Wondering on Wednesday 5/4/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

If you're like many folks, no matter where you stand on the opinion outlined in the Alito draft suggesting that Roe v. Wade is being overturned, you're probably wondering who leaked the darn thing in the first place. 

Many on the right assumed it was a liberal justice's clerk, trying to rally the troops and get folks riled up to either (a) change the presumed outcome of the decision, or (b) change the presumed outcome of the midterm elections. And, of course, they did the whole "we're the victims here" because someone stole their thunder, or something. 

Me? I wondered which of the justices leaked the draft. My first guess? 

I think it was Ginni Thomas in Clarence's office with a spatula who flipped the Roe-killing draft out the window into the hands of a reporter who had been snooping around trying to figure out if there was any medical reason for Clarence to have spent a week in the hospital at the exact time that Ginni was in the headlines because of her life-and-death January 6th text messages to Trump's 4th Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, the guy who wants us to believe his permanent address is a rusty old trailer on top of Scaly Mountain.

That the reporter happened to be there with an open catcher's mitt is pure chance.

And now we'll have to wait to see how long before Clarence goes back into the hospital - or until Ginni goes into the hospital, leaving Clarence to text his CPAC friends for some suitably conservative recipes to cook while Ginni is indisposed.

And my second? 

Or, maybe it was Kavanaugh, by the keg, who used the draft to mop up a mess created by his leaving the tap open when he went to check his calendar from 6th grade to see whether he needed go to the gym on the first Monday in May.

Finding out that was not the case - it's the first Monday in October that's relevant now - he over-served himself, and tossed the damp draft and a bunch of Red Solo cups into the trash on his way to bed, where soon dreams of Renate danced in his head. He might have even sung the Renate Alumni fight song in his stupor, but I can't say for sure.

And that's where the draft was found - in the dumpster with the cups and their residual draft -by the reporter from Politico, who had a nose for news - and beer - and sniffed out the story of the year.

If you had to wonder, who do you think let the draft see the light of day? And, perhaps more importantly, why?

Other wondering on this week's big story? What else will fall? If the standard is things that are deeply rooted in our history, clearly additional attacks on voting rights will be affirmed, and encouraged.

Inter-racial marriage? It's hard to imagine that surviving, right? Consider our 'deeply rooted history' of enslaving blacks to do the work that was beneath us, and how young black girls became the sexual targets of their white overseers. And who could forget the murder of blacks for the offense of looking at white women, or speaking to them? How could we possibly allow them to marry into our families, with this deeply rooted history of ours?

Similarly, I wonder how long before we say that marriage equality has no deep roots in America? Any bets on that? And, I wonder, do people know how many states still have laws on the books banning and/or refusing to recognize same-sex marriage? Sure, they're being ignored since the Obergefell decision, but they're still on the books.

Another issue about which we can wonder? Can any of the alleged privacy protections in the Constitution actually protect women who want to use contraception? I mean, think about it. 

• Our life expectancy is falling. 
• The birth rate is falling. 
• We're projected to be a minority-white country - by 2045.  

Is it really beyond our wildest imagination, I wonder, for some red-state pseudo-religious legislature to decide that what we need more than anything is more cute white babies, and act to make sure that happens by restricting access to contraception?

I know Alito said, in the draft, that this was just about abortion, but we know we can trust that about as far as we can throw him, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Coney Barrett.

What's got you wondering tonight?

The Journal of Unpopular Opinions (Chapter 2)

I was reading what I anticipated would be a funny take on 'gender reveal' parties, those often way-over-the-top shindigs with explosions and death and destruction and whatnot. 

The article was moving along, I was chuckling, and then? Then the 'U' word appeared. You know what I'm talking about, right? Here's how it showed up in the article.

 We are fortunate enough to have the resources for almost the ultimate in frivolity: gender reveal parties. Ukraine is the ultimate in seriousness, in a life-and-death battle with all the suffering and horrors of war. Gender reveal parties should be an opportunity for us to be thankful for what we have and to support and fund our fellow humans in Ukraine.

