What A Dick

Here's my governor (unfortunately) with full pomposity on display on Morning Joe clashing with Jonathan Capehart over the issue of gay marriage among other things. Good luck trying to stomach the 20 plus minutes of video.

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

Gay Marriage, The States, and Pitchforks

POSTED BY JHW22

I am staying as far from the fray as I can in regards to the post-victory letdown of the passage of gay marriage in New York. From what I gather, a certain self-made martyr and an intelligent, if not emotional and often too myopic, journalist, have decided to dampen celebrations with hyperbole that suggests, in a roundabout way, that Obama hates gay people. They haven't come out (pun intended?) and said he does, as far as I know, but the implications gushing forth from a certain faction of the Angry Left is that Obama doesn't ever want gay people to get married.

Now, he has said he doesn't support gay marriage from a personal perspective (totally paraphrasing but pretty spot-on) but has never taken actions as President to prevent it. Many articles have illustrated how he has actually done MORE than any other President to advance the rights of the LGBT community so I am not going to try to reinvent that wheel.

What I want to focus on is an angle many people miss on many issues. This is just the latest example of the issue I call the "I want unrealistic perfection" syndrome. And this syndrome usually manifests itself in a form of rewriting 2008 campaign history. It results in the Angry Left misrememberstanding (yep, I made up a word) who was running and what our choices were. It results in some la la land delusion of "we could have had someone better" or "(insert candidate) wouldn't have betrayed us".

Here's what Obama said last week that got panties in a bunch:

And since I taught constitutional law for a while, I felt like I was in a pretty good position to agree with courts that have ruled that Section 3 of DOMA violates the Constitution. And that’s why we decided, with my attorney general, that we could no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA in the courts.

Now, part of the reason that DOMA doesn’t make sense is that traditionally marriage has been decided by the states. And right now I understand there’s a little debate going on here in New York — (laughter) — about whether to join five other states and D.C. in allowing civil marriage for gay couples. And I want to — I want to say that under the leadership of Governor Cuomo, with the support of Democrats and Republicans, New York is doing exactly what democracies are supposed to do. There’s a debate; there’s deliberation about what it means here in New York to treat people fairly in the eyes of the law.

That has been debated as hypocrisy because that's the argument used against his bi-racial parents, yadda, yadda, yadda.

But this isn't only Obama's rationale. Nope, someone else said almost the same thing:

Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it's a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we're having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges. I want to proceed with equalizing federal benefits.

And I've also been a very strong supporter of letting the states maintain their jurisdiction over marriage. I want to repeal Section 3 of DOMA, which stands in the way of the extension of benefits to people in committed, same-sex relationships. I will be very strongly in favor of doing that as president.

That's what Hillary Clinton said while running for the job we elected Obama to do.

So, be grumpy that Obama has issues with gay marriage that don't sound liberal enough to you. Fine. But let's not pretend someone else in the Oval Office, and I mean a real person and not some imaginary one, would be handling this differently.

My friends here at Broadway Carl have a perspective on this. Some consider us irrelevant or gay-bashing for disagreeing with SOME people who happen to be gay (while at the same time agreeing with many people who happen to be gay -- go figure). But when the facts are clear and when Obama has shown, repeatedly, to be progressive on gay rights, then the hyperbole and exaggeration and speculation are what I consider irrelevant.

And frankly, Obama has acted in the most honestly separation-of-church-and-state way possible. If his personal beliefs on gay marriage are based on his religious studies and thought, and yet he is moving toward more and more rights for gay couples, then he is demonstrating, repeatedly, that he knows how to keep his personal beliefs separate from his professional responsibilities. He has created two silos -- one with a man's views and one with a President's views.

What should matter is what he puts in the Presidential silo. What should matter is that he doesn't allow personal beliefs to affect how he governs. And that is precisely what I think he is doing.

Gay Marriage

POSTED BY JHW22

This just in...

The Obama Justice Department has decided that part of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and will not defend it in court.

Woo hoo!

Hasselbeck Said What Now?

