The Journal of Left of Center Thinking :: December 05, 2004 - December 11, 2004

Speculating on the Press

You might think being in the press corps would be the best job a reporter can ask for, but reading the press gaggles and briefings, it's essentially a process where you ask questions you know you're not going to get answers to, then try to deduce what the answer might be based on the sort of -non answer - that Scott gives.

See, Scott doesn't speculate. And they don't bother looking back. So, unless the issue is happeneing right then, during the press briefing (when Scott will have no answer), Scott won't give an answer. Let's watch:

Comments:

Be careful what you ask for

Those dirty, dirty, Greeks. Anyone who knows anything about Greek Mythology knows the little buggers were not the most moral of creatures. I mean, changing to animals, impregnating virgins, tieing people to rocks to have their guts pecked out. Not to mention the wanton lightning bolt hurling that occurred when they were in a bad mood.

Apparently, the FCC (responding to a complaint which, if you do the math is 99.9% likely to have come the rightwing-nutball group PTC) is investigating the opening ceremonies of the Olympics (which depicted various elements of Greek Mythology).

I URGE the FCC to follow through. I also urge them to look for other mythological displays on TV which might contains elements we should be exposing children to. I'm talking about stories of incest, murder, sexually transmitted diseases, homosexuality, rape, and other things we want to avoid in our modern, enlightened, society.

Comments:

I am posting. Again.

I stopped posting for a few days to muscle through my first semester of law school finals. So, what did I miss?

Canada approved gay marriage. Again.

The Whitehouse argued against separation of church and state. Again.

The CIA has leaked a report painting a bleak picture in Iraq. Again.

Scott refused to answer questions. Again.

Bush announced the resignation of a cabinet member. Again.

National treasure was #1 at the box office. Again.

(Admittedly, the last one isn't really important - but fit in with the theme.)

Comments:

Incrementalism and Gay Rights

Dale Carpenter of Independent Gay Forum has a post on where the gay rights movement needs to go from here. He sums it up with two words: federalism and incrementalism.

I want to focus on the last bit. Dale examines the success gay rights have had in CA and notes that it came a little at a time. Rather than a response to a judicial edict, it evolved bit by bit. His point being that the current political atmosphere, where gay men and women have been turned into the red communists of the 50s, requires small steps instead of great leaps. It requires grass root movements, instead of judicial maneuvers. We need to convert the hearts and minds of the red [and blue] state people, rather than telling them how things are going to be.

While I agree with the sentiment, a closer examination reveals a few flaws with this approach. The lesser problem is that he looks to CA as an example of a good incremental approach, suggesting the gains have happened without backlash or controversy.

That's not quite true. Certainly the Knight amendment was a form of backlash against the gay achievements in the state. And there have been others. The difference is that gays make up a significant part of the CA population and have political, and economic clout more so than in any other state. So, we have been successful here, but that success was not limited to the 'incremental' approach. There were lawsuits here as well, which failed, but will continue. It's just that the political clout allowed us to make inroads via the legislature as well. People in other states, however, may not have the clout to pull of that approach (though, a multi-tiered approach should always be attempted).

Also, Dale seems to think that taking tiny steps will reduce the conservative response to gay rights.

I think this belief is somewhat naive. The conservatives have not just been fighting gay marriage, but any incremental increase in the rights of gay relationships and people. Federal Gay civil rights bills has been stalled in congress forever, when all it does it add sexual orientation to a list of other characteristics that prevent people from being discriminated against for. Will it really end the world if gay people can't be fired for being gay? Well, conservatives seem to think so. Gay parent rights, adoption rights, right to make medical decisions, health benefits, and other 'small' rights have all been under attack by conservatives for quite some time. And, they have done a good job of convincing the population as a whole that granting these 'small' rights to gays will have devastating result.

So, of course we need to counter those arguments at the local level. We need to court our friends and families not to vote for people who promote anti-gay agendas, even if they agree with those people on other issues (such as taxes or choice, or whatever). We need to work hard to expose the conservative movement as the theocratic desire that it is. Mostly, we need to humanize the face of gay rights - so that people see more than just the stock footage of the pride parades on TV.

The biggest fault of the article, however, is that he, like many people, view the judicial happenings of the last year as part of some massive gay rights plan, which overreached in its execution.

The truth is, of course, that's not what happened. Lawsuits occur because people feel that they have been wronged and turn to the courts to right that injustice. The right has done a good job of painting this as 'judicial activism', but the fact of the matter is, that is how the process is supposed to work. The courts exist exactly for this reason. I'm not suggesting that a grass roots movement to educate and (hopefully) reveal that gays are not the signs of the end times is not a good idea. It is. However, the incremental process would, in effect, require that people forgo their constitutional rights in order to not 'upset' people, which seems to go against the grain of our nation.

People seem to think that the judicial process somehow circumvents the legislature, but that it not true. The legislature always has the ability to trump the courts, by passing laws and/or amendments to counter decisions by the courts. Now certainly I am not a fan of the FMA, nor am I fan of the marriage amendments which have passed in various states, but that is how our nation is supposed to work.

Ideally, people will recognize that the political backlash right now may make any judicial victories short lived, and slow down the challenges, but those decisions are theirs.

***** Update

Dale's article was written on November 25th, but I didn't read it until this weekend, and didn't post on it until this morning. Then, via John at Beaverhausen Blog I find the Tradition Values Coalition released a press statement on Friday that they were going to propose a constitutional amendment in CA that would essentially prevent any marriage 'rights' from being conferred on domestic partners. This includes all the usual retirement, health, medical decisions.

As John put it, so much for that theory....

Comments:

Why gay Families need legal protection

The ACLU has involved itself in a case with chilling ramifications for gay parents. Tina Burch and Christine Smarr were a lesbian couple with a child. Smarr, the biological parent of the child was killed. Smarr's parents have launched a legal challenge to have the child taken away from Burch, and a circuit court in Virginia agreed.

So, the loving parent whose only mistake was not to anticipate her partner's death, has lost custody of a 4 year old child she raised from birth.

Comments:

Misery and Company

Gay and worried about the new anti-gay national tone? You're (obviously) not alone.

Comments:

Newsbreak

Gay's are having children in order to promote a political agenda and to use children as toys. Ripping a 12 year old from her loving parents, on the other hand, is what's best for the child.

Comments:

Judicial Activism

Get accidentally sent to the wrong court, and get arrested.

Now, THAT's judicial activism. Not to mention Stupid.

Comments:

20/20 Shepard Story Update

Retired Laramie Police Chief Dave O'Malley had this to say about the 20/20 report suggesting the Shepard murder wasn't a hate crime.

Comments: