Jim DeMint, tea party poster boy, sounds off on gays, marriage, and federalism

Veteran Washington journalist Al Hunt profiles Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, the darling of the "tea party" movement, and his all-far-right, all-the-time views. DeMint's views on gays reveal both a theocratic view of government and a dangerous ignorance of the constitutional scheme of federalism:

He takes a hard line on social issues — he’s passionately anti-abortion and pro-guns. He has been most outspoken as an opponent of any form of gay marriage.

“Marriage is a religious institution. The federal government has no business redefining what it is,” Mr. DeMint says.

This is one issue where he doesn’t support states’ rights; state government shouldn’t have the right to permit gay marriage.

My comment: I would also add that as long as people are required to purchase a state issued marriage license, and get federal tax benefits, religion is secondary.

“Governments should not be in the business of promoting a behavior that’s proven to be destructive to our society.”

My comment: I would challenge Mr. DeMint to provide any legal proof that same sex marriage has any destructive properties, of any kind, to our society, or in any other capacity.

He cringes at the notion of a gay or lesbian president: “It would be bothersome to me just personally because I consider it immoral.”

You can read the full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/us/14iht-letter.html?_r=2&scp=10&sq=gay&st=cse/

A New Study

New Pew data show more Americans support civil unions

A new study from the Pew Forum offers a rich collection of data on attitudes toward same-sex marriage and homosexuality more generally. The highlights:

A clear majority of Americans (57%) favors allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples, a status commonly known as civil unions. This finding marks a slight uptick in support for civil unions and appears to continue a significant long-term trend since the question was first asked in Pew Research Center surveys in 2003, when support for civil unions stood at 45%.

Over the past year, support for civil unions has grown significantly among those who oppose same-sex marriage (24% in August 2008 to 30% in 2009) while remaining stable among those who favor same-sex marriage. At the same time, opponents of same-sex marriage continue to outnumber supporters overall. An August 2009 Pew Research Center survey finds that 53% oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, compared with 39% who support same-sex marriage, numbers that are virtually unchanged over the past year.

Supporters of same-sex marriage are divided over the best way to pursue its legalization; 45% favor pushing hard to legalize it as soon as possible, while 42% of same-sex marriage advocates say they should not push too hard to legalize same-sex marriages right away because this might risk creating a backlash against gays and lesbians.

* * *

Nearly half of the public (49%) says homosexual behavior is morally wrong, while 9% say it is morally acceptable and 35% say it is not a moral issue. A similar number says abortion is morally wrong (52%), while far fewer see moral impropriety in divorce (29%) or drinking alcohol (15%).

Blacks are much more likely to think that homosexuality is morally wrong (64%) than whites (48%) or Hispanics (43%). At least half of those ages 30 and older say homosexuality is wrong, compared with fewer than four-in-ten (38%) among those under age 30. And a slim majority of Americans with a high school education or less see homosexual behavior as morally wrong (55%), compared with fewer than half among those with a college degree (40%) or some college education (46%).

Another Interesting Article...

A Memo to the GOP: God Doesn't Choose You to Legislate Discrimination

BY MICHAEL A. JONES

CATEGORIES: GAY MARRIAGE, GAY RIGHTS AND RELIGION, LGBT RIGHTS AND POLITICS,RELIGION AND LGBT RIGHTS

PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 18, 2009 @ 10:44AM PT

When it comes to Republican politics nowadays, the word "God" is invoked about every fifteen seconds. This weekend, with the Family Research Council's "Value Voters Summit" happening, you can expect that rate to jump drastically. But while it's certainly expected that religion might inform one's politics, only a downright fool would suggest that God chose someone for office so that they could pass anti-gay laws.

Yet that's what's happening in Arizona. Gov. Jan Brewer, who took office earlier this year after former Gov. Janet Napolitano was appointed Secretary of Homeland Security, took a bold anti-LGBT action and decided to repeal all domestic partner benefits for statewide LGBT employees. The move kills domestic partner benefits for about 800 statewide workers, many of them same-sex couples.The Governor followed up her anti-LGBT action with a shot of religious craziness.

"God has placed me in this powerful position as Arizona's governor' to help the state weather its troubles," said Gov. Brewer. Then she goes on to thank the Lord that she lives in a country of Christianity. Because that's in the Constitution....er, wait. No it isn't. We're a country that supposedly celebrates the separation of religion and state.

Not to be outdone by the Governor of Arizona, former Miss California Carrie Prejean strutted into the Values Voter Summit to announce that God chose her to oppose gay marriage on national television. Prejean, celebrating her opposition to same-sex marriage, said about her beauty pageant answer trashing marriage equality, "I’m so proud of the answer that I gave. God chose me for that moment."

Enough already. God is not choosing politicians or former beauty queens to embrace anti-gay platforms, much like God didn't choose George W. Bush to be President and God didn't choose Kanye Westto perform live music before a universe of admirers.

There's a great quote by an American theologian named Reinhard Niebuhr who spoke to the idiocy of people who claim that God is speaking to them to fulfill a political agenda.

