SSM opponents need to know when they’re beaten

One of my favorite reactions to the Minnesota Senate’s 37-30 vote to approve same-sex marriage (SSM) came from Dennis from Minneapolis, whose partner, Daniel, asked for his hand in legal marriage (they already had a religious ceremony) on Facebook. Dennis answered this way:

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And then one of their friends offered to make hotdish and bars for the wedding, which was also awesome if you know anything about Minnesota culture. But Dennis’s reaction is how I, along with many others, reacted to the vote, which followed 75-59 passage in the state House and will be signed into law today by Gov. Mark Dayton (D-MN). That will make Minnesota the twelfth state in the U.S. to recognize SSM – on the heels of Delaware, which became the eleventh last week – and the first in the Midwest to do so in the legislature, not the judiciary.

The vote wasn’t without its problems, though. Senate Republicans offered a “religious freedom” amendment that fell, but is still a sobering reminder of how many opinions have yet to “evolve”:

. . . the Republican amendment would have extended protections to individuals with religious objections to doing business with gay couples.

I have no patience for anyone who thinks they should be able to run a secular entity with religious rules. Let’s play a game, shall we? You own a business. Someone wants to buy something. Your priority should be: a) whether or not they can pay for it, or b) whether or not their (consensual, adult) sexual activity makes you feel icky.

Contrast that amendment with one from State Rep. David FitzSimmons (D-Albertville), which inserted the word “civil” before “marriage” wherever it appears in Minnesota statutes, ensuring that religious entities could still be run with religious rules. The bill offers legal recognition of SSM, which is what matters. Yet State Sen. Carla Nelson (R-D26) complained that the new law “denies the right of a different opinion” and failed to “respect religious freedom” adequately. If it denied the right of a different opinion, how did she vote against it?

FitzSimmons has successfully boxed SSM opponents into a corner in which their demands for freedom of religion and opinion have, in fact, been satisfied. By that point, they’re really arguing for the freedom to discriminate. Short of removing the government from the marriage process entirely – which may not be the best idea if you want “consensual” and “adult” to remain criteria – this is the way to make sure SSM moves forward in the U.S. There may be a lot of evolving left to do, but I dare say most of Americans share that red line.

Finally, this is fake. Yeah, I was disappointed, too. Maybe next year.

Disposal Day #167: Big gay news

STORY #1: A prognostication

I’m simultaneously thrilled and mildly irritated that same-sex marriage (SSM) is prompting so much interest in the U.S. judicial system; paying attention is a good idea even when the issue at hand is less sexy than this. But I’ll let it slide. So far, the pundits are predicting that proponents of SSM won’t get everything they want, and that states will still be free to define marriage on their own terms. I personally consider it no government’s right, but ultimately the Supreme Court will decide that.

There is still a good chance that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will be struck down, getting the federal government out of the armchair dictionary business. That would still be a massive victory. Don’t be too upset if they don’t go further than that – unless it’s for the reason a number of justices have brought up, that it’s “too soon” to rule broadly on SSM. Public support for the idea is as high as it’s ever been. One-fifth of the states have legalized it on their own, with no apparent impact on the institution of marriage other than to make it more accessible. What else are they waiting for?

STORY #2: No love, Tony Perkins

For the majority of Americans, if Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council decides to “disown” you over SSM, you’re probably doing it right. That’s his implicit threat to Chief Justice John Roberts should he vote against DOMA and for other pro-SSM positions. I’m just going to let his predecessor, Gary Bauer, handle this one:

I hope to the extent he feels a debt to anyone or anything, it would be to the Constitution.

Of course, he’s still ready to strip Roberts of his conservative card if necessary. But at least he got that right. By the way, partisan judicial elections need to die.

Meanwhile, Republicans are utterly confused about what to do: Sacrifice their evangelical base, along with their early votes and financial largesse, or sacrifice everything else? Again, Perkins speaks up, this time talking about the possibility of a third party. Please, oh, please let that happen. It would be hysterical. They’d go down in history as “those idiots who created a new party because they didn’t want gay people to get married.” I can’t wait!

STORY #3: Surrender

Even Rush Limbaugh admitted that social conservatives have lost on this one! And so did Bill O’Reilly (who, by the way, has historically been on the side of keeping government out of the bedroom, but also proudly brands himself as a “traditionalist”)! I suspect that Sean Hannity will be next, given his “epiphany” on immigration reform right after the 2012 election. None of this is a big deal in the grand scheme of the SSM debate, but it’s certainly fun to watch.

This would have meant something in 2008

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

We have a rare double-barreled fail this week, brought to you by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for making a video, and right-wing commentator Ben Shapiro for the way he reacted to it. It’s been funny to watch the American political establishment coming to grips with the fact that 4 out of 5 under-30 Americans support same-sex marriage (SSM); people who remain opposed to this day look even more out of touch now than they ever had before. The people who were opposed five years ago don’t look much better, as in the case of said video.

As a 2008 presidential candidate, Clinton favored civil unions federally, supported states’ rights on SSM and opposed it personally. That she’s talking about it now, after having retired from public life, will certainly stir up hopes among the “Draft Hillary” crowd. If that’s what she wants, the timing of this video could not look more opportunistic – as if she’s just noticed the bandwagon rolling by and is eager to jump on it. Unlike Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), there’s no sign that she had a significant perspective-changing experience. No empathy or humility. Just politics.

Now you might call that hypocritical, since I’ve stated my preference for admitting to the logic behind SSM. Clinton didn’t do that, either. The phrase “I was wrong” was not a part of her video. Instead she played up aspects of her past support for other gay rights and the fact that America generally likes civil equality. Never mind the fact that this thing didn’t need to be six minutes long and her delivery was a little too Shatnerian for my liking. The whole concept was simply off-key. Which brings us to Shapiro and his post-video tweet:

Hillary comes out for same sex marriage. In other news, those 4 dead Americans in Benghazi are still dead.

There is not enough SHUT UP, BEN! in the world to describe this one tweet. If he’s trying to convince anyone that he genuinely mourns the loss of those killed in the Benghazi consulate attack, he’s not. Clinton was opportunistic in endorsing something worthwhile; Shapiro was opportunistic in taking a cheap shot against her for no apparent reason, other than to make his fans retweet him. In short, he out-fails her this week. This was just obnoxious.

Actually, in all fairness, Shapiro out-fails Clinton every week, because there are countless reasons to trash him. I may devote a post to those reasons one day, if there’s nothing else going on in the news. Hopefully it will never come to that.

Meet the GOP’s Lionel Hutz

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Paul Clement, an attorney who has been recruited to represent House Republicans in United States v. Windsor, the lawsuit that will hopefully overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I could give the GOP the fail for hiring this man, but they’ve gotten it for so many other reasons that this is par for the course. No, this is really about Clement himself. Based on three arguments he’s using in favor of upholding DOMA, he is the dumbest lawyer ever to be deployed in the service of a conservative cause. Around here, that title was once held by Dori Ann Hanswirth, who represented Fox News Channel in their lawsuit against now-Sen. Al Franken (D-MN). Clement has brought the dethronement. He’s brought it hard.

Argument #1: Gays and lesbians don’t need any help from the Supreme Court because of their political influence.

There is absolutely no reason to think that gays and lesbians are shut out of the political process to a degree that would justify judicial intervention on an issue as divisive and fast-moving as same-sex marriage.

Therefore, they should just sit around and wait for everyone in Washington to capitulate and repeal DOMA on their own? Does this man even know how constitutional issues work? Because disputes in that arena tend to begin with a lawsuit.

Argument #2: The kid thing.

Only a man and a woman can beget a child together without advance planning, which means that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring.

Isn’t it cute how he believes that couples who have a child out of wedlock always get married after? Or that heterosexual couples are always able to produce children or always want to? Or that marriage is only an option when children get involved at some point?

Argument #3: The Department of Justice (DOJ) has no business here.

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group . . . argues the Justice Department lacks standing because the Obama administration received the result it wanted from lower courts — including the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals — striking down DOMA.

Um, that’s nice. You know the process ends with the Supreme Court, right?

Since all of this is so hilarious, I advise you not to click on any of the headlines in the Huffington Post link. They’ll just bring you down after this amazing laugh.

