Scary SCOTUS notice.
Feingold's Road Trip
Russ Feingold, D-WI, who will be sworn in for his third term on Jan. 4, wrote a piece, published in today's Salon under the title "Goin' South," from which I have heavily excerpted, below. It's a compelling reminder to Democrats that we need to point out at every opportunity the amount of people in this country who vote against their own best interests.
On Nov. 2, I was fortunate enough to be elected by the people of Wisconsin to a third term in the U.S. Senate. Right after the election, I confess I immediately went looking for a warm place to golf. So I piled into a van with some friends in Milwaukee and drove from Wisconsin to Alabama.
[...]
As she made the turn onto Exit 130 in Greenville, [my wife Mary] saw the same little building my buddies and I had seen a day earlier. Banners on the roof read "Republican Headquarters" and "George W. Bush." At the very top of the roof, a celebratory message had been unfurled. It read, simply, "Hallelujah." She had the same thought that had occurred to the rest of us when we first saw the tiny structure and the big banners: If the red-and-blue map of the United States were to have an intensity meter, this place may well glow as the reddest spot on the whole map.
[...]
After our meal that evening, we drove around Greenville to see what there was to see. And what we saw -- check-cashing stores and abject trailer parks, and some of the hardest-used cars for sale on a very rundown lot -- told us the people there were hurting economically and deserved more than they were getting.
[...]
Having held town hall meetings in every one of Wisconsin's 72 counties each year for the past 12 years, I've heard repeatedly of the difficult struggles that so many working families are enduring in both urban and rural areas. And in [Greenville], I connected again to an American experience that isn't dictated by whether you live in a red state or a blue state.
The people of Alabama appear to be among the most generous and most unsung philanthropists in this country. What they give is unimaginable to many others and they give it time and again: They regularly give their turn at the American dream to someone else. And they give it simply because they're asked. So many people in Greenville don't seem to have basic healthcare coverage or promising job opportunities. Meanwhile, their children volunteer to risk their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can only be humbled by their sacrifice.
But because I am a lawmaker and a student of history, I also know who has been asking them to give so much. And I can only wonder how many more generations of central Alabamians will say yes when the increasingly powerful Republican Party asks them to be concerned about homosexuality but not about the security of their own health, about abortion but not about the economic futures of their own children. As my wife and I drove through Greenville that night, I thought how fundamentally unfair this all is in order to support an increasingly radical conservative movement.
[...]
I'm tired of seeing the power-hungry persuade the hardworking people of this country that the only way to preserve important values is to vote against their own families' basic interests. I believe that the working people of both [Wisconsin and Alabama] have sacrificed for other people's agendas for too long. And I believe that any political party or political movement or political candidate who would consistently say this would be heard throughout America.
We need to go to the Greenvilles of every state, red and blue, and say, "Thank you. You've sacrificed long enough. Now it's your turn at the American dream."
The Real World
The American Prospect Online features an article by John B. Judis and Ruy Teixiera; entitled “Movement Interruptus,” it examines the Democratic trend toward majority status. I have a few quibbles with some of their premises; they ignore Ross Perot’s contributions to Clinton’s victories, and they claim that “Kerry’s health-care program was incomprehensible except to policy wonks,” which seems absurd to me, as I read it and understood it, and I’m hardly a healthcare policy wonk, unless battling with my health insurance company has somehow qualified me.
The particular conclusion, though, with which I take the most issue was the following:
[Kerry’s] margin among African-Americans was slightly smaller than Gore’s in 2000 – no doubt a product of his patrician aloofness.
I’ll concede that, although I never found Kerry to come across as especially aloof, perhaps the seeming lack of a common touch was felt by others. (I have yet to definitely determine whether a significant amount of voters were turned off by an actual aloofness that somehow escaped my notice, or whether its alleged existence was a media creation akin to Gore’s exaggeration compulsion.) However, if Kerry’s “patrician aloofness” was found off-putting by black voters, I believe that it’s only a part of the story.
