Justin's Political Corner

A year ago, when Vice President Joe Biden revealed in a television interview that he supported same-sex marriage, such unions were legal in six states.

Militarism is the belief that a group should maintain strong military capabilities and be prepared to use them aggressively to promote their interests, and it may imply the justification of conflict to administer a group’s policy on its enemies. Over the course of the past few years, conservatives have threatened various levels of conflict to impose their particular agenda on the government and American people whether it was opposition to healthcare reform when teabaggers attended protests claiming “we came unarmed this time,” or threats of race, civil, or revolutionary war over gun safety laws and the election of an African American president. Whatever various conservative groups’ causes, their reason for threatening conflict is always their opposition to the government’s right to enact laws within the tenets of the U.S. Constitution. During the Supreme Court hearings on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Prop 8 that banned same-sex marriage, conservative Christians became the latest group to use combative language to express their outrage at the prospect the Constitution forbids them from imposing their religious morality on the entire nation.

A little reported exchange during arguments in favor of perpetuating inequality in America was Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s reading a line from the House Report justifying DOMA’s passage in 1996 that defined the law’s entire legal underpinning. It said, “Congress decided to reflect and honor a moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.” That one line is all the reason the High Court needs to strike down the law on two counts; it is rank, government-sanctioned discrimination, and it is straight out of the Christian bible making it a direct violation of the 1^st Amendment’s prohibition on establishment of a state religion. Conservative Christians, meanwhile, fearing the prospect the Court may strike down the law, immediately took up a militaristic posture leading one influential conservative Iowa talk radio host to say, “It’s going to raise the issue to Orange Threat Level, it’ll be DEFCON 6,” and his warning was repeated across the country.

In Texas, about 250 opponents of same-sex marriage assembled at the Capitol to hear the state’s Republican leadership promise that Texas will remain a bastion of “freedom, family and faith,” and that “the hope of America is Texas” according to state Sen. Ken Paxton. The state’s lieutenant governor, David Dewhurst, kept up the battle-field rhetoric and inflamed rally-goers claiming that conservative values were under steady assault from President Barack Obama and his administration,  and that “Over our dead bodies are we going to let this state turn blue.” Another Texas Republican, state Senator Donna Campbell said “Our core values are being attacked on a daily basis … by government fiat in our courts and in our schools. They want to redefine the Constitution and it’s just not going to stand with me” and promised that Christian values would be defended here “because there is no other Texas to move to.” Steve Deace, who warned the threat level was elevating to DEFCON6 said “these people have invested decades in this fight and they are not going to throw up their hands, they’re going to double down, it’s going to be even nastier.”

The freedom, faith, and values crowd, conservative Christians, did not limit their threats to President Obama and the Supreme Court, and set their sights squarely on the Republican Party. An anti-gay activist, Gary Bauer, threatened Republicans and promised mass defections if they dared stand on the side of Constitutional equality, and promised to “leave the party and take as many people with me as I possibly can.” Bauer’s speech was for a “March for Marriage” event organized by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) at the National Mall, and he told the American Values crowd “shame on the politicians and the judges that are trying to undermine the institution of marriage,” and then dismissed reports of increasing support for marriage equality by claiming “the polls are skewed.” Poll results aside, the simple fact is that no-one is undermining the institution of marriage, redefining the Constitution, or attacking Christian values, but that was never the point. The point is many conservative Christians are up in arms at the prospect of losing their government-sanctioned ability to force their religion’s “moral disapproval of homosexuality” on the nation and they are fully prepared to “double down” and “get even nastier.”

An evangelical anti-gay operative, Ralph Reed, leader of the Faith and Freedom Coalition predicted a protracted battle and said “If the court were to go to the most extreme case and strike down laws defining marriage, it will undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and spark a movement that will spend decades trying to reverse the decision.” However, the mood among hardline bigots in the conservative Christian movement is at a heightened level of an existential threat and it is unlikely the people threatening to get nastier and defend their bastion of freedom, faith, and family values are going to stand by and lose their legal right to impose the bible’s morality on all Americans for very long. It is not necessarily that conservative Christians are going militaristic over marriage equality in the near future, but they are the same crowd that threatened civil war over gun safety proposals, election monitoring, President Obama’s re-election, implementation of the ACA, and various issues they deemed worthy of nullification and 2^nd Amendment remedies. It is not even a stretch to imagine that a Supreme Court ruling striking down DOMA and Prop 8 will be the final straw because it involves religion, and history is replete with violence precipitated by the belief that someone’s religion is under assault, and to millions of conservative Christians, marriage equality is an attack on their faith, freedom, and families.