I saw this headline in passing and didn't think twice about it...

Hasselbeck supports gay marriage, calls Obama a ‘cool guy’

... but a friend of mine brought it to my attention hoping I would comment on it and saying it needed my "wry sense of realism."

So here I am thinking, hell, what with a new baby, my wifey returning to work this week after her maternity leave, my softball team winning the league championship this season (yours truly manning 1st base and managing), making the familial rounds showing off the new progeny and scraping spare time together to do the occasional handyman jobs necessary to maintain a 90-year old house that we just bought, I guess I need to produce something for the semi-neglected blog. I'm trying not to completely ignore it but's not like I've been burning up the keyboard lately either.

So Hasselbeck.... Hasselbeck... uh, nope. I got nothing.

You see, the thing about The View's Elisabeth Hasselbeck is that I really don't give a rat's ass what she has to say, either for or against President Obama, gay marriage, abortion rights or anything else for that matter.

Why should I care that she thinks Obama is a "cool guy" when she campaigned for Sarah Palin? Why should I listen to someone's view on abortion rights after she said the morning after pill is the same thing as "birthing a baby and leaving it out on the street"? Does it matter to me that she needed a "mani-pedi to prepare" for an interview with the leader of the free world instead of preparing by, you know, actually researching facts and statistics?



It doesn't matter. And do you know why?

The woman is a dolt. I mean, her claim to fame is eating bugs on the Survivor reality TV series while her hair fell out for God's sake. So why would I care that she should shift her views as the wind blows?

If one minute she says she thinks the morning after pill is akin to leaving a baby in the street, but also believes the government shouldn't tell a woman what to do with her body, how can you take her seriously? If she says she supports gay marriage but is a Sarah Palin supporter, I would think she is, at the least, confused about her beliefs. So why would I give a shit about her thinking President Obama is "cool"?

You know what would be cool? If we stopped elevating not ready for prime time players like Elisabeth Hasselbeck on the same level of a Barbara Walters simply because she happens to be on the same show.  Even Walters can make casting mistakes.

Who's next? Snooki?

Gay Marriage Fear FAIL

Via TPC's Gotta Laff:

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.

The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:

"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Whoops. They accidentally misworded their state constitution to, in effect, nullify all marriages taking place in Texas. Sometimes Karma is a real bitch.  Keep it up, Republicans. You're doing great!

Jon Stewart Getting Under Scarborough's Skin

Joe Scarborough loves to talk about civil discourse except when it is inconvenient for him:

[He] claims to be all about civil discourse -- not resorting to hyperbole or personal attacks. Except, of course, when he does it. All the time. This morning, for example, Joe thinks Jon Stewart is angry because he's short.

Maybe Jon Stewart should invite Scarborough on the Daily Show to "plug his book" and they can hash it all out. Of course, Scarborough would never do it because he's a fucking coward and will be afraid to be shown for the phony that he is, just like Jim Cramer was schooled.

What Does Joe Scarborough Stand For?

Here's Scarborough on Hardball last night. He can't seem to reconcile his own contradictory position while touting his book on being a self described libertarian.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Joe's finally making some sense. You can't claim you're for smaller government and then want a nationwide ban on abortion and gay marriage. But when asked what side of the fence he's on, he says it doesn't matter what he thinks.

On one hand he is a pro-life and anti-gay marriage advocate but on the other hand, he thinks those are states rights issues and that it doesn't matter what he thinks personally. But it DOES matter because he has a vote. He doesn't seem to clue in on that fact. His vote counts. Especially when he was in office.

When Matthews presses him on it, he refuses to answer directly, jumping back and forth between states rights and federalism. The funny part is that he espouses some commom sense things regarding conservatism (small "c") but can't reconcile himself between the ideology of conservatism and political conservatism.

And by now, you'd think he would learn just to let the Stewart stuff roll off his back because Jon isn't going to let it go. But he can't because Scarborough reveals himself to be a short-fused, thin-skinned whiner whenever he gets into situations like this. Taking the high road is easier said than done.