Disposal Day #163: So God doesn’t hate fags?

STORY #1: Chadash by necessity

Does it seem to anyone else that this week was unusually awesome for gay rights? Take the amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn California’s Proposition 8. More than 70 Republicans have signed it, including former Gov. Jon Huntsman (R-UT), who by my count is the first of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates to support same-sex marriage (SSM) openly, plus GOP consultant Steve Schmidt, former Solicitor General Theodore Olson and former Gov. Christie Todd Whitman (R-NJ). Here, political commentator David Frum, who has written extensively on his realization that SSM wasn’t a problem, writes why he signed it.

Granted, those signatories aren’t icons of conservative purity (these days); mass movement on the very right side of the aisle would really get us ready to party. But here’s a good sign: Commentator S.E. Cupp, who once said she’d never vote for an atheist president, is boycotting the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for their exclusion of the pro-gay Republican group GOProud. Combine this with CPAC’s decision not to invite Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) but to have former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) speak, and this event is going the way of the people you’ll meet below.

STORY #2: The unmentionables

Despite positive signs in terms of policy, homophobia is by no means gone, although it’s definitely not as widespread and absurd as it used to be. Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that while the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (HRC) infringed on the free speech rights of William Whatcott, who likes to distribute anti-gay (as in, Jack Chick-level anti-gay) flyers, that infringement was “demonstrably justified.” On the flipside, Connecticut teen Seth Groody’s school has allowed him to wear this T-shirt. And that’s the difference between the U.S. and Canada.

Offensive? Sure. Which is exactly why Whatcott should be allowed to distribute his flyers and Groody should be allowed to wear his shirt. The more their offensive opinions are brought to light, the sooner they’ll realize how marginal they are and, perhaps, the sooner they’ll change their minds. By ruling with the HRC, unfortunately, the Supreme Court made even pro-gay Canadians feel a bit sorry for Whatcott. Way to go, guys.

STORY #3: Also, capitalism

A conservative guy brought this story to my attention and seemed rather indignant that corporations were getting involved in the democratic process, and for that I wanted to smack him. But do consider this: If it’s now a priority for America to be able to attract and retain talented immigrants, a continued ban on SSM will turn off a sizable sliver of them, and that won’t be any good for the economy. Just mull over that for a while.

He has a great relationship with the gays!

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Rep. Jeff Landry (R-LA), who exposes one of the biggest downsides of an economic slump (besides, you know, its existence): When everyone in Washington is asked to come up with an idea to create jobs, everyone will zero in on changes that can be made to things they, personally, don’t like. In Landry’s case, LGBTs. Or if he does like them, he’s going about a related minor at the University of Louisiana as if he doesn’t. It’s pretty hard to get your messaging right when you have the audacity to ask what he asked of the president, Dr. Joseph Savoie, of this independently run educational institution:

Please do not assign scarce assets meant for 15,000 students, on a minor that serves 5 people and offers nothing for direct employment prospects. I hope the university will put our people over politics.

Savoie then pointed out that LGBT classes existed before the minor was established, and organizing them into a formal minor didn’t actually require any more “scarce assets.” Of course, those classes aren’t exactly STEM, so Landry could be able to continue the “stop spending public funds on useless classes” argument. But like every other university on the planet, UL has a wide selection of courses in humanities and social sciences, most of which, if our goal is to kick-start manufacturing, can be charitably described as “useless.” They still have a sociology department at all, plus my personal favorite: Cultural and Eco-Tourism. (Trainee travel agents can probably learn that in weeks!)

Things got funnier when Landry’s brother Nicholas, who is gay, criticized Landry’s position on Facebook, to which Landry said:

To my brother. I am sorry we disagree, but we still love and pray for you.

Pray for him to do what? See the light and stop being gay? That might be a reflexive assumption on my part, but it’s the reflexive assumption on a lot of people’s parts; Landry should have thought of that before typing it.

If Landry wants to talk about targeting post-secondary funding to the most economically necessary areas of study, we can do that, although that might create more bureaucracy than it reduces in spending. But that element of his letter to Savoie was obscured by his laser focus on the LGBT minor. Even by the standards of a freshman congressman, Landry is a PR amateur.