H/T: Rmuse at PoliticusUSA

While New York State Sen. Rubén Díaz (D) was leading the anti-marriage equality march on the National Mall yesterday, his son, Bronx Borough President Rubén Díaz Jr. (D), was probably penning the final words for his statement endorsing marriage equality.

On Wednesday, the junior Díaz released a long and personal statement announcing his support for same-sex marriage, which has been the national focus this week as the Supreme Court debates the constitutionality of both the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8:

“My decision, which comes after years of thought and reflection on the issue, is informed by the experiences I have had with close friends, family and loved ones.

“For example, my chief-of-staff, Paul Del Duca, has for decades worked to help the people of this City. He has helped people find housing and jobs, he has dedicated his professional life to assisting those in need. Why, then, should he and his partner Damion—whose wedding I stood witness to—be denied the same rights of any other loving and committed couple? Moreover, why should my niece, Erica Diaz, be denied the ability to get married when her time comes?

“When marriage equality was made legal in 2011, many opponents predicted that it would have negative consequences. That has certainly not been the case. It is my contention that our city and our state are better off than they were before marriage equality became the law. Not only has our city seen an incredible financial impact from marriage equality, the quality of life for myself, my family and my friends has not suffered one bit.”

Díaz, Jr.’s statement stands in stark contrast to the comments from his father, who has vowed to lead a “war” on same-sex marriages, and has embraced the support of a woman who declared homosexuality more threatening than terrorism and a minister who said gays are worthy of death.

H/T: Think Progress LGBT

Some social conservatives are ready to disown Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts if he votes in favor of same-sex marriage.

The conservatives were angered by Roberts’s surprise backing of President Obama’s healthcare law last year, and they don’t want to see a similar surprise in the two marriage cases the court considered this week.

“I certainly think his credentials were tarnished with the ObamaCare decision,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “Does he care about his standing with conservatives? I don’t know.”

Gary Bauer, president of American Values and a former president of the Family Research Council, said Roberts shouldn’t be considered a conservative if he sides with the proponents of same-sex marriage after casting the deciding vote on healthcare.

If Roberts breaks with conservatives “on another major issue … then I think the whole understanding of the current makeup of the Supreme Court would be in question,” Bauer said.

He said the court would have to be seen as having a liberal majority, at least on hot-button political and social issues.

Conservatives don’t necessarily think Roberts owes them a debt because of healthcare, but they’re still not convinced the ruling was a one-off event, Bauer said.

Roberts did not indicate during oral arguments this week that he’s leaning toward supporting same-sex marriage in either case. But he also didn’t look likely to support the healthcare law when those arguments wrapped up last year.

If conservatives are ready to ditch Roberts, they are already finished with Ted Olson, the attorney who argued against California’s Proposition 8 banning gay marriage this week.

Olson — a conservative legal superstar — argued marriage equality for gays is a conservative position and said the Constitutional ensures a right for same-sex couples to marry.

Perkins and Bauer both reject those ideas.

“Any Republican that argues, from a Republican standpoint, this is the proper conservative or Republican position is smoking medical marijuana or something,” Bauer said.

If Olson truly believes same-sex marriage is a constitutional imperative, Bauer said that “raises serious questions about whether he is the conservative litigator people think he was.”

Perkins has also soured on Olson, who represented George W. Bush in the case that decided the 2000 presidential election and went on to be the Bush administration’s top litigator.

“Well, he was,” Perkins said when a reporter described Olson as a conservative litigator.

The Proposition 8 fight was one of two gay marriage cases heard by the High Court this week. The second case challenged the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents same-sex couples from getting some federal benefits granted to married couples.