(H/T Bob Cesca)

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)

Joe the Plumber: Keep The Queers Away From My Kids

Joe the Plumber on gay marriage: At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

Ah, Sam "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher: the gift that keeps on giving. Way to expand that tent, Joe!

(H/T Think Progress)

The Wingnuts Are Coming, But We Have Hope - UPDATED

"I'm a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job."

Seriously? What doctor will be unable to do his or her job because of gay marriage?

Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage insists that their latest "gay marriage will make us all gay" commercial is "based on real incidents." Looks like it's a little too scripted for my taste. And badly scripted at that.



Once again, these people cannot separate legal, state sanctioned marriage and a religious marriage ceremony. This has nothing to do with their faith. By the way, does the state require a marriage license or is just the religious ceremony okay? Yeah, that's what I thought.

(H/T GottaLaff, TPC)


UPDATE (4/11/09 10am): The NOM pussies have pulled the audition videos from YouTube claiming copyright infringement! HA! It's too late, bigots. It's out there. Everyone knows it's out there. I'm leaving it up just to see that sad, sad notice when pushing play.

I'm also glad the rubes are having an "open and honest" dialogue on their blog by rejecting probably 95% of comments they disagree with during their moderation. I knew it would happen, so I wrote a very respectful comment asking to please provide me with the information or guide me to something on the NOM website to verify the claim that a California doctor had to choose between his faith and his job because of gay marriage. I got no answer and my comment was never published. What a surprise.

The sad part for them (but good for us) is that everyone else knows it as well so the commenting generally stopped before it even started. Pretty sad to get a total of 14 comments over 5 posts for a group that claims to be two million strong for marriage.

The Rick Warren Issue

Yesterday it was reported that Rick Warren was chosen to give the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration. At first I thought it was a joke or a misreporting.

Surely there are better choices than the anti-choice Rick Warren who compared abortion to the Holocaust. There must be a better pick than the anti-gay rights Rick Warren who, athough admitting that divorce is a bigger threat to marriage than gay marriage, still compared it to incest and pedophilia while hiding behind the excuse of the "redefinition" of marrige (which is fodder for a completely different post altogether). The man who said that stem-cell research is "non negotiable" for Evangelicals when deciding on their presidential choice couldn't be the guy that Obama chose to speak at his inauguration, could it?

It looks like it is true, and for a moment I felt a little better after reading this:

...the decision to get involved with Saddleback was actually not Obama's. The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, run by the House and Senate, put together the program for the swearing-in ceremony. Congress, not Obama, invited Warren...

What the hell is that all about? Great, so Obama doesn't have a choice on who gets to give the invocation at his own inauguration ceremony?

Or does he? Why is the New York Times online reporting it this way a full day later?

Barack Obama has selected the Rev. Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor and author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, a role that positions Mr. Warren to succeed Billy Graham as the nation’s pre-eminent minister and reflects the generational changes in the evangelical Christian movement.

...Mr. Obama’s inauguration program, for Jan. 20, was announced Wednesday by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Celebrations.

Inauguration programs follow a traditional outline but also allow a president-elect to put his stamp on the proceedings and set the tone for his administration.

The choice of Mr. Warren, pastor of a megachurch in Orange County, Calif., is an olive branch to conservative Christian evangelicals. Mr. Warren is an outspoken opponent of abortion and same-sex marriage — litmus-test issues for Christian conservatives. In fact, his selection set off a round of criticism by gay rights groups angered by his support for California’s ban on same-sex marriages.

So did Obama decide on Warren or what is decided for him? Did the "release" of this information precede Obama's knowledge of it in an attempt to corner him into accepting the program? And why haven't we heard a statement from the transition team? Or is the quesiton even being asked - too much Blagojevichin' to worry about Warren, you know.