Seriously? Gender reveal parties should be an opportunity for us to send money to Ukraine? As you can tell from the opening of this post, I think gender reveal parties are kind of crazy, but I also think the constant focus on Ukraine, to the exclusion of everything else (other than the price of gas,) is equally crazy.

Like people everywhere, I'm horrified by what I've seen and heard about in Ukraine. I've watched President Zelenskyy's messages to our Congress, to elected officials in other countries, and the UN. I support sanctions on Russia, and I support us giving some military and humanitarian support to Ukraine. 

That said, I think it's ridiculous - and, frankly, grossly unfair - to expect us to turn everything we do, and everything that brings us joy, into an opportunity to help Ukraine. 

Frankly, there are other crises happening in the world, too.? Here are just a handful of them.

• China has committed crimes against humanity by their treatment of Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim ethnic groups; over a million are dead, hundreds of thousands imprisoned, and others sent into forced labor over the past several years. 
• In South Sudan, hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced or killed; nearly 5,000,000 children are not in school, and some 8,00,000 people are facing hunger or famine. This, too, has been going on for years,
• So has the war in Yemen;  4,000,000 people have been displaced, more than 110,000 have been killed, and over 20 million need humanitarian aid.
• And don't forget Somalia, with a million deaths, and more than a million people displaced in that country's ongoing civil war.
• And, have we already forgotten about Afghanistan and the Taliban?

Why do these get less attention? Other than China, we rarely hear about these conflicts, and when we do, it's well after the Ukrainian news of the day. And would we have heard much about China, absent the Olympics? 

Why is that? Is it because these aren't social-media-savvy countries? Is it because civil wars don't matter? Is it because these people don't look like us? It's hard to ignore that last question.

And, in case you're thinking everything's hunky-dory here at home, think again.

• Politicians from both parties continue to choose their voters, instead of the voters choosing their politicians; it's been going on for decades, and is getting worse instead of better as gerrymandering flourishes.
• Politicians are doing their best to make voting more complicated instead of easier, and while they say they are making voting more secure, we know that what many of them are trying to do is make it easier for them to erase the vote of the people.
• We are pulling books from schools and libraries, because people who have never read them have been told by their churches or their politicians that this is the right thing to do.
• We are (knowingly) underfunding public education (here in New York, for example) and allowing individuals to take taxpayer money out of public schools and give it to private schools - including corporate, profit-driven entities - and religious schools.
• States are codifying vigilante justice to avoid having laws struck down by the courts. So far -- so far -- it's just laws against abortion; who knows where they'll go next with this plan of attack. Texas started this; others are following.
• States are trying to pass laws to prevent citizens from seeking medical are in other states (Missouri and Oklahoma for starters), or threatening to jail parents - potentially with life sentences - for seeking medical treatment for their children (Idaho), and charge providers with felonies for providing treatment (Oklahoma, again).
• And let's not forget the "Don't Say Gay" bills - yes, that's plural now, with Alabama following Florida's lead.
• States are attacking marriage equality, proposing marriage contracts that would only be allowed for opposite-sex couples (Tennessee).
• States have passed laws allowing doctors to pick their patients, instead of having to treat everyone - even people they don't like (Ohio, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas...).

In America, folks - this is all happening, right here in America, to Americans.

Should we care about Ukraine? Of course. Should we care only about Ukraine? Of course not. 

We should learn (or remember) how to walk and chew gum at the same time; we can hear about, and care about, more than one thing at a time. Even if the people don't look like us, or don't have great social media skills.  

We should never let our guard down here at home, no matter how compelling the news from elsewhere in the world might be.

And we should allow ourselves a little joy, without feeling guilty and without feeling obligated to anyone else. 

Making America What, Again, Exactly?

I just saw this article this morning, and to be honest I thought it must be an April Fool's Day post -- except that it's from Texas, first of all, and it was posted a few days ago, so no, it's real. Here's the eye-catching headline.

Texas Republicans advance a bill 

that would allow doctors to refuse LGBTQ patients

Looks about right, for Texas, doesn't it?  'Extreme conservatism' I think is how my Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo described them, a few years ago. 

Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives, who are right to life, pro-assault weapon, anti-gay? Because if that is who they are, and if they are the extreme conservatives they have no place in the state of New York, because that is not who New Yorkers are. 

According to the article on LGBTQ Nation, the bill

...would allow state-licensed professionals to refuse to serve LGBTQ people if they cite their religion has advanced out of committee in the Texas senate.  Senate Bill 17 would prevent state licensing agencies from denying or revoking licenses from professionals - including doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, and even barbers - if they claim to be following a "sincerely held religious belief."

The bill's sponsor, Senator Charles Perry, said

Living our faith does not stop when we start to work. When we see what we may perceive as immoralities, those people who hold those beliefs should be able to defend their faith...without fear of losing their livelihood and their license. 

It's OK though - apparently law enforcement officers have to keep their religious beliefs in check, and even doctors will have to set their beliefs aside for "life-or-death" situations. From the text of the bill,

This section may not be construed to: (1) authorize a license holder to refuse to provide a medical service within the scope of the person's license that is necessary to prevent death or imminent serious bodily injury; or (2) limit any right, privilege, or protection granted to any person under the constitution and laws of this state and the United States.

Guess we'll not see Texas signing on to that whole 'health care is a right' thing, I'm thinking. And of course, who gets to determine what medical services fall under the 'necessary to prevent death' part of the law? I'd argue that chemotherapy may be considered  as being 'necessary to prevent death' but I'm sure that's not what Texas is thinking. I just think it's noteworthy that 'imminent' only applies to serious bodily injury...

But what - there's more.

Wondering on Wednesday (v150)

Let's get this out of the way right off the top: I'm not really wondering about very much tonight, because so much of it seems so very straightforward and there's little demand for wonder. That said, let's get right to it.

First up?  There's no marriage like a forced marriage.

The Trump administration on Monday began denying visas to same-sex domestic partners of foreign diplomats and United Nations employees, and requiring those already in the United States to get married by the end of the year or leave the country.

Huh? We're going to force people from other countries to get married in order to stay here? Why would we do this, you ask?  Because back in 2010, President Obama signed an order allowing same-sex partners to get visas, but at that time, only married heterosexual partners could. So, fast forward to the Undo Obama Policies administration we're in today, and the only logical thing to do?

Force gays to marry, obviously. Because now that same-sex marriage is legal (but of course, not required), we must impose the draconian rule on citizens of other countries - even those where same sex marriage is illegal - almost all the time:

The United States informed foreign governments that they would allow ''limited exceptions"  to its new policy in cases involving diplomats from countries where same-sex marriage is illegal. But that government would have to provide documentation proving that same-sex marriage was illegal and commit to accepting same-sex partners of US diplomats.

What's comical, if that's the right term, is that the party of Trump maintains that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Up next?  The First Lady is trying to #BeBest, even as her husband is continuing to #BeAnAss, #BeWorst, #BeACad, and #MAHA (make America horrible again). There is literally nothing to wonder about on the latter, and I wish her the best on her trip away from her husband.

Finally, there's the FBI supplemental background investigation into Brett Kavanaugh, the president's choice for the Supreme Court. It may be done, it might not be. There may be more witnesses to interview - or there may not be. The White House says interview anyone you want, but the White House counsel's office says not so fast, it seems.

There will be no conclusions offered, only interview notes - and the information  will be held extremely close to the vest, too.

All 100 Senators will have access to the new information, but not their staffs. There are also 10 Judiciary Committee staffers who have access to the Kavanaugh file, which is a paper report -- there are no pdfs of emails of it. And it will not be made public.

And anyone who leaks the information is likely to be in trouble, as none of it is to be shared - which is exactly what we have come to expect.

Like I said, not a whole lot of wondering going on.

Wondering on Wednesday (v85)

Tonight, on this Wednesday, let's go wandering through a land of wonder.

