The Milquetoast Evolution

The day after voters of North Carolina approved an amendment (Amendment 1) which bans same sex marriage, civil unions and some protections for single mothers, the headlines blasted that President Obama supports gay marriage.  My fellow gays, lesbians and our allies cheered with gleeful abandon.  Conservatives had a conniption fit.  All but a few on both sides act as if President Obama came out in full, unequivocal support of marriage equality.

But, in true Milquetoast President fashion, President Obama gave only qualified support for same sex marriage.  Instead of saying, “I personally support the right of same sex couples to marry and I believe the U.S. Constitution does as well”, he said this:

“At a certain point, I've just concluded that-- for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that-- I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. Now-- I have to tell you that part of my hesitation on this has also been I didn't want to nationalize the issue.

… And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what's recognized as a marriage.”

In other words, our Milquetoast President has evolved enough to support same sex marriage, but thinks it is a state’s rights issue and not a civil rights issue.  He doesn’t think that this should be a national issue, but a local and state issue.  This is how the President operates.  He can’t be for something 100%, he has to try and split his support to try and appease everyone.  He could have come out in support of gay marriage before the voters of North Carolina went to the polls, but he didn’t, he waited until the day after and the results were negative.  That’s not leadership, that’s cowardice.

I understand that as President, one has to make compromises on some issues, such as the budget, national security and such.  When it comes to civil rights though, compromise is not an option.  You are either for or against.  There is no fence sitting, as President Obama was previously doing, and there is no attempt to create “separate but equal” constructs such as “civil unions” which leaves a segment of the population as second class citizens.

I understand the desire by my fellow gays and lesbians around the nation and our allies to stand and cheer the President’s “support” of gay marriage.  It’s the desire to believe that the most powerful man in the world supports our equality.  That desire, though, blinds them to the realities of our Milquetoast President and one of those realities is that President Obama will pander just as much as Mr. Romney in order to be reelected.

I thank the President for his evolution in regards to same marriage equality, I just wish it wasn’t such a milquetoast evolution.

-----

The full transcript and video of President Obama’s interview can be found here.

For further reading, please check out Lyle Denniston’s write up on SCOTUSBlog.

It Gets Better, But What About Now?

On April 15^th, 2012, 14 year old Kenneth Weishuhn committed suicide.  Two weeks before taking his life, Kenneth took the bold step of telling his friends that he was gay*.  Instead of finding acceptance he found ridicule, hate and threats.  It is great to tell our gay youth that “it gets better”, but what about now?

Being ridiculed, hated and threatened isn’t just a phenomenon of gay youth.  It’s a phenomenon of anyone who is seen as “other” and it needs to stop.  Teachers and administrators need to stop treating bullying as “boys will be boys” bullshit and start treating it like the crime against society that it is.  Platitudes need to be backed up by swift and strong action.

Columbine should have been our nation’s wakeup call about bullying.  Instead of focusing on the bullying Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold received and how it was ignored by school administrators, we focused on the fact that they were both “others”, guns and violent video games.  It was an opportunity lost by those of all political stripes to save lives.

Part of stopping the bullying will require our national political discourse to change.  Our political leaders need to stop using dog-whistle terms to invoke the specter of the “other”.  When kids see adults ridiculing, hating and threatening others, they think nothing is wrong in doing so as well.  This acceptance of bullying puts lives at risk.

We can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines and allow bullying to continue.  In our homes parents need to let their kids know in no uncertain terms that bullying is unacceptable.  In our schools teachers and administrators can longer look the other way when bullying occurs.  They must stamp it out with a vengeance.  In our legislatures and Halls of Congress, lawmakers must remember that fear is not an acceptable means of uniting the nation, especially when it is fear of the “other”.

Gay, straight, black, brown, white, male, female, young, old, rich or poor, we all have the right to live without intimidation and bullying.  Now is the time to eliminate bullying as an acceptable form of discourse.  Now is the time to protect the Kenneth Weishuhns of our nation.  Are you listening Mr. President and Mr. Romney?

*The use of the term “gay” is meant to encapsulate that entire GLBT community and not just gay males.

The No Religious Test Clause and Social Conservatives

Article VI of the United States Constitution:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Over the last couple of weeks, what was once simmering below the surface and talked about only in intimate company has now come out into the open: Mitt Romney is member of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon).  For most of us, Mr. Romney (and for that matter Jon Huntsman) being a Mormon was never anything we worried about.  For most of us, his tendency to change his political positions more often than a surgeon changes scrubs is what matters.

