Griper Blade: The Tyranny of a Short-Term Majority

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

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

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

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

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

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

Griper Blade: A Ban in Search of a Reason for Being

In March 2007, Stephen Benjamin was discharged from the Navy. An Arabic language translator, Benjamin fell prey to Bill Clinton's absurd 1993 compromise policy of "don't ask, don't tell." Under that rule, gays are allowed to serve in the military, but only so long as it's a big secret. If you tell anyone about your sexual orientation, for any reason, you're out. In Benjamin's case, it was text messages -- intercepted by military censors -- that made it clear that he and a former roommate stationed in Iraq were gay. They were fired.

"My supervisors did not want to lose me," he wrote in the New York Times in June of that same year. "Most of my peers knew I was gay, and that didn’t bother them. I was always accepted as a member of the team. And my experience was not anomalous: polls of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan show an overwhelming majority are comfortable with gays. Many were aware of at least one gay person in their unit and had no problem with it."

Despite a "desperate shortage of linguists," the Navy thought it was more important that intercepted intelligence pile up untranslated than to let some gay guy translate them. This is supposed to serve our national interests, because allowing gays to serve would somehow harm "unit cohesion." Seems to me that breaking up units to preserve their "cohesion" is astonishingly ludicrous -- it's like arguing you have to get divorced to save your marriage... [CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Poll: Most Oppose Same-Sex Marriage Ban in CA

clipped from news.yahoo.com A majority of California voters oppose a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage, though they are evenly split on the practice itself, according to a poll released Wednesday. The ballot question essentially will ask voters to prohibit the practice of same-sex marriage, which was approved this year by the California Supreme Court. A majority of likely voters, 54 percent, oppose ending gay marriage, compared with 40 percent who support it, the poll said. The result is similar to the findings of a Field Poll in July, which found that 51 percent of likely California voters opposed ending gay marriage, while 42 percent said they supported it.

This despite the polls showing that the public is split on approval of the marriages themselves -- 47%-47%. The lesson here is that you don't have to approve of a practice to recognize someone's right to do it; that's what you call yer "tolerance."

Poll: Most Open to Gay Presidential Candidate

clipped from thinkprogress.org A new Zogby poll finds 65 percent of U.S. voters say they “strongly” or “somewhat” agree that they could support an openly gay presidential candidate. Seventy-one percent also said that they could support the appointment of an openly gay Cabinet-level secretary. According to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, more than “415 openly LGBT elected officials serve at every level of government throughout the United States, a ten-fold increase in just the last two decades.”

65% is pretty damned big and pretty damned surprising. It's also pretty cool.

Good on us...

Majority Oppose CA. Gay Marriage Ban

clipped from www.mcclatchydc.com A slight majority of California voters oppose a measure on the Nov. 4 ballot that would impose a constitutional ban on gay marriage, according to the first Field Poll on the measure. The findings released Thursday are consistent with a May poll on the issue before Proposition 8 qualified for the ballot. The issue has received heightened attention since the state Supreme Court in May struck down a law approved by voters in 2000 that banned gay marriages. This time, Californians likely to vote in the Nov. 4 election were asked specifically about Proposition 8, which would enshrine in the state constitution that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fifty-one percent of respondents said they oppose the proposed ban; 42 percent support it; and 7 percent are undecided.

The report calls this a "slight majority" and, in the strictest sense, it is. But do the math -- if the antis pick up all the undecideds, they still lose. This doesn't strike me as the sort of issue people would be squishy on -- if you've made up your mind, I don't see it changing. The antis are going to have to convert some of the pros and that's a tough order.

Still, November's a long way off. You never know.

Calls for Boycott of San Diego Hotelier

clipped from www.nytimes.com A hotel owner’s $125,000 donation to support a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage in the state has become a flashpoint, with opponents calling for a boycott of two of his hotels and supporters highlighting the donation in a fund-raising letter. The hotelier, Doug Manchester, donated the money to support the collection of signatures to qualify the initiative, which would amend the state’s Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, for the November ballot. Efforts in 2006 on behalf of similar initiatives were not successful. But this year, an increase in donations from across the country helped qualify Proposition 8 in early June for the state ballot. Mr. Manchester said Wednesday: “This really is a free-speech, First Amendment issue. While I respect everyone’s choice of partner, my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church leads me to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.”

It seems to me that Manchester's allowing his "Catholic faith" to turn him into a bad businessman. After all, more marriages = more honeymoons = more money spent at hotels.