In North Carolina, we no longer need to wonder the official price of legislative conviction; it's been determined: no college championship games for five years. Facing a looming deadline from the NCAA indicating that plans for college tourneys through 2022 were going to go through without any opportunity for Tar Heel State bids, a compromise that no one was happy with - not the folks who originally voted the law in, and not the the LGBTQ community - was reached, and the NCAA's deadline was met. A study by the AP estimated the economic loss to be at least $3.76B over a dozen years. Whether it was these two carrots, or the outrage of the masses, we may have to keep wondering.

What we don't have to wonder about, though, is the capacity for NC legislators to press on with restrictive legislation.  This bill, for example, would retaliate against athletic conferences that boycott North Carolina universities for the state's anti-LGBTQ 'orientation'. State universities such as North Carolina and NC State would be forced to leave their conferences at the end of their current media contract should any retaliation occur. Because nothing says "we don't tolerate retaliation like retaliation do" or something like that.

And there was this bill, which sought to defy the United States Supreme Court:

Marriages between persons of the same gender are not valid. The General Assembly of the State of North Carolina declares that the Obergefell vs. Hodges decision of the United States Supreme Court of 2015 is null and void in the State of North Carolina... Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individual of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.

The House Speaker advised the bill would not be heard, recognizing the law of the land supersedes the law of North Carolina. I wonder, how long will this Republican be in a leadership role? Is he the future, or is he just a temporary distraction from the rest of his party?

Let's move on to Texas, a state where there are virtually no laws too ridiculous when it comes to restricting legal abortions, or harassing women who wish to have them, You know, requiring clinics to meet all of the requirements of to have hallways wide enough to allow two hospital beds to pass unobstructed, when there are no hospital beds in clinics? Or the one that would have required fetal remains from miscarriages and abortions to be buried or cremated, which was blocked by a judge.

The good thing to come out of Texas is a bill that aims to punish unregulated 'self-pleasuring' (wink, wink).

The law, introduced last month and forwarded to the committee Tuesday, calls for civil penalty for unregulated masturbatory emissions that are outside of a woman's vagina (or) medical facility. Any man who does so faces a $100 fine because the act is considered an act against an unborn child and failing to preserve the sanctity of life.

The 'Men's Right to Know Act' as the bill is called, is a breath of fresh air - I applaud State Rep. Jessica Farrar, a Dem representing residents in Houston, for her creativity and legislative skill in drafting and keeping the bill moving. I wonder how the men on the legislature are taking this? Are they learning anything, or are the just sitting there while the womenfolk have their fun?

You know, like they're doing in Minnesota, where men will be men but they sure don't like being called out by women. Seems there was discussion around a provision a bill that would fine protesters for blocking highways, and the women of the Democrat - Farm - Labor (DFL) party, including women of color, spoke in opposition to the provision; one quoted an emotional letter written by Martin Luther King, Jr. that spoke of sometimes having

no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community.

Apparently, while the women were speaking, the men were in another room, playing cards - which did not sit well with Minority Leader Melissa Hortman, who called the wayward members back to the floor, noting

I hate to break up the 100% white male card game in the retiring room, but I think this is an important debate.

She went on to note that she was "really tired of watching women of color, in particular" being ignored by fellow legislators.  There was no wondering how the men felt, including the one who had submitted the offending legislation. He called for an apology; Hortman refused. She was asked the next day for an apology, and refused again, according to reports I've read.  After the bill passed, including the contested provision, there were even more calls for an apology from Hortman. Not only did she refuse, but then the chair of the DFL party called on the Republicans to apologize for their budget proposal.

I wonder, will other women in state legislatures learn from the Texas and Minnesota situations, and take advantage of their opportunities to protest legislatively, or procedurally, to make their voices heard? And will the 'new' Democratic National Committee begin offering support and encouragement for similar positions to be taken by others in the party, or their affiliates?  

I also wonder how long it will take for North Carolina to get some of these uppity women in their legislature?

Why is Kim Davis in Jail?

Kim Davis is in jail because not because she's being punished for her beliefs, as some people maintain, but for her failure to obey the law and her failure to do her duty as the elected county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky.

