A Letter to John Edwards on Marriage Equality

A letter written by the very wise Pam Spaulding on Pam’s House Blend (link has been deprecated) is a great help in sorting out the marriage equality issue for fair-minded people, so I’m reprinting it here in full…

Dear John Edwards,

I have read about some comments you made recently in New Hamphire about marriage equality for gay and lesbian Americans. The article quoted you as saying:

“Civil unions? Yes. Partnership benefits? Yes,” he said. “But it’s a jump for me to get to gay marriage. I haven’t yet got across that bridge.” … “I wish I knew the right answer,”

I hope that is an accurate quote of your words.

I would like to suggest that perhaps you have not yet considered the right question and that perhaps the right question would help you find the “right answer.”
First, a preliminary question. “Do all American citizens deserve equal treatment under the law?”

If your answer to the preliminary question is no, then there is no need to go on.

If your answer to the preliminary question is yes, then things get a little more complicated. Here we go.

Which of the three options mentioned in your quote offers genuine equal treatment, at least potentially, to all American citizens who wish to form some sort of legal contract of partnership?

Please keep in mind that the benefits and protections of marriage come from multiple levels of government. The most numerous and significant ones come from the federal level, 1,138 of them according to the latest summary by the GAO. This document, GAO report number GAO-04-353R entitled ‘Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report’, which was released on February 24, 2004 may be obtained from the United States General Accounting Office website. It is available at the following URL. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-353R

Some of the benefits and protections, considerably fewer, come from the state level. Others come from the county and municipal levels as well as from the private sector.

As you know, the federal Defense of Marriage Act currently prohibits any same sex marriage from receiving the 1,138 benefits and protections of marriage. If my recollection is correct, you are on record as opposing DOMA. Unfortunately, however, I think the reason you give is not a fully correct reason. As I recall, your reason has something to do with states regulating marriage. That “reason,” which seems to be the Democratic Party line, is oversimplified and misleading. While it is true that each state regulates who can get married, none of the states provide the federal benefits and protections of marriage. They cannot do so. What I’m hearing from your recent comments is that even though you oppose DOMA, you are uncertain as to whether or not gay and lesbians Americans deserve full citizenship benefits.
For the sake of my question, however, lets just assume that DOMA does not exist or has been repealed.

Which of the options you note would provide equal treatment for all US citizens who wish to form some sort of legal contract of partnership?

Civil unions cannot give access to any of the benefits and protections of civil marriage. They require a separate set to be specified. If these civil unions are at a state level, they only apply within the single state that issues them. They are not portable and provide absolutely no protection to couples crossing a state line. More significantly, they cannot provide access to the most significant and numerous set of benefits and protections at the federal level. The first example that comes to mind is the fast-tracking of citizenship in international marriages. This is something completely outside the jurisdiction of the states.

Partnership benefits have exactly the same limitations as civil unions. The difference between civil union and partnership benefits is in name only.

A civil marriage contract is the only option capable of providing access to all the benefits and protections of civil marriage from all levels.

So then, if you truly believe that all American citizens should be given equal treatment under the law, hopefully the answer you have found to be elusive in the past is now within reach. I have taken you to the end of that bridge. Only you can take the final step required to complete crossing it.

Continue ReadingA Letter to John Edwards on Marriage Equality

Tomorrow is Election Day

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Politics

Please remember – The polls close at 6 p.m. in Indiana, so vote early! Try to vote before work or at lunch. People often skip voting in mid-term elections, which is unfortunate since they tend to have a much greater impact on your daily life than the national elections. If you don’t know who your candidates are, Vote Smart is always helpful in figuring that out.

Where to vote: Indianapolis has a polling locator website. Unfortunately it seems to prefer Internet Explorer to Firefox, where the form to enter your address into is completely hosed. The screen is better in Safari for the Mac; at least you can enter your info. Way to be accessible, people. Incidentally I’ve noticed lots of the city website is only useable in IE.

If you live in Indianapolis (especially downtown) and are concerned about GLBT issues, here’s a great rundown of the candidates on that issue from Mark St. John of the Indiana Equality PAC. I should clarify I grabbed this information from an email list from our neighborhood where people were asking Mark directly what he thought about candidates, so some of his personal preferences might be included with official positions of IE.

In Marion County the House of Representatives candidates with which IEPAC has been working in support include Susan Fuldauer (D) in House District 88 (running against Representative Brian Bosma), Representative David Orentlicher (D) in House District 86 (running against Kathryn Densborn), and John Barnes (D) in House District 89 (running against Larry Buell). All three – Orentlicher, Fuldauer, and Barnes – have stated positions in opposition to the marriage amendment and in favor of the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the state’s civil rights laws.

