse of an American citizen has been approved, the Defense Department is doing everything possible to bring benefits in line with the new requirements, couples are getting married in post-Prop 8 California, and the heads of the professional gay-bashers are making very satisfying Splats! all over the place while they keep lying about everything.

I thought this was funny:

When asked his opinion on the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, the Governor of Iowa declined to give a personal opinion, and instead just said that his state would “live with” the decision.

Republican Governor Terry Brandstad said on Monday, that individuals would have to make up their own mind on the issue, and declined to offer a personal opinion.

“I guess it depends upon your perspective and your point of view on those things,” Branstad said during a weekly news conference at the Iowa Capitol. “I guess people can make your their own judgement on that. We’re going to live with the law and make whatever adjustments are necessary.”

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Iowa for four years now (and there seems to be diminishing enthusiasm for changing that), the Windsor decision doesn't affect state law at all, so what's he going to do about it? I can't understand why anyone even asked him the question.

One thing that's notable -- the bigotry is out in full colors now, no holds barred. Man, are people ever going to be turned off. It's delicious.

Not Today, But Very Soon. . . .

Marriage News Watch for today, June 24, 2013:

NSA Data-Trolling Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

From Digby. It's long, and difficult to excerpt, so here's the set-up, from McClatchy:

Even before a former U.S. intelligence contractor exposed the secret collection of Americans’ phone records, the Obama administration was pressing a government-wide crackdown on security threats that requires federal employees to keep closer tabs on their co-workers and exhorts managers to punish those who fail to report their suspicions.

It gets worse. It gets much worse. Here's Digby's summation:

Maybe this is just another way of reducing the federal workforce. Nobody normal should want to work there.

When the Department of Education is searching for "insider threats" something's gone very wrong.

I'm starting to wish Iceland didn't have such long winters. They're the only ones who seem to be doing things right.

Antonin Scalia, Then And Now

The opinion in Lawrence v. Texas was handed down on this date in 2003. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent, said:

If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct…what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “the liberty protected by the Constitution”? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.

Funny how times change. Now that same-sex marriage is before the Court in two cases, Scalia is singing a different tune:

With a potentially ground-breaking decision on gay marriage expected next week, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Friday morning that he and other judges should stop setting moral standards concerning homosexuality and other issues.

Why?

We aren’t qualified, Scalia said.

In a speech titled “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters,” the outspoken and conservative jurist told the N.C. Bar Association that constitutional law is threatened by a growing belief in the “judge moralist.” In that role, judges are bestowed with special expertise to determine right and wrong in such matters as abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, the death penalty and same-sex marriage.

I'm not aware that anyone has asked the Supreme Court, or any other court, to determine questions of morality, since the particulars of moral behavior vary so widely. It seems to me that what the Court is being asked to determine, as it has in the past, is whether the state has the right to enforce a particular sectarian standard of morality -- because it's a sectarian standard that's at issue in these cases -- on the people as a whole.

Granted, there are certain moral standards that are not only appropriately enforced, they're necessary if a society is to hold together. It's instructive, though, that of the Ten Commandments so beloved of "Christians" in this country, two and a half are actually enshrined in the law: You don't kill the neighbors, you don't take their stuff, and in some circumstances, bearing false witness will land you in really hot water.

Scalia doesn't seem to know the difference between law and morality. Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.

(There's been some speculation that Scalia is unhappy with the way the decisions are going in Windsor and Perry, hence his fulmination on the courts and morality. I hope so.)

I Suppose I Should Notice This

A group of "Christians" have declared themselves to be above the law. Again.

Experience and history have shown us that if the government redefines marriage to grant a legal equivalency to same-sex couples, that same government will then enforce such an action with the police power of the State. This will bring about an inevitable collision with religious freedom and conscience rights. We cannot and will not allow this to occur on our watch. Religious freedom is the first freedom in the American experiment for good reason.

The Supreme Court has no authority to redefine marriage and thereby weaken both the family and society. Unlike the Legislative Branch that has the power of the purse and the Executive Branch which has the figurative power of the sword, the Judicial Branch has neither. It must depend upon the Executive Branch for the enforcement of its decisions.

As Christians united together in defense of marriage, we pray that this will not happen. But, make no mistake about our resolve. While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the true common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.

It's easy to take this as empty rhetoric, which it mostly is. I'm not going to bother to parse it -- that's being done all over the place, and it's really too easy to waste pixels on it. Aside from the sheer, unadulterated hubris of a statement like this -- they "will not allow" marriage equality to become the law of the land? By what authority? -- it's really nothing more than a temper tantrum.

John Aravosis, in his post on this at AmericaBlog, made a point that I want to reinforce. Since I'm feeling lazy this morning, I'm just going to repost the comment I left there:

A point that John made that I think needs to be emphasized:

". . . religious right leaders admitting publicly that they do not believe in democracy in general, and in America’s democracy and our system of governance as laid out in the Constitution, in particular. . ."

The revolutionary concept in the creation of the United States was the idea that society would be ruled by laws created by the people through their elected representatives, measured against the Constitution, and not the will of kings or oligarchs. Here we have a group of religious fanatics (well, some of them -- most of them, as far as I can tell, are just con artists, but I suspect all of them are sociopaths), who regularly don the mantle of "real Americans," proclaiming that they are above the law.

That's the issue, not the particulars of how they intend to disobey a court decision they don't like -- that part is just empty rhetoric, nothing more. That's the point that needs to be made, loudly and publicly: they are opposed to the fundamental principles of American society. We need to brand them as anti-American, again and again and again, until it sticks.

There are lots of ways to dress this up, all of which point out the fundamental dishonesty of the statement and the signatories' complete disdain for the principles that they so loudly claim -- just for starters, what about the religious freedom of Quakers, the Unitarian Universalists, the UCC, Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Judaism, Pagans, etc.? If the law precludes same-sex marriage, their freedom to conduct such marriages in accordance with their beliefs is being denied.

What they're doing is attempting to stir up backlash -- but don't expect them to take any responsibility for any injuries or deaths that result from anti-gay hate attacks. They all belong to the party of (everyone else's) personal responsibility.

By way of antidote, here's HuffPo's list of the eight best marriage ads, starting with one of my favorites.

Here's another of my favorites, that didn't make HuffPo's list:

.

Now that you're all sniffly and have forgotten the religious freaks, check out the ad post -- there are a couple more links in the comments.

Exodus To Shut Down

Exodus International, the largest "ex-gay" ministry in the world, is closing down.

Exodus International, the oldest and largest Christian ministry dealing with faith and homosexuality announced tonight that it’s closing its doors after three-plus decades of ministry. The Board of Directors reached a decision after a year of dialogue and prayer about the organization’s place in a changing culture.