"The tendency to claim God as an ally for our partisan value and ends is the source of all religious fanaticism," said Niebuhr.

Fanatics. That may be a pretty harsh word. But given the rhetoric of Gov. Jan Brewer and Carrie Prejean, it might just be on point.

Who is the Most Discriminated Group in America?

Here's an article I found very interesting...

"It's 2009, we have an African-American President, the first Latina Supreme Court Justice, six states have recognized marriage equality, and a female Speaker of the House. That's a pretty impressive line-up, but as the Pew Forum finds, these are the best of times and the worst of times for discrimination.

To be sure, great strides have been made by many groups in the United States. But when it comes

to the issue of who are the most discriminated groups in America in 2009, the survey says: LGBT people and Muslims.

LGBT people, according to the Pew Forum, face the most amount of discrimination in the United States. Their numbers show that 64 percent of the public at large think that gays and lesbians receive heavy doses of discrimination on a day-to-day basis. Muslims come in a close second at 58 percent.

Arsalan Iftikhar at trueslant.com writes that these numbers reflect a change in how society reflects on race and civil rights.

"We can find that both, one, American Muslims and, two, the American LGBT community now currently represent two of the lower societal ‘rungs’ of our current civil rights ‘discrimination totem pole’ today," writes Iftikhar.

Does that gel with where we are as a country nowadays; that LGBT people and Muslims face the brunt of discrimination?

Regardless, surveys like these always reaffirm that more work needs to be done to truly make this a post-racial, post-sexual orientation, post-gender society."

BY MICHAEL A. JONES

CATEGORIES: LGBT AND THE MEDIA, LGBT RIGHTS AND POLITICS, RELIGION AND LGBT RIGHTS

PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 @ 10:29AM PT

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/who_is_the_most_discriminated_group_in_america

(Photo courtesy of CarbonNYC's photostream on Flickr.)

New Update

Check this out...

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/john_kerry_rips_apart_the_defense_of_marriage_act

"All I Want for the Holidays by Jonathan Bannon Maher

I found this essay of Facebook, and thought it was worthwhile to share. The author is Johnathan Bannon Maher. Here are his thoughts...

"This essay was sent on December 8th, 2008 through postal mail to each of 535 members of Congress, 9 Supreme Court Justices, 50 governors, the President and the President-Elect, and there after to nearly every member of every state legislature as well as the leadership at the Department of Defense. It was written and sent off the cuff, and I realize there are a few minor errors but have chosen to leave the orignal text intact."

All I Want for the Holidays by Jonathan Bannon Maher

When trade smiths, farmers, teachers and clergy sailed west on boats from Europe with their families in the early 1600s, they sought to leave behind oppression in favor of opportunity and freedom. A century and a half later this vision was recorded in a document, The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, perhaps best epitomized by the idea captured in the phrase "all men are created equal". Though imperfectly gender specific, it was the first time in the history of humanity that had ever been declared by a governing body. On November 4th of this year, we saw our founders' vision affirmed in the first election of an African American to the highest office of the land, but on the same day, that founding vision fell short in the passage of a law in California to prohibit marriage between loving consenting adults of the same sex.

I am gay, but at 27, marriage is not necessarily the first thing on my mind as I write this. Here is what is on my mind: discriminating between heterosexuals and homosexuals in the law–be it in opportunities for marriage, military service, or through the intentional omission of protections in employment, housing and education–creates a stigma that carries over to the workplace and our public schools, sometimes with devastating consequences.

On February 13th of this year, a 15 year old in Ventura County California, Lawrence King, was shot twice in the head as he sat in his middle school classroom. He was killed by a 14 year old male classmate. According to students in a Newsweek article, he had recently asked that same male classmate to be his valentine.

This is a problem that affects everyone: when a significant percent of the population faces artificial hurdles in achieving their full potential to contribute to society, it works to hold this country back at a time when it faces increasing global competition and challenges to its leadership status.

There are, to my knowledge, three primary reasons that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality has not been fully supported in the past:

1) Family. Some believe gay marriage weakens families. In opposing the legalization of gay marriage in California in 2008, reportedly more than 30 million dollars were spent. If the money spent to oppose gay marriage had instead been contributed to family counseling services, it could have provided monthly counseling services to more than 25 thousand at risk families if the cost of a counselor were 100 dollars per hour. Strong families provide stability and resources for children to become the leaders of tomorrow. Strong families are extremely important, but denying equality to gays is not the answer. If the goal of opponents really is strong families, then opposing gay marriage is a misallocation of resources, and let us instead come together, and put resources towards social programs and counseling services that will support and strengthen families.

In addition, there are more than 1 million American children who do not have homes, who do not regularly attend school or receive proper healthcare, and who would be better able to develop into productive members of society if they had homes–even if those homes are non-traditional.

2) Nature. Some believe that homosexuality is unnatural. Around the world, in independent populations, researchers have found a substantially consistent percentage to be same-sex oriented. Over time, homosexuals have been among those who have had the most profound impact on humanity from Socrates to Alexander the Great to Shakespeare. Please remember that the next time you see a copy of Romeo and Juliet or use the Socratic Method. Opposing gays based on nature is like opposing the wind or the sun. You can put up walls but you would be better off putting up wind turbines and solar panels.