Playing chicken with same-sex marriage

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by everyone who has either tried to block Chick-fil-A from setting up shop in their city or state (i.e. Boston) or demanded that someone terminate one of their existing leases (i.e. Minnesota State University) recently. It would be one thing to do this if the company were engaged in corruption or some other criminal activity, or even if the food was sickeningly unhealthy and nobody wanted to eat it anymore. Then, I might be able to excuse all this off-with-their-heads rhetoric. But not when the reason is the company heads’ completely legal, though not necessarily proper, financial support of anti-same-sex-marriage efforts across the country.

It’s of little concern to me how devout a Christian CEO Dan Cathy is – or at least it would be if he a) kept that out of the company’s mission statement and b) didn’t use company money for political purposes, especially purposes with which I could not disagree more. Sure, it’s a privately owned company and he can do what he wants with his own revenue. I have never eaten at a Chick-fil-A and cannot attest to the quality of the food they prepare. But his style of activism would be enough to make me uneasy about giving him an extra few bucks.

That’s how people used to deal with companies they didn’t like. That’s not good enough for Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, who posted an open letter telling Chick-fil-A not to set up shop there before realizing he couldn’t actually prevent this. It definitely isn’t good enough for protesters at MSU, who have an online petition calling for the outlet at their Mankato campus to be booted from the student union. Moves like this will fire up supporters of Chick-fil-A’s position and make them look like the reasonable ones. Which, compared to these opponents, they are.

Besides, this isn’t the only company taking positions on social issues. Alyssa from Illinois pointed out this week that plenty of companies give money to Planned Parenthood, among them Wells Fargo, American Express and ExxonMobil. Yet when have you ever seen a horde of right-wingers demand that those companies get outta their towns? Why that is, I can’t say, but it’s pretty damn rare.

Want to get rid of Chick-fil-A? Stop eating there. If everyone stops eating there, they’ll go out of business and have no funds left. You’ll never be able to accomplish that, but at least you’ll be able to put your money where your sandwich hole is.

Is DOMA doomed yet?

District Court Judge Claudia Wilken of Northern California – a Clinton appointee, for the record – didn’t hand down a revolutionary ruling. It was actually the third such ruling by a U.S. district judge. If there were such thing as a three-strike law when it comes to constitutionality, then we could call it revolutionary. But if it finally prompts the Supreme Court to rule on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), maybe we can.

Wilken ruled against DOMA on the ground that it unfairly prohibited same-sex couples from federal benefits that heterosexual couples can access, and that it was crafted by politicians with “animus” toward them. The usual suspects objected to her position, reminding her that everyone defines marriage as between a man and a woman! (Oh, yeah?) Her ruling is one that concerns equal protection; others, such as those involving California’s Proposition 8 striking down a previous same-sex marriage law, concern due process.

I have a hard time believing that anyone will get very far if they make the case for equal benefits on its own merits; that runs the risk of adding a fiscal facet to the discussion that could be used against proponents. So, let’s consider whether or not there is a federal right to marry whomever one feels like. Most people say no, as marriage isn’t mentioned in the Constitution. Not that the Supreme Court has never ruled on it before. Remember this?

Let’s turn back to the Constitution itself. I can name two amendments that ought to render DOMA constitutionally null: the Ninth and the Tenth. Also, the absence of an amendment giving the federal government the power to regulate relationships between consenting adult individuals. In fact, wouldn’t those constitute a form of peaceable assembly, as assured to the people by the First? I can think of no form of peaceable assembly that a social traditionalist would want to encourage more.

So, with the Constitution and the case law on the side of proponents of same-sex marriage, what do its opponents have left? That this isn’t the same thing because children need a mother and a father? Yeah, they tried that one to discourage mixed-race couples. That you’re rewriting thousands of years of tradition? That’s the way the world works. That lots of Americans disagree with it? It’s none of their business, really. That it’s an assault on religious liberty? Nobody’s making anyone agree with it. People disagree with individual gun rights constantly, but nonetheless they’re there.