“We’re not negating the ways God used Exodus to positively affect thousands of people, but a new generation of Christians is looking for change – and they want to be heard,” Tony Moore, Board member of Exodus. The message came less than a day after Exodus released a statement apologizing . . . to the gay community for years of undue judgment by the organization and the Christian Church as a whole.

“Exodus is an institution in the conservative Christian world, but we’ve ceased to be a living, breathing organism,” said Alan Chambers, President of Exodus. “For quite some time we’ve been imprisoned in a worldview that’s neither honoring toward our fellow human beings, nor biblical.”

Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin, who attended this year's Exodus conference, live-blogged the session in which Chambers made the announcement.

First, I want to express my admiration for the courage Chambers has displayed in not only realizing he's wrong, but admitting it publicly, and even more, his part in disbanding the organization that did so much damage. I do take exception to Tony Moore's statement about "the ways God used Exodus to positively affect thousands of people." I haven't seen any positive effects, unless you consider teaching people to consider themselves damaged and inferior to be positive. I don't. If it's a matter of bringing your basic make-up into conformity with your religious beliefs, I have one reaction to that: religion is a choice; sexual orientation is not.

This all goes back to one of the things that I find most objectionable about Christianity as it has developed over the course of the centuries. It stems from the old Judaic idea of submission to God's will (something you find as well in Islam). Submission is not really part of my repertoire. I mean, one can recognize the realities of the universe and realize that there are things you can't do anything about -- like tornadoes and earthquakes. But the idea that someone else should be making my choices is one I find thoroughly repellent. (There's a line in, of all things, Gensomaden Saiyuki, that reflects this, when Sanjo says words to the effect that "Who your enemies are is not something someone else should be deciding for you.") And yet, that is the basis of Christianity -- someone else is making your decisions.

At any rate, before this turns into a ramble, I just want to note that the remains of Exodus apparently intends to move the office furniture to new digs and set up under a new name, with, one hopes, a new mission. Via Chris Geidner:

“Exodus is an institution in the conservative Christian world, but we’ve ceased to be a living, breathing organism,” said Alan Chambers, President of Exodus. “For quite some time we’ve been imprisoned in a worldview that’s neither honoring toward our fellow human beings, nor biblical.” …

For these reasons, the Board of Directors unanimously voted to close Exodus International and begin a separate ministry. “This is a new season of ministry, to a new generation,” said Chambers. “Our goals are to reduce fear (reducefear.org), and come alongside churches to become safe, welcoming, and mutually transforming communities.”

I'm reserving judgment until I see what shape this new ministry takes. If it's still in the camp of evangelical Christianity, it's going to take some serious remodeling to make me believe it.

I may come back to this as I run across more.

Update: Here's an OpEd by an ex-gay survivor, one of those who confronted Alan Chambers on Lisa Ling's segment on "Our America" on "Gays and God," which airs tonight.

Marriage News Watch, June 17, 2013

With the always yummy Matt Baume

Coming December 13

Six months from today.

Yeah, I'm going to see it. Of course I'm going to see it. And I will bitch about Peter Jackson's problems with pacing. So what else is new?

Photo du Jour

Via Balloon Juice

The Storm Lord at Play

Via Digby, this sequence of the formation of a supercell, taken on June 3 in Texas:

Watch it full screen.

Mike Olbinski is the photographer -- he tells the whole story at his blog.

Marriage News Watch, June 10, 2013

Surveillance, Or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love Being Watched

The NSA thing has been growing. Aksarbent has been following it closely, and has pulled together a lot of very interesting articles -- just read the posts for the past week. This stuck out:

3. It May Not be Legal

The statute allowing such intrusions into Americans' privacy, 50 USC § 1861, requires "reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation... to ... protect against international terrorism ..."

Relevance, most would agree, is amongst the vaguest terms of legal art. Anything could be arguably relevant to a terrorism investigation. That is why discretion is generally vested in judges to make reasoned decisions. We'd be curious to know if there was any reasoning used at all when the judge approved tracking every Verizon-serviced cell phone in America.

Finally, note that the statute requires "minimization procedures" to be adopted by the Attorney General. These are supposed to detail retention and dissemination of information concerning "unconsenting United States persons" and presumably would limit the amount of time the NSA can store the data (though there is no specific time limit in the statute).

Aside from questions of government overreach, there is a fundamental issue of privacy here. Digby ran across this article from Daniel J. Solove that deals substantively with why this kind of surveillance is so reprehensible. It's hard to excerpt, so read the whole thing. This, I think, is key:

Another metaphor better captures the problems: Franz Kafka's The Trial. Kafka's novel centers around a man who is arrested but not informed why. He desperately tries to find out what triggered his arrest and what's in store for him. He finds out that a mysterious court system has a dossier on him and is investigating him, but he's unable to learn much more. The Trial depicts a bureaucracy with inscrutable purposes that uses people's information to make important decisions about them, yet denies the people the ability to participate in how their information is used.

The problems portrayed by the Kafkaesque metaphor are of a different sort than the problems caused by surveillance. They often do not result in inhibition. Instead they are problems of information processing—the storage, use, or analysis of data—rather than of information collection. They affect the power relationships between people and the institutions of the modern state. They not only frustrate the individual by creating a sense of helplessness and powerlessness, but also affect social structure by altering the kind of relationships people have with the institutions that make important decisions about their lives.

Read Digby's comments, as well.

It's not that I am hiding anything. It's that I know how simple it is to put together disparate strands of a persons life to make it look as if they are someone they are not. And when it's people with the full force and power of the United States government who are doing it, it changes how I see such principles as the bill of rights. It becomes a mere concept, not something solid that I reflexively rely on in the way I conduct my life as an American. It's a small change that may not mean anything in itself. But as the article points out, it's the accumulation of those small changes that eventually leads to a very different society than the one we have.

Digby's another one whose posts for the past week on this are worth reading.

My summation is a lot less nuanced: it's a violation of my person and my emotional security.

It's Pride Month

And in honor of that, read this post by Joe Jervis at Joe.My.God. I think the ending resonates most with me (but all of it's true):

I'm proud because I'm a middle-aged gay man who has more dead friends than living ones and yet I'm not completely insane. I've lived through a personal Holocaust (here we go again) in which my friends and lovers have been mowed down as thoroughly and randomly as the S.S guards moved down the line of Jews. You, dead. You, to the factory. And you, you, you, and you, dead. I am inexplicably alive and I am proud that I keep the memories of my friends alive. I am proud of my people, the ACT UPers, the Quilt makers, the Larry Kramers, the Harvey Fiersteins. I'm proud that I'm not constantly curled up into a ball on my bed, clutching photo albums and sobbing. And that happens sometimes, believe it.

