Justin's Political Corner

The Illinois Family Institute’s David E. Smith and Andrew Willis have used their incredible wisdom and logic to poke a hole in the idea that gay and lesbian couples in Illinois really want to get married.

Here’s how their argument goes: According to the census, very few gay and lesbian couples in Illinois got “civil unionized” in 2012. Therefore, why would they fight so hard for marriage equality?!

In Illinois, only 0.45 percent of the homosexual population received a civil union in the first full year of availability, and only a fraction of a percent (0.0166 percent) of Illinois’ population got “civil unionized” in 2012. This is the response to all the enthusiasm and celebration that surrounded the passage of Illinois’ civil unions law?

The response to civil unions has been lackluster at best, and one should not expect these percentages to rise dramatically. The law came into effect June of 2011, so one would expect that homosexuals who had been committed to a partner would have formed a civil union by now, but the vast majority have not.

…

… Why the sudden political urgency for a same-sex “marriage” law in Illinois — when there seems to be so very little interest in forming civil unions? And there is absolutely zero evidence that same-sex “marriage” would be more popular in the long run than civil unions has proven to be in Illinois.

The short answers are these: Separate but equal is not equal. And for many gay and lesbian couples, they’re not settling for a watered-down version of marriage. They want to be treated the same as straight couples in the eyes of the government and that’s not going to happen until full marriage equality is achieved.

But back to the numbers. I’m trying to make sense of IFI’s statistics, but when they distort them this badly, it’s hard.

In any case, IFI claims what gay rights supporters really want is not equality, but power. Power and the destruction of society:

The ultimate goal is the eradication of conservative moral beliefs and the creation of a social and legal climate that promotes homosexuality as normal behavior. Redefining marriage in order to accommodate the unjustifiable demands of a tiny but politically powerful group will ultimately prove too costly.

There’s paranoid bigotry at its finest.

h/t: The Friendly Atheist blog at Patheos

In her latest column, Ann Coulter laments the 1965 immigration bill that ended a racist quota system which favored immigrants from northern and western Europe. She said that “Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act was designed to boost the number of immigrants from the Third World,” and now “we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel by holding ourselves out as the welfare ward of the world.”

Just in case it wasn’t clear already, Coulter is talking about Latino immigrants, warning that the “Gang of 8” immigration reform bill will “turn the country into Mexico” and expand the welfare state.

“Was there a vote when the country decided to turn itself into Mexico?” Coulter asked, arguing that if “Rubio’s amnesty goes through, the Republican Party is finished.”

h/t: Right Wing Watch

As the House Agriculture Committee convened earlier this week to discuss whether or not to cut as much as$4.1 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), the conversation between lawmakers devolved into an exchange that was equal parts bad policy and bad theology.

As House members discussed slashing the budget for the Farm Bill, which funds SNAP, Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-TN) took issue with some Democrats who cited Jesus Christ’s call to care for “the least of these” when describing the government’s need to assist the hungry. Instead, Fincher explained that his support for the proposed cuts by quoting a very different Bible verse – 2 Thessalonians 3:10: “For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.”

But while the use of 2 Thessalonians is a convenient tool for those who want to justify ignoring the poor, Fincher’s lukewarm Biblical argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. As many religious bloggers have already pointed out, the author of 2 Thessalonians was actually referring to ancient Christians who had stopped working in anticipation of Jesus’ Second Coming. The verse is concerned with correcting a theological misunderstanding (i.e., don’t just wait around for Jesus, live an active faith), not passing judgement on the poor.

Worse still, Fincher’s use of the Bible to defend the slashing of food stamps isn’t just bad theology, it’s also bad policy.

Undergirding Fincher’s sloppy exegesis is an old conservative fiction that people who rely on food stamps are lazy parasites who mooch off the government and refuse to work. In reality, most of the country’s 47 million food stamp recipients are children or the elderly, and many are employed. A 2012 report from the USDA found that 45 percent of SNAP recipients were under 18 years of age, nearly 9 percent were age 60 or older, and more than 40 percent lived in households with earnings.

Fincher’s misguided Bible-thumping ignores the plight of America’s 8.9 million “working poor.” This massive group includes the thousands of participants from the recent fast food and retail workers strikes, people who, despite working full-time 40 hours a week for booming industries, often only make around $7.25 an hour, or $15,000 a year. That’s far below the federal poverty threshold of $23,550 for a family of four and leaves many working families with no choice but to apply for food stamps just to feed their loved ones. The strikers, who are consistently backed by droves of religious leaders, are clearly willing to work, yet lawmakers like Fincher (who made his millions with the help of government farm subsidies) stand poised to deny them access to the food they need by decimating funding for SNAP.

Fincher’s misuse of scripture is also a slight to disabled Americans who rely on SNAP to stay afloat. Americans with disabilities, many of whom are elderly or military veterans, are burdened with any number of maladies that make full-time work difficult, if not impossible. Far from encouraging freeloading behavior, food stamps and programs like Meals on Wheels help us honor our national commitment — and, for many Americans, a religious duty — to assist our fellow citizens when they need us most.

GRAPEVINE, Texas (AP) — The Boy Scouts of America’s national leadership will vote Thursday on whether to allow openly gay Scouts in its ranks, a critical and emotionally charged moment for one of the nation’s oldest youth organizations and its millions of members.

About 1,400 voting members of BSA’s national council are to cast ballots Thursday on a resolution to end a policy that allows youth Scouts to be excluded based only on sexual orientation. The ban on gay adult leaders would remain in place.

The vote is taking place at a resort in Grapevine, Texas, not far from BSA’s headquarters, during the national council’s three-day annual meeting. The results are expected to be announced shortly after 5 p.m. CDT Thursday.

Gay-rights supporters and opponents have waged impressive campaigns to win support for their arguments in the months leading up to the vote.

Supporters of allowing gay scouts used a political consulting firm and targeted about 120 local Scouting councils where they thought the most votes could be won. Opponents cited Texas code to obtain the names and addresses of voting members from BSA officials so they could send out mailings, and held rallies across the country last week.

Scouting was established in 1910 and claims 2.6 million youth members, in addition to thousands of leaders and volunteers. Its board of directors includes executives and community leaders, and President Barack Obama is its honorary president.

One estimate suggested a policy change could cause as many as 100,000 to 350,000 Scouts to leave. And it could also affect donors – just more than half of local councils reported to BSA that their donors supported the current ban.

Of the more than 100,000 Scouting units in the U.S., 70 percent are chartered by religious institutions. While these sponsors include liberal churches opposed to any ban on gays, some of the largest sponsors are relatively conservative denominations that have previously supported the broad ban – notably the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Southern Baptist churches.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced in April that it supports the new proposal. Leaders of some smaller, conservative denominations have opposed it.

H/T: Huffington Post