Some of the presidential candidates are chiming in.Prominently, for example, Mike Huckabee, president of the Josh Duggar Fan Club, plans on visiting Davis on Tuesday.  He's also established a Free Kim Davis Now petition,which is front and center on his presidential campaign page.  The petition, addressed to President Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and US District Judge David Bunning, states:

Immediately release Kim Davis from federal Custody. Exercising Religious Liberty should never be a crime in America. This is a direct attack on our God-given Constitutional Rights. 

Government government shutdown artist/denier Ted Cruz also supports Davis in her dereliction of duty, and has also wrongly stated the issue on purpose, noting that

Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in public office, they must disregard their faith - or be sent to jail.

Not so much, gentlemen.

Kim Davis is not only not being persecuted for being a Christian; she's not being persecuted at all. She's being treated like a public official who has officially shown contempt for the law, and for multiple courts. Her disdain has been duly recognized, which is what she wanted, and she's simply getting the attention she requested by defying the court's order.

Some folks are happy to point out that Davis has had four marriages, as if that should disqualify her from having a faith-based position on same-sex unions. While it might be hypocritical to profess concern about the sanctity of marriage if you've had four of them yourself, it's not really our business, and it's not the issue here. The more time spent on that argument, I think, the more time wasted.

Truth be told, I'm also not concerned with her religious beliefs. Not because I disagree with them (which I do), and certainly not because she's not entitled to them -- she is absolutely entitled to have her own personal religious beliefs, and to share them. However, she has no right to impose her beliefs on anyone else. That's why they're called personal religious beliefs.

Some folks have suggested that, if Davis were a Muslim instead of a Christian, no one would have an issue  with her behavior. That argument is ridiculous; this isn't about her choice of faith - it's about her failure to do the job she was elected to do.

Davis's decision to deny marriage licenses to all who seek them, whether gay or straight, is not a defense, either. Dereliction of duty equally applied is still dereliction of duty.

Her actions are also in direct conflict with her own statements thanking those who voted for her when she was elected last year, replacing her mother who served for decades in the position.

My words can never express the appreciation, but I promise to each and every one (of her constituents) that I will be the very best working clerk that I can be and will be a good steward of their tax dollars and fulfill the statutes of this office to the letter.  (Emphasis added.)

She also noted during the race that

If I'm elected it will be a seamless transition with no break in services to our citizens. Licenses, taxes, election-related activities and all of our other services cannot stop or slow down.  (Again, emphasis added.)

A "working clerk" would issue marriage licenses to all legal applicants, and a "good steward of their tax dollars" would not accept salary and benefits paid by tax dollars if he or she was not doing her job. After all, the county clerk cannot pick and choose which dollars she's going to take care of, she must take care of all of them, including the ones that pay her salary. Further, it defies logic that not issuing licenses would seem to constitute a "stop or slowdown" don't you think?

Davis should stay in jail for as many days as it takes for her to formally agree to perform all of the duties of her office. She could be released on bail, I suppose, but that would seem the easy way out (and one which would attract a lot less attention) so I doubt the option would be accepted if offered.

If she can't bring herself to faithfully execute the duties of her office -- all of them -- as required, then she must step down. I'd also like to see her repay the salary and benefits she received under false pretenses during this time. (Davis reportedly makes $80,000 per year.)

She's also potentially facing charges for misconduct,for violating the Kentucky code; charges have been referred to the State's Attorney General.

A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person of a benefit, knowingly (a) commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions or (b) refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office or (c) violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office. 

The code doesn't get into the reasons behind an official's misconduct, and neither should we.

Kim Davis is welcome to exercise her religious beliefs, even to proselytize on her own time; she's welcome to teach bible study to prisoners (if they're interested) on her free time, as it's been reported she does.

However, she's not welcome to deny services to the taxpayers she was elected to serve, whether they are gay or straight, old or young, black or white, male or female, Christian or atheist or anything in between.

The One About Marriage

June 26, 2015, is a day all about gratitude, for a majority of the same Supreme Court justices who gave us 'corporations are people' has officially determined that all people are people too.

The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.

