Shakesville

The Constantly Blurring Line Separating Church and State

A couple days ago, USA Today ran an article headlined Shaping politics from pulpits, which examined how conservative churches are becoming increasingly active in partisan politics.

Pastor Russell Johnson paces across the broad stage as he decries the "secular jihadists" who have "hijacked" America, accuses the public schools of neglecting to teach that Hitler was "an avid evolutionist" and links abortion to children who murder their parents.

"It's time for the church to get a spinal column" and push the "seculars and the jihadists ... into the dust bin of history," the guest preacher tells a congregation that fills the sanctuary at First Christian Church of Canton.

That is his mission. Johnson leads the Ohio Restoration Project, an emergent network of nearly 1,000 "Patriot Pastors" from conservative churches across the state. Each has pledged to register 300 "values voters," adding hundreds of thousands of like-minded citizens to the electorate who "would be salt and light for America."
[…]

Evangelical Christian leaders nationwide have been emboldened by their role in re-electing President Bush and galvanized by their success in campaigning for constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage, passed in 18 states so far.

Now some are organizing to build on last year's successes. They want to solidify their role in setting the political agenda and electing sympathetic public officials.

I encourage you to read the entire article; it provides a series of examples of the rise of Dominionism across the country. Additionally, the Tucson Citizen reported yesterday that the Phoenix diocese has banned politicians who support a woman’s right to chose and/or gay rights from speaking at Catholic churches.

Now here’s my opinion: I don’t care. That’s right. I don’t give two flips if churches want to be politically active. What I do care about is their tax exempt status, which is predicated in part upon their not being politically active, and should be revoked as soon as they are. Period. That they are being given the latitude to have it both ways is ridiculous, and further evidence that the GOP has no compunction against leaving unenforced any law or statute as long as it’s to their benefit.

Caption This Photo

Sister, I’m a poet.

Friday Night Name That Movie

Name all 10 films—and see if you can figure out what the connection between all of them is. This one really stretched my brain to the hilt, and I had to use IMDb to get the exact wording on two quotes. No cheating now! :-)

1. My job consists of basically masking my contempt for the assholes in charge, and, at least once a day, retiring to the men's room so I can jerk off while I fantasize about a life that doesn't so closely resemble hell.

2. No two bloodsuckers go the same way. Some yell and scream, some go quietly, some explode, some implode, but all will try to take you with them.

3. Seeing a man die isn't enough for you, you gotta be close enough to smell his nuts cook?

4. They're called boobs, Ed.

5. I was just thinking what an interesting concept it is to eliminate the writer from the artistic process. If we could just get rid of these actors and directors…maybe we've got something here.

6. I'm ready to quit this dump, I really am. Ray won't let me wear my glasses on stage, then Ian gets pissed because I can't do any of the tricks—I mean. I'm only legally blind. I could understand if I wanted to wear my glasses on my tits, but nobody in this dump is looking at my face anyway.

7. Do you mind if I name my first child after you? "Dipshit Knight" has a nice ring to it.

8. We got a rockin’ rhythm and a hi-tech sound that'll make you move your body down to the ground.

9. There's only two syllables in this whole wide world worth hearing—pussy. Are you listening to me, son? I'm giving ya pearls here.

10. Let me tell you something, my friend. Hope is a dangerous thing. Hope can drive a man insane.

Friday Cat Blogging

Filthy little beggars.

Big Jim

Matilda

Olivia

“Now There’s a Leak Someone’s Gonna Be Held Accountable For.”

Crooks and Liars has got the video of The Daily Show on Novak’s apeshittery meltdown yesterday.

Is it wrong that I think Jon Stewart should find a reason to rub his nipples on every show?

Extra ARGH

From the article to which Paul links, below:

"He's a man of character," said Cheryl Cheyney, a school bus driver from Cumming, Ga., and a Republican. "He's very honest in the things he says. I agree with his belief system, the way he believes in God and is not afraid to show it. That's very important to me."

This is what will always irritate me about conservative Christians who adore Bush. They genuinely don’t seem to care that he constantly behaves in unchristian ways. They genuinely don’t seem to care that he doesn’t even attend church regularly. Their biggest concern seems to be that he “isn’t afraid to show” that he believes in God, which isn’t even an honest claim; he isn’t afraid to say he believes in God. He, in reality, does precious little to show it.