Besides, his Catholic faith requires a Catholic wedding -- does this mean he'd spend money to outlaw any wedding that wasn't Catholic?

In the end, it's just spin to excuse his bigotry.

Mass. Senate Votes to Let Out-of-State Gays Marry

clipped from news.yahoo.com Gay couples from across the country are one step closer to a Massachusetts wedding. The state Senate voted Tuesday to repeal a 1913 law used to bar out-of-state gay couples from marrying in the state. The move to repeal the law, which prohibits couples from obtaining marriage licenses if they couldn't legally wed in their home states, is driven in part by California's recent legalization of same-sex marriage. The House is expected to vote on the repeal later this week. Gov. Deval Patrick, whose 18-year-old daughter announced publicly last month that she is a lesbian, would have 10 days to sign it. The law was rarely enforced until Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 that the state could no longer bar gay couples from marrying. Romney, then eyeing a run for president, ordered city and town clerks to enforce the statute, although some town clerks balked.

Like most of these kind of laws, it was an overlooked and previously antiquated protection of racism. AP tells us, "The law dates to a time when the majority of states outlawed interracial marriages."

Governor Patrick says the law carries a "a racist taint," which suggests he's up to signing the repeal.

Score one more for the sane people.

Wisconsin Group Wants Married Gays Imprisoned

clipped from www.rightwingwatch.org The Wisconsin Family Council demands that state authorities charge gay couples who marry in California under an “obscure” 1915 law that “makes it a crime for Wisconsin residents to enter marriage in another state if that marriage is illegal” in Wisconsin. The law “carries a fine up to $10,000 and nine months in prison.” Julaine Appling of WFC, a state affiliate of Focus on the Family: “You purposely left the state for another state and you get married and you know it's not going to be legal where you reside and you have every intention of returning, that's defrauding the Government."

This gives you an idea of how stupid these people are. In my piece Played Out, I argued that this sort of action would wind up with the law being struck down and, perhaps, even the amendment being reconsidered. Send someone to prison for this and people will see just how unjust the whole thing is.

The problem with the religious right is that they have themselves convinced that people don't think they're crazy. As a result, they say crazy-assed stuff like this all the time.

Study: End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

clipped from ap.google.com Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center. The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation. "Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states. Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.

I love that last paragraph. "No empirical evidence?" Well, other than the study, anyway.

This is the same flatearther mentality that brings you creationism and climate change denial -- dismiss any evidence that doesn't back up your prejudice, then claim the other side isn't being scientific enough.

Israeli Gay Pride Event the End of the World?

Witness the lunacy:

clipped from www.onenewsnow.com Christian Zionist Jim Hutchens says the recent homosexual pride parade in Jerusalem merely contributed to the moral climate that will bring about the besieging of Jerusalem foretold by prophets of the Bible. Hutchens, president of The Jerusalem Connection International (TJCI), says the Bible warns of a worldwide moral decline that affects the Holy Land as well. "There is a judgment that God brings worldwide and on Israel, as a matter of fact. And I think those are the events that lead up to what we refer to as Armageddon, the apocalyptic besieging of Jerusalem," Hutchens contends. He says the upcoming elections in Israel and the U.S. will have a definitive effect on the moral climate of both countries in the days ahead. Hutchens believes Israel is faced with a Supreme Court similar to that of the U.S. Although same-sex "marriage" is not legal in Israel, Hutchens suggests the homosexual pride event is "a preview of future attractions."

Fresh off widespread media ridicule for changing athlete Tyson Gay's name to Tyson Homosexual, right wing nutjob site OneNewsNow warns that a gay pride event in Jerusalem means the end time are nigh.

It's weird how often these guys can predict the end of the world, be wrong every time, and still get idiots to listen to them. For some, I guess, "faith" and "willful ignorance" are synonymous.

(h/t Carpetbagger Report)

Griper Blade: Just One Good Reason

Here's a question that's both timely and informative; "Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex?" That question was asked of 1,052 California voters and their answers may spell bad news for opponents of same sex marriage in that state. 51% approved and only 42% disapproved.