And outside of my personal experiences, I am proud of my tribe as a group. Sometimes I think that gay people are more creative, more empathic, more intuitive, more generous, and more selfless than anybody else on the planet. Sometimes I think that if an alien culture were surveying our planet from light years away, they might classify gay people as an entirely separate species of humans. It's easy to spot us because of our better haircuts.

But sometimes I think we are the worst people in the entire world when it comes to standing up for each other. The gay people who'd like to soothe their personal image problems by selectively culling some of our children from Pride events? They disgust me. They appall me. They embarrass me. To them I say: The very road that YOU now have the privilege of swaggering upon was paved by those queens and leather freaks that you complain about as you practice your "masculine" and give us butch face. If you want to live in the house that THEY BUILT, you better act like you fucking know it. United we stand, you snide bitches. America's kulturkampf ain't gonna be solved by making flamboyant people go away.

I'll end this by making one final Jewish reference. Possibly you've heard the Jewish in-joke that sums up the meaning of all Jewish holidays? "They tried to kill us. We won. Let's eat." My Pride version?

They wish we were invisible.

We're not.

Let's dance.

About All That Data Mining

And the government/industrial complex in general, a clip from the 19997 film Good Will Hunting:

The president has dismissed it all as "hype":

"When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That's not what this program's about," Obama said. "As was indicated, what the intelligence community is doing is looking at phone numbers and durations of calls. They are not looking at peoples' names and they're not looking at content. But by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism."

Ah, yes -- the "may" identify folk who "might" engage in terrorism. How reassuring.

About that metadata that doesn't really tell the government any of your secrets, via Digby, this article from The Atlantic, with some real eye-openers:

The answer, according to the mathematician and former Sun Microsystems engineer Susan Landau, whom I interviewed while reporting on the plight of the former N.S.A. whistleblower Thomas Drake and who is also the author of “Surveillance or Security?,” is that it’s worse than many might think.

“The public doesn’t understand,” she told me, speaking about so-called metadata. “It’s much more intrusive than content.” She explained that the government can learn immense amounts of proprietary information by studying “who you call, and who they call. If you can track that, you know exactly what is happening—you don’t need the content.”

For example, she said, in the world of business, a pattern of phone calls from key executives can reveal impending corporate takeovers. Personal phone calls can also reveal sensitive medical information: “You can see a call to a gynecologist, and then a call to an oncologist, and then a call to close family members.” And information from cell-phone towers can reveal the caller’s location. Metadata, she pointed out, can be so revelatory about whom reporters talk to in order to get sensitive stories that it can make more traditional tools in leak investigations, like search warrants and subpoenas, look quaint. “You can see the sources,” she said. When the F.B.I. obtains such records from news agencies, the Attorney General is required to sign off on each invasion of privacy. When the N.S.A. sweeps up millions of records a minute, it’s unclear if any such brakes are applied.

Read the whole article -- it gets worse.

It occurs to me that it's maybe slightly more difficult than a total no-brainer to set up systems that are going to correlate certain batches of metadata to show the patterns that Landau is talking about -- Google and Amazon do it all the time. (See this bit from TPM about a company that actually does this. Although they're denying any government connection, even though their first client was the CIA.) Do you really want something like this being run by people who operate in secret, under the auspices of judges who meet in secret and whose decisions are secret, all for something as vague as "national security"? And tell me, who's going to insure our security from programs like this?

And do we dare ask who has access to this information?

Things like this are probably a major reason that I'm into total escapism these days.

Privacy? What's That? (Updated)

From the Washington Post:

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets, according to a top-secret document obtained by The Washington Post.

The program, code-named PRISM, has not been made public until now. It may be the first of its kind. The NSA prides itself on stealing secrets and breaking codes, and it is accustomed to corporate partnerships that help it divert data traffic or sidestep barriers. But there has never been a Google or Facebook before, and it is unlikely that there are richer troves of valuable intelligence than the ones in Silicon Valley.

Equally unusual is the way the NSA extracts what it wants, according to the document: “Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.”

Also, check out this series of graphics that explains just how it works and who's involved.

If you really want to get your blood pressure up, read the whole article -- it's a combination play by the NSA, the Bush and Obama administrations, Congress, and the courts. It's too lengthy and detailed to summarize here, and there are links to related articles -- WaPo has been on this one for a while (and it's nice to see WaPo actually committing journalism).

And of course, it's all under the battle-cry of "National Security!!1!eleventy!"

Assholes.

The Guardian also has a story.

Here's a reaction from the editorial board of NYT. Also worth a read.

Update: Also read Digby, here. It's not "open and transparent" if the American people don't know what you're doing.

And another comment from Digby:

Someone should introduce Senator Feinstein to Senators Udall and Wyden because she just went on TV to explain that all of this is well known and that nobody in the government objects. It's all very above board, legal and by the book.

See my comment above about who knows what.

Update II: It seems Glen Greenwald broke the story in the Guardian.

The Only Appropriate Response

Via AmericaBlog, this:

Here's the commentary from the YouTube poster:

So there was this crazy preacher lady yelling in the UU for 3 hours today, talking about how we're all damned to hell and how we're sinners but she's a saint because she's spreading the word of God (you know, the usual). She was just beginning a rant on traditional marriage and why gay people are evil when this happened. Highlight of my week.

I can't really add anything to that.

Today's Republican Party

There's a new report out, commissioned by the College National Republican Committee that focuses on the GOP's image among younger voters. It ain't pretty:

“In the focus group research conducted in January 2013,” the report said, “the young ‘winnable’ Obama voters were asked to say what words came to mind when they heard ‘Republican Party.’ The responses were brutal: closed-minded, racist, rigid, old-fashioned.”

Note -- this is the "winnable" Obama voters. One wonders how many of them there are.

It gets worse -- much worse. I've embedded the whole report below.

As I noted when the post-election post-mortem was going on among Republicans, in regard to their brilliant observation that they needed to polish up the rhetoric, they just don't get it: it's not the rhetoric, although that's bad enough. The problem was that their message, the substance of their policies, such as they are, came through loud and clear. That's what turned people off.

Grand Old Party for a Brand New Generation

Marriage News Watch, 6/3/13

One objection: marriage has not "lost" in Illinois. It just hasn't come to a vote yet.

Illinois Marriage Update

It's not over:

The Illinois same sex marriage bill had its deadline date for approval extended into the summer.

House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) acted quietly on Friday night before the House adjourned to extend the bill’s deadline for approval until August 31.

State Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago) told a packed House chamber on Friday evening that he had to put off a vote on the proposal until November.