And here’s my question for Cheryl Cheyney and those who share her sentiment: John Kerry said he believes in God (and attends church more frequently than the president), and didn’t seem afraid to say it; so what’s the difference? Every friggin’ president we’ve ever had has been a Christian believer in God (and not afraid to say it). So what makes this guy so different? Isn’t it really that he’s willing to push a very particular Christian agenda down the nation’s collective throat? Isn’t it that he espouses (if not overtly, then through his policy endorsements) a superiority of that particular Christian doctrine over other Christian beliefs, other religions, agnosticism, and atheism? Isn’t it his willingness to subjugate science, reason, the rule of law, fairness, justice, and equality to give ever greater rights to your existing majority, while indulging your screeching assertions of victimhood?

That doesn’t make him a man of character; it makes him a bully. And about as un-Christ-like as I can imagine.

If that’s important to you, then you’ve no understanding what it means to be either a Christian or an American.

Takes one to know one

President Bush lamented the deaths of 14 Marines in Iraq calling the deadly attack a 'grim reminder' America is still at war, as he addressed the American Legislative Exchange Council meeting in Grapevine, Texas, near Dallas, Wednesday, Aug. 3, 2005.

Yeah. He looks alllll broken up about that.

I'm amazed he was able to take a little time away from the five week vacation he "earned."

Bush: U.S. to Stay in Iraq Despite Deaths

Bush, if anything, has at least proven that ghosts cannot exist. Otherwise, he wouldn't be getting a wink of sleep at night, what with all the groaning, dishes being thrown around, and evil clown dolls under his bed.

The president, facing a grim and growing death toll, also said new threats of even more violence from al-Qaida's second-in-command would not intimidate the United States into retreat.

Okay, I get the whole prick-waving "we will not be intimidated" thing. I get it. But wouldn't a responsible man at least be able to admit that our strategy is not working, and we must therefore change tactics? Bush is so terrified of admitting failure, he's unable to change strategy. He would rather march straight ahead in red coats than admit, even in slight terms, that he may have made a bad decision somewhere along the way. Remember during the debates when asked if he could name (I believe it was three, memory's a little fuzzy here as I know he was asked this more than once) three mistakes that he has made while being President, he couldn't admit to even one?

That is not how a President acts. He is being incredibly pig-headed, and it's costing even more lives.

There is nothing wrong with changing tactics. If you want to stay the course, fine. (For the record, I'm a little leery of picking up and leaving Iraq... I hate seeing what's happening over there now, but I can't imagine how Iraq and the rest of the world would turn against us if we left Iraq a smoking crater.) But please, admit that what we are doing is not working, and do something about it. We can no longer stay the course, you asshole.

At the same time Thursday, the U.S. military announced in Iraq that four more service members had been killed in action but also insisted American troops were making progress against insurgents.

"We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq," Bush said in Texas as a videotape by Ayman al-Zawahri, al-Qaida's No.2, was broadcast around the world.

Stay the course! Stay the course! Awk! Awk! Cracker? Cracker?

I want you to say this out loud. "We are not making progress against the insurgents."

The first step is admitting you have a problem.

"They're terrorists and they're killers and they will kill innocent people ... so they can impose their dark vision on the world," Bush said as he stood alongside Colombian President Alvaro Uribe who was visiting at Bush's ranch in Texas.

"They then return to their swamp hedquarters with the rest of the Legion of Doom," he added.

I'm getting really, really sick of this evil wizard talk. These people are not out to steal all the gold from Fort Knox, harness the sun's rays for their death beams, abduct people for anal probing, or steal the fucking Goblet of Fire. The phrase "the terrorists hate America because they hate freedom" is empty and meaningless. There are motivations behind Anti-American sentiment, and every day, Mister Bush, you motivate more.

Bush said if terrorists think they can prevail in the Middle East, "they must not have understood the nature of our country. ... As I have told the American people, people like Zawahri have an ideology that is dark, dim, backwards."

No.

You, Mister Bush, have the ideology that is "dark, dim, backwards."

Your ideology is contrary to everything America should stand for. You have made it your mission, since stealing your way into the Presidency, to fuck the poor, coddle the rich, hinder the freedom of speech, disenfranchise voters, cripple and cow the media, destroy the environment, blacken our reputation throughout the world, make enemies of friends, break the law, slaughter innocents, send over 1800 Americans to their deaths on a lie, and cause your citizens to live in a constant state of fear.

You, Mister Bush, are the terrorist.

Takes one to know one.

Now watch this drive.