In their essay, Judis and Teixiera recall a pre-election visit to Martinsburg, a small, blue-collar West Virginian town (which I assume, as its associated anecdotes are separate from their discussion of minority voters, is predominantly white). Martinsburg voters cited gay marriage and family values when addressing concerns with Kerry as a candidate. I find it astonishing that Judis and Teixiera allow for such reasoning among white voters, but conclude that a lower number of black votes for Kerry was “no doubt” due to aloofness. Perhaps the authors of The Emerging Democratic Majority are too hopeful about the prospects of solidifying the traditionally Democratic black vote, ignoring or willfully blinding themselves to the slow but determined efforts of the Right to peel off socially conservative black voters.
Homophobia remains pervasive within all ethnicities without exception, but there is a particular aversion to homosexuality among communities where either traditional gender roles of a male-headed household are preferred and/or where there exists a dearth of strong male role models. All too many black communities fall into the latter category. Combined with the increasingly hostile conservative Christianity that seeks to extend the oppression of gay rights, homophobia in black communities (as in others) is becoming a significant problem, and one that Democrats cannot ignore as they pursue equal rights on behalf of gays and lesbians.
The recent advertising insert placed in the Washington Post by Grace Christian Church is indicative of the type of divisive strategies that are being utilized by the Right to attempt to splinter the black community and pull social conservatives into the Republican fold. To reduce losing black voters to a disconnect with a Northeastern liberal is to deny the problem we face, not just among black voters but among social conservatives of all stripes.
* * *
Recently, there has been heightened interest in the disparity between the rates of HIV in women of white and non-white communities. One of the theories that has captured some media attention is men on the down-low – men who lead their lives as straight men, but have sex with other men. I’m not going to purport to know whether there is any significant causal link between men on the down-low and HIV rates among women, but I am interested in the link between men on the down-low and homophobia in the communities from whence they come.
At university, one of my closest friends was a black man who was and is still one of the coolest, strangest, most interesting people I’ve known. We had the kind of friendship that meant a call in the middle of the night if one of us had read an interesting line in a book, the kind of closeness that means one shared look can move both of you out of a crowded bar and off to a swath of grass somewhere. He spent weekends with my family; we spoke at my old high school together to a creative writing class.
I can remember the day he told me that he had gone home from a bar with another man and spent the night with him. I remember him insisting that he wasn’t gay, even though I didn’t care if he were. I remember him continuing to chase women with an oddly false determination that seemed quite strange to me. I remember his roommate accusing him of being gay, and his behavior becoming increasingly erratic. And I remember him telling me that black men aren’t gay.
He was brilliant and beautiful and weird, and most of all, he was tragic. He seemed torn straight down the middle sometimes, and he lived on the down-low, although back then (almost a decade ago now – oh my), there wasn’t a name for it, aside from “a little fucked-up.”
* * *
In their essay, Judis and Teixiera recall a pre-election visit to Martinsburg, a small, blue-collar West Virginian town (which I assume, as its associated anecdotes are separate from their discussion of minority voters, is predominantly white). Martinsburg voters cited gay marriage and family values when addressing concerns with Kerry as a candidate. I find it astonishing that Judis and Teixiera allow for such reasoning among white voters, but conclude that a lower number of black votes for Kerry was “no doubt” due to aloofness. Perhaps the authors of The Emerging Democratic Majority are too hopeful about the prospects of solidifying the traditionally Democratic black vote, ignoring or willfully blinding themselves to the slow but determined efforts of the Right to peel off socially conservative black voters.
Homophobia remains pervasive within all ethnicities without exception, but there is a particular aversion to homosexuality among communities where either traditional gender roles of a male-headed household are preferred and/or where there exists a dearth of strong male role models. All too many black communities fall into the latter category. Combined with the increasingly hostile conservative Christianity that seeks to extend the oppression of gay rights, homophobia in black communities (as in others) is becoming a significant problem, and one that Democrats cannot ignore as they pursue equal rights on behalf of gays and lesbians.
The recent advertising insert placed in the Washington Post by Grace Christian Church is indicative of the type of divisive strategies that are being utilized by the Right to attempt to splinter the black community and pull social conservatives into the Republican fold. To reduce losing black voters to a disconnect with a Northeastern liberal is to deny the problem we face, not just among black voters but among social conservatives of all stripes.
* * *
Recently, there has been heightened interest in the disparity between the rates of HIV in women of white and non-white communities. One of the theories that has captured some media attention is men on the down-low – men who lead their lives as straight men, but have sex with other men. I’m not going to purport to know whether there is any significant causal link between men on the down-low and HIV rates among women, but I am interested in the link between men on the down-low and homophobia in the communities from whence they come.
At university, one of my closest friends was a black man who was and is still one of the coolest, strangest, most interesting people I’ve known. We had the kind of friendship that meant a call in the middle of the night if one of us had read an interesting line in a book, the kind of closeness that means one shared look can move both of you out of a crowded bar and off to a swath of grass somewhere. He spent weekends with my family; we spoke at my old high school together to a creative writing class.
I can remember the day he told me that he had gone home from a bar with another man and spent the night with him. I remember him insisting that he wasn’t gay, even though I didn’t care if he were. I remember him continuing to chase women with an oddly false determination that seemed quite strange to me. I remember his roommate accusing him of being gay, and his behavior becoming increasingly erratic. And I remember him telling me that black men aren’t gay.
He was brilliant and beautiful and weird, and most of all, he was tragic. He seemed torn straight down the middle sometimes, and he lived on the down-low, although back then (almost a decade ago now – oh my), there wasn’t a name for it, aside from “a little fucked-up.”
* * *
He differed from the men to whom something like the Grace Christian Church piece might appeal, because he wasn’t religious and he wasn’t homophobic – we shared many gay friends in common, though none of them black. He was similar to them, though, in that the homophobia with which he’d been raised was insidious and intense enough to have denied not only his own homosexuality, but also the existence of any gay men in his home community.
I fail to believe that such a situation was unique to him, or that such strong antipathy toward gays and lesbians would not translate into an extreme discomfort with gay marriage. And though I’ve been highlighting the black community in response to Judis’ and Teixiera’s article, frankly I’ve yet to meet anyone of any color who is virulently anti-gay, but comfortable with a political candidate who supports gay rights.
The Right is claiming that homosexuality is immoral, and they’re telling anyone who will listen in any way they think will convince them. I wonder when the Left will speak as loudly in defense of equal rights, reminding the Right that denying rights to gays and lesbians is immoral, and it’s an injustice we are determined to rectify.
The problem is that Democrats have taken their black constituents for granted for far too long, and I fear the same will happen as the GOP makes their fractious inroads using gay marriage as a hateful but effective wedge. The Democrats have turned all but a blind eye to the needs of their black voters, about which Al Sharpton cautiously warned during his speech at the Democratic Convention, while still assuring the Right that his vote was not for sale. But as the Republicans increasingly come calling in black communities, what will be the Democrats’ reply when the voters there ask, “What have you done for me lately?”
I fear that ignoring the reality of the gross prejudice that haunts gays and lesbians in their communities is a conscious decision to avoid addressing the problems in a community that, by and large, both parties have massively underserved. Democrats have had their votes, but they haven’t given as good as they’ve got, and now socially conservative blacks have been offered a real alternative – a party that will address their concerns about gay marriage, if nothing else (and nothing else it would be). While the Right is taking advantage of those very prejudices, fanning the flames of fear and hatred, Democrats convince themselves it was Kerry’s patrician aloofness that did them in and continue to ignore the realities of black communities.
A Caring Fellow
The AP reports (link via Pam’s House Blend):
Accused of being insensitive to U.S. soldiers in Iraq and their families, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld received a fresh endorsement Monday from President Bush, who called him "a caring fellow."I never cease to be amazed by this administration's evident belief that simply by virtue of declaring someone has a particular trait automatically makes them so. Granted, the media has indulged this tedious little habit ad infinitum, so I suppose I ought not to be as surprised as I am that they believe it works. It has, it fact, become quite the useful spinning technique for them.
"I have heard the anguish in his voice and seen his eyes when we talk about the danger in Iraq and the fact that youngsters are over there in harm's way," Bush said at a White House news conference.