As for House District 97 (which includes most of downtown Indianapolis, including the Old Northside, Chatham Arch, etc.), the candidates are the incumbent, Representative Ed Mahern (D), and the Republican candidate John Elrod. Mahern is a strong supporter of LGBT civil rights issues, and voted in opposition to the proposed marriage amendment. He has a gay brother, and his entire family is highly supportive of the LGBT community. Elrod has stated his opposition to the marriage amendment, although mostly in private, one-on-one conversations. He has put out some pretty nasty mailings during the campaign, twisting around votes made by Mahern regarding illegal immigrants and child abuse so as to make Ed appear to be the Devil incarnate. Just a few minutes ago I received a killer call on behalf of Elrod, stating that Mahern is a career politician who is only worried about taking care of himself. Please be aware that Elrod is an attorney, and serves on the advisory board of Center Township. Elrod is in opposition the proposed consolidation of Marion County fire departments – hence, Elrod is busy protecting his political friends in township government and his own bottom line. For me, the real bottom line – Elrod is a Republican who will vote for Brian Bosma to be Speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives – something that is very dangerous to the future for the LGBT community.
In other races, both prosecutor candidates, Melinda Kennedy (D) and Carl Brizzi (R) have expressed support for hate crimes legislation (to include sexual orientation and gender identity). Melinda appears to be far stronger than Brizzi on domestic violence issues. Brizzi has included sexual orientation (and gender identity, I believe) in his office’s non-discrimination policies. My vote is for Melinda.

In the Senate District 31 race the challenger, Russell Brown (D) has announced his opposition to the marriage amendment and in favor of LGBT civil rights protections. The incumbent, Jim Merritt, voted in favor of the marriage amendment in both 2004 and 2005. Pretty simple choice here.

In Congressional District 7, what can I say? Julia Carson has been with the LGBT community through thick and thin. Her support of the changes to the Indianapolis Human Rights Ordinance were key to the enactment of local protections for the LGBT community. It’s essential that we remember our friends.
Mark St. John

Continue ReadingTomorrow is Election Day

Drinking Liberally Election Night Party

Drinking Liberally Election Night Party
Election Night — Tuesday, 11/7
6pm-whenever
Spencer’s Stadium Tavern
802 S. West St (SW Corner of West & McCarty)
Drinking Liberally Indianapolis is having a special “Election Night” edition of their regular weekly gathering (usually held on Thursday nights, but switched to Tuesday this week for the election.)
I haven’t had a chance to attend one of these yet, but I’m on their mailing list and I keep it on my radar. I really want to go if I can clear out my schedule. Unfortunately, I’ll be at the gym for this event.
If you haven’t heard of it yet, Drinking Liberally is a national thing with local chapters, and Jason from X-TraRant puts together the local event. It’s a way for liberals to get together and talk politics and network.

Continue ReadingDrinking Liberally Election Night Party

Blogger Forum with Progressive Candidates

I attended a blogger forum at lunch to day, where three local progressive candidates for office met with local bloggers to answer questions and talk about their political issues and campaigns.
The candidates were:

Russell Brown ( Democratic candidate, Senate District 31)

Dr. David Orentlicher (Democratic Representative, House District 86)

John Barnes (Democratic candidate, House District 89)

And the other bloggers:
Taking Down Words
Stallio’s Way
Resisting Inertia
ManfredEye
Confessions of a Hoosier Democrat
bilerico.com
Advance Indiana

I took some pretty extensive notes, so I have to look them over and take a little bit of time to write up some of the discussion.

Continue ReadingBlogger Forum with Progressive Candidates

A snippet of brilliance from Shakespeare’s Sister

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Politics

From the comments on this post about feminism — this statement, that is one of those “yes, that’s what I feel too, if only the thought had come out fully formed, but it didn’t” for me.

It’s a little nuance thing, but makes a huge difference. If I post on a t-shirt that I find offensive, and someone says, “I don’t find it offensive,” I don’t take umbrage. It’s when someone says, “Oh, it’s a t-shirt; get over it” that I get pissy, because what they’re really saying is, “I don’t find it offensive and neither should you.”
That’s particularly problematic when it’s said by someone who wasn’t the target of the message. If you’re a man who isn’t offended by a “Pussy: The Other White Meat” t-shirt, well, duh–it wasn’t designed to offend you. Its very existence is predicated on the fact that (some) men will laugh.
The men who don’t laugh are: A) sympathetic to why women are offended; and/or B) offended by the portrayal of men as insensitive cads and the assumption that men will find such sexism amusing. In the latter case, that typifies why I constantly say that sexism is bad for men, too.

Continue ReadingA snippet of brilliance from Shakespeare’s Sister

Friends of Tom Delay plan attack ads on behalf of Indiana’s Chris Chocola

Associates of disgraced former house majority leader Tom Delay are funding attack ads under the name “Americans for Honesty” for nine Republican congressional candidates in embattled districts, including on behalf of Representative Chris Chocola of Indiana, according to the New York Times.

A previously unknown group led by a Republican political consultant in Houston is financing television advertisements against nine Democratic House candidates from North Carolina to Arizona.
The group, Americans for Honesty on Issues, is spending more than $1 million on the advertisements, which accuse Democratic candidates of carpetbagging, coddling illegal immigrants, being soft on crime and advocating cutting off money for troops in Iraq.
The television spots appear to be the first wave of a boatload of negative political advertising that will appear in the weeks before the Nov. 7 election. Many of the advertisements will be produced by independent organizations known as 527 groups, after the provision in the tax code that allows such groups to spend virtually unlimited sums on political activity as long as it is not formally coordinated with parties or candidates.

