Kevin Drum writes:

Kevin’s correct to say that Social Security is in no real danger (except the danger that Republicans will “fix” it by destroying it). But he should reserve at least some of the blame for Democrats, and in particular Clinton. After all, republicans have been calling Social Security an unworkable ponzi scheme for decades. As long as Democrats were arguing that SS was fine and only needed minor fixes, they still had the better side of the argument, and removing or privatizing SS was something that few serious candidates could advocate.

What changed all that, and what made “SS is going bankrupt” the Conventional Wisdom, was Clinton deciding to seek a short-term advantage in the tax policy debate by claiming that SS was going bankrupt and needed to be saved.

As I blogged yesterday (here and here), there is a current, ugly push-poll being used by anti-gay folks in Oregon to convince voters to support a ban on same-sex marriage. One of the questions the push-poll asks, as quoted in the Oregonian, is:

I wrote earlier that I didn’t know exactly what Massachusetts policy the push-poll question referred to. My friend Robert Hayes suggested that they’re probably referring to this policy (thanks to Charles for the link!). Robert wrote:

First of all, I want to point out that Trey of Daddy, Papa and Me has responded to Robert’s comment. I agree with Trey completely - his response to Robert is better and more interesting than my own - but I can’t find a good bit to quote out of context, so please go read Trey’s post.

My response to Robert: It’s far from clear that the particular policy Robert is talking about - which says only that students be able to “Define sexual orientation using the correct terminology (such as heterosexual, and gay and lesbian)” - can be correctly described as “advocacy.” If it’s advocacy, it’s only so in the same way that teaching evolution is advocacy. And in any case, the policy predates SSM in Massachusetts by five years, so suggesting that this policy is caused by SSM (as the push-poll did) is dishonest.

However, what about schools that include a book like Heather Has Two Mommies in the curriculum? A book like that (to repeat Robert’s distinction) goes beyond teaching tolerance to advocating normalization.

Can I feel sympathy for a family that is “upset” that their child is reading Heather Has Two Mommies in public school? Well, I can certainly understand why they’re upset. But from my perspective, they’re upset for the same reason that an anti-Semitic family might be upset when public schoolchildren are taught that Jewish holidays and traditions should be accorded the same respect as Christian holidays and traditions.

I can understand that, too. On an intellectual level, if I try, I can even sympathize with the pain and distress such parents must feel. But it doesn’t mean that I’m inclined to want those folks setting policy.

(Charles also brought up an interesting question: How does Robert feel about the pro-capitalism bias of virtually all public schools in the USA, since this may distress those parents who are socialists?)

Returning to what is (for me) the central issue of my earlier post, I can understand the distress anti-gay parents feel. However, that distress doesn’t excuse using fear of the “gay lifestyle” being taught in schools to drum up support for an anti-gay measure that has nothing to do with what’s taught in schools. In fact, because I can understand that distress, I think that telling lies designed to aggravate that distress is particularly scummy.

(I’m not assuming that Robert disagrees with me on this point; he hasn’t yet commented either way).

From an article by the AP (and via Marriage Matters):

Translation: The backers of Ballot Measure 36 are worried that they’re going to lose the vote, so they’ve decided on a strategy of implying that public schools are going to subject your children to graphic discussions of gay sex, and/or try to recruit children to “the gay lifestyle.” It’s the recycling of old anti-queer bigotries, to try and stir up hatred and resentment.

If this ballot measure passes, it will be nothing to do with the “protection” of marriage; it will be a simple, straightforward endorsement of bigotry.

The push-poll phone call I discussed earlier came from FEC Research - The One True B!X has more information about FEC Research, which seems like a pretty sleazy outfit, and links to other folks who received the call. Check it out.

ACTIONS: Why not call the Yes on 36 campaign - 1 (877) 203-9595 - and let them know what you think of their bigoted little push polling campaign? Even if it does nothing else, it’ll take up a little of their time. It’s a free call (well, free to you, not to them), so call even if you live far, far away from Oregon. Heck, call them frequently. Call just to chat. Call from Europe.

But if you do call them, be polite. I’m not saying this because I’m a prude (although I am) - I’m saying this because if the “yes on 36″ campaign receives a lot of abusive or threatening calls, that could help them, if they can get the press to write about it. Just politely tell them that campaign calls pretending to be neutral polls, and appealing to bigoted stereotypes, are unethical and make all of us worse off.

Even better, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE take out your credit card and contribute to the no on 36 campaign. Oregon is the only state besides Massachusetts where the good guys have a real shot at fighting off the anti-marriage-equality campaign. If you can afford to give even $10, then it’s worth your time to contribute, and it helps keep ads like this one on TV.