(I'd like to cross-post, under the sea...in an Octopus' garden)

I Have a Confession to Make...

I love Tammy Faye Messner.

You might remember her better as Tammy Faye Bakker, the mascara-laden wife of erstwhile televangelist Jimmy Bakker, who made Tammy Faye cry, famously, when he was caught with his pants down and his hand in the cookie jar.

Even though her husband, and many of their PTL associates, seemed like insincere rabble, just out for the last dimes in the handbags of little old ladies, Tammy always struck me as the genuine article—a woman who was filled with boundless faith and love. She also seemed like someone with whom I’d really enjoy sitting and having a long conversation, diametrically different as we are, because she was interesting and thoughtful, and most of all, very funny.

During college, every afternoon, Mr. Furious and I settled in to watch the Jm J and Tammy Faye Show—a talk show so bizarre that it seemed itself to be a parody of a Saturday Night Live talk show parody. The guests were incidental; it was all about Jm J and Tammy Faye, who were the oddest couple, well, ever, and whoever was inspired to suggest the flamingly gay Jm J as foil for the former preacher’s wife Tammy Faye was a genius. (Tammy Faye was given 12 people to choose from, and chose Jm.) They were giddy, silly, hilarious—and interestingly, remain good friends to this day.

Tammy Faye proved herself to be the genuine article after all, ignoring the increasingly vitriolic anti-gay noise from much of the evangelical community, and becoming an out-spoken gay rights advocate, even penning a gay youth advice column, raising awareness about the disproportionate incidences of teen suicide among gay teens, criticizing the church for not welcoming gays, and celebrating pride festivities with her new legions of gay fans. Tammy Faye had been a drag icon for years (it’s all about the make-up!), but her activism wasn’t motivated by a realization there was a community she could cynically exploit for a comeback; instead she was moved by a desire to make sure that desperate gay teens knew they were loved, too. Even if their churches, their friends, or even their parents didn’t…she did.

Bakker told the teens it is appalling that gay teens are twice as likely to commit suicide as heterosexual youths.

''When I read that, my heart almost broke,'' she said, adding that a 19-year-old relative committed suicide just recently. ''Suicide is not the way out,'' said Bakker. ''Life is precious, and you want to live, live, live.''

She said she has drawn on the hardships and criticism she has faced in the past, from battling cancer to fighting critics' questions about her makeup and intelligence. And, she offered this advice: ''Not everyone is going to like you, not everyone is going to agree with you ... but always remember, no matter what, you have a right to be you,'' she said. ''Your `I will' is more important than your IQ.''

In recent years, Tammy Faye has been the subject of a great documentary, The Eyes of Tammy Faye, chronicling her rise and fall as a televangelist with then-husband Jim Bakker, a season of The Surreal Life (which I didn’t watch), and a very recent documentary, Tammy Faye: Death Defying, which premiered on WE: Women’s Entertainment on July 25 and followed her battle with inoperable, stage 4 cancer—a project she signed onto because, "I felt with cancer and AIDS and these debilitating diseases, we could maybe show the inside (of the experience) and make it a little less frightening." She went into remission, but has now announced she’s battling the cancer once again, for the third time.

I’m not a praying person, but I think good thoughts for Tammy Faye, and I hope she gets through this latest trial, like she has so many others. I like the world better with a character like Tammy Faye in it, and all the love and hope and inspiration she brings to it. And I don’t care what anyone says—I’ll always love those eyelashes.

(There’s a great interview with Tammy Faye here.)

Friday Blogrollin'

The Green Lantern, who should have been added long ago.

Pulp Friction—be prepared for sass.

Fuck Karl Rove, the name of which speaks for itself. And it’s authored by a former Republican (yowza!), who’s currently drunk in Mexico, lucky sod.

Yep, Another Goddamed Blog, who expertly takes on Santorum here, and makes a rather compelling case why he ought to be voted back in.

(Two blogs with cussin’ in their very titles! Boy, we lefties are getting frisky.)

Grumpy Old Man, who is really quite grumpy indeed, making his blog a fun read for the rest of we grumpsters.

Recidivist Journals. Go read anything. It’s all good.

A Unique Take on Intelligent Design

J. Kingston Pierce:

So far, I seem to be the only one--imagine that--questioning the intelligence at the core of this pseudo-scientific theory.

To prove his point, he’s got an entire list of items that he believes no intelligent designer would have, well, designed, including: Tom DeLay, talk radio, chicken fries, Catwoman, oversize foam fingers, swine flu, amateur porn, and t-ball, among others. He’s also soliciting your contributions.