Friday's decision means that same-sex marriage is in fact constitutional, and that the participants in them are protected the same as are participants in opposite sex marriages. And in marriages between prisoners and their pen pals. And in inter-racial marriages. And in marriages where the new husband is a deadbeat dad. These are among the cases over the years where the Court has chimed in, allowing marriage, 'protecting' marriage, revering the 'traditions and social benefits' that come from marriage.

No longer will someone like, say, Charles Manson be more valued than a gay doctor, lawyer, politician, soldier, musician, actor, teacher, athlete, pastor, accountant, bus driver, stock broker, entrepreneur, lifeguard, writer, janitor...

People are free to express their displeasure at this decision and at the weddings that result, just as they are free to express their displeasure and distaste at marriages between octogenarian men and twenty-something playthings; between rich businessmen and their second, third, or fourth trophy wives, (or their interviewers); or those between The Real Housewives of Anywhere and their poor bastard husbands.

Now, as Patrick and I prepare to mail our own wedding invitations, I'm delighted that all members of our family will have the same opportunity as we have: to embark on the journey of marriage, to make permanent and public and equal their commitment, their enduring love, and their undying faith in their partners, regardless of where they live when they make the decision to say "I do."

And I'm thrilled for friends who have already gotten married in New York and other 'marriage equality states, to know that their marriages are just as legitimate as ours will be when we tie the knot in September, regardless of where they are today or where they end up tomorrow.

I'm not surprised at some of the reactions coming from 'marriage conservatives' as I call the politicians who are looking to make hay out of this decision. I certainly wish there was less hate and a little more compassion, and I hope that people will become more tolerant and less judgmental over time. We've shown we can do this on other issues of equality, whether driven by a SCOTUS decision or by us individually or collectively coming to the realization that people who are different are not demons, nor are they 'less' simply because they are not exactly like us.

I'm going to leave you with thoughts expressed by Sean Kirst, an outstanding columnist we are fortunate to have here in Syracuse, who provided a thoughtful response to a question posed by Chief Justice John Roberts in his dissent Friday.  Roberts asked

The Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?

Here are excerpts from Kirst's reply:

Who do we think we are, affirming so many times that the greatest contribution of the founders - a group of influential men of celestial courage who didn't always transcend the ugly norms of their time - was to craft an ideal of liberty of such purity, of such inspiring power, that it would shine and ascend and be brought to bear on question seemingly unimaginable more than two centuries ago?

 Who do we think we are, bumping forward, debating, shouting, protesting, legislating, procrastinating, telecasting, sniping, griping, always predicting the doom of the republic when someone we disagree with - be it liberal, be it conservative - wins the day, yet waking up the next morning managing to somehow keep going this raucous, boisterous, never boring, often maddening, sometimes transcendent, still unfinished and in-the-end- we're all-in-this-together-dammit experiment of a union?

Who do we think we are?   

Just who we were yesterday, and will be tomorrow, when we again put one great collective foot before the next:

Americans. 

Equally, gay or straight, Americans.

Marriage Equality from the IRS is not real 'Tax Equality'

Yesterday, the Internal Revenue Service announced that they would recognize legal same-sex marriages for tax purposes, granting them the same benefits as legally married opposite-sex couples.  Even if they move to a state that doesn't have a marriage equality law. Even if they were married in a foreign country.  By golly, how progressive!

Here's a comment from Treasury Secretary Jack Lew on the decision:

Today's ruling provides certainty and clear, coherent tax filing guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide. It provides access to benefits, responsibilities and protections under federal law that all Americans deserve. This ruling also assures legally married same-sex couples that they can move freely throughout the country knowing that their federal filing status will not change.

This announcement was entirely logical, based on the SCOTUS decision back in June that deemed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

The expected parties chimed in from both the 'pro' and 'con' side. For example:

The Treasury Department is grossly overstepping its authority. This is a nation of laws. Only Congress has the authority to change the law...This action continues a pattern of lawlessness across the nation where administrators and clerks have taken it upon themselves to interpret and re-write laws as they pertain to marriage. Only the legislative branches of the Federal or State governments enact or rewrite the law... This,  from Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. I'm guessing that those 'administrators and clerks' include Supreme Court Justices, who down DOMA?