Stephen Miller, of the conservative Independent Gay Forum, collects some recent quotes from Republican leaders:

• Rep. Tom Coburn (the GOP Senate candidate in Oklahoma): “[L]esbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they’ll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that’s happened to us?”

• Rep. Jim DeMint (the GOP Senate candidate in South Carolina): “If a person wants to be publicly gay, they should not be teaching in the public schools.”
• Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas): “Marriage is a privilege the State should protect, but it is not a right for same-sex partners, multiple partners, or any configuration of people and animals that express love for one another.”
• Mel Martinez (the GOP Senate candidate in Florida): Blasted his primary opponent as “anti-family” and “the new darling of the homosexual extremists” because he supported a hate crimes bill that included gays.

Of course, as Stephen has frequently pointed out, the Democrats - while not as openly full of hatred - have certainly been underwhelming in their support for lesbian and gay rights.

Via Stephen, Chris Crain in the Washington Blade praises the Log Cabin Republicans for their political courage in criticizing Bush; and takes their Democratic counterparts the Stonewall Democrats, to task for their nonstop toadying to Kerry. He’s got a damn good point.

I just got a polling phone call. The “pollster” was a prerecorded voice controlled by a computer, which could recognize if I said “yes” or “no.” This is a paraphrase, but I think I’ve got the gist of it.

The recording then thanked me and hung up. (I wish I had answered “yes” to the last question, to see what the follow-up was….)

I suspect the recording (if it has any factual basis at all) was referring to some liberal Massachusetts community where “Heather has Two Mommies” or something similar is read to schoolchildren. But it’s safe to guess that liberal Massachusetts communities would be doing that regardless of if same-sex marriage existed or not. “Heather has Two Mommies,” after all, was being assigned in some schools for many years before the Goodridge decision.

But that isn’t the point. The point is, the Measure 36 people want you to be afraid that gay pedophiles are coming after your children! Everyone knows gays recruit children!

It’s no different from the covert appeal to racism in the “Willie Horton” commercial, or the way anti-Semites refer to the “blood libel” myth when insulting Jews. When push comes to shove, the Measure 36 folks are just another group of hateful bigots.

The anti-same-sex-marriage movement is not being driven by ivory-tower concerns about the divorce rate or the state of marriage; it’s being driven by a huge mass of Christian fundimentalists who believe they have the duty to force everyone else in the USA to abide by their religion’s rules, and who can’t stand the idea of children being taught to tolorate different kinds of families. For more on the subject, check out the Village Voice’s article on the “Mayday for Marriage” rally, and Salon’s article on Ohio’s anti-gay ballot measure.

P.S. The “poll” call came from 571-522-1899. Is there any way to find out who owns that number?

This was forwarded from an email list. It’s now moot - the action it called for ended at noon EST - so I’m hiding most of the entry.
Read the rest of this entry »

Eriposte has created a good clearinghouse site of examples of fraud, vote suppression, voting irregularities, and voter intimidation in Election 2004. Check it out.

Trey at Daddy, Papa and Me comments on whether or not hospitals really refuse to allow visitation by same-sex partners who are legally barred from marriage:

Go to Trey’s site to read his story.

One of the primary functions of marriage is to be able to legally make a family that courtrooms, police, hospitals and other public institutions are obliged to acknowlege. Right now, heterosexuals are able to point to their life partner and say “this person, this person here - s/he’s now my closest family in the world, for all legal purposes” and (99.99% of the time) make it stick. Lesbians and gays don’t have that right. And real-life experience shows that the ability to write up a personalized contract is no match for the ability to form a legal family.

Of course, the “non-homophobic” spokespeople of the anti-SSM movement - a handful of well-meaning intellectuals who are useful tools of the anti-SSM movement, but don’t actually have any influence within it - may object that domestic partnership laws could serve the same purpose.

That’s an ironic argument, because recent ballot measures and other developments have made it clear that the leaders of the anti-SSM movement not only want to ban gay marriage, they want to ban domestic partnerships, civil unions, and any other attempt to “create or recognize a legal status” for same-sex couples (to quote Ohio’s ballot measure). “Legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for… one man and one woman.” They’re using opposition to same-sex marriage to camouflage their real goal, which is denying lesbians and gay families any rights at all.

Over at marriage debate, discussing the various anti-SSM-and-civil-union amendments around the country, Joshua Baker writes:

I don’t know where Josh lives (or what he smokes), but here in Oregon the supporters of the anti-SSM ballot measure aren’t talking “about marriage (and little else).” Just looking through the arguments in favor of Measure 36 in Oregon’s voter pamphlet, I see folks talking about the following non-marriage items:

• The horrors of children being raised by same-sex couples: “If we ‘normalize’ homosexual marriage, the state will be forced
  to place foster children in same-sex households.”

