For Religious Conservatives, the War Against Gay Rights is Already Lost

One of the more enjoyable aspects of the recent and rapid advance of gay rights over the past few years -- and the past few months in particular -- has been watching the Baghdad Bob-like insistence on the far-right that the battle against the Homosexual Menace can still be won. For those of you who might not remember, "Baghdad Bob" was a nickname given to Saddam Hussein's Information Minister Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf. He earned notoriety for being the worst propagandist anyone had ever seen, insisting that the defense of Iraq from the Dubya invasion was going great for Hussein -- at one point telling reporters there were no Americans in Baghdad while our tanks rolled around in the background.

The right's approach to the advance of gay rights and gay acceptance has been complete denial to a ludicrous degree. For people who talk about liberty and freedom a lot, they sure don't seem to have a lot of use for them.

At the head of all this stupid, you're generally going to find Michele Bachmann. Yesterday was no exception.

Raw Story: Appearing on CNN’s The Situation Room, and speaking before Arizona governor Jan Brewer vetoed SB 1062 which would have effectively legalized discrimination based on religious grounds, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) explained to Wolf Blitzer that a veto would “eviscerate” freedom of speech.

Asked by host Blitzer what she thinks Governor Jan Brewer should do with the bill sitting on her desk, Bachmann replied that we need to have “tolerance” for people on both sides of the issue.

“I think what we need to do is respect both sides. We need to respect both opinions,” Bachmann replied. “And just like we need to observe tolerance for the gay and lesbian community, we need to have tolerance for the community of people who hold sincerely held religious belief.”

CONTINUE TO POST>>

The Tyranny of a Short-Term Majority

A majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them.
-Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America."

That reasoned argument against what de Tocqueville called "the tyranny of the majority" is a total crock. A bunch of hooey. Liberal claptrap from a French intellectual with no real understanding of democracy. Never mind that James Madison agreed in the Federalist Papers, warning of "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority" -- Madison was just some loonie leftist. The majority is all-powerful. If you can get enough people to agree with you, you can do anything you want to anybody. There are no such thing as rights, only privileges that can be voted away at any time. Get enough people together and you can even take someone's First Amendment rights away -- if people don't like what you're saying, they can use the power of democracy to shut you the hell up.

So sayeth that great American patriot Kenneth Starr. Best known for an unsuccessful witch hunt against then-President Bill Clinton, Starr is the dean of Pepperdine law school -- which makes you wonder what kind of education Pepperdine law students get for their money.

At issue was California's Prop. 8 -- a ban of same sex marriage. The state Supreme Court had previously ruled that gays and lesbians had the right to marriage. Prop. 8, which passed as a referendum, would remove that right and retroactively undo the marriages that have occurred since the court's ruling.

But, since the court ruled that marriage was a right, not a privilege, Prop. 8 became a classic example of the "tyranny of the majority" -- with a simple majority vote, Californians took a right away from a minority group. The ballot measure is now in California's Supreme Court, where Ken Starr -- representing Prop. 8 supporters -- argued yesterday that there's really no such thing as "rights." At least, not if you're in the minority.

"Swallow the bitter pill and act with diligence if one is weak, enjoy all one's rights if powerful: that's my doctrine," wrote the Marquis de Sade. Starr apparently agrees.

Raw Story:

The people "have the raw power to define rights," he told the court while arguing in favor of invalidating over 18,000 marriages.

"The right of the people is inalienable to change their constitution through the amendment process," said Starr. "The people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things, and things that tug at the equality principle."

Chief Justice Ronald George posed a hypothetical: what if the majority demanded the right to free speech be revoked?

"After much banter back and forth, Starr says they do," reported Advocate.com. The Los Angeles Times reported similarly on Starr's alarming response.