The leader of Americans for Honesty on Issues is Sue Walden, a close ally of Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader who left Congress amid questions on ethics and fund-raising. Ms. Walden has also raised money for President Bush and served as an adviser to Kenneth L. Lay, the former chief executive of Enron who died in July.

Americans for “Honesty” — I’m surprised that lightning hasn’t struck them already.

Continue ReadingFriends of Tom Delay plan attack ads on behalf of Indiana’s Chris Chocola

Susan Fuldauer Fundraiser

We are strapped for cash and time, so we can’t go to this, but I wanted to be sure to pass it along because it’s an EXCELLENT cause…

Get tickets to this event to raise money for Susan Fuldauer. You will get food, drink, comedy and the pleasure that your donation is going toward removing Bosma from office. Life doesn’t get any better than this guys! Lets all buy tickets and have kind of a pre-game party before the election.
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 27
IT”S A NIGHT OF COMEDY
To Support
SUSAN FULDAUER
For State Representative
JOIN US AT MORTY”S COMEDY JOINT
3625 E. 96th St.
DOORS OPEN 6pm, SHOW STARTS 7pm
$30 DONATION
Preshow Hors d’oeuvres
2 Drink Minimum
FOR TICKETS PLEASE CALL
Kathy Gillette 755-6670 OR Susan Fuldauer 727-4505

Continue ReadingSusan Fuldauer Fundraiser

What Liberals Believe

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Politics

Liberalism is defined in the Chicago Tribune by Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago. (via Shakespeare’s Sister.) The article in full —

For most of the past four decades, liberals have been in retreat. Since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, Republicans have controlled the White House 70 percent of the time and Republican presidents have made 86 percent of the U.S. Supreme Court appointments. In many quarters, the word “liberal” has become a pejorative. Part of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe. As a liberal, I find that appalling.
In that light, I thought it might be interesting to try to articulate 10 propositions that seem to me to define “liberal” today. Undoubtedly, not all liberals embrace all of these propositions, and many conservatives embrace at least some of them.
Moreover, because 10 is a small number, the list is not exhaustive. And because these propositions will in some instances conflict, the “liberal” position on a specific issue may not always be predictable. My goal, however, is not to end discussion, but to invite debate.
1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that “time has upset many fighting faiths.” Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.
2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)
3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; “one person, one vote;” limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech. They believe, with Justice Louis Brandeis, that “the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people.”
4. Liberals believe “we the people” are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom. (Note that libertarians, often thought of as “conservatives,” share this value with liberals.)
5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion the rights of racial, religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, persons accused of crime and the outcasts of society. It is liberals who have insisted on the right to counsel, a broad application of the right to due process of law and the principle of equal protection for all people.
6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support government programs to improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society. It is liberals who maintain that a national community is like a family and that government exists in part to “promote the general welfare.”
7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith. It is liberals who have opposed and continue to oppose school prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools and who support government funding for stem-cell research, the rights of gays and lesbians and the freedom of choice for women.
8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties. It is principally liberal judges and justices who have preserved and continue to preserve freedom of expression, individual privacy, freedom of religion and due process of law. (Conservative judges and justices more often wield judicial authority to protect property rights and the interests of corporations, commercial advertisers and the wealthy.)
9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.
10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants. Liberals adhere to the view expressed by Brandeis some 80 years ago: “Those who won our independence … did not exalt order at the cost of liberty.”

Continue ReadingWhat Liberals Believe

Ben Stein is fucking batshit crazy

Former Nixon speechwriter and Ferris Bueller actor Ben Stein weighs in on the Foley scandal in the American Spectator, illustrating that he’s not only homophobic as hell, but off his damned rocker.

We have a Republican man in Congress who sent e-mails to teenage boys asking them what they were wearing, and an entire party, the Democrats, whose primary constituency, besides the teachers’ unions, is homosexual men and lesbian women. I hope it won’t come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys. (Take a look at anyone renting Endless Summer next time you are at the video store.)
Don’t get me wrong. My very best friend is gay. I have many gay friends and they are great people. But how the Democrats, the party of gays, can be coming down this hard on a MC who’s gay is simply beyond belief. One of my top, favorite congressmen, Barney Frank, is openly gay. Might he say a word in defense of his fellow gay MC right about now? Hmm, I thought not.

On what fucking planet is that the case? I know hundreds of gay men. None of them are interested in young boys. I’ve been to their houses, seen their movie collections (including the porn), paged through their magazines. No young boys anywhere in them. And no Endless Summer movie, either. I had to look that movie up to even see what it was, and I don’t see anything gay or pedophile-related about it.
I hope your “very best friend” is kicking your anti-gay ass right now, Stein, because I don’t want to have to.

Continue ReadingBen Stein is fucking batshit crazy