Californians are now enjoying the fruits of marriage equality in their state, after a state Supreme Court ruling found that a ban on the issuing of licenses to same sex couples was unconstitutional. Writing for Slate, Yale Law professor Kenji Yoshino manages to explain the ruling in one paragraph:

Writing for the California high court, Chief Justice Ronald M. George first found that the exclusion of gays from marriage violated their fundamental right to marry, thereby drawing strict scrutiny from the court. This meant that the state would have to produce a compelling reason to bar gays from what the court deemed "the most socially productive and individually fulfilling relationship that one can enjoy in the course of a lifetime." In a crucial move, Chief Justice George rejected the state's argument that tradition was such a reason. Allowing tradition to thus entrench itself, he said, would have allowed for laws barring interracial couples. And, as he noted, the California Supreme Court struck down a ban on interracial marriage in 1948, almost two decades before the U.S. Supreme Court did in Loving v. Virginia.

Basically, the court found that there was no reason for same sex marriage to be illegal. It's a law that serves no purpose, other than to discriminate.

Which brings us to a second timely and informative question -- why should same sex marriage be illegal?...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Bye Bye, Religious Right

For the first time in 20 years, the homosexual lobby proudly endorses a Kentucky candidate for governor: Steve Beshear. Beshear is receiving major support from out-of-state gay activists and has publicly committed to same-gender relationships, employment of more homosexuals in state government including teachers, and support for homosexual adoption of children.

If you believe these rights are fair please vote for Steve Beshear for governor. Visit Fairness.org.

That's the text of a robocall Kentuckians received prior to yesterday's elections -- the audio is here. No one will take credit for it -- mostly because it's probably illegal -- although it tries damned hard to seem like it came from Fairness.org, a Kentucky gay rights group.

It may try hard, but it fails miserably. The references to the "homosexual lobby," "out-of-state gay activists," and "homosexual adoption of children" ensure that only those with room temperature IQs would fall for it. Not surprisingly, despite this brilliant political maneuver, Steve Beshear won his election, easily beating the hopelessly corrupt and indicted Republican Ernie Fletcher.

Fletcher tried pretty much every trick in the book to get the religious nuts to the polls. He played up the fact that he was once a preacher. In an incredibly transparent move, he ordered that the Ten Commandments be displayed in the Capitol on the day before the election.

For some voters, the 2004 theme of "God, gays, and guns" worked. "I think his problems have been mostly politics," one voter said. "I think he's done a fine job. I think he's got high morals, and that's what the state needs." It's hard to figure how someone has "high morals" when just about everyone who's been paying attention knows that Fletcher's hiring scandal will likely put him behind bars. In response to the initial wave of indictments, Fletcher issued his own wave of pardons -- there's corrupt and then there's shamelessly corrupt.

Fletcher's humiliating loss may reflect the future of the religious right nationally. Hounded by high profile scandals and hypocrisy, split in support for candidates, and facing an electorate much more concerned about the economy and Iraq than what people do in bed, the religious right may find themselves not much of a player in 2008...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Building Larry Craig's Closet

Sen. Larry Craig's mugshot

There are already accusations of a double standard in regards to Sen. Larry Craig's arrest for lewd behavior in an airport men's room. It's hard to keep my fairness gene in check and not refer to an "alleged behavior" or an "accused senator," but with his previous guilty plea, the facts are pretty much set. Craig claims that pleading guilty was a "mistake," but you don't get a do-over on this kind of thing. I'm not an attorney and I suppose he could appeal (if I'm wrong, I can count on someone correcting me), but it seems to me that going to court and being proven guilty would just be a final nail in the coffin. He'd be found guilty of lewd behavior by the law and of being gay by the public. Not that anyone has any doubt on either count.

The alleged double standard works this way -- if Republicans get busted in a sex scandal, they get pounded with criticism. If a Democrat does the same, they get a pass. It's hard to see how this is valid, since Bill Clinton was impeached for a blow job, but there you go.

The real double standard here comes from the right. John McCain, Norm Coleman, and Peter Hoekstra have all called for Craig to resign. McCain's reasoning seems the shakiest. "When you plead guilty to a crime," he explained, "You should resign." Any crime? Say, jaywalking? Craig pleaded guilty to what is apparently a nuisance crime -- he got a $500 fine and a year's probation for a misdemeanor. Legally speaking, Craig might as well have smoked in in that men's room.

Let's look at other things Republicans have done, shall we? The most recent was Louisiana Sen. David Vitter's connection to prostitution in DC and at home. Vitter held a press conference, declared that he'd "received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling" and got right back to lecturing everyone on morals. Right Wing Washington barely made a peep about this. The left/right split in the Senate is so slim that they can't afford to lose the seat. It's got to be something really serious -- like being all ho-mo-sekshul -- before Republicans call for a GOP Senator's head (don't look for Alberto Gonzales's replacement to come out of the Senate, BTW).