So, if the majority votes that you should shut up, by God you'd better shut the hell up. In Starr's world, rights are a legal fiction. The founders basically argued that the person and the person's rights were one thing, inseparable -- "unalienable" as the Declaration of Independence put it. But Ken argues that your rights are granted to you by majority rule and can be taken from you at any time, presumably for any -- or no -- reason. As I've already pointed out, those aren't rights, those are privileges. Starr argues that people in California -- and Americans in general -- don't actually have rights.

What the right is really worried about here is the "normalization of homosexuality." When you get right down to it, same sex marriage is harmless -- it can't possibly have any effect on your life if your not in that marriage. If you're outside that family, what that family consists of can't possible harm you. There is no rational reason to oppose marriage equality.

However, "rational" is a bad description of the religious right. They're so panicked at the idea that same sex couples would be considered just people and not monsters that they're willing to give away all the guarantees they have to any rights at all. By Starr's argument, people could literally vote to bar Christians from holding office. But hey, that's better than having to look at two male or two female dolls on top of a wedding cake.

But the "normalization of homosexuality" is pretty much a done deal. Regardless of how people feel about marriage equality, the idea that homosexuality is some sort of national problem is losing ground rapidly. The religious right isn't just losing that fight, they've lost it. Same sex marriage isn't a question of "if," but "when."

A Harris Interactive poll taken after the 2008 elections found that "Three-quarters of U.S. adults (75%) favor either marriage or domestic partnerships/civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. Only about two in 10 (22%) say gay and lesbian couples should have no legal recognition." The numbers for legal marriage alone, as opposed to civil unions, was evenly split between pro and con.

This "normalization" train has left the station.

But the most desperate battles are often fought at the end of the war. That's when the craziest tactics will be tried. The religious right would burn the village in order to save it, by giving away any guarantee they have to any rights in exchange for a victory in a losing battle against marriage equality.

If Ken Starr really wants to argue on behalf of the tyranny of the majority, he might keep in mind that public opinion is moving away from him. It won't be long before he's in the minority, subject to the whims of the mob rule he advocated.

Unfortunately, when that happens, I don't expect him or any of his allies to shut up and "swallow the bitter pill and act with diligence," as the weak and rightless should.

Maybe we can all take a vote and make them shut up.

-Wisco

What Did You Do Today?

It's one of those election day traditions. Every four years, a bunch of media remote trucks show up at Dixville Notch, New Hampshire to report the earliest election results in the nation. The polls open at midnight and everyone in town casts their votes right away. The results? Barack Obama by a nearly three to one margin. Every single Dixville Notchian -- or whatever the hell you call them -- has voted and the results of this 100% turnout is McCain 6, Obama 15. It's the first time in forty years that the town has chosen a Democrat. Only a gazillion more votes to go.

Dixville Notch always has 100% turnout -- I think if you don't show, the Children of the Corn come by your house and stone you. The media gods must be appeased. Nationwide, many have already cast their ballots in early voting. Voice of America reports that "more than 28 million people in 34 of the 50 states" have already voted. The turnout for election day is expected to be even bigger.

"We have statistics that we can point to right now that suggest that 28.8 million people have so far voted in this election," Michael McDonald, an elections expert at George Mason University in Virginia told VOA. "We are expecting 40 million people when all the numbers are compiled. And that will be about 30 percent of the 136 million people that we are expecting to vote." If that 136 million figure is correct, that would represent a turnout of 64% of all eligible voters.

"We may quite literally see turnout of a magnitude that we have not seen in a century of American politics," he said.





All that early voting has gone heavily for Obama -- 60% -- which helps explain why Team McCain didn't vigorously break out a new attack on Obama over the weekend. For as much as a third of voters, it would've come too late to make a difference. Instead, both campaigns have spent the last few days oiling the gears of the get out the vote machines.

While some of the early voting had unreasonably long lines, McDonald says this was the nature of the early voting mechanism in most municipalities. "What's happening here is that local election officials only have a limited number of polling places available for early voting in person," he said. "And those polling places seem to be completely overwhelmed. As we look from state to state where they do have these polling places, in many places they have had to extend hours. They have had to open up additional polling places to accommodate the demand for early voting."