This welcome clarification provides fair and consistent treatment for all legally married couples across the country. The federal government is right to recognized that people's marriages shouldn't dissolve when they cross state lines.  So said James Esseks, director of the ACLU's LGBT Project.

This one seemed like a no-brainer for the IRS. The alternative, of course, would be to treat opposite-sex marriages the same as same-sex marriages, which I'm sure no one wants to mess with.  For example:

• Try telling an opposite-sex couple just back from their destination wedding and honeymoon on a Caribbean island that they're not really married, because they had their wedding in another country.
• Try explaining to all of those loving opposite-sex couples that got married in Las Vegas at the Elvis Wedding Chapel that their marriage is meaningless here in New York, because it happened in another state.
• Or my favorite, try telling married opposite-sex couples that they can no longer have any of the myriad benefits that go along with being married. There's more than just the tax implications, such as the one that was the reason for the Windsor/DOMA case in the first place.

If  the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, as some have suggested, then all benefits given to legally married couples should be removed.  However, if the government is going to be in the marriage business, then all legally married couples - same or opposite sex - are entitled to the same federal benefits.  That's really simple. 

What's complicated is way beyond the issue of marriage equality, and that's the thinking that somehow, every 'interest group' is entitled to some special benefit under the varied laws of the federal government and of each state.  Individuals and businesses, doctors and lawyers, farmers and bankers,  rich people and poor, military contractors and tourist traps and everyone and everything in between, have a chance at any number of reductions, credits, and benefits simply because they are, well either a person, place or thing. It's nuts.

What if, heaven forbid, we actually treated everyone equally, in just the tax code?  What if we made everyone pay their fair share, and not some manufactured share based on who they loved, their race, their location, their occupation, or how they spent their salary?

An outrage of biblical proportions, I'm sure.  The screaming that's been happening since June 26th over same sex marriage will pale in comparison to what would happen if we truly moved towards a limited government that acted with equality.

Anyone want to stick around for that?

Marriage Equality as Speech

Last night I heard about Senator Rob Portman changing his mind on same-sex marriage.  Portman, the Ohio Republican who was one of the contenders to be Mitt Romney's running mate, offered his support for same-sex marriage in a thoughtful editorial in the Columbia Dispatch.

Portman was a cosponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman and which also prevents states from having to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. His change of heart comes after learning two years ago that his son is gay.  I suspect this happens in families fairly frequently; opinions often change as lives change, as reality crashes in where beliefs once stood fast.

One of the things that Portman came to realize was that there is a way to bring together his religious upbringing, his conservatives values, and marriage rights.  He notes in his comments that

British Prime Minister David Cameron has said he supports allowing gay couples to marry because he is a conservative, not in spite of it. I feel the same way. We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people’s lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.

House Speaker John Boehner, also an Ohio Republican, was asked by ABC's Martha Raddatz (in an interview to be aired Sunday) if he could foresee a time or situation when his views on this issue would change, such as if a child or loved one was gay.  Here's his answer.

Rob’s a great friend and a long-time ally. And I appreciate that he’s decided to change his views on this. I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. … It’s what I grew up with. It’s what I believe. It’s what my church teaches me. And I can’t imagine that position would ever change.

Boehner's views may not change (and he is not alone), but many Republicans are shifting towards equality for all couples who wish to marry, to share the benefits granted by our government to those in approved unions, which are not granted to those in civil unions. And isn't that kind of an oxymoron? What's 'civil' about legalized discrimination? 

The shift is not without risk, however. Take the case of Richard Hanna, a moderate Republican from Central New York. Hanna was one of two Congressional Republicans who signed an amicus brief urging the US Supreme Court to strike down the California initiative that banned marriage equality there.   He faced a primary last year, then went on to win his seat - handily - in spite of the fact that he didn't get the Conservative Party endorsement. But now, he's apparently enraged the National Organization for Marriage with his decision to get on board the equality train. Here's what Brian Brown, president of NOM, had to say about Rep. Hanna's chances next time around.