I’d have to go with Botox. It’s just not right.

(And btw, I like chicken fries!)

I’d Give It a Try

The world’s first smokeless and tobacco-free cigarette (unless you count the candy kind, I guess) is set to go on sale early next year:

Swissmedic, the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products, has decided the NicStic is not a medicinal product and has cleared the path for its commercial production.

Monique Helfer of Swissmedic said: "If we had classified the NicStic as medication, the manufacturer would have had to apply to have it covered by health insurance and therefore it would have required the approval of the Federal Health Office and taken a lot longer to get to the public."

Instead the Swiss invention aimed at smokers who enjoy smoking regardless of growing condemnation of the habit should soon be available for the same cost as normal cigarettes.

The smokeless and tobacco-free cigarette uses a rechargeable heating coil in a plastic cigarette-sized stick to dispense nicotine without smoke.

NicStic's inventors say their invention will allow smokers to "light-up" without annoying others with passive smoke and therefore avoid the increasing smoking bans in public places.

The company promises that dragging on it releases "a similar taste" to cigarettes without the health issues from tar, arsenic, cadmium and formaldehyde that a normal cigarette contains.

But Janine Messerli from the Swiss Institute for Alcohol and Drug Prevention is critical of NicStic and the Swissmedic decision: "Nicotine is what makes smoking addictive, and so this product changes nothing."

Yeah, except annoying people around you who aren’t smokers and probably saving you from high blood pressure, emphysema, and lung cancer. I admit I’m a totally pathetic, weak-willed loser who can’t give up my cigarettes, but I’ll bet I could substitute the NicStic for them.

Arrrr... it be Science!

Rarely is the question asked: Is our monkeys learning?

In response to yesterday's post on the doggy cloning, Devo, that silly little monkey, had this to say:

This is most certainly a huge story, it seems. Though I would like a little clarification on exactly what the phrase "creating a reliable research model" means. I mean, how is the process updated, different, or better than the process they used to create Dolly? Are they going to research Snuppy? How will the results of this research be different from the results of whatever research they did on Dolly?

I'm confused. And no good at science or math. So anyone who can explain will have to do so in short sentences and two-syllable words. Oh, and pictures, if you can. Preferrably with pirates and monkeys. Thanks!

The Chemist, picking up Devo's cry for help on his super sensitive atomic detect-o equipment, located thousands of miles below the Earth's crust, came immediately to the rescue:

OK, Devo, I'll give it a shot...

Imagine that there are a bunch of pirates who want to take over an island and rebuild it into a pirate paradise. The island is in bad shape, and needs some major structural repairs. Now, the pirates could do it themselves, but they'd rather be drinking grog and screwing wenches.

So, they decide to train a bunch of monkeys to do the hard work for them. The first few monkeys they train just fling poop at the island, and don't build anything. This is a problem for the pirates, as they have to drink their grog and screw their wenches outside on the beach. While the view is beautiful, sand is getting everywhere.

So the pirates buckle down and focus on creating a training program for the monkeys, so they can pump out trained primates capable of putting up drywall, or laying a foundation, or installing a toilet. Finally they do, and it leads to comfort and long life for all the pirates.

Now, replace 'pirates' with 'South Korean researchers', 'monkeys' with 'specially cloned organs', and the island with the human body. It still won't make sense, but at least it'll sound more science-y.

Absolute brilliance. Class is dismissed.

That is the gay-est pirate I've ever seen.

(Good heavens, Miss Sakomoto! You're cross-posting!)

OMG! Novak Loses His Shit!

While discussing (coincidentally) Katherine Harris’ make-up woes and her Senate run, Robert Novak got into a bit of a verbal spar with James Carville on CNN and, for reasons that aren’t entirely clear, declared it was “bullshit” and walked off the set, ripping off his microphone. All on live TV.

Crooks and Liars (bless them) has the video.

(Hat tip BradBlog.)

UPDATE: Think Progress reports the post script from the host:

Thanks, James Carville. And I’m sorry as well that Bob Novak left the set a little early. I had told him in advance that we were going to ask about the CIA leak case, he was not here for me to be able to ask him about that. Hopefully, we’ll be able to ask him about that in the future.

Also, via Atrios, MediaBistro says:

"Bob Novak's behavior on CNN today was inexcusable and unacceptable. Mr. Novak has apologized to CNN, and CNN apologizes to its viewers for his language and actions. We've asked Mr. Novak to take some time off," a CNN spokeswoman told us.