Here in Madison, Wisconsin, for example, long lines for early voting had been reported. But this was because early ballots had to be cast at the city clerk's office. One polling place for an entire city means long lines. If there have been reports of hours long lines in your area, don't expect them to be nearly as long today.

I guess what I'm saying is don't let a long wait scare you off. Ask yourself this question; how long would you have waited in line in 2000 if you knew you could avoid what happened over the last eight years? If you're really worried, bring a headset, a book, and a lunch. If you're lucky, you'll have time to eat the lunch on the way home.

If you're in line when the polls close, you get to vote. Don't let them send you away. If you need another incentive to stick it out and vote, remember, George W. Bush is voting today and for once you get a chance to veto him. Cast a ballot to cancel out the vote of your least favorite rightwinger; Cheney, Bush, Bill Kristol, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. Sponsor a nut and cancel out their vote.

If you have any problems voting, call 1-866-OUR-VOTE. Report it, get advice from volunteer election lawyers, and protect your right to vote. Anyone who would deny you that right, anyone who stands in the way of democracy, is not a friend of this nation and our principles. Don't let them get away with it. Write that number down and take it with you -- 1-866-OUR-VOTE.

I'm going to do what I always do on election day, take a nice autumn walk to the polls at the nearby high school. It's an unbelievable beautiful day here -- an indian summer day very late in the season. I'll vote, go home, and watch the returns all damned night -- I don't think the presidential race will remain undecided that long, but I want to see how Prop. 8 turns out in California.

It's all over now. The endless polls, the stupid, distracting non-issues, and the crappy media obsession with those stupid, distracting non-issues. With any luck, we'll soon stop hearing about made-up demographics like "hockey moms" and "Joe Six-Pack." It'll go on for a while, as the pundits either try to explain why they were wrong or capitalize on the fact that they were right. But there will be two speeches tonight; one a concession and the other a victory speech. We decide which is which.

But only if we go vote. I'm an atheist, so whenever I'm asked for my religion, I say "none." But if someone really pinned me down and required me to state some sort of religious belief, I'd have to say "democracy."

You're going to remember this day for the rest of your life and you're going to remember what you did today. If you haven't voted already, you can take your place in history or you can polish that chair your sitting in with your ass. There are no other chances, there are no more days. You're choice today isn't just between the candidates, school funding, amendments to state constitutions. Your choice today is between the most basic of all democratic actions and undemocratic inaction.

Which do you want to remember doing today?

-Wisco

The US Justice Dept.: Chasing Around BS Since 2000

Salon.com writer Dahlia Lithwick has a great piece in the Washington Post regarding the Justice Departments' trip into right wing fantasyland (thanks to Karen at Christianity General for bringing it to our attention).

A little background first. With Alberto Gonzales in deep and hot water over the attorney purge, attention has turned to Monica Goodling. Goodling was scheduled to testify before congress in the case, but invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself.

There's a little hitch there. Goodling cites the politically charged and "perilous environment" of the House and Senate judiciary committees as her reason. A lot of people are wondering why she thinks she can get away with that. The fifth protects you from incriminating yourself in a crime. It wouldn't make any difference if the hearings were a partisan witchhunt, she can't refuse to testify because she doesn't like 'the atmosphere.'

And the attention on Goodling is bringing attention to a Justice Dept. that's been blatantly politicized since Bush took office. According to Lithwick's piece:

A 1995 graduate of Messiah College, an evangelical Christian school, and a 1999 graduate of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School, Goodling is an improbable character for a political scandal. Her chief claim to professional fame appears to have been loyalty to the president and to the process of reshaping the Justice Department in his image (and, thus, His image). A former career official there told The Washington Post that Goodling "forced many very talented career people out of main Justice so she could replace them with junior people that were either loyal to the administration or would score her some points." And as she rose at Justice, a former classmate said, Goodling "developed a very positive reputation for people coming from Christian schools into Washington looking for employment in government, always ready to offer encouragement and be a sounding board."