[…]
Bush, who personally signs condolence letters, was asked why he was willing to overlook Rumsfeld's failure to do the same.
"I know Secretary Rumsfeld's heart," Bush said. "I know how much he cares for the troops," adding that Rumsfeld and his wife visit hospitalized soldiers "all the time to provide comfort and solace."
Today, we have been told that Rumsfeld is caring, and, if it’s not too late for him – if the cries for his head have not already drowned out the decree – then surely soon the conventional wisdom will be that he is most certainly the gentlest, kindest Defense Secretary we’ve had.
Similarly, we’ve been informed that Condoleezza Rice is competent, though all other evidence points to the contrary. Yet her appointment as Colin Powell’s replacement was met with little scrutiny of her qualifications in the mainstream press.
And perhaps the most egregious offense are the “truths” we’re told about President Bush – that he is an ordinary guy, that he is a good Christian, that he is instinctually wise, if not book-smart. These characterizations are oft-repeated as realities about the man; ordinary – despite his upbringing as a child of privilege, his attendance at Yale and Harvard, and his having been captured on tape describing his base as “the haves and the have-mores;” Christian – despite his very irregular church attendance, his renowned penchants for profanity and mockery, his contempt for the poor, ill, and marginalized as evidenced by his policies, and the very real possibility that he authorized torture; and instinctually wise – despite his significant miscalculations about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
One if left to wonder if the men and women behind these constructed facades do not ever feel compelled at all to attempt to match their actions with their designated attributes. It is a different country indeed that one imagines if our war in Iraq were governed by a truly caring Rumsfeld, our security was overseen by a genuinely competent Rice, and our domestic and international agendas were constructed by a leader who was the good, salt-of-the-earth man he claims to be. Perhaps as the next term begins to unfold, these pretenders ought to try on their carefully selected adjectives and see how they fit.
Like every aspect of liberalism they reject and despise, they have turned their backs on self-analysis and –reflection. Navel-gazing is for hippies, for do-nothings, for losers. They are winners; they don’t have time to stop and reflect. It’s a convenient state of affairs, as it also requires no admissions of guilt, and no apologies.
And so it is again with Bush’s defense of Rumsfeld. He is not a pompous ass with more concern for the war itself than the soldiers who fight it. He’s a caring fellow. Repeat after me: a caring fellow. And thus it shall be, because they're wonderful at improving each other with labels, but self-improvement seems sorely out of reach.
Time Ain't on My Side
So Time has named George Bush its Man of the Year. Well, they're nothing if not consistent:
1938 Man of the Year - Adolf Hitler
1939 Man of the Year - Joseph Stalin
1942 Man of the Year - Stalin again!
1979 Man of the Year - Ayatollah Khomeini
What makes me think if Time had been around in 1215, Ghengis Khan would have been their Man of the Year?
Keep up the good work there, Time.
Next, on Pimp My Ride...
...Xzibit and the gang turn Airforce One into a phat aviatin' machine, a la Soul Plane.
Photo via Digby.
Yeesh
President Bush on the Kerik brouhaha: "The lessons learned is continue to vet and ask questions.”
Next up: a lesson on matching your subject and predicate. A singular is, and plurals are, George.
Well, Whaddaya Know?
Christie Whitman, the former New Jersey governor and Bush environmental official, says in an upcoming book that Republican moderates must speak up or the party could move so far to the right that it will lose its influence and strength.It will be interesting to see whether Republican greet this book with the praise it deserves or the usual smear campaign for those who refuse to toe the Bush party line. If I were a bettin' woman, I'd be willing to bet the ranch on the latter.
[...]
The main focus of Whitman's book "It's My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America," is on her desire for moderate Republicans to regain control of the party. The more conservative wing of the party has claimed much credit for Bush's re-election.
"A clear and present danger Republicans face today is that the party will now move so far to the right that it ends up alienating centrist voters and marginalizing itself," Whitman writes in the book, obtained Friday by The Associated Press. The book is to be released by The Penguin Press in late January.
Whitman says fellow moderates, such as former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, were instrumental in Bush's re-election win, often campaigning with him in battleground states.
The role of moderates is to bring the party back to its center, she says.
"It is time for Republican moderates to assert forcefully and plainly that this is our party, too, that we not only have a place but a voice, and not just a voice but a vision that is true to the historic principles of our party and our nation, not one tied to an extremist agenda," she says.
Wake Up the Sleeping Elephant
John Rogers laments “I Miss Republicans” at his blog, Kung Fu Monkey:
No, seriously. Remember Republicans? Sober men in suits, pipes, who'd nod thoughtfully over their laterst paen [sic] to market-driven fiscal conservatism while grinding out the numbers on rocket science. Every one of those serious-looking 1950's-1960's science guys in the movies -- Republican to a one.I read the whole post not long after I had written about the shame of Republican Senators who scrounged up the courage to lambaste Rumsfeld only after a soldier had made any lesser reactions disgraceful. The issues are one and the same. The Republican Party is being lost to blind partisanship, which includes loyalty to a President who represents none of values of the traditional Republican Party. And it’s not just their elected officials; it’s the people of the GOP, too.
[…]
How did they become the party of fairy dust and make believe? How did they become the anti-science guys? The anti-fact guys? The anti-logic guys?
Far too few traditional Republicans (which I will use as shorthand to refer to the Republicans of yore John describes) echo the same sentiment. I'm not sure why it seems to be only people on the Left screaming bloody murder about how the Republican Party has been hijacked by total fuckwits. It’s akin to the moderate Christians I know who seem relatively unfazed by the radical element that, if left unchecked, will forever define American Christianity as a religion of intolerant zealots. No one on the Right appears moved to try to prevent this steady slide into political and religious extremism.
I was disgusted by some traditional Republicans I know who held their nose and voted for Bush, simply because they wouldn't vote for a Democrat. No matter how much you pointed out to them that - as bizarre as it may have seemed - the party of fiscal responsibility, smaller government, states' rights, and conservation (particularly environmental) was, this time, the Democrats, they still cast a vote for Bush.
Their party is slipping (has permanently slipped?) away from them, but they say nothing, do nothing. When America has fallen into the inevitable morass that is its unavoidable destination with Bush at our helm, I won't blame the Democratic voters, and I won't even blame the wingnuts on the Right, who at least voted as they believe, foolish as it is. I will blame the large swath of traditional Republicans who refused to acknowledge that their party had left them, and made no noise about its failed leadership, choosing instead to keep handing new strings to Nero for his fiddle.
Save the Endangered Species Act
Review This
In his indubitable, no-bullshit way, Upon Further Review’s JRH examines why Kerry really lost…and what Jesus would do:
What would Jesus do??? Well, probably not kill a whole assload of people in the name of Democracy (which I still fail to see any semblance of in Iraq).You have to admire a post that works “assload” into a religious rumination.
For Shame
In his new L.A. Weekly column, David Corn examines the bungled mess the Bush administration is making of things, before they’ve even reached the inauguration for term two.
Recent events have once again proved the truism that it’s easy to run for office, it’s hard to govern — especially when you’re an arrogant fellow pursuing bad policies.Ain’t that the truth.
I was, however, most struck by the following passage:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld became the administration’s Bonehead Number One when he dismissed a soldier’s question about the lack of armor for the troops.Since that incident, Senate Republicans have been trampling each other as they scramble for the news vans, nobody wanting to be the rotten egg. Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine, Senator Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., Senator Norm Coleman, R-Minn., Senator Trent Lott, R-Miss., and Senator John McCain, R-Ariz. have all issued public criticisms of Rumsfeld within the last few days.
While the White House’s continued defense of Rumsfeld is both unfathomable and nauseating, the decision of these Senators to speak out only now is even more despicable. This was not the first contemptible story out of Iraq that aptly characterized this administration’s mishandling of the war. In fact, it was not even remotely the first story about “hillbilly armor.” Where were these righteous Senators three, six, twelve months ago?