It's kinda cool how outing a CIA operative in a column doesn't lose him his job, but saying "bullshit" on the air gets him a nice vacation. Maybe he can go help the pres clear some brush for a few weeks.

Recommended Reading

Scott’s got a good post up at Big Brass Blog connecting religious extremism with a lack of faith. It’s a really interesting thought. Check it out.

If Only Newspapers Had Stayed Black and White

Oddjob, by way of BlondeSense’s Pissed Off Patricia, points us to this article, in which GOP hack Katherine Harris whines that the media was to blame for her reputation as a fashion victim, not her own dubious cosmetics skillz.

“I'm actually very sensitive about those things, and it's personally painful,'' Harris said when host Sean Hannity asked about her image problems from 2000.

“But they're outrageously false, No. 1, and No. 2, you know, whenever they made fun of my makeup, it was because the newspapers colorized my photograph,'' Harris said.

She didn't explain what she meant by “colorized.''

Asked Tuesday to point to an altered photograph, Harris and her staff could not.

Her response to the question, said spokesman Adam Goodman, was, “I haven't worn blue eye shadow since the seventh grade when I was in the Girl Scouts.'' She didn't name a newspaper that showed blue eye shadow.

Does this eye shadow
look blue to you?

“Manipulating an image in any form is not allowed'' by The Associated Press, which distributes photos to newspapers nationwide, said David Ake, AP national deputy photography director. “We're pretty adamant about that. We have terminated people for it.''

Ake was AP photo editor in Florida during the 2000 recount, “and I can tell you we did no manipulation whatever,'' he said.

[…]

Even some feminists who oppose Harris said she was the victim of a double standard.

“She got the criticism anybody in a political hot spot would get, but what she also got, what women get, is more attention to the things that are different from men,'' said Marie Wilson, of the White House Project, an organization that seeks to advance women in politics.

I agree with that last bit; woman do get criticized for style- and appearance-related issues way more than men, and, in fact, I can’t even imagine a woman who was as overweight as Denny Hastert getting elected, even if she was evidently capable of single-handedly solving the culture war that plagues us, which is truly shameful. So I won’t hold it against Harris that she was upset by such personal criticisms, but I have no compunction whatsoever against mocking her pathetic attempt to blame the media.

Caption This Photo

I'm on vacation, bitches! Whatcha lookin' at?

HUH?!

Welcome to Bizarro World:

A leading Republican senator allied with the religious right differed on Thursday with President Bush's support for teaching an alternative to the theory of evolution known as "intelligent design."

Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a possible 2008 presidential contender who faces a tough re-election fight next year in Pennsylvania, said intelligent design, which is backed by many religious conservatives, lacked scientific credibility and should not be taught in science classes.

Bush told reporters from Texas on Monday that "both sides" in the debate over intelligent design and evolution should be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about."

"I think I would probably tailor that a little more than what the president has suggested," Santorum, the third-ranking Republican member of the U.S. Senate, told National Public Radio. "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom."

Okay, he still wants ID taught in schools, with which I strongly disagree for various reasons, but still, those comments came very close to sounding...reasonable.

I would write some commentary on this, but I have to locate my jaw, which is somewhere on the floor, and my splash some cold water on my face before I pass out.

You’ve Got to Be Kidding Me

Baseball slugger, professional moustache model, and imbiber of illegal substances Rafael Palmeiro failed a drug test this week, testing positive for the powerful steroid stanozolol, after testifying to Congress in March that he had “never used steroids. Period." President Bush has signaled his support of his good pal Palmeiro by noting, "He's the kind of person that's going to stand up in front of the klieg lights and say he didn't use steroids, and I believe him. Still do," demonstrating both his renowned support of compulsive liars and his unwavering contempt for science. Congress, however, has other ideas about Palmeiro, who has invoked the now-familiar “didn’t do it knowingly” defense:

With the player's consent, Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, and the committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Henry Waxman of California, asked Major League Baseball on Wednesday to turn over information about the failed drug test that resulted in a 10-day suspension for Palmeiro this week.

[…]

"As a practical matter, perjury referrals are uncommon," Davis told The Associated Press. "Prosecutions are rare. But this is a high-profile case, so I think it will get an honest look-see. I don't think anyone can avoid it.

"If we did nothing," he added, "I think we'd look like idiots, don't you?"