• Warnings not to disobey God:“The question is, should the State of Oregon put its stamp of approval on what God has clearly said is wrong?”
• The collapse of society, public schools, etc: “Providing equivalent legal standing to unnatural relationships will force devastating and irreversible changes to our society. The rights of conscience, and the accompanying freedom to make moral distinctions will be severely curtailed. Public schools and curriculum will be required to teach that homosexual ‘marriage’ is the moral equivalent to traditional marriage. Religious freedom, healthcare, and Social Security will all be negatively impacted.”
• Lies about social science research: “All research is conclusive. Children do better with a mother and a father.”
• Legislative difficulties: “If Oregonians don’t pass Ballot Measure 36 the legislature will be confronted with changing at least 350 statutes. Laws ranging from insurance, divorce, child custody, and taxes would need to be changed.”
• Schools again: “That is why Measure 36 is essential for education, because more important to education than stable funding is a stable and healthy family! Please vote YES on 36! It is the most important investment you can make to a child’s education.”
• And again…: “Teachers will be forced to teach sex education to middle school children based on the new interpretation of marriage in Oregon.”

And that’s far from a comprehensive list. Joshua clearly hasn’t been reading many proponents of anti-SSM amendments if he thinks they’ve even come close to discussing “marriage (and little else)”.

Joshua goes on to suggest that pro-SSM arguments about private employer’s health insurance, hospital visitation, and parental rights are nonsense:

But it’s Joshua who is oversimplifying matters. Even on his strongest point - what would happen to private business partnership coverage - it’s not clear that the broader anti-SSM amendments would have no effect. Some cities have laws requiring all businesses contracting with the city to offer domestic partnership benefits if they offer marriage partner benefits. Will such laws still be legal if the amendments pass? Maybe, maybe not. I don’t know, and I suspect Joshua doesn’t either.

(There’s also the matter of insurance coverage, pension inheritance and other benefits for same-sex partners of public employees, which could easily be outlawed under reasonable interpretations of some of the amendments.)

Joshua’s apparent belief that hospitals never reserve visitation rights - and, just as importantly, decision-making authority - to closest kin is shockingly ignorant. When a heterosexual is in such a situation, she or he is assured that the decision-maker will be their spouse; for homosexuals, a third cousin who you haven’t seen in person for 12 years ranks above a life partner, in a hospital’s eyes. From the Oregon Voter’s Pamphlet:

Inheritance rights are another major factor to consider. As this writer points out, that she couldn’t legally marry her partner of 31 years made it much harder for to afford taking care of the children when her partner died - our laws are designed to make it easier for spouses in that situation, but those who cannot marry are screwed.

Nor are legal contracts any replacement for marriage. Even if they worked, they’d still amount to taxing same-sex couples thousands of dollars in legal fees for the protections married couples take for granted.

But often, they don’t work. Armed Liberal tells the story of a gay man whose non-approving parents were suing for control of his medical treatment and finances. In the end, the man had to legally “marry” a female acquaintance to bring his parents’ lawsuits to an end (and then, after he died, she stole his remaining estate from his longtime partner). Legal contracts, no matter how carefully crafted, aren’t worth nearly as much protection as marriage - even if the marriage is to someone you barely know.

From the Florida Sun-Sentinal, via Marriage Debate:

Joshua is doubtless correct that some claims about hospitals, insurance and parenting rights by opponents of anti-SSM amendments are technically incorrect in some way. (Just as many of the claims made by proponents of the amendments are often flat-out wrong, not to mention ridiculous). But even when technically mistaken in their particulars, the thrust of pro-SSM arguments are correct: There are essential legal and financial protections for families and children that marriage, and marriage alone, can secure. And those protections are denied to same-sex couples and their children.

If Joshua wants to discuss “the real issues at stake,” that’s one issue (one of several) which he should be ready to seriously discuss. And nit-picking at particular examples to imply that the overall problem isn’t real, does not qualify as serious discussion.

Eve Tushnet has some questions about marriage and the courts.

Assuming that it is a fundamental civil right, then yes, it should be. It is the job of the courts to protect civil rights from the wishes of the majority.

To me, this is the central issue of Goodridge and other court cases regarding SSM - and an issue that SSM opponents don’t seem eager to address. Does equal protection of the laws apply to lesbians and gays, or not? If lesbians and gay men are entitled to equal protection of the law, then same-sex marriage is inevitable.