However, were Governor Pat Quinn to call lawmakers back to Springfield in the summer for a special session to address pension reform, which also was left without resolution, he could include Senate Bill 10 in a special session proclamation.

If Quinn declines to include marriage equality in any order to lawmakers to return to Springfield, Madigan could call a House special session of his own at the same time to take up the legislation, an insider noted.

“It’s a fascinating move,” said one, long-time lobbyist. “It suggests that there is plan to get it done.”

Two points: as far as the "plan to get it done," Madigan wants it. Whether he really wants it or whether he's decided his power is being challenged makes no difference: he's decided it's going to happen. And if you know anything about politics in Springfield, you know that when Madigan decides something is going to happen, it does.

And apparently twelve "yes" votes pulled out at the last minute. Those people are going to be getting some heat.

I've heard speculation that someone brought pressure to bear on Madigan -- some even going so far as to suggest a call from the White House. 1) the White House is not going to make that call. 2) Madigan doesn't respond well to authority.

There is one big caveat: candidate petitions have to be filed in December, and there are a number of Democrats, in particular (no one's looking for more support from the Republicans than is already there), would prefer to wait on a vote on this until it's too late for primary challengers to file. That could delay it still further -- although some of them may find themselves facing challenges from the left.

So it's going to be an interesting summer. Let's see if the Illinois pro-gay activists can get their shit together and get this done.

Cute Story du Jour

OK -- this could never have happened at my high school. From HuffPo:

When 18-year-old Chelsea posted a photo of her classmates Brad Taylor And Dylan Meehan to her Tumblr blog this week, she did not anticipate the incredible response it would receive -- within 24 hours, the entry had been shared almost 100,000 times.

The image was taken from her high school yearbook, and she included this caption:

"Two of my best friends won Cutest Couple of our senior class. First time in my school history a same sex couple has even been able to run for this category, not to mention winning it. So proud of them, and my school."

Brad and Dylan's reaction is an eye-opener:

This whole thing has been a bit surreal for us because we have been raised to believe that love is love. We never realized that our happiness and openness would inspire so many individuals. The support we have received from our family, friends, and even strangers has led us to believe that our affection for each other is normal ... When we started dating a year [ago], the thought of a photo of us traveling throughout the world would be a bit frightening, but now we are proud to be part of the LGBT community.

I think we have a couple of really savvy activists in the making.

And congratulations.

Via Joe.My.God.

Stalled

Well, the Illinois House has once again proven its inability to make a decision -- SB10, the "Religious Freedom and Equal Marriage Act," did not come up for a vote yesterday, the last day of the legislative session. From the Chicago Sun-Times, quoting Rep. Greg Harris, the chief House sponsor:

“As chief sponsor of this legislation, decisions surrounding the legislation are mine and mine alone. Several of my colleagues have indicated they’d not be willing to cast a vote on this bill today, Harris told a crowded House chamber.

“And I’ve never been sadder to accept this request, but I have to keep my eye, as we all must, on the ultimate prize. They’ve asked for time to go back to their districts, talk to their constituents and reach out to their minds and hearts and have told me they’ll return in November with their word that they’re prepared to support this legislation.

“And I take my colleagues at their word they shall.”

The Sun-Times credits the Black Caucus with the failure to bring the bill to a vote:

Stubborn resistance within the House Black Caucus, a 20-member bloc of African-American lawmakers who have faced a withering lobbying blitz against the plan from black ministers, has helped keep Harris’ legislation in check, with several House members still undecided.

Several in the caucus had urged Harris to push the issue into the fall veto session.

“The sense I have is blacks are tired of being lobbied or targeted. They’ve kind of turned back on some of the advocates and lobbyists and are asking, ‘Why don’t you get some Republicans?’” one high-level Democratic insider said Friday.

Two comments on this: I wonder how these Africa-American representatives feel about being successfully manipulated by NOM and its allies. And if Harris, et al., start pulling in Republican votes on this or any other issue, where is their clout?

Much has been made in the blogosphere about President Obama's support for the bill, which should have done a lot to sway opinion in the black community. What you don't hear is that his support was voiced at a private fundraiser, no reporters or cameras allowed. Publicly -- (crickets).

The response from the usual suspects has been no more than we would expect.

From Brian Brown of the badly misnamed National Organization for Marriage:

"So much for the inevitability of gay marriage. With a coalition that included strong support from the African American community as well as so many others throughout the state, we did what nobody in the intelligentsia thought was possible. This is a huge victory at a pivotal time, and totally undercuts the lie that somehow same-sex marriage is inevitable. Our thanks go out to champions such as the African American Clergy Coalition; Rev. James Meeks and Bishop Lance Davis; the Illinois Conference of Catholic Bishops and their director Bob Gilligan; the Illinois Family Institute and their director David Smith; the Illinois Family PAC and their director, Paul Caprio; and the Coalition of African American Pastors and their chairman, Rev. Bill Owens. Everyone pitched in everything they had to stop this ill-conceived legislation. We at NOM are honored to have been part of the coalition effort. And those Republicans who betrayed principle will soon learn that their political careers are headed for the same dustbin that met former GOP Chair Pat Brady when he betrayed the cause of marriage."

And from the Peter:

It's remarkable how these guys try to snatch victory from the jaws of nothing. Just a reminder: You can't really say a bill has been defeated until there's a vote.

On the other hand, a more accurate assessment comes from our Governor, Pat Quinn:

Gov. Pat Quinn issued a statement saying he was disappointed.

“This is not over,” he said. “The fight goes on. We will keep on fighting until marriage equality is law in Illinois.”

The bill will be back. It will be back this fall. Count on it.

I Love The Onion

Because it runs stories like this:

Reynolds, like all infants when they reach the ages between 2 and 10 months old, was intent on determining his sexual orientation, emphasizing that his decision was “just a lifestyle choice and nothing more.” While every baby reportedly makes a commitment to being heterosexual, homosexual, or transgender, Reynolds revealed that each infant has different reasons for their decision, explaining that gay felt like a good fit for his personality and disposition.

“My selection of a sexual preference was the product of a great deal of self-reflection,” said the newly homosexual infant, who added that he reached his decision completely on his own and was not influenced by his genetic makeup or any circumstances beyond his control. “If my sexuality means I get bullied at school, or that I end up feeling unloved and shunned for my entire life, or that I don’t receive equal protection under the law, then obviously that will be my own fault.”

Reynolds reportedly acknowledged that heterosexuality would have had some benefits, such as the universal right to marriage, the ability to adopt children without fear of scrutiny, and the feeling of being validated by his religion. However, the 16-week-old infant said that, in the end, he had decided to identify with a small minority that lacks many basic rights.

