Equality Wins!

POSTED BY JHW22

The U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit says NOPE to Prop 8! The court finds it unconstitutional to strip rights away from people because they're gay, despite what the majority of stupid voters say.

What a good news day. Anyone know what Obama has Seal Team Six doing today?

Misinterpreting or Underestimating Obama

Posted by Desert Crone

I have been mulling over an idea that’s been rattling around in my head for a while, and that idea grew to fruition with two tweets by Lt. Dan Choi: “. . . .sad that Barack Obama would have voted no" and "Obama: ‘I have plenty of gay friends. Some of them work for me. I just feel they are inferior to me, and they don't deserve marriage.’" That set me off in an ugly old cranky rant on “Tweeter.” I called Lt. Choi a self-made martyr and a media whore. However, this wasn’t a spontaneous tweet; it was an opinion I’ve held about him since he came out. We drunks have a saying in AA, “Principles over personalities,” and Lt. Choi’s behavior and comments flew in the face of that belief.

His crusade became about himself and his rising star on MSNBC, not the greater good. In my opinion, President Obama became the target of “his” movement, and he lost sight of the LGBT movement. Of course, my criticism of Lt. Choi generated much support and criticism, some very harsh, which was of no surprise to me. However, I digress. In my mind Lt. Choi is hardly a martyr (which to my knowledge he has not claimed to be but acts like) because martyrs don’t throw others under the bus. Martyrs help people get on the bus and up on stools at Woolworth and into voting booths and into segregated public schools and universities. But my epiphany and the point of this post aren’t about Choi’s motive; they revolve around his criticism of President Obama.

As you know, Lt. Choi, Rachel Maddow, and Michael Moore all have the opinion that Obama would have voted against the gay marriage bill in NY. This is simply, unequivocally false. I am truly befuddled by this statement because I have read much of what Pres. Obama has said and written about gay marriage. Others are tweeting “evolve already” to the president, presumably assuming that Obama is struggling with moral or political issues around his view on gay marriage. I also disagree with that assumption.

I believe President Obama’s conundrum is whether or not gay marriage is a vehicle to achieving civil rights for LGBT’S, or whether gay marriage will come with the passing of more sweeping civil rights legislation and court rulings. If my observation does, in fact, define his conflicted feelings (or evolution), then his statements about gay marriage revolve around his search for the most pragmatic path to ensuring civil rights for LGBT’s.

 In this quote from Dec. 2008, Obama says:

‘Look, when my parents got married in 1961, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South. So obviously, this is something that I understand intimately, it’s something that I care about. But if I were advising the civil rights movement back in 1961 about its approach to civil rights, I would have probably said it’s less important that we focus on an anti-miscegenation law than we focus on a voting rights law and a non-discrimination and employment law and all the legal rights that are conferred by the state. Now, it’s not for me to suggest that you shouldn’t be troubled by these issues. But my job as president is going to be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day to day basis for loving same sex couples all across the country.’

Basically, but not wholly, I base my premise on the part of the quotation that is in bold. Also, I would like to reference articles by Greg Sargent and Andrew Sullivan. I reference these articles, not necessarily because they support my opinion, but because both “get” that this President understands nuance. The lack of understanding this about President Obama has created much of the Left’s vitriolic, unreasonable criticism.

I find it incredulous that many of Obama’s liberal/progressive critics appear to forget that Obama is a brilliant Constitutional lawyer with a powerful intellect. Even a frequent critic of the President, Keith Olbermann admits “it was really one of those moments where you thought, well, maybe we do have one of say the 1,000 smartest people in the country is [sic] the President of the United States. Maybe he`s 999. Maybe number 83 - we don`t know.” 

Yet, still Olbermann and other critics frequently go to great lengths to give President Obama advice on how to do this or that. The fact that Obama is a pragmatist and a Constitutional scholar with a brilliant mind leads me to believe that his positions on issues are not based on his religious beliefs or political scheming but the most pragmatic, quickest way to do the right thing for people of the United States. Thus, he has used and is using his executive powers to make it easier for unions to organize, to implement parts of the DREAM Act, and to obtain civil rights for LGBT’s. If Congress won’t get the job done, then Obama looks for other avenues.

My point is that the criticism that Obama would have voted no on gay marriage or that he doesn’t support gay marriage is so simplistic to be laughable if it weren’t so tragically absurd. It might be true if he were a black and white thinker (no pun so don’t even go there), but he is not. He is a complex man. And don’t you ever forget it.

Raise Your Hand If You're Sick of Dan Choi

Where does this guy get off?

On a day where there should be celebration after the passage of a same-sex marriage law in the State of New York, Dan Choi instead chose to yet again attack President Obama for perceived slights against him and the LGBT community. Check out this Twitter feed:



As my recent tweets show, I really don't care for Lt. Dan Choi. He came out knowing he would be the face of the gay military and has now shown that the limelight is to his liking. You know, sort of like Sarah Palin and in my opinion, equally annoying.

No one is saying you shouldn't advocate for what you believe in, but to cast blame solely on President Obama as Choi has done is myopic, opportunistic and egotistical, knowing he was going to continue to get attention in this vein. Hitching your wagon up to Jane Hamsher only solidifies my opinion of his ever-evolving narcissism.

Let's take his tweets one at a time, shall we?

1. "...sad that Barack Obama would have voted no."

Really? How could you possibly know that? We all know that personally, President Obama has stated that he is opposed to same-sex marriage. This is a personal choice based either on his religion or it may be purely a political stance. The same stance every other presidential candidate took at the time.  But what else has he said? He is opposed to a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, signed a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and his Justice Department will not fight appeals of the Defense of Marriage Act with the opinion that it's unconstitutional.

2. I wish Gov. Cuomo would run for President with Sen. Gillibrand on an 'equality ticket.'"

Instant new hero, that Andrew Cuomo. I suppose if you're a one issue voter, it doesn't matter that Cuomo has so far been anti-union and that Gillibrand had issues with being pro-gun. But hey, self avowed progressives like Choi don't care about issues like that, do they?  Don't get me wrong, I really don't have much of an issue with Cuomo or Gillibrand, but let's not get carried away with fantasies of a White House ticket.

3. Obama: "I have plenty of gay friends. Some of them work for me. I just feel they are inferior to me, and they don't deserve marriage."

Okay, this is flat out horse shit. This is the kind of drivel that makes me turn completely off to his side of the story, because he's just flat out putting words in the President's mouth that he obviously never said. In fact, he's said the exact opposite.

President Obama at an LGBT Fundraiser in New York (6/23/11): "...Last year, I received a letter from a teenager growing up in a small town, and he told me he was a senior in high school, and that he was proud to be the captain of a club at his school, and that he was gay. And he hadn’t told his parents. He hadn’t come out. He was worried about being mocked or being bullied. He didn’t think it was safe to, in his words, “openly be myself.” But this 17-year-old also looked towards the day when he didn’t have to be afraid; when he didn’t have to worry about walking down the hallway. And he closed his letter by saying, “Everyone else is considered equal in this country. Why shouldn’t we be?”

So, yes, we have more work to do. Yes, we have more progress to make. Yes, I expect continued impatience with me on occasion. But understand this — look, I think of teenagers like the one who wrote me, and they remind me that there should be impatience when it comes to the fight for basic equality. We’ve made enormous advances just in these last two and a half years. But there are still young people out there looking for us to do more, to help build a world in which they never have to feel afraid or alone to be themselves. And we know how important that is to not only tell them that it’s going to get better, but to also do everything in our power to ensure that things actually are better.

I’m confident that we will achieve the equality that this young person deserves. I’m confident that the future is bright for that teenager and others like him, and that he can have the life that he wants and that he imagines.

There will be setbacks along the way. There will be times where things aren’t moving as fast as folks would like. But I know that he’ll look back on his struggles, and the struggles of many in this room, as part of what made change possible; part of what it took to reach the day when every single American, gay or straight or lesbian or bisexual or transgender, was free to live and love as they see fit."

Yeah, that really sounds like a man who believes the LGBT community is inferior and doesn't deserve marriage, huh?

4. "I really appreciate the confidence and strength of NY Gov. Cuomo. He could teach Barack Obama. Or just primary him."

Cuomo's "confidence and strength?" Cuomo signing off on New York's legislation is a no brainer. Show me a bipartisan Congress willing to pass a bill repealing DOMA and I'll show you a President Obama signing the goddamn thing before the ink is dry.

There they go again with the "primary Obama" meme. But here's the thing: if these so called progressives really consider themselves the base, there has to be some kind of support involved. To call yourself Obama's base while not showing one ounce of support for the man and constantly shrieking "Primary Obama!" just shows you to be attention whores uninterested in progressing the discourse. Show me where progressives Jane Hamsher and Dan Choi have supported the president even once. Look for it, because I surely haven't seen anything resembling support from this duo.

And finally let's take a look at the Obama administration's record when it comes to progressing the LGBT agenda.  As has been stated in the past, President Obama has done more for the LGBT community than any other U.S. president, despite the ramblings of the attention seeking Choi.

What may have started as a good intention has now become a Frankenstein monster. Dan Choi comes off as a petulant whiner when chaining himself to the White House fence or ripping up a letter of support for Obama during Netroots Nation, but shows his hypocrisy by attending CPAC and calling GOProud "American heroes." The same GOProud that also opposes ENDA (which President Obama supports), opposes the DOMA repeal and opposes partnership inclusion in UAFA. Those "American heroes?" That's truly a WTF moment.

So can I please stop seeing Dan Choi on my television machine for a while? Or if you insist on putting him on the air, then at least challenge him on his hypocrisy.

UPDATE (11:45pm): It would seem that this post is making it's way around the blogosphere and the immediate reaction from the pro-Choi faction is that A) I have no credibility, B) I am obviously an anti-gay bigot for criticizing Choi and C) I mistook Choi's tweet in which he quotes Obama as a real quote and not satire, therefore I don't know what I'm talking about.

As to 'A', I have yet to find one of these responses refuting the myriad links to Choi's actions and words that helped form my opinion.

In response to 'B', those willing to dismiss my criticisms as the rantings of a homophobe obviously chose to ignore looking at anything else in my blog before reaching that conclusion, including the entry immediate preceding the Choi post in which I praised the passing of New York's same-sex marriage legislation. I suppose that's what gay bashers do, huh? Also by their logic, if I'm anti-gay for criticizing Choi, does that mean Choi is a racist because he's critical of Obama?

And finally, in response to the idea that I didn't understand the "satire" in Choi's tweet where he uses quotation marks for an Obama attribution, that's just silly. To be satirical, the subject matter should at least have a modicum of truth to it, making it all the more ironic. It just doesn't work that well when you're looked to as a leader (as Choi is to many) and you use quotes for something not even remotely close to how President Obama feels about LGBT equality, as shown by the actual quote I used in the post.

New York Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill

NY Times: Lawmakers voted late Friday to legalize same-sex marriage, making New York the largest state where gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed and giving the national gay-rights movement new momentum from the state where it was born.

The marriage bill, whose fate was uncertain until moments before the vote, was approved 33 to 29 in a packed but hushed Senate chamber. Four members of the Republican majority joined all but one Democrat in the Senate in supporting the measure after an intense and emotional campaign aimed at the handful of lawmakers wrestling with a decision that divided their friends, their constituents and sometimes their own homes.

With his position still undeclared, Senator Mark J. Grisanti, a Republican from Buffalo who had sought office promising to oppose same-sex marriage, told his colleagues he had agonized for months before concluding he had been wrong.

“I apologize for those who feel offended,” Mr. Grisanti said, adding, “I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.”

Finally, a Republican who gets it. This is not about God, or a religious "sanctity." It never has been. It's about equal rights for all.

The passage of the bill followed the passage of an amendment exempting religious institutions participating in same-sax marriage from being sued for discrimination, which in my opinion is completely fine. No religion should be forced to adhere to something it is against, just as no religion should force it's doctrine on others. The separation of church and state is a protection that runs both ways.

Although I now live in the land of Christie, I'm proud to be a native New Yorker today.

If You're A Woman, Why Vote Republican?

This isn't a rhetorical question. Seriously think about it before you answer.

I've posed this question to myself in different incarnations. If you're an immigrant and you know that the Republican Party is completely unserious in its immigration reform policies (and use fearmongering tactics particularly pertaining to our southern border shared with Mexico), why vote Republican?

If you're lower or middle class and you know that the Republican Party caters to the whims of corporate interests, and instead of letting tax cuts expire for the top income earners in the country so that their tax rate would increase from 36% to 39%, they instead look for spending cuts in Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and block legislation to extend unemployment benefits, why vote Republican?

And now comes word the Senate has just voted on the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation that would close the pay gap between women and men and would help end discriminatory pay practices.

According to the National Women’s Law Center, “This persistent pay gap translates to more than $10,000 in lost wages per year for the average female worker.” The gap is even worse for women of color: African-American women earn 61 cents and Latinas earn 52 cents for every dollar a white non-Hispanic man earns.

It failed. The final vote was 58-41. Two votes short. Every single Republican Senator voted against it, including Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

Every. Single. Republican. Senator.



Couple that with most Republicans in general insisting on pro-choice restrictions, wanting the government to have a say in what you do with your body and your personal medical choices, and I have to ask again: if you're a woman, why would you vote Republican?