By pursing constitutional amendments, SSM opponents implicitly admit that federal and state constitutions, as currently written, will lead courts to find that lesbians and gays have an equal right to marry. Same-sex marriage opponents are unable to provide a rational basis for discrimination in court; so they’re trying to alter the various constitutions so that equal protection laws no longer apply to lesbians and gays (at least regarding marriage and civil unions).

The question is too broad for a yes or no answer.

Ideally, the anti-equality state amendments would be kept off ballots because not enough voters support them. Alas, that’s obviously not what’s happening.

Anti-equality amendments should only be struck down by the courts if they are in some way illegal or break state law - for example, an amendment banning both same-sex marriage and civil unions in a state where state law requires ballot measures to deal with only one issue at a time. Those who are against SSM may find this objectionable, but those are the rules we all play under. If a ballot amendment is lawful, however, it should not be struck down.

I do think that many state constitutions should be more difficult to amend; in too many states, civil rights can be struck down by a simple majority vote to amend a state constitution. But those are the rules we all play under. (The good news is, five or ten years down the line those same state constitutions will be easy to amend in support of equality.)

Not in the sense that the split is going to lead to a civil war. Nor would I suggest that marriage equality opponents are as morally vile as slave-owners.

I do think that it’s the equivalent in the sense that a nation “half slave, half free” is a nation that is halfway given over to bigotry. However, I recognize that such a nation is still an improvement over a nation “entirely slave.”

A great deal of the case against same-sex marriage is based on lies and fear of the unknown. SSM opponents have claimed that SSM is associated with banning the bible; that teachers will be forbidden from talking about “mothers and fathers”; that divorce and unwed motherhood will skyrocket; that churches will be legally forced to perform same-sex marriages; that sisters will marry brothers; and a host of other nonsense. (The more intellectual and reasonable SSM opponents don’t usually stoop to these tactics; but the more intellectual and reasonable SSM opponents are not leading the anti-SSM movement).

Fear of the unknown is powerful stuff; and right now, for most Americans, same-sex marriage is an unknown. For that reason, I think it would be a terrible mistake for SSM to be imposed on the whole country by the Supreme Court at this time. While SSM is still a frightening unknown, most of the country will not accept it. There would be a nationwide rebellion against so-called “judicial activism,” and quite possibly a federal anti-gay constitutional amendment.

To avoid this risk, legal SSM should begin with just a few states allowing legal same-sex marriage - and they should be relatively liberal states, in which at least a large minority is already willing to recognize SSM. Five or ten years from now, if nothing goes wrong, same-sex marriage will be a rather dull status quo in Massachusetts, and perhaps in Oregon, Washington, and New Jersey as well. Inevitably, there will be some married gay celebrities, and some TV shows will include flattering portrayals of same-sex marriages. Once SSM has become a boring norm, same-sex couples will have gained “marriage that’s socially as well as legally recognized.” And after that, nationwide recognition will be just a matter of time.

Confined Spaces, the worker safety blog, has put online the transcript of a little-publicized fourth debate between Bush and Kerry, focusing on worker safety issues.

Sheelzebub at Pinko Feminist Hellcat comments on this Oregonian article, documenting a pattern of abuse and rape by Oregon State Hospital workers at Ward 40, a treatment center for children and teenagers. Even worse, the hospital had a pattern of hushing up these crimes.

The article itself is a litany of horrors, such as a fired hospital staffer using his knowledge of the hospital’s scheduling to kidnap and rape a teenager. (This same staffer apparently raped or molested five other patients; two later committed suicide). The most distressing thing for me, however, is the hospital staff’s apparent refusal to treat sexual abuse of patients as a serious problem. For example, regarding hospital employee and rapist/molester/abuser Ronnie LaCross:

KATU’s story (based on the Oregonian’s reporting) includes this tidbit:

The only reason most of this is known is that sealed court records from 1994 were misfiled in a public-records area. There’s good reason to worry that Ward 40 has continued to be a home for rapists, pedophiles and abusers since 1994. The Oregonian discovered seven cases of alleged child sex abuse in the last four years that were never reported to the chief DHS investigator.

Needed security measures that have become standard at other hospitals have not been taken:

Hopefully, the Oregonian article will be a start towards getting Ward 40’s appalling conditions fixed (or better yet, towards getting Ward 40 closed down and replaced with modern small-group homes). If you’d like to write Governor Ted Kulongoski a note asking him to take action, here’s his contact information.

Adding to the recent interblog series of posts about women being told to smile, Jenn Lee reprints some of an article she wrote back in 1988.