Olson might have burned his bridges with social conservatives, but he isn’t alone before the Supreme Court.

he libertarian Cato Institute filed a brief urging the court to back marriage equality, and there is a significant libertarian argument against the Defense of Marriage Act — the federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, which had historically been up to the states to decide.

The conservative divide over same-sex marriage grew wider when Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) announced his support for marriage equality.

Some GOP strategists said this week that the marriage debate will eventually disappear, because young Republicans don’t oppose same-sex marriage and don’t see why it’s an issue.

The social conservatives who dominate early Republican primaries, though, aren’t about to change their minds
.

The question, he said, is whether Roberts will be able to narrow the scope of a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, even if he is in the minority.

Could Dumbya-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts tick off conservatives (especially the SoCons) even further over DOMA and Prop 8? Remember that Roberts is NOWHERE close to being a “liberal ‘activist judge,’” as he is seen as generally right/corporatist-leaning. Also, many of the wingnuts are already mad at him for preserving PPACA.

H/T: Sam Baker at The Hill

The Religious Right group Government Is Not God PAC in a message to members this week warning that if the Supreme Court strikes down Proposition 8 and DOMA then “religious freedom, freedom of speech and the First Amendment will die.”

“If homosexuals win, the Bill of Rights dies and religious liberty/free speech will die with it,” GING PAC argued. “We either fight this evil or see our children and grandchildren brainwashed and/or coerced into accepting homosexuality as the new normal in our society.”

The group went on to say that “no institution will be safe from being homosexualized” and that society will soon “see our children and grandchildren brainwashed and/or coerced into accepting homosexuality as the new normal in our society,” as anti-gay activism “will be punishable by suppression, fines, or even jail sentences.”

h/t: Right Wing Watch

Edie Windsor lost the love of her life in 2009. They had been together for more than 40 years. They were partners and best friends. They shared everything and honored their responsibilities to one another. Yet, in the eyes of federal law, their marriage was viewed as separate and unequal.

Edie and her late wife, Thea Spyer, are two of millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans denied their fundamental rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with their families. When Thea passed away, Edie was billed more than $363,000 in federal taxes — because, under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal government treated her and Thea as complete strangers, thereby denying them the estate tax protections afforded to married couples.

With an unaffordable tax bill and an untenable system, Edie could not remain silent, and she decided to challenge DOMA as a violation of our Constitution. Thankfully, she is not alone.

Citizens across the country have risen up to challenge DOMA, and on Wednesday I will proudly join two of those Americans, my constituents Karen Golinski and Amy Cunninghis, to hear oral arguments before the Supreme Court. They have the support of President Obama, who ordered his administration to stop defending this measure in our legal system, and members of Congress, who have signed amicus briefs reaffirming our belief in marriage equality.

The only national leaders still standing on the wrong side of history are House Republicans, who have used taxpayer dollars to pay outside counsel to defend discrimination. The Republican-approved lawyers have lost in every case and appealed each ruling. So the fight goes on.

Wednesday, Edie’s case will come before the Supreme Court. On Tuesday, justices heard oral arguments on Proposition 8 — the measure that banned same-sex marriages in California.

In both cases, the justices will hear compelling stories of love, commitment and family. They will be asked to consider the individual facts of each argument alongside broader questions of DOMA and Prop. 8’s constitutionality. They will confront values and issues as old as our republic: matters of justice and civil rights, fairness and the role of government, equality and equal protection under the law.

The court’s conclusion must be firm and clear: DOMA and Prop. 8 are unconstitutional. Neither measure meets the standards of our founding principles. Both deserve to take their rightful place in the dustbin of history.

The proponents of laws against marriage equality have long known that such laws would not pass constitutional muster or withstand judicial review as demonstrated by their efforts to preclude judicial review. In 2004, the Republican-controlled House passed the so-called Marriage Protection Act to try to prevent federal courts from ruling on challenges to DOMA. They even claimed that the landmark case, Marbury v. Madison, was “wrongly decided.”