A New Wave of Crazy

I understand the calculations in the current political climate that cause some to tack to the right simply in an attempt to save their jobs. But in cases like this, the pushback after President Obama took office has given the excuse for current office holders to display their full wingnuttia and expose what most likely have been their true feelings all along with the added arrogance of thinking they have nothing to fear in showing their true colors.

In addition to reiterating anti-choice talking points on abortion and backing "traditional marriage," according to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, [Senator Jim DeMint, R-S.C.] went further and "said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn't be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend -- she shouldn't be in the classroom."

So now DeMint's expanding his discrimination to single pregnant women as well as gays. ...Nice.

Maine Supports Gay Marriage

Maine becomes the fifth state to support marriage equality.

Gov. John Baldacci: "In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Governor Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage."

Baldacci also noted that “does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs,” nor does it require churches to perform gay weddings.

And really, isn't this the entire point? Civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with a religious, ceremonial marriage and that's how it should be. Those opposed to gay marriage always seem to bring up the religious aspect in their arguments when it has nothing to do with religion. It's all about equal rights, civil rights and states rights.

(H/T Think Progress)

Shameful GOP Voting - The Ledbetter Act

I missed this a couple of days ago and thank the Rude Pundit for reminding me.

On Tuesday, Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, named after a Goodyear tire factory supervisor who only after nearing retirement, found out she was paid less than men in her position. She filed a lawsuit that went all the way to the Supreme Court. In their infinite wisdom, the SCOTUS disregarded the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and ruled against Ledbetter citing that a statute of limitation, 180 days from the date that Goodyear first paid her less than her counterparts, had expired. In the Supreme Court's blind eyes of justice, she was 18½ years too late.

While congress attempted to pass a bill to overturn that decision, the George W. Bush White House opposed the bill and would have vetoed it. But the Obama White House thought otherwise and President Obama signed the bill into law on Thusday.

Equal work for equal pay, right? Well, at least some our Congressional Representatives still believe that to be the case. The Ledbetter Act past 250-177 in the House, and 61-36 in the Senate. Of those combined 316 yea votes, 97.5% came from Democrats. The Repubicans were of course looking out for the employer, afraid of lawsuits "decades" after the fact, even though the bill states that the statute of limitations is now 180 days from the last paycheck received, not the first. As Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski said, “If you don’t want to be sued, don’t discriminate.”

But what really galls me about the 213 combined votes against the bill is not the typical Republican thought of corporations first, although that's bad enough as it is. It's the fact that 16 female congresswomen voted against it. (There were no female senators that voted against it.)


House
Michele Bachmann, (Republican-Minnesota)
Judy Borg Biggert, (Republican-Illinois)
Marsha Blackburn, (Republican-Tennessee)
Mary Bono Mack, (Republican-California)
Shelley Moore Capito, (Republican-West Virginia)
Jo Ann Emerson, (Republican-Missouri)
Mary Fallin, (Republican-Oklahoma)
Virginia Foxx, (Republican-North Carolina)
Kay Granger, (Republican-Texas)
Lynn Jenkins, (Republican-Kansas)
Cynthia M. Lummis, (Republican-Wyoming)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers, (Republican-Washington)
Candice Miller, (Republican-Michigan)
Sue Myrick, (Republican-North Carolina)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, (Republican-Florida)
Jean Schmidt, (Republican-Ohio)
Virginia (Ginny) Brown-Waite, (Republican-Florida) DID NOT VOTE

Way to look out for equal rights, huh?

I respectfully submit that these women immediately put forth a bill that would cut their salaries by the same percentage that Lilly Ledbetter was shorted for her nineteen years of service to the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. If they don't believe that Ledbetter should have been receiving equal pay for the same work her male colleagues were doing, then these female Republican representatives should get paid less for the same obstructionist work of their male Republican counterparts.

MItt Romney on Drugs and Racism

Chris Kelly over at Huffington Post skewers the Romney Unit on equal rights and drug prevention. I guess Mitt was putting out some "questionable" information on his record.

I find his writing laugh-out-loud funny and suggest you add him to your list of favorite bloggers at HuffPo.

Here's his take on Romney's equal rights stance.

Here's his take on Romney's "tough on drugs" stance.

UPDATE: Another laughable moron.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he watched his father, the late Michigan Gov. George Romney, in a 1960s civil rights march in Michigan with Martin Luther King Jr.
On Wednesday, Romney's campaign said his recollections of watching his father, an ardent civil rights supporter, march with King were meant to be figurative.
"He was speaking figuratively, not literally," Eric Fehrnstrom, spokesman for the Romney campaign, said of the candidate.