I have mixed feelings about this. If this is a political game to placate the Religious Right and try to win them over, then it won't work. Even though Obama did get twice the number of votes from young Evangelicals that Kerry received in 2004 he still received about 25% of their vote overall, the same as Kerry. The other issue I fear is the "what have you done for me lately" effect. Sure, the Religious Right will tolerate Obama... for about as long as Warren's invocation lasts. But unless he's going to do a 180 on Pro-Choice and stem-cell research, I don't think he'll gain any new supporters, and he'd certainly lose more than he'd gain.

On the flip side, what does the choice of Warren say about what Obama or the Democratic party thinks of it's Progessive supporters. Right now, they are majorly pissed off about the Warren issue.

"My blood pressure is really high right now," said Rev. Chuck Currie, minister at Parkrose Community United Church of Christ in Portland, Oregon. "Rick Warren does some really good stuff and there are some areas that I have admired his ability to build bridges between evangelicals and mainline religious and political figures... but he is also very established in the religious right and his position on social issues like gay rights, stem cell research and women's rights are all out of the mainstream and are very much opposed to the progressive agenda that Obama ran on. I think that he is very much the wrong person to put on the stage with the president that day."

**********************************************

..."Pastor Warren, while enjoying a reputation as a moderate based on his affable personality and his church's engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa, has said that the real difference between James Dobson and himself is one of tone rather than substance," read a statement from People For the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert. "He has repeated the Religious Right's big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors. He has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists. He is adamantly opposed to women having a legal right to choose an abortion."

**********************************************

..."Let me get right to the point," Joe Solomnese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a harsh letter to the president-elect, "Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans."

Does someone get to review what Warren will say in his invocation before the event? Will he insert some unapproved passage and take a shot at the LGBT community? Will he compare Pro-choicers to Hitler? Probably not. But there's always that slim chance...

To those who aren't especially religious (including yours truly), does it really matter? Just because Warren is there doesn't mean Obama is all of a sudden adopting Warren's policy views. And I think we're pretty safe to assume that Obama is still in favor of the separation of church and state. Otherwise, we should just be pissed off that there is an invocation and a benediction to begin with. We should be angry that religious observance is part of the inauguration ceremony at all, shouldn't we? Or is that just a formality and therefore okay?

We take what we want out of the words of these people, don't we? If we are in agreement with them, it is of a secular nature. If we happen to disagree with something, it's based on their religious beliefs and don't pertain to us. Yes, Warren has said some pretty shitty things, but that's not to say he hasn't done any good. And let's not forget that Rev. Joseph Lowery, who was a founding leader of the Civil Rights Movement will be there as well. Does Lowery's benediction cancel out Warren's invocation? Does it supercede it?

And finally, maybe in Barack Obama we really did get someone who is doing what he said he would do.

Lee Stranahan:

Apparently, Barack Obama meant what he said about our politics being too small for our problems.

...I don't understand how anyone who listened to Obama during the campaign would be shocked that Obama lets Warren give the invocation. It's vintage Obama. It does not signal agreement with Warren's political positions, some of which are clearly at odds with Obama's. Warren isn't making policy or even giving a sermon. He's saying a prayer and then possibly dancing later at some inaugural parties. If anything, it's the possibility of this dancing that should be deeply troubling to all Americans.

...Rick Warren felt some of this same heat when he invited Barack Obama to speak at his church on World Aids Day. Conservatives railed against Warren for legitimizing Obama. People with different political opinions aren't supposed to come together in anything but a shouting match.

...There's something bigger at play here and you can't say Obama didn't warn you. He talked about reaching out, about expanding our politics and that crazy bastard actually meant it. Nobody on the left or right quite knows what to make of it. We want to cram Obama into our old, divisive, two toned ideological and political frame and if he doesn't fit, we'll attack him too. Attacking is what we're used to doing.

But in the long run this new politics benefits us all. Ironically, it benefits the minorities and marginalized and ill-treated the most. I know this may be hard for many to see right now but the truth is that this sort of symbol is what America needs. Not seeing just Warren on stage or just Lowery but seeing both of them of there at once.