“Who knows? Maybe I’ll even change my mind at some point,” said Reynolds, explaining that he can, at any time, freely choose whom he is attracted to. “If I wake up one day and don’t want to be gay anymore, then I can just switch to being heterosexual, easy as that.”

“After all, it’s not like I’m stuck with this decision for the rest of my life,” Reynolds added.

Via Box Turtle Bulletin.

Blowing Their Cover

What little there was left. Specifically, I'm talking about Mark Regnerus, his funders, and his co-conspirators. Prof. Darren Sherkat, who was the internal auditor for Social Science Review, which published Regnerus' joke of a study, has given an interview to the SPLC's Intelligence Report.

To call it "damning" is not nearly sufficient. The tip of the iceberg:

Isn’t a key criticism also that the study doesn’t actually address children growing up in households of self-identified LGBT parents?

The key measure of gay and lesbian parenting is simply a farce. The study includes a retrospective question asking if people knew if their mother or father had a “romantic” relationship with someone of the same sex when the respondent was under age 18. This measure is problematic on many levels.

Regnerus admits that just two of his respondents were actually raised by a same-sex couple, though I doubt that he can even know that, given his limited data. Since only two respondents were actually raised in gay or lesbian households, this study has absolutely nothing to say about gay parenting outcomes. Indeed, because it is a non-random sample, this study has nothing to say about anything.

I'm serious -- there's more, and most of it worse. Read the whole thing.

Marriage News Watch, 5/27/13

Decoration Day

Jim Burroway starts off today's "Daily Agenda" with a reminiscence of Memorial Day in times past. We also called it "Decoration Day," and it included an obligatory visit to the graves of deceased relatives.

Now it's Memorial Day, devoted to remembrances of our war dead, although the cemetery visits still form a part of it for a lot of people.

Pace.

Small People, Part I

I wonder, sometimes, about the need some people seem to have to denigrate others -- not based on anything they've said or done, mind you, but simply because of who they are, who their parents are, the way they look, things like that. There's a couple of recent stories that kicked that one up to the front of my brain this morning.

First off, the "Mrs. Nice" of the anti-gay movement, Maggie Gallagher. She started off with this, in, of course The National Review, bemoaning the upswing in acceptance for things that she (read "the Catholic Church") finds immoral. Given her history, it's not so surprising that the nut is same-sex marriage:

I personally still cherish the hope that we can as a society eliminate cruel homophobia without jettisoning heteronormativity — which is the need for social norms and institutions to be oriented strongly around the problem and the blessing that sex between men and women makes babies.

This is a statement worthy of her mentor, Robert George. (I dissected one of his essays here.)

Perhaps she just doesn't get it, but the idea that we can eliminate homophobia without "jettisoning" heteronormativity is ludicrous on its face: until you accept that same-sex attraction is part of the normal range of human sexuality, you're keeping gay people in the category of "other."

She apparently got wind of the criticism, because, in true conservative fashion, when you say something ridiculous and offensive, double down.

Marriage equality is going to be used primarily to enforce the moral norm: no differences between straight and gay can matter. Or as Think Progress put it recently “At a basic level, it’s logically impossible to say that heterosexuality is better — or should be the norm — compared to homosexuality without simultaneously stating that homosexuality is worse — or abnormal. Either all people are equal in society or they are not; she cannot have her straights-only wedding cake and eat it stigma-free.”

It is possible to affirm an ideal without stigmatizing the alternatives–to affirm in the positive without pushing the negative. But gay marriage advocates insist that any affirmation of the ideal represents a denigration of them, no matter how expressed.

Let's see -- there are no significant differences between gay and straight, unless, like most of the anti-gay right, you are obsessed with the mechanics of sex. And tying the "moral norm" to heterosexuality is loaded, at the very least, echoing the Catholic propaganda (not that Gallagher does anything else) that gays are "intrinsically morally disordered." Unlike an institution that shields pedophile priests.

As for "affirming the ideal without stigmatizing the alternatives" -- how, exactly, does one do this? Anything that falls short of the ideal is, by definition, not good enough. (Oh, and just in terms of formal argument, an assertion to the contrary does not counter a conclusion by your opponent. And that's all Gallagher can come up: argument by assertion.)

By way of background, Gallagher has her own page at GLAAD's Commentator Accountability Project's website. Gallagher taking the pose that she cherishes the hope that we can do away with "cruel homophobia" (is there another kind?) is so much bullshit.

Back to my original question: why does she feel a need to cast a group of people, in this case gays and lesbians, as less deserving? Given her history and public statements, there are some obvious answers, but I'm not going to assume motivations. I'll just let that history and those statements speak for themselves. It's also worth noting that she shares this characteristic with the right in general -- the need to cast those who are different as "other." Partly this is a basic human characteristic -- we're tribal creatures, when all is said and done. And the influence of Christianity of a certain, Old Testament cast on conservatives in this country only reinforces that tendency: it's founded on a religion that itself was founded on group identity: anyone not of the tribes of Israel was lesser.

Given that America's real ideals are based on inclusion and equality, you have to wonder what country Gallagher is living in.

I'll probably come back to this topic -- there are a lot of small people out there.

Scouting for All

Wayne Perry, President of the Boy Scouts of America, has come out in favor of admitting gay Scouts in an OpEd in USA Today. The part that jumped out at me was this passage:

Some have voiced concerns that this proposal could put children at risk of being abused. The BSA makes no connection between sexual abuse and homosexuality. The nation's leading experts agree.

Tony Perkins just got bitch-slapped.

By way of background, here's Soledad O'Brien taking Perkins apart on the "pedophile" thing. Although Perkins really does turn my stomach, it's worth watching to see a master demagogue in action.

Watch at about the 3:55 mark, where she asks him if he's saying all gay men are pedophiles. I didn't know anyone could backtrack that fast, especially since he's the one who introduced the issue to begin with. One thing that disgusts me about Perkins is that he doesn't have the balls to come right out and deliver his message in plain terms. He works by insinuation and implication, like that sneaky guy at the office who is after your job but isn't qualified to handle it. Perkins is an assassin, pure and simple. He's also a coward.

PS -- if you want some actual science on the homosexuality/pedophilia connection -- which doesn't exist except in the minds of Perkins and his ilk -- click through on the second link in the quote from Perry.

Computer Woes

Still going on. Working from the tablet, which has limits. I did manage to figure out how to access my full list of bookmarks, though, which helps.

And it looks like I'll have the computer back this afternoon, with everything that it's supposed to have.

(cross fingers)

A Day Late

Been having massive computer problems -- it's been in the shop twice since Friday, and will probably be in again this afternoon.

At any rate, here's Marriage News Watch, yesterday edition:

Illinois has ten days.

Cute Video du Jour

A country song, no less:

Via Gay Marriage Watch.