Dick Cheney shot some poor fella in the freakin' face and they're cool with it. This is apparently a family value. Republicans love guns and hate gays; so if Dick had shot a gay guy in the face, they'd probably have cheered...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: The Great Man is Dead, Long Live the Hatred

The death of Jerry Falwell makes me think of Jose Ferrer's film, The Great Man. In that film, Ferrer's character sets out to discover what a popular, but recently deceased, radio commentator was like in order to create a eulogy program for him. Turns out, the man beloved by many was a completely worthless human being. Rather than tell the truth, Ferrer lets the myth live on.

In Falwell's case, I'm unwilling to do that. So much of what's being said about him is incomplete. It's generally considered bad form to speak ill of the dead -- at least, the recently dead -- but in the case of some few truly lousy people, there's is no more fitting closing chapter. The pretty words said about him are lies, while the truth damns him. And if there's ever a moment for truth, it's in those closing sentences. They are the summation, the denouement. No one can escape the truth forever -- we all, eventually, must stop running. Jerry's footrace with history is lost now and it's time to see what's caught up with him.

Of course, there are plenty who want to keep running for him. John McCain joined the race almost as soon as he heard the Great Man had died. "I join the students, faculty, and staff of Liberty University and Americans of all faiths in mourning the loss of Reverend Jerry Falwell," his press release reads. "Dr. Falwell was a man of distinguished accomplishment who devoted his life to serving his faith and country."

The Nation's John Nichols wonders how John McCain defines the word 'accomplishment':...

[Permalink]

Griper Blade: What's Bush Have Against Americans?

I'm not sure when it happened or why, but it's becoming clearer that President Bush doesn't like americans very much. In fact, it's a little hard to look at his history and assume he doesn't hate us.

News came through a few days ago that the House had passed expanded hate crimes legislation that would address attacks on gays. Bush, however, has threatened to veto it. His reasoning was screwy.

Washington Post:

The White House responded yesterday with a formal statement recommending that the president veto the bill.

"There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of government," the White House statement said.

Tell it to Matthew Shepard. The problem is that there are many areas of the country where police fail (or, more accurately, refuse) to investigate crime committed because of the victims' sexual orientation. By making it a federal crime, people wouldn't have to rely on bigoted morons to investigate bigoted morons. It's basically anti-lynching legislation.

Bush has decided to side with the bigoted morons. Bush hates the same americans the haters do, proudly throwing in his support behind the bigots' cause...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: If You Can't Beat The Hell Out of Gays, Religious Freedom is Dead

The religious right casts just about everything as an attack on christianity -- including hate crime enhancers for people who beat gays

Sheila Jackson-Lee has reintroduced hate crime legislation written by John Conyers. The bill, called the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, adds sexual orientation, gender, and gender identity to local hate crimes the Justice Department has the authority to investigate.

Since the legislation involves gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered/transsexual people, the religious right was quick to pile on.

Michael Marcavage, director of Repent America, quoted by WorldNetDaily:

"Truth is not allowed as evidence in hate crimes trials... A homosexual can claim emotional damage from hearing Scripture that describes his lifestyle as an abomination. He can press charges against the pastor or broadcaster who merely reads the Bible in public. The 'hater' can be fined thousands of dollars and even imprisoned!"

The Traditional Values Coalition created a somewhat insane political cartoon completely misrepresenting the bill. (see image)

Of course, this is a complete load. Hate crime laws are 'enhancers' -- meaning that a crime must already have been committed for the enhancer to kick in. It's like the difference between being charged with robbery and being charged with armed robbery. It's not illegal to carry a lockback hunting knife, but it is illegal to use it to rob someone. All it does is add a crime to one committed.

Likewise, it's already illegal to beat the hell out of someone. This would make it another crime to beat the hell out of someone because you hate gays. You can hate gays all you want, but you can't beat the hell out of them. In other words, nothing would change except punishment.

You can scream and cry and shriek that gays are evil all you want. Yay for you.

The religious right pulls this kind of crap all the time. Part of the reason is that they feel obligated to freak out whenever a law benefits people they don't like. The other reason is to perpetuate the myth that christians are persecuted in the United States...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]