Their idea, known as “court-stripping,” betrays one of the cornerstones of our system of checks and balances: that our judiciary must be independent, free from manipulation by Congress and the president, so that our Constitution and individual rights are always safeguarded. Indeed, defending individual rights and equal protection are core functions of judicial review.

Those rights are at stake in the DOMA and Prop. 8 cases. It is clear that there is no legitimate federal or state government interest in discrimination. Under any standard or by any degree of judicial review, there is no justification for laws against marriage equality.

Both DOMA and Prop. 8 were enacted with motives ranging from “majoritarian prejudice or indifference.” Attempts have been made by proponents of these laws to justify them on erroneous and deeply offensive stereotypes. Yet prejudice — whether motivated by animus or indifference — does not make it right for LGBT families to be punished, stigmatized, or denied their rights.

By overturning DOMA, we will ensure that spousal benefits are provided to the husbands, wives and partners of LGBT service members and veterans. We will strengthen our economy by delivering tax deductions and employee benefits to same-sex couples, in the private sector and the federal workforce. By overturning Prop. 8, California can join the march of states across the country extending the rights and responsibilities of marriage to LGBT Americans.

For Edie Windsor and millions like her, the journey has been long, hard, and defined too often by stigma, injustice and inequality. For all Americans, the fight for civil rights has been a defining cause for our country. With the Supreme Court’s action, that journey and that fight can once again bear the fruits of progress. We can bend the moral arc of history once more toward justice and secure a future of equality for all American families. Today, I hope justice prevails for Windsor and for all LGBT Americans.

Nancy Pelosi, the first female speaker of the House, is the House Democratic Leader and has represented San Francisco in Congress for 25 years.

I wish that she was still the Speaker of the House.

h/t: USA Today

Anti-LGBTQ rights/marriage equality crank case asshat Dana Loesch wrote on Fixed Noise (and former CNN colleague)’s Erick Erickson’s RedState blog today to peddle misleading lies about marriage equality:

I’ve no issue with same sex couples entering into contractual agreements with each other or sharing benefits (the military decisions should be made by those with the credit of service day in and day out, not civilian advocacy groups). Isn’t that the goal of this conflict? If so, to me, that’s an issue separate from marriage. In suing over “marriage” itself one is demanding that God change His definition of the union between a man and a woman. If recognition of status, ease with other contractual obligations, and other issues are the issues, why the need to force people of faith to alter recognition of God’s Word on the matter? The people may bend as reeds to lawfare, but God will not. Frankly, I see no point in being on any side other than God’s on any matter, and God is more small government than any player in the scene.

She believes in the so-called “marriage is between a man and a woman only” farce.  A fine excuse to be a homophobe, Dana.

Loesch further distorts the truth on LGBTQ rights with her anti-marriage equality screed on RedState:

Really, this isn’t about gay rights. The left doesn’t give a damn about gay rights. Remember, it was the left that instituted Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and it was a Republican group that led the charge to repeal it. The left hasn’t done anything for the gay community except to offer it lip service and inaction. While leftist groups fight for “marriage equality” the Obama administration makes marriage an economic hit with horrible policy. You got bait and switched, leftists! No, the left cares nothing for gay rights, but they’ll pretend to if they can use the bloc as a wedge to pry the populace from the influence of the church. Why? because it’s easier to convince people that their civil liberties fall under the dominion of man, of government, if the church is portrayed as inept and anachronistic. This is the entire goal. Once man, sinful, awful man controls your rights, your existence as an individual ends and your life as a statist serf begins.
So no, “marriage equality” is emphatically nota conservative value or tactic. Anything where the solution is an invitation for government intervention should be viewed with utmost suspicion.

Really, Dana!? The left doesn’t give a damn about gay rights? Oh, yes, us leftists/progressives/civil libertarians care a lot about this issue, moreso than you. She also falsely accused the left of instituting DOMA, when it was the conservatives back in the 1990’s that forced it into law.

Also, the left has done FAR MORE than “lip service” to the LGBTQ community. If anything, it’s kooks like you and GOProud that do “lip service” to the LGBTQ community.