Just for Fun

I haven't posted anything by Kazaky lately. Here's one I just discovered:

I'm not sure if I love it. No, wait -- let me restate that: I'm not sure how much I love it.

I Leave Home for a Couple of Hours

And another country mandates marriage equality.

Brazil makes fifteen.

Note to Brian Brown: Sorry, Brian -- it's a wave.

Benghazi!!1!eleventy!!

No, it's not Watergate and Iran-Contra rolled into one. Key point:

One interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history is that 39% of them don't actually know where it is. 10% think it's in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess.

This is the Republican base we're talking about. Cuba?

The fun part is, it hasn't affected Hillary Clinton's ratings at all. (I'm taking the whole "scandal" more as a pre-emptive attack on a possible Clinton presidential run than as an attempt to bring Obama down, which ain't gonna happen.)

PPP's newest national poll finds that Republicans aren't getting much traction with their focus on Benghazi over the last week. Voters trust Hillary Clinton over Congressional Republicans on the issue of Benghazi by a 49/39 margin and Clinton's +8 net favorability rating at 52/44 is identical to what it was on our last national poll in late March. Meanwhile Congressional Republicans remain very unpopular with a 36/57 favorability rating.

And in case you were confused by all the conflicting reports, this should clear it up:

In the day following the Benghazi attacks, Obama appeared at the White House Rose Garden alongside then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In his remarks, Obama referred to the incident as an “act of terror” and used the phrase again at a campaign rally the day after in Denver, CO. “I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished,” he said.

But [House Oversight Chairman Darrell] Issa (R-CA) claimed that Obama relied on the “act of terror” formulation to dissuade Americans from thinking it was a terror attack, thus improving his chances of re-election.

“The president sent a letter to the President of Libya where he didn’t call it a terrorist attack even when at the time the President of Libya was calling it pre-planned Sept. 11 terrorist attack,” Issa told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. “The words that are being used carefully — like you just said, ‘act of terror’ — an ‘act of terror’ is different than a ‘terrorist attack.’ The truth is, this was a terrorist attack, this had Al Qaeda at it.”

There -- all clear now?

I haven't been following the whole thing all that closely. I'll wait for it to hit Netflix.

Via Balloon Juice.

Repent!

Or should that be "The sky is falling!"? Brian Brown, working himself into a frenzy:

The National Organization for Marriage today condemned the Minnesota Legislature for redefining marriage and predicted that the vote will lead to the DFL losing their majority in the 2014 election.

"Just six months ago advocates of redefining marriage said that there was no need for the marriage amendment because Minnesota already had a traditional marriage law on the books. Now, they’ve changed that law and imposed genderless marriage,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “Make no mistake, this vote will bring the demise of the DFL majority and end the
careers of wayward Republicans in the Legislature once voters have their say."

[. . .]

"The people of Minnesota did not vote for gay marriage in 2012,” said Brown. “They voted to maintain traditional marriage by maintaining the status quo. Our opponents bought a victory by claiming that marriage was not under threat of redefinition, but in fact they always intended to redefine it at the soonest possible moment. Legislators who voted to redefine marriage were foolish to do so. They cast a terrible vote that damages society, tells children they don’t deserve a mother and a father, and brands supporters of traditional marriage as bigots. We predict that this vote will be career ending for many legislators in Minnesota."

Well, it's nice to see them admit that maintaining the status quo means voting for discrimination.

And actually, the people of Minnesota voted against restricting marriage to NOM-approved couples. Seems to me that same-sex marriage is a natural result of that.

The rest of it is the usual BS, but I really wish I were in a position to pin Brown down on one thing: how, exactly, does same-sex marriage destroy society? I mean, there has to be a way that happens, right? What is it?

And I think this probably has something to do with the rant:

NOM was the largest funder of the marriage amendment campaign in 2012.

Loser.

Via Joe.My.God.

And as an antidote to Brown, here's a speech by Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk:

Number Twelve

Minnesota.

Brian Brown must be shitting bricks.  I can hardly wait to see the spin on this one.

And here's todays "Marriage News Watch" with Matt Baume:

Quote du Jour

Today's Must Read

This post from Digby on Elizabeth Warren.

"Morally Straight"

For some reason, that phrase jumped out at me while reading this post at Towleroad. It is, of course, one of the catch phrases and guiding principles of the Boy Scouts of America. It's taken to automatically exclude gay scouts and leaders, as though morality is somehow intimately tied to who you have relationships with rather than how you treat people.

That strikes me as pretty shallow. To my mind, morality is much more complex. But then, I was taught actual values (another word that's been sadly warped in our public discourse) rather than just rules. Perhaps that's why I found Paganism such a good fit -- every day, one is confronted with a series of moral decisions that don't lend themselves to cut-and-dried solutions, and if you follow Paganism's one rule -- "Do no harm" -- it can get pretty knotty.

As for the video (which I'm not going to post), the sentiments expressed are repellent, as much for their ignorance as for their bigotry. And have you noticed that these people are obsessed with sex?

The Republican Philosophy of Governing

First, refuse to govern.  Block every attempt by the president to govern.  Then, impeach! Even if you can't come up with a legitimate reason.  Here's Rachel Maddow dissecting "Benghazi-gate" as the latest move to impeach Obama. For something. Or nothing.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This is not a new thing for the Republicans. At this point, it's a time-honored strategy. Remember the last Democratic president?  (I'm also taking it as a pre-emptive strike against Hillary Clinton, since the Republicans know they stand no chance against her in 2016 and they're scared shitless she'll run.)

 Maha has a nice summary of the Republicans' refusal to govern -- or to allow anyone else to govern.

Speaking of the Affordable Care Act (and we were, if you clicked through on the last link), the Republicans don't want anyone helping to implement it -- even the health-care industry, which loves the law.  If this all seems odd, given the extent to which Republican candidates have relied on money from the insurance industry and PhrMA, remember that the ACA is the signature achievement of that Kenyan islamofascist socialist usurper, who has done the unforgivable -- he won the presidential election.  Twice.  Instead of the white guys.

If the Republicans' behavior during the Obama administration appears to be somewhat childish, well -- that's because it is.

Double Whammy

We have a winner today -- two awards: the Through the Looking Glass Award and the Tony Perkins Award, to none other than Tony Perkins himself. Via e-mail, as reported at Joe.My.God. I'm going to do a little parsing -- you can get the full-dress rant at the link.

If you look at the dozen states with same-sex 'marriage,' homosexual activists are picking off the easiest targets: progressive pockets of the country that have rejected traditional morality.

Yeah -- like New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and Iowa.

If conservatives can confine same-sex 'marriage' to these liberal jurisdictions, the evidence of why this policy won't work will begin to show.