Goodling is a typical Bush Justice official. The idea was to stop pursuing actual crimes and start looking into BS that never happens -- as a priority. Lithwick again:

One of [then-Attorney General John] Ashcroft's most profound changes was to the Civil Rights Division, started in 1957 to fight racial discrimination in voting. Under Ashcroft, career lawyers were systematically fired or forced out and replaced by members of conservative or Christian groups or folks with no civil rights experience. In the five years after 2001, the Civil Rights Division brought no voting cases -- and only one employment case -- on behalf of an African American. Instead, the division took up the "civil rights" abuses of reverse discrimination -- claims of voter fraud or discrimination against Christians. On Feb. 20, Gonzales announced a new initiative called the First Freedom Project to carry out "even greater enforcement of religious rights for all Americans." In his view, the fight for a student's right to read a Bible in school is as urgent as the right to vote.

Gonzales likewise focused resources on crap by making fighting pornography a priority -- not child pornography, mind you, just naked people doing stuff that naked people do. I guess all this 'war on terror' stuff includes protecting people who are terrified by naked boobs. Gonzales's war to protect gymnophobes didn't go over very well at the FBI. In fact, it quickly became a joke among agents. In 2005, WaPo printed some common reactions to Gonzales's recruiting campaign for a 'porn squad.'

"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."

Among friends and trusted colleagues, an experienced national security analyst said, "it's a running joke for us."

A few of the printable samples:

"Things I Don't Want On My Resume, Volume Four."

"I already gave at home."

"Honestly, most of the guys would have to recuse themselves."

Way to deal with real world problems, right? Equally as crazy was the idea that there was widespread voter fraud among Democrats.

McClatchy Newspapers:

Under President Bush, the Justice Department has backed laws that narrow minority voting rights and pressed U.S. attorneys to investigate voter fraud - policies that critics say have been intended to suppress Democratic votes.

Bush, his deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, and other Republican political advisers have highlighted voting rights issues and what Rove has called the "growing problem" of election fraud by Democrats since Bush took power in the tumultuous election of 2000, a race ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This was while Democrats were losing elections nationwide. If dems were engaging in voter fraud, they really sucked at it. Last month, in a piece titled The Myth of Voter Fraud, Michael Waldman and Justin Levitt wrote in the Washington Post, "[T]he notion of widespread voter fraud, as these prosecutors found out, is itself a fraud. Firing a prosecutor for failing to find wide voter fraud is like firing a park ranger for failing to find Sasquatch. Where fraud exists, of course, it should be prosecuted and punished. (And politicians have been stuffing ballot boxes and buying votes since senators wore togas; Lyndon Johnson won a 1948 Senate race after his partisans famously 'found' a box of votes well after the election.) Yet evidence of actual fraud by individual voters is painfully skimpy."

Are these people so crazy that they've begun to believe their own propaganda? Or are they so stupid that they'd put out a lie about widespread voter fraud, then go out and investigate it -- proving themselves wrong? Who knows? With this bunch of lunatics, either explanation is credible.

It's looking more and more like some of these federal prosecutors were fired for having to live in reality. The Bushies wanted widespread voter fraud, there was no widespread voter fraud, and they were canned for not finding what didn't exist.

You know what gets me about all of this? Every time they face criticism, GOPers throw the 'War on Terror' in your face. If this war on a tactic were really essential to our very existence, why do we have people dicking around on snipe hunts for obscenity and voter fraud -- shouldn't they being out looking for honest to goodness terrorists? And why were the snipe hunters fired for not finding any snipes? Justify that, GOP.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; religious right; terrorism; crime; civil rights; The Bush Justice Department has been more interested in pursuing propaganda than any 'War on Terror'