To social conservatives and especially those who are Southern Baptists, Mr. Romney’s Mormonism is a very strong negative.  The question though is: Why should it matter if Mr. Romney is a Mormon, a Catholic, a Baptist, a Hindu, a Muslim or an atheist?  If social conservatives are such great followers of the U.S. Constitution, then why are they now claiming that since Mr. Romney is a Mormon and thus not only a member of a cult, but also not a “Christian”, he should not be the 2012 Presidential nominee?  Are they not putting Mr. Romney to a religious test?

The propensity of social conservatives to decide the political fate of a person based on their religion or lack of religion is one of the myriad problems with social conservatism.  Though it clearly states in our Constitution that one’s religion or lack of religion is not to be considered when deciding who should hold office, social conservatives believe it does matter.  Look at how social conservatives have attacked President Obama, claiming he is some secret Muslim and before that his choice of “Christian” church.  They went nuts over Congressman Keith Ellison to be photographed, after his swearing in, with a Koran in his hand.

Even social conservative darling, Governor Chris Christie has taken heat for appointing a Muslim to be a New Jersey Superior Court Judge.  And how many remember (or at least learned) the great fear over the fact that the election of a Catholic John F. Kennedy as President would mean that he would be the puppet of Pope John XXIII.  I also think that Senator Liebermann being Jewish was a factor in Vice-President Al Gore’s loss in 2000, at least in the South.

Our Founding Fathers knew the inherent dangers in allowing ones religion to be a factor in whether or not they could hold office.  They knew that unless they put a blanket prohibition on using one’s religion or lack of religion as a test of whether that person was qualified to hold office, they would have seen what we are seeing today.  In fact, I think they would be appalled at even the mentioning of Mr. Romney’s religion let alone the question of whether or not he is a real “Christian”.

Social conservatives have always loved cherry picking which parts of the Constitution they wish to follow and which ones they wish to ignore.  That is why we see candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination gleefully answering questions as to whether or not Mr. Romney is a true Christian because he is a Mormon.  The only answer to the question should be: I resent that you are even asking such a question, but since you have asked, the only answer I can give is that the U.S. Constitution does not allow us to consider one’s religion or lack of religion as to whether or not that person may hold office.  Of course, social conservatives, such as the ones running for the Republican Presidential nomination, could never answer the question in that manner and that is a problem.

I, myself, don’t give a shit what religion any candidate is or isn’t.  All I care about is will they be a good office holder.  Will they look out for all Americans or only the privileged few?   Will they be good stewards of our nation’s natural resources or will they turn a blind eye to the pillaging of those resources by corporations?  Do they believe in equality for all or do they believe that some are lesser citizens?

These are the questions I ask.  These are the questions that should be asked.  The only question I never ask is: What religion are they.  And that is how it should be, as declared in our own Constitution.

And the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee is...

As much as some very vocal people on the right would like, the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee will not be Sarah Palin, nor will it be Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, John Kasich, Jim Demint nor Mitt Romney.  The nominee will be the scariest person that the Republicans can find, even scarier than former Vice President Dick Cheney.  The nominee will be known for his fiscal and social conservatism as a former governor.  His candidacy for the Republican nomination will suck all of the oxygen out of any pretense of a “race” and will dry up the coffers of Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, et al.

He will be the only one of his siblings not to have failed miserably in business.  He will be the only candidate to have a Hispanic spouse.  He will have been intimately involved in the Terry Schiavo case.  He will be the son of the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency.  He will be John Ellis Bush.

Yes, I am calling Jeb Bush as the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee.  Once his name is announced, the other Republican contenders will fold up their tents and rally around their party’s best hope.  Jeb can solidify both the microwaved social conservative base now known as the “Tea Party”, the country club Republicans and the Grover Norquist wing of the Republican Party.  He will have access to untold amounts of monies to run his campaign and at this point in time, I don’t see a Democratic challenger (not even President Obama) that can beat him.

Let’s face it: Jeb has been groomed to be president for most of his life.  Everything in his adult life has led up to the moment he becomes the Republican Presidential nominee and the only person standing in the way is Jeb Bush himself.  Sarah is a joke.  Mike is nice enough, but I think the moderate Republicans would prefer someone who isn’t a former minister.  Newt, well, let’s just say that his past is his worst enemy.  Mitt flip flops so much that the party leadership never knows where he stands from moment to moment.  John I can see as Jeb’s running mate.  And Jim, well, he enjoys being the firebrand in the Senate too much and he would like to Majority Leader at some point.

There are very few things regarding politics that I have been wrong about, but in this, I honestly hope that I am.  We cannot afford a continuation of the Bush Family Dynasty.  Former President H.W. Bush wasn’t too bad, but former President W. Bush was a walking disaster.  If Jeb does run and wins the presidency, theocratic fascism will take a giant leap toward being the legitimate form of American government.

I never want to see a sign that reads: Jeb Bush for President, 2012.