Frankly, Mr. Davis, I thought you kind of looked like idiots for getting involved in this whole steroids thing in the first place. To continue to pursue it, based on the fact that some dude lied to you, which ought to have been widely expected considering he’s got a career and a record to protect, in spite of the fact that the President lied to Congress to take the nation to war, doesn’t make you look like idiots so much as useless fucking tools. Quit jacking around with baseball players and pay attention to something that makes a difference in the lives of the American people—like holding accountable the man responsible for the unnecessary deaths of almost 2,000 soldiers and a debt the size of Jupiter!

(Hat tip Blue Meme.)

UPDATE: Definitely read Daily Pepper's post tracing Bush's connection to all this, too. Honestly, is there any dirty business in this country that doesn't lead back to the White House? (Excepting the usual in Chicago, of course.)

Majority of Americans Support Marriage Rights for Gays

Yes, you read that headline right.

Breathe that in for a moment.

For the first time ever, a new poll by Pew Research finds that 53% of Americans would permit gays and lesbians to enter into legal arrangements that would give them many of the same rights as married couples. What might be even more stunning is that 35 percent said they favor gay marriage. As Pam notes:

That's right, the majority [of] American people are coming around to the fact that civil equality for gays and lesbians is not going to destroy the nation, their marriages, or their families.

Things will no doubt get worse before they get better; this is sure to throw the Dominionists into quite a lather, and whenever that happens, you know it’s going to get ugly. The vitriol will be unbearable. We may well see a rise in anti-gay attacks, too. But if we do, bear this in mind: when a majority of the population finally supports a marginalized community, violence or threats against the community tend to solidify support, not undermine it. Any outrageous behavior will only serve to discredit anti-gay thugs in the eyes of those Americans who are just starting to wake up to the fact that gays deserve equal rights—in no small part because condemning such attitudes often helps people disassociate themselves from their own former ignorance of and/or hostility to the issues of the oppressed.

There will come a day when the 1,000+ rights and benefits conferred upon straight people simply through the act of getting married are no longer withheld from gays, and that day draws ever closer.

Progress comes slowly, but the wind is changing and the air smells sweet.

Interesting

I have very mixed feeling about SCOTUS nominee John Roberts. Part of it isn’t really about him at all; it’s about the fact that I’m not sure whether we could ever expect to get anyone better (from our perspective) out of a Bush nomination. That doesn’t mean I think we should resign ourselves to his appointment, and not fight tooth and nail against him if he deserves it…but taking into consideration the nature of any nominee Bush gives us, whether he does deserves it is, at least for me, kind of a tough call.

So that’s why I’ve been pretty quiet on Roberts. I’ve just been reading what I can about him, and trying to get my head around who he is. Today, there’s an interesting article about him in The Seattle Times (pulled from the LA Times) that doesn’t really help make up my mind about him one way or another, but might at least justify my decision to withhold final judgment for a bit:

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay-rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. While he did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the Supreme Court, he was instrumental in reviewing the filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers involved in the case.

The coalition won its case, 6-3, in what gay activists described at the time as the movement's most important legal victory. The three dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology: Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Roberts' work on behalf of gay activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession: to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be.

There is no other record of Roberts being involved in gay-rights cases that would suggest his position on such issues. He has stressed, however, that a client's views are not necessarily shared by the lawyer who argues on his or her behalf.

The lawyer who asked for his help on the case, Walter Smith Jr., then head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, said Roberts didn't hesitate. "He said, 'Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job," Smith said.

[…]

[Jean Dubofsky, lead attorney on the case] said Roberts helped her form the argument that the initiative was illegal because it violated the "equal-protections" clause of the Constitution.

I don’t post this to suggest that Roberts is gay-friendly; I don’t think that he is. But perhaps he’s more fair than I originally suspected.

So far, the Dems seem to be doing a good job on really digging into this guy, and I think we can trust them to do what’s best here—which, as we know, hasn’t always been the case when it comes to Bush’s nominees for various positions throughout the judiciary and his administration. Some people have been given a pass (and Dem votes of support) who in no way deserved them. (Yeah, I’m talking to you Alberto Gonzales…and you, too, Condi Rice.)

The truth is, I’m never going to be happy with anyone Bush nominates, but I’m not yet convinced this guy is another Scalia, either. I’m going to keep my eyes on this and see what unfolds. If it turns out this guy isn’t the absolute worst we could have expected, that still might not make us jump for joy, but it would certainly be a welcome surprise.