There is no new information upon which these condemnations are based. What is new is only the political situation; the election is over. Take note, red state America—the men and women you elect on a Republican ticket, the ticket of virtues and real Americans—feel not a tingle of shame about letting your sons and daughters die, until pointing the finger at the man responsible becomes politically expedient.
They are compelled to criticize Rumsfeld now, not because of his disastrous leadership, which has always been patently apparent, but because they were made to look like fools by Army Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team (and the reporter who coached him). Had Wilson never challenged Rumsfeld, the honor-seeking Senators who now pat themselves on the backs for their brave denouncements would still be wrapped in the silent complicity that has kept them warm for the past four years.
As David Corn correctly states, the shit started hitting the fan when Rumsfeld “dismissed a soldier’s question about the lack of armor for the troops,” not when he failed to provide it in the first place. This is the great sin of Donald Rumsfeld—he looked bad on TV, and made the administration look bad by extension. The soldiers without proper armor wasn't a problem, you see, until old Rummy took a hard question and came back with a poor sound byte.
So fuck you, Senators, for your empty disapprovals and contrived virtue. You don't care about soldiers. You don't care about anything except staving off embarrassment-by-association by reminding us that you can still affect convincing righteous indignation on TV. Well done. We'll see you after the next media debacle.
This Just In...
Chevy Chase is unfunny. I have never found him funny (except, perhaps, the first Vacation movie, when I'm feeling generous). I've always thought he comes across as a smug, arrogant prick who's out of his depth.
The groundwork thus laid, I present the following from the Takes One to Know One Files:
I also enjoyed Reliable Source's use of the term "certified Hollywood liberals." A not-so-flattering double-entrendre was meant to be inferred, methinks.Even certified Hollywood liberals were reeling after Chevy Chase's potty-mouthed Bush-bashing Tuesday night at the Kennedy Center, where the actor hosted an awards ceremony staged by People for the American Way.
For most of the evening, Chase was his usual comedic self, delivering lines like "This just in -- resignations in the upper echelon of the Bush administration. The Bush sisters have resigned and are being replaced by Paris and Nicky Hilton. Back for more news later."
After actors Alec Baldwin and Susan Sarandon delivered speeches accepting their Defender of Democracy awards, Chase took the stage a final time and unleashed a rant against President Bush that stunned the crowd. He deployed the four-letter word that got Vice President Cheney in hot water, using it as a noun. Chase called the prez a "dumb [expletive]." He also used it as an adjective, assuring the audience, "I'm no [expletive] clown either. . . . This guy started a jihad."Chase also said: "This guy in office is an uneducated, real lying schmuck . . . and we still couldn't beat him with a bore like Kerry."
[...]
Sen. Tom Daschle, the former minority leader, looked taken aback when he went on directly after Chase. His opening line: "I've had to follow a lot of speakers, but -- "
The movie star didn't return for a curtain call or to savor dessert at the reception after the event. We were told he hurt his back and needed to call it a night by 9. Chase's PR rep told us yesterday she was unable to reach him.
UPDATE: Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha! Woo. I almost spit my falafel all over the screen.
The War Comes Home
From the AP (link via AMERICAblog):
Police have arrested a soldier they say had his cousin shoot him so he wouldn't have to return to Iraq.
Army Spc. Marquise J. Roberts, of Hinesville, Ga., suffered a minor wound Tuesday to his left leg from a .22-caliber pistol, police said. He was treated at a hospital, then arrested after he and his cousin allegedly admitted making up a story about the shooting.
[…]
Police said Roberts, a supply specialist who had spent seven months in Iraq, was distraught about having to return to combat duty and wanted to stay with his family.
The Point
In a post delicately titled Bernard Kerik Is a Fuckwad, the Rude Pundit reminds us not to get distracted by the details:
Oh, my, some pundits say, how could the White House vetting process have missed anything that a solid Lexis-Nexis search would have picked up. But that misses the point.If there’s anything the Left can’t learn fast enough, it’s that all of it is smoke and mirrors and red herrings. The point is always that they don’t care, that their only feeling toward the American people is contempt. And while the Left and the Right struggle to lay claim to the mantle of The Real Americans, while we’re busy bickering about frigging Christmas displays, Bush and Co. are quietly laying the groundwork to dismantle every social program the Left has worked for since The New Deal, because they disdain all Americans who aren’t them, including (and perhaps especially) those who voted for them. That’s the point. And we can’t forget it.
It's not that Bush's vetting failed or that Alberto Gonzales is an incompetent piece of shit. The point here is that they just didn't care. The Bush administration thought it could do whatever it wanted in the wake of the election and that nobody would fucking care. And the other point is that it doesn't matter. Bush could have a cabinet made up of deaf-mute quadriplegics who shit themselves on a regular basis, and they'd be as effective as whoever Bush appoints. But the Kerik nomination, among so many other things, lays bare the arrogance and contempt the Bush administration feels for the American public. We just happened to catch this one. How many others get by us?
Get Comfy, Part II
Sorry, I really lost the plot on that last post. (A little slap-happy today; I need a vacation.)
What I meant to say was that the framing of the question is all wrong. To those who would deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, I would ask not about their comfort level with granting this one right, but instead: How comfortable are you continuing to deny multiple rights to a part of the American populace? These include the fundamental rights to:
- visit a partner or a partner's child in a hospital;
- inherit from your partner if she or he doesn't have a valid will;
- obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies;
- enter joint rental agreements;
- make medical decisions on a partner's behalf in event of illness;
- take bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or a partner's child;
- choose a final resting place for a deceased partner;
- obtain wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
- get an equitable division of property in a divorce;
- have joint child custody, visitation, adoption and foster care;
- determine child custody and support in a divorce;
- have a spouse covered under Social Security and Medicare;
- file joint tax returns;
- obtain veterans' discounts on medical care, education and home loans;
- apply for immigration and residency for partners from other countries; and
- obtain domestic violence protective orders.
And beyond that, the National Center for Health Statistics has released a report finding that couples who live together, but are not married, are more likely to have health problems than married couples.
There are two major theories as to why, said the researchers.
"Marriage protection is the theory that married people have more advantages in terms of economic resources, social and psychological support, and support for healthy lifestyles,' the report says.
"Marital selection is the theory that healthier people get married and stay married, whereas less-healthy people either do not marry or are more likely to become separated, divorced, or widowed."
Considering gays and lesbians can’t get married regardless of health, the former theory is, obviously, the only one applicable. Denying marriage, then, is also to deny the economic, social, and psychological resources and benefits that we married heterosexuals take for granted, undermining the very health and stability that someone as foolish as I might think a phrase like “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is meant to include.
So, to those of you who aren’t quite comfortable with gay marriage yet…how comfortable are you with that?
Get Comfy
In this column, Ellen Goodman asks if gay rights must wait for everyone else’s “comfort,” and decides that the answer is no (which, I admit, is a bit of a “duh” for me, but, okay, I can acknowledge that maybe there are a lot of people, even liberals, who toil to overcome ingrained homophobia). The only gay marriage with which I’ve ever been uncomfortable is Liza Minelli’s and David Gest’s.
But frankly, they may have been wise to wait until at least one remotely humanoid form was comfortable with their union before taking the big leap.
The North Polarization
Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog gets real:
If you want to know why conservatives win as often as they do, examine how quickly they've gotten into formation on the subject of "Christmas under siege" -- all of a sudden there's denunciation after denunciation after denunciation after denunciation of evil Christian-hating liberals whose preference for pluralism and objection to publicly financed sectarianism are signs that they (we) want to scrub every trace of faith from America, with jackboots on. And also note that conservatives have been pushing the "Christmas under siege" line for years; it didn't catch on in 2003 or 2002 or 2001, but they didn't give up.Somebody explain to me exactly how politicizing Christmas is indicative of a belief in its sanctity.
I worry that conservatives are going to dominate U.S. politics until liberals learn to launch precision assaults like this. Now I'm not sure I want to live in a country dominated by two political wings that do nothing but generate line-of-the-day two-minute hates, but I worry that it may have to come to that, or the Right will just continue to win.