Obama said it in the abstract time and again during the campaign. Now he's showing us. Seeing the things that Pastor Rick Warren and Reverend Joseph Lowery have in common is more important than seeing the things that separate them. America needs to see that. It's a step down the road where a majority of us see the things that straight Americans in love want are the same things that gay Americans in love want, too.

Lee Stranahan is a better man than I. My first instinct is definitely not "do unto others." I think I eventually get there most of the time, and not so quickly. But I do agree with his idea that attacking is what we are used to doing, so maybe we should keep an open mind about things. Case in point, now it seems that the Religious Right is angered over Warren's participation in the inauguration.

So who knows? Maybe he'll back out, although I doubt it. Just as I doubt Obama would change his mind about having him there.



UPDATE (12:20pm): Obama press conference where he is asked about the Warren choice.



(H/T Paddy)

Also, more Stranahan:

If opposing same-sex marriage but being on record for equal rights is homophobic then Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are all homophobic. I can think someone is wrong about gay marriage without calling them a homophobe. Throwing around that word doesn't help and it's generally unprovable.

UPDATE II (3:10pm): Thom Hartmann. Wow.

Why Jon Stewart Rocks

Mike Huckabee was on the Daily Show pushing his new book, "Do The Right Thing" (apparently no longer just a Spike Lee joint) and Jon Stewart calls him out on his "Do unto others..." hypocrisy regarding the issue of gay marriage. Awesome.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Huckabee: No Bestiality In My America!

That's right. You don't have to worry about the definition of marriage with good ol' Mike Huckabee. In response to a question regarding adapting biblical laws into the Constitution, Schmuckabee said this:

Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.

That's right, goddammit! 'Cause everyone knows that if we define homosexual marriage legal, the next logical step is bigamy, pederasty and bestiality. I can't wait for them to pass that bestiality law. I've had my eye on this chicken for quite some time now, and I don't know how much longer I can hold out. She's a hot little chicken.

How is a Christian fundamentalist freak like Huckabee a viable candidate for leader of the free world? Oh, and by the way, nice little dig at Mitt Romney and the old Mormon teachings by throwing "a man and three women" in there. You're good, Huckabee... you're gooood. Sly fox... Hmmm... foxes...

The Cheney Roast Continues

Dick Cheney was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN's The Situation Room on January 28th. I don't remember seeing much reaction of the way Cheney conducted himself on mainstream media; the only place I've seen it is on Keith Olbemann's Countdown and on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Here's just a sampling:

Now, give Blitzer credit. He did ask some good questions, although when Cheney gave him the death stare, Wolf looked like he crapped in his pants.

Well, comedians to the rescue once again. I don't know why Stewart has a bee in his bonnet regarding Cheney lately, but he's been lambasting him every chance he gets. This week he was particularly feasting on Cheney in a way that I hadn't seen before.



Once again, you'll only see this kind of stuff on satire and comedy shows. It is absolutely amazing that you won't see anything like this on mainstream media.

What is the point of Cheney going on interviews like this if he refuses to answer questions, tries his silly intimidation tactics and comes across looking like an asshole anyway? Nevermind the lies he's spewing (we all know it's crap) like, "The biggest danger is that we will validate the terrorists' strategy" if we show disagreement, or "things are fine in Iraq."

This guy is a joke.

While we're at it, here's the Washington Post with another Cheney bombshell regarding the Scooter Libby trial:

"FBI agent Deborah S. Bond also testified that Libby said that, while he was preparing to be interviewed by investigators in the fall of 2003, he came across a handwritten note he had made during a phone conversation with Vice President Cheney. The note made it clear that, shortly before June 12, 2003, Cheney had told Libby that Plame worked at the CIA's counterproliferation division and was married to an outspoken critic of the Iraq war."

"Libby had complained to Cheney that McClellan had... cleared senior White House adviser Karl Rove but not Libby, according to witnesses and trial documents. Cheney then called the White House to urge McClellan to do the same for Libby, suggesting some phrases that Libby and Cheney had worked out together. According to one exhibit, Cheney scribbled on a note: "Has to happen today."