The "evidence" is more likely to be FRC's donations drying up than anything else. That works for me. (They did have a rather significant shortfall last year, as I recall.) (Looking back at Perkins' statement, I am struck by the fact that it's nothing but empty posturing -- almost of Brian Brown caliber, but without the threats.)

It's time to look at the marriage scoreboard -- 30 states to 12 -- and recognize that same-sex 'marriage' isn't a wave that's sweeping the nation.

The timeline is what Perkins would rather ignore. Most of those 30 states banned SSM in 2004, on the coattails of the Bush campaign. Here's a nice graphic from the LA Times that gives you a good picture through last month. Since then, Delaware and Rhode Island have passed marriage equality bills, Minnesota may do so as early as next week, and Illinois is hoping to do so before the end of the month. The legislature in New Jersey is working to override the governor's veto of their SSM bill within the next year. Both Oregon and Nevada are in the process of repealing their constitutional amendments. And there is a challenge to Michigan's ban waiting on the decision by the Supreme Court in Perry (the Prop 8 case), which in itself could decide the issue, but I don't think the justices have the balls. Consider the progress in the past two years -- New York, Maine, Maryland, Washington State, Rhode Island, and Delaware have all instituted recognition of same-sex marriage in the past 18 months, all by either legislative action by the people's elected representatives or by popular vote. Note also that this is not occurring in a vacuum: in that same period, Denmark, Uruguay, New Zealand, France, and the tiny Dutch possession of Saba have joined the list of countries recognizing same-sex marriages, which now numbers 14. Scotland, England and Wales are still arguing about it, but the government is determined to go ahead, and Ireland is poised to put it to a vote, where it will probably win. Sorry, Tony -- it's a wave.

OK, I admit it -- I relish Schadenfreude, especially when it's from something like Tony Perkins' fantasy world crashing down around his ears.

More Guns!

Last week's tally of accidental deaths from guns, by David Waldman at DailyKos:

This week's compilation includes three God-given-but-somehow-forgotten guns, four accidents while cleaning loaded guns (which nobody ever does, though I've now found 102 who've done it so far this year), two home invasion shootings, one NRA-certified instructor shooting himself, six law enforcement officer FAILs, two more turkey hunters shot, and 10 kids accidentally shot, nine of whom either shot themselves or were identifiably shot by other kids under the age of 16. The victims are (or were) ages 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14 and 14. All were accidentally shot within a seven-day span, from April 27th through May 3rd.

Here's the punchline:

The new twist on the kid shootings this week was, of course, that two of the kids shot and killed younger siblings with their own guns, as opposed to guns belonging to parents or guardians which they found around the house. I felt sure earlier in the week that we'd all be talking about the Mountain Home, Alaska 8-year-old who shot and killed his 5-year-old sister with the rifle he'd taken hunting the day before. But that was before—one day before—the Burkesville, Kentucky 5-year-old shot and killed his 2-year-old sister with the rifle he'd been given for his 5th birthday. The 9-year-old girl shot the very next day by her 7-year-old brother in Auburn, Washington, was, it seems, shot with a rifle belonging to third sibling.

Need I say more?

PS -- Waldman published updates on Saturdays.

Via Balloon Juice.

I'm Speechless

From the man with no irony meter:

In a speech Wednesday at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) dismissed progressivism as "arrogant and condescending."

“Progressivism is well-intentioned but it is also — in my humble opinion — arrogant and condescending,” Ryan said, according to The Hill. “Instead of helping people make their own decisions, it makes those decisions for them. It makes Washington the center of power and politicians the center of attention.”

I don't know where to start. You can add your own observations in the comments.

If you want to see how out of touch Ryan's vision is, click through to the article at The Hill. Granted, part of it is ideological necessity -- have to somehow hold on to the 47% mantra, even if you have to give it a false moustache. But mostly, it's bullshit. I mean, consider who supports a paternalistic, intrusive government that takes away our right to make our own decisions about our lives.

Minnesota, Part I

Minnesota's marriage equality bill passed the House yesterday by a wide margin, 75-59. Some interesting details:

It was two years ago that a then Republican-led Legislature voted to put a question on the November 2012 ballot asking voters to limit marriage to heterosexuals in the Minnesota Constitution.

Voters rejected the amendment 52 percent to 47 percent. They also elected a slew of Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party legislators that switched control of the Legislature to the DFL and eased the way for the gay marriage campaign.

In the days leading up to the House vote, no Republicans signaled they would vote for the bill. But Thursday, 71 House DFLers were joined by four Republicans: David FitzSimmons of Albertville, Pat Garofalo of Farmington, Andrea Kieffer of Woodbury and Jenifer Loon of Eden Prairie.

FitzSimmons successfully offered an amendment that added religious-freedom protections to Clark's bill and inserted the word "civil" in front of "marriage" to underscore state law deals with a civil, not a religious, status. It affects all marriages.

He, Garofalo and Loon said the beefed-up religious protections were key in gaining their support.

Loon said she decided Thursday on the floor to vote "yes." She said she was swayed by her colleagues' speeches and feedback from her constituents and family. Roughly 60 percent of residents in her district voted against last fall's marriage amendment.

That last bit struck me, particularly in light of this story:

A freshman Democratic state representative from a socially conservative district said Friday that he’d support the bill to legalize gay marriage in Minnesota, a key pickup for supporters as votes on the issue get closer at the Capitol.

Rep. Joe Radinovich, of Crosby, had been undecided. He said he decided more than a decade ago that he personally supports letting same-sex couples legally marry, but was conflicted knowing that many residents of his Brainerd-area district are more skeptical.

“This was not an easy decision, but at the end of the day I’d rather protect my integrity than my job,” Radinovich told The Associated Press. The 27-year-old lawmaker won his seat by just 323 votes last fall.

It's nice to know there are people in politics with consciences.

This could all be a done deal by Tuesday.

Of course, the anti-marriage crowd had to make a statement:

Minnesota for Marriage, the main group opposing gay marriage, issued a statement afterward urging the Senate to block the bill.

"The Senate must ask themselves whether or not they will choose to classify half of Minnesotans who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots under the law," the group said.

"They must decide whether it is important in Minnesota to encourage connecting children with their parents. They must decide whether or not mothers and fathers have a place in their law. We hope they make the right decision."

It must be frustrating to have to rely on irrelevancies to make your point. Let's see. . . .

I've not heard of a provision that classifies anyone as a "bigot." As far as I know, that word doesn't appear in the bill at all. And no one's going to call you a bigot for believing something -- it's when you try to ram it down everyone else's throat that it becomes a problem.