She even played the debunked “Christians have fewer rights” canard:

There are even more examples, some listed on this page, some not, as they are numerous. Pastors in Canada are already facing lawsuits for simply preaching about marriage from the Bible. Tolerance is demanded of Christians but in this pluralistic society, little, if any, tolerance is afforded to Christian beliefs. Christians aren’t the antagonists here, but they do seem to have fewer rights than those engaging in lawfare to bring about forced acceptance.

(Cross-posted from DanaBusted.blogspot.com)

In oral arguments Tuesday morning on California’s Proposition 8, the Supreme Court appeared narrowly divided on the question of whether the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection affords same sex couples the right to marry — but a majority of the justices appeared skeptical that the case has standing and flirted with throwing it out.

Chief Justice John Roberts set the tone by asking each of the lawyers to begin by explaining why the case has standing. The other justices backed him up with a series of questions, even as all three lawyers arguing the case insisted that it was properly brought before the court.

Seven of the justices voiced skepticism, to varying degrees, about whether the case was properly before the court. At issue is whether the case was properly defended. California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) declined to defend Prop 8 in court, and the defense was undertaken by one of the original proponents of Prop 8.

“I suppose there might be people out there with a personal interest” in whether gays and lesbians should have the right to marry, said Roberts.

“On a question of such fundamental importance why should it not be left to the people?” asked Alito, who also questioned whether the judiciary ought to be able to decide whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage, “which is newer than cellphones or the internet.”

Justice Stephen Breyer said the group defending Prop 8 was “no more than a group of five people who feel really strongly that they should vindicate the public interest.”

Justice Antonin Scalia was the only one not

The justices also held a spirited debate on the merits and appeared sharply divided as to whether or not states have the right to outlaw same-sex couples from marrying.

The political and legal history of gay marriage in California is torturous. Proposition 8 was passed by California voters in November 2008 in response to a ruling by the state Supreme Court earlier that same year that found a right to gay marriage under the California constitution. Same-sex marriage had previously been banned by statute and by a referendum passed by the voters in 2000. Following the passage of Prop 8, the California Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that it was valid, but left intact and legal the gay marriages that had been legally performed before Prop 8 passed. Challenges to Prop 8 were filed in federal court and eventually made their way to the Supreme Court, but not before an exceptional amount of legal wrangling and further involvement by the California Supreme Court.

h/t: TPMDC

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday morning on California’s Proposition 8 — a case that could settle the national debate over marriage equality once and for all.

Or it could throw it back to the political realm for a series of lengthy battles across the dozens of states that have yet to permit same-sex couples to marry.

The case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, is about whether California’s ban on gay marriage, adopted by voters in 2008, violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. The lawsuit was brought by Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, who in May 2009 were denied a marriage license because they were a same-sex couple. Represented by über-lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies, they want the justices to recognize a constitutional right to marry. If a majority of the Court agrees, it would wipe out all state bans on gay marriage.

Alternatively the justices could reach a narrow ruling that strikes down just Prop 8 on the particulars and perhaps some other state bans on marriage equality — while leaving other bans intact. One possible route for the court would be to say states may not take away same-sex marriage rights after they have granted them, as California did prior to the passage of Prop 8.

The defenders of Prop 8 — ProtectMarriage.com, which spearheaded the original ballot initiative — argue that marriage should be left to states. If the justices agree, Prop 8 (and other gay marriage bans) would be upheld and proponents of gay marriage would face a state-by-state battle to overturn existing bans.

The outcome is difficult to predict. Even though the national political tide is turning rapidly in favor of equality, and although swing Justice Anthony Kennedy has a gay rights streak, some court watchers doubt that the most conservative Supreme Court since the 1930s would leap ahead of most states on the issue and enshrine a right to marry. On the other hand, some lower court decisions point to a victory for same sex couples in California, if not other states as well. (The Obama administration recently championed a constitutional right for gays to marry.)

Alternatively, the justices could determine that the case lacks standing because California has refused to defend the law, and send it back to the lower courts to try again. This is less likely given that the Court agreed to take up two major gay marriage cases back to back.

The Tuesday oral arguments on Prop 8 will be followed Wednesday by arguments on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that prohibits federal recognition of gay marriage and denies benefits to legally married same sex couples.

H/T: TPM