I relish the thought of sending Wilken’s rulings and others to the Supreme Court and seeing what happens. If it sparks another one of those awesome American Life League PSAs in retaliation, even better.

Disposal Day #121: The only story in town

STORY #1: It’s the economy . . . really

At some point very soon, like it or not, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) will have to elaborate on “I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman” when asked to comment on President Obama’s support for same-sex marriage. Granted, there isn’t much room for elaboration. But people will demand to know which side of history he’d prefer to be on, as Fox News anchor Shepard Smith incisively surmised. (He may be the only incisive person there.)

I’m sure some of you are depressed that this issue is dividing anyone at all. But despite all the insistence on “traditional marriage,” the concept has been evolving for generations. People of different races can do it; people of different faiths can do it; people of the same bloodlines can’t do it (most of the time); and one gender is no longer the legal property of the other (in America). And nobody has been able to reverse the sentiment successfully. So, give it another decade or two. People will laugh at the idea that SSM was ever a matter of controversy or even debate.

STORY #2: Not in Washington, though

While Boehner’s attempts to bring the line of questioning back to jobs were pretty hilarious (PIVOTING, U R DOIN IT WRONG), the truth is that Obama’s announcement of support was mostly a symbolic move that may have no bearing on the legislative process for months, perhaps years. Witness his comments on an anticipated referendum in Washington State that would overturn their SSM law. Sure, he opposes it. But is he planning to do anything about it?

I’m not blind to the fact that being the first president to support SSM out loud is a huge step. But until he announces a constitutional amendment to illegalize sex-specific laws across the country (which I would personally support, because why wouldn’t you want to do that?), it’s just a statement. Hopefully we’ll all get back to business as usual after this week’s news cycle.

STORY #3: Inside Bristol’s brain

According to Bristol Palin, who may see more mentions here now that she’s commenting on something other than her personal life (for now), this is how to be a proper parent and president: 1. Tell your kids that their personal perspective is as valuable as Dora the Explorer. 2. Pretend society’s perspective never, ever changes. 3. “Shape their thoughts” before the kids shape their own. I’m tempted to start a Twitter campaign called #freetripp. If this is the sort of parental education he starts getting in a few years, I expect a large(r) therapy bill.

Biden’s latest gaffe becomes a BFD

Yesterday, the Internet exploded. Not because there was a Chinese cyber-attack, or because some idiot forgot to type three digits, or because Kim’s having Kanye’s baby, or any such thing. It happened because President Obama announced that he supports same-sex marriage. Now, maybe a political culture in which everyone appeases everyone else has made me (more) cynical, but I can’t help but wonder if he really does support the idea, or if it’s just politically beneficial to say so.

The interweb seems to have come to the latter conclusion; #FutureBidenGaffes was one of the first trending topics to follow the announcement. Everyone wants Vice President Biden to say he supports whatever they support, thus compelling Obama to do the same. Of course, if that panned out in real life (it won’t), people would eventually recall that Biden is an opinionated guy and isn’t afraid to bite the hand that feeds him, and that hand can giving him a swat on the rear if he gets rowdy enough.

And let’s be honest, this announcement couldn’t have come at a better time. The day before, North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, which is unsurprising (although I always believed that North Carolina would be less inclined toward this sort of thing than other Southern states) but still disappointing. I comfort myself, however, with the knowledge that even constitutional amendments are capable of being overturned. Besides, LGBT couples can always just pack up and leave, and what state would drive its own citizens away unless it hadn’t thought of that possibility?

(Sidebar: Here you’ll find a serious of talking points against same-sex marriage, mostly concerning the right to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman – that’s a right? – and the protection of children. Here’s my standard counter-argument to that last one: “I defy you to show me any evidence that children suffer when they are raised by same-sex couples. DEFY.”)

If anyone is wondering where former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) is on this, he says he has opposed same-sex marriage “from the beginning.” (Uh-huh.) That adds to my concern that Obama is just trying to placate a grumbling base; the other guy is, after all. So, celebrate as you like, as he can’t turn back now. But remember that he’s still a politician like all the others.

And on that note, what an opportunity this gives his opponents to say his VP can manipulate him so easily! Probably just once, but still! Who wants four more years of that after eight ridiculous ones?