I’ve posted in the past about the curious fact that, if pro-lifers main goal is reducing abortion, they’d be better off supporting pro-choice politicians. Internationally, the countries with the lowest abortion rates are invariably countries that have legal abortion, strong welfare states and widely available (and encouraged) use of birth control. (In contrast, not a single country that has banned abortion has a low abortion rate; they simply have high rates of illegal abortion.)

Now the evidence shows that what’s true internationally is true domestically - in the USA, the policies pursued by pro-life politicians are associated with higher abortion rates. From Souljourners:

I’d add a fourth reason; the Bush administration has used the “bully pulpit” to argue against birth control, and has encouraged abstinence-only education. Abstinence is indeed the most effective birth control (although “abstinence,” from a pregnancy-prevention point of view, can also include having lots of oral sex and homosexual sex); but it doesn’t follow that abstinence-only education is the most effective pregnancy-prevention education.

Mark Roche - a Dean at at the University of Notre Dame - is another pro-lifer who has realized that if the goal is reducing abortion, rather than punishing women, abortion bans simply don’t work. In a New York Times op-ed, he writes (emphasis added by me):

Links via “Grassroots Mom” at DailyKos.

UPDATE: Hey, it turns out Body and Soul wrote almost the exact same post - but she wrote hers two days earlier. Great minds think alike (and somewhat less great minds think alike except they do it two days later!).

This is cool. From the Washington Post:

From a PeopleAndPlanet.net profile:

Here’s a link to a speech by Ms. Maathai, which outlines her views on the problems Africa faces today. Among many other things, she makes an interesting criticism of Western aid:

Read the whole thing.

Curiously, Ms. Maathai recieved the Right Livelihood Award, aka “the alternative Nobel Prize,” 20 years ago. So perhaps the Nobel people are beginning to catch up.

She’s also a bit of a conspiracy theorist about AIDS. Oh, well.

An Ebay Auction - $150,000 for a nearly-completed novel - via Making Light:

Theresa admires his creativity, but reading it just makes me sad. (It gets worse, too).

Sappho at Noli Irritare Leones, in th emood for a challenge, attempts to reconcile the views of nearly all the bloggers who have been discussing “real manhood” in a single blog post. Very cool.

I think Sappho (aka Lynn) pegs my view pretty well - I see a need for strong gender distinctions as an essentially childish perspective. It’s very important to three-year-olds that strong gender boundaries be maintained (I read a study showing that young children will refuse to play with a plain white hanky if they’re told that it’s a toy liked by the opposite sex), but as people get older it matters less. How three-year-olds view gender is not a useful model for how adults should view gender.

On the other hand, I do see that - as a practical teaching tool for folks raised in our gender-obsessed culture - acknowleging gender is sometimes useful and necessary. On the other hand, for other folks (including me when I was a teen), acknowleging that there is no single “real” manhood would be a lot more meaningful.

Hugo also posts again on the subject, responding to “Alas” reader Charles (who is also, along with Sarah, my housemate/partner/house co-owner/blah blah blah). At least to me, it seems that Hugo has moderated his views quite a lot - for which he is to be complimented.

Via Feministing, this AP story reports on a Center for Reproductive Rights report on what would happen if Roe is overturned.

Two quick points.

1) The article says “It is believed that five of the nine justices support abortion rights, but that balance could be tipped if President Bush, in a second term, nominates a new justice who reflects his antiabortion views.” However, unless someone’s switched sides recently, there are currently six votes in favor of Roe/Casey, and only three votes to overturn. So it would take two Bush appointments to change that balance.

However, it would take only one Bush appointment to make the recent “partial-birth” abortion ban legal. Bas as that would be, however, it’s not the same as overturning Roe.

2) Everyone seems to agree that if Roe were overturned, the pro-lifers would be unable or unwiling to make a serious attempt to ban all abortoin, nationwide, at the federal level. Why? The pro-lifers have made it clear that they think they have a right to ban “partial-birth” abortion at the federal level, and to date no court has disagreed with them (the PBA ban has been found unconstitutional on a few different grounds, but never on “state’s rights” grounds).

If Roe is overturned, there would be enourmous pressure from the pro-life grassroots to ban abortion nationwide via a Federal ban, and I don’t think pro-lifers in Congress would be able to resist that, even if they wanted to. I assume that Democrats would filibuster any such law in the Senate - but if the Republian majority in the Senate increases by six or ten seats, we could see abortion banned nationwide.

Gotta go - more later.

Echidne has an excellent post on Afghan Women and the upcoming elections. Here’s a sample, but you should read her entire post.

Related article: The BBC has an article today surveying the dismal state of women’s rights in Afghanistan, with several anecdotes from women in Afghanistan.