There's absolutely no doubt that we are going be involved in the next election for Richard Hanna's seat. What folks don't understand is that we have Republicans and Democrats who support us, but if a Republican betrays the party platform, betrays his constituents, and does what Richard Hanna does, you can bet we're going to primary him. And if a Democrat wins in the end, so be it. 

Hanna won't be alone in this. Others who cross the line and support marriage equality are apt to face similar primary challenges (or at the very least benign neglect) in their next race.

In the end, what we have here is people exercising their right to speak freely, their right to make public statements in support of equal rights for all, facing significant pressure from other people exercising their right to freely speak a differing opinion.  And while I'm not a fan of the threat-laced political atmosphere in which we find ourselves, whether the discussion is on marriage equality, gun rights, taxes, or entitlements, I appreciate and support each side being able to express their opinion.

Here's Senator Portman again; I think he gets it exactly right:

As we strive as a nation to form a more perfect union, I believe all of our sons and daughters ought to have the same opportunity to experience the joy and stability of marriage.

But what I don't get is, why is it that the same conservatively principled people who brought us corporations are people too are not able to understand that gay people are people too, and deserve the same rights as everyone else.  Not different rights, or better rights, just the same ones. My Sweet Baboo and I can get married if we choose to, at any time.  We have that right simply because we're an opposite sex couple?  I think that's ridiculous, but it got me thinking.

If my Baboo and I were to get married, it would be a public and legal declaration of our  commitment to each other, that we were partners in the truest sense of the word, until death do us part.  If we got married, it would be for love, security, protection -- to have the full rights afforded people who take the plunge, who make the statement "I am married."

And then it hit me: isn't marriage -- the act, the declaration -- constitutionally protected speech?

And shouldn't it therefore be championed by those who favor limited government?  Who favor freedom for people to make their own way in the world, to succeed or fail, with a husband or wife steadfastly by their side? Who believe in our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? And wouldn't marriage eguality then be as worthy of defense as say, the right to bear arms?

Hmm...
 

Shots Fired: NY Marriage Equality

Author's note: this post was updated to correct a formatting issue. The content is the same as when originally published in June 2011.

Not surprisingly there've been many quotable moments leading up to and since the NY Senate voted 33 - 29 to allow same-sex marriage and Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the bill Friday night.  Here's a sampling:

"I just probably committed political suicide." Republican Senator Mark Grisanti to a Buffalo News reporter after the vote. Grisanti, a lawyer and a Catholic, also noted that he could find no legal reason to deny same sex couples the 1300 rights that he and his wife enjoy because they're married.

"With the world watching, the Legislature, by a bipartisan vote, has said that all New Yorkers are equal under the law." Governor Andrew Cuomo, in a statement after the vote. It was barely bipartisan, but it was enough.  

"I'm sure our committee will comply with that." Onondaga County Conservative Chairman Austin Olmstead, on his state party's promise not to support anyone who voted in favor. No surprise here.

"I knew there were countless people who would welcome my vote and I knew that there were countless people who would be angered by my vote." Republican Senator Stephen Saland, the first of the undecided to support the bill. Saland was instrumental in securing the religious exceptions and ensuring that if those don't past legal muster, the whole bill becomes null and void.

"You can't teach something that you don't have, so two men will never be able to show a woman how to be a woman."  NY Giants Super Bowl hero David Tyree.  Wondering how single moms and dads are handling this today with their sons and daughters, respectively?

“Heck, I work for Fox, man, they’ve got Glee on T.V.”  Michael Strahan, another NY Giants hero, on the potential for repercussions on supporting same sex marriage. What a great line!

“You don’t see two male dogs sleeping in the same dog house together." Clinton County legislator Sam Trombley, who also noted there would be an "HIV epidemic if this passes." Um, really? When I was younger, we had two male dogs. Winnie was a shepherd/husky mix; Sam was a spaniel/dog-down-the-street mix. The two slept curled up together all the time. Maybe it was because they had such gender-neutral names?  

At the end of the day, the world did not come to an end after the vote; it probably won't come to and end when the next state passes it, or the next one, or the next one.