And of course, it's about children -- except it's not. If anyone knows of a provision in this bill that requires straight couples to give up their children, leave a comment. And as for mothers and fathers -- huh? Again, if anyone knows of a provision that eliminates mothers and fathers, comments are open.

And now -- Illinois? What's the hold-up?

Delaware

As of this afternoon, Delaware has joined ten other states, the District of Columbia, and three tribal nations in recognizing same-sex marriages:

Via just about everyone.

Marriage News Watch, May 6, 2013

With the adorable Matt Baume:

And Yet Another (Updated)

At the risk of over-using the Through the Looking Glass Award, I have to make note of this:

Speaking at the Tenth Annual Altegris Conference in Carlsbad, Calif., in front of a group of more than 500 financial advisors and investors, [Niall] Ferguson responded to a question about Keynes' famous philosophy of self-interest versus the economic philosophy of Edmund Burke, who believed there was a social contract among the living, as well as the dead. Ferguson asked the audience how many children Keynes had. He explained that Keynes had none because he was a homosexual and was married to a ballerina, with whom he likely talked of "poetry" rather than procreated. The audience went quiet at the remark. Some attendees later said they found the remarks offensive.

It gets worse.

Ferguson, who is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, and author of The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die, says it's only logical that Keynes would take this selfish worldview because he was an "effete" member of society. Apparently, in Ferguson's world, if you are gay or childless, you cannot care about future generations nor society.

A question for Prof. Ferguson: Which is more selfish, a gay or lesbian couple who are willing or even eager to adopt a child who otherwise would have no home, or a straight couple who are determined to pass on their own genes?

Update: Digby points out that Ferguson's remarks on gays and the future haven't been corroborated by a primary source as of yet (no video or audio has been released), but goes on to provide a much broader context for Ferguson's hypocrisy. He also seems to be obsessed by Keynes' sexual orientation.

From Amazon

Last Chance for Mother's Day Gifts in Electronics

Just think about that.

Through the Looking Glass

I haven't formally presented this award in a while, but in the wake of BSA's re-reevaluation of it's "no gays" policy and recognition of same-sex marriage in Rhode Island, there are a lot of contenders.

First, Christopher Plante of NOM-RI:

This law will intentionally deny children one or the other. The full impact may not be seen next week or next year, but our children will be the ones who pay the price for this decision.

I'm still looking for the provision in Rhode Island's marriage law that forcibly removes children from opposite-sex families and awards them to same-sex families. (Plante goes immediately into protections for "religious freedom" -- no transition or anything. It's close to word salad.)

And from Penny Nance, of Concerned Women for America:

Or, as Crooks and Liars puts it:

When normal people think of the Enlightenment, they think of Newton, Locke, Voltaire, Spinoza, Montesquieu, Goethe, Paine, Jefferson -- and the ideas that helped launch the American Revolution. When crazy right-wing Christians think of the Enlightenment, they apparently think of...Nazis.

Penny Nance needs to learn some history -- like the fact that the churches were working hand in glove with Hitler.

And from Bishop Thomas Tobin, of Providence, RI, a pastoral letter no less:

At this moment of cultural change, it is important to affirm the teaching of the Church, based on God’s word, that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2357) and always sinful. And because “same-sex marriages” are clearly contrary to God’s plan for the human family, and therefore objectively sinful, Catholics should examine their consciences very carefully before deciding whether or not to endorse same-sex relationships or attend same-sex ceremonies, realizing that to do so might harm their relationship with God and cause significant scandal to others.

I'm just going to reprint the comment I left at the post:

[T]he phrase “objectively sinful” fascinates me — it just points up the complete disconnect between Church teachings and reality. There’s no such thing — “sin” is a completely arbitrary, subjective concept. The idea that “homosexual behavior is intrinsically disordered” is just the cherry on top — how can it conflict with God’s plan if God made gays? Sorry, but the whole thing is so much garbage. I’m reminded of a saying I ran across a long time ago, and I wish I could remember who came up with it: “Control sex and you control the people.” I guess that gives us the basis of the Church’s teachings on sexuality, and it has nothing to do with God.

The nominees wouldn't be complete with Jennifer Roback Morse, head of NOM's Ruth Institute. There's a good discussion going on in the comments, so just click through and read the whole thing.

Another must is Brian Brown of NOM, who is still in denial.

Does inclusive mean that you get rid of your founding principles? Are party platforms supposed to mean anything? If the party does that, the party is DONE! The party is DONE if the Republican party abandons traditional marriage! It will mean that it has turned its back again on not only its base but on the overwhelming majority of folks who identify as Republicans.

The unfortunate part of this is that the Republican party is shrinking, largely because of its stance on social issues. Should we throw Brown a life preserver?

To see Brown in full denial mode, check out this post at Good As You. He's really living in a fantasy world -- or pretending to.

Friday Grab Bag

Rhode Island has become the tenth state to recognize same-sex marriage. The Quote du Jour on this one comes from Brian Brown, as might be expected:

But Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, denies there is a national tide in support of marriage rights for gay couples.

"I don't know that I would say Rhode Island is a trend," Brown said, also questioning victories for supporters of gay-marriage initiatives in Maine, Maryland and Washington State last November. "Again, we're talking about states that are not necessarily indicative of the rest of the country. These are pretty deep-blue, liberal states we're talking about."

I think anyone who considers Vermont, New Hampshire, and Iowa to be "deep blue" is really looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses.

Via Box Turtle Bulletin.

Runner-up in that department is Asante Samuels, cornerback for the Atlanta Falcons, who doesn't understand why gays need to "flaunt" their sexuality like that.

Straight people are not announcing they're straight, so why does everybody have to announce their sexuality or whatever? You know, what they prefer...So that's just how I see it. That's my opinion on things. All respect you know, I have nothing but respect for the people whoever decisions they make and whatever, but you know, you don't have to show it and flaunt it like that.

Speaking of persecuted minorities (did you know that Christians are persecuted in the U.S.?), Ken Hutcherson weighs in:

Have you ever noticed that those who support the gay agenda don't like Christians in sports, entertainment, or media? They really don't like us anywhere at all. Let's take Tim Tebow as a classic example. Tebow was asked to keep his beliefs quietly to himself, while Collins is celebrated for the 'heroism' displayed for exposing his off-court activities.

See, if you try to ram your Christianity down everyone else's throat (and have you noticed that's a favorite image on the anti-gay right? One wonders.) and they object, you're being persecuted. Seems to me that Jesus had something to say about that -- like praying behind closed doors, wasn't it?

Scary fact of the day: 29% of Americans think that armed revolution may be necessary to "protect liberties." As might be expected, that includes 44% of Republicans.

Via David Badash at The New Civil Rights Movement. Read Badash's whole post -- he has some other scary figures for you.