3) Religion. Some oppose homosexuality based on religion. "For a man to lie with another man as he would a woman is 'toevah'" (Leviticus 20:13), where toevah is commonly translated as "abomination" or "sin". In that same passage it is also declared toevah to eat shrimp. Toevah literally translates as "against ritual". At the time the Bible was written, people needed to reproduce for the strength of the community – today we have the opposite problem globally, a Malthusian state, where population growth outpaces natural resource replenishment. (Disclosure: the following segment is Jed Bartlet inspired) We are also told that to touch pig skin makes one unclean, that a father may sell his daughter into slavery, and that a person should be put to death for working on the Sabbath (Sabbath is literally translated as "Saturday"). Next time you're watching football on a Sunday, ask yourself if on moral grounds, you should be supporting people who touch pig skin (Leviticus 11:8). If you're someone's daughter, next time you think to oppose homosexuals based on religion, please, ask yourself, "what would a fair price for me be?" (Exodus 21:7). If you answer a work related email on your Blackberry on the Sabbath, ask yourself if law enforcement officials should be legally obligated to stone you to death (Leviticus 23:3).

To those reading this who are heterosexual, in addition to full and equal treatment in every area, including workplace compensation, opportunity and responsibility commensurate with ability, I ask that if you see discrimination in school or in the workplace, remember how discrimination works: they go after you for something else, and if there is nothing else, they'll make something up. If you see this, speak up and out. Please. While you may be alone in your courage you are not alone in your thinking. Others will be with you when you stand on the right side of history. And please redistribute this document.

If you are a heterosexual parent of a homosexual child, please visit your local P-FLAG meeting for support services. You are not alone.

To those reading this who are homosexual, please come out to your friends, then to your family and your employer. There can not be acceptance without understanding. And please redistribute this document.

Henry David Thoreau once wrote, "I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life through a conscious endeavor." John Kennedy once said "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man." If there is anything history has shown, it is that we can progress. That humanity, can progress. That there will be a better tomorrow. One where to the vision this country was founded upon is fully realized; where we, together as a country, once more sail west and leave behind oppression in favor of opportunity and freedom.

Thank you for reading.

Please don't turn your back on us... Part 3

Here’s some interesting updates on the issue of repealing the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) as seen on MSNBC.

Here are the links for reactions from the Rachel Maddow Show...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31396563

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31416719

Here’s what Keith Olberman had to say on the subject...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#31416031

Please don't turn your back on us... Part 2

Here's a link to Rachel Maddow's interview with Howard Dean, which talks about my previous post. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31378698

Watch and enjoy. More comments to come later.

Please don't turn your back on us...

During the primaries I was energized by Obama. I listened to the speeches and I was moved to campaign for Obama. His ideas gave me hope and I donated money to the Obama campaign. Finally, when the time came, I voted for Obama. I supported him then, and I support him now. I believe that he is honestly the best thing for our country. He recognizes that times have changed, and the United States needs to change with them. America can no longer sit back and engage in the “business as usual” policies of the past. True change is never easy, and usually comes with at a cost. All that having been said, I have discovered one bone of contention I would like to pick with his administration.

While engulfed in his campaign, Obama said the his personal belief was that marriage was between a man and a woman. He also said that he would be a fierce advocate for gay rights, regardless of his personal beliefs. That’s what he said. Based on what I’ve just read, he either lied about that, or has allowed himself to fall victim to the forces of Washington D.C., and has now turned 180 degrees from the aforementioned ‘fierce advocacy.’

Last week, the Obama administration lawyers filed a brief in a California District Court, that not only defended the Clinton era Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but vehemently argued that DOMA was constitutional. The brief went on to compare same sex marriage with incest and underaged unions.

Here’s a link to the article in question: http://is.gd/10U9W

While I’m used to hearing this sort of rhetoric from right wing nut jobs, I was floored to read the words were coming not only from democrats, but from Obama administration lawyers.

It has been suggested, by Howard Dean (the former Chairman of the DNC) that Obama probably didn’t know about the content of the brief, and I sincerely hope that’s true. All will be revealed in time.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Part 2

As far as discussing gays in the military, let me just say that the military wasn’t created to be a vehicle for political and social change. It has been said that homosexuals serving openly in the military will pose a threat to unit cohesion and discipline. That’s probably true. The very same thing was said about black men in the military nearly 60 years ago. 

Here's the reality: According to the Brookings Institute book, entitled “Blacks in the Military” authored in 1982, it was said that, “Most whites do not associate with blacks, and blacks, through no fault of their own, do not have the skills or education for many of the Army’s occupational specialties.” This opinion was given at the time black men were first starting to serve along side their white Army colleagues. 

So what happened when blacks began their military service? Their presence did disrupt the status quo, but the military got over it. The military adapted. The same thing can be said about gays in the military. 

Public acceptance of gays in the military grew from 51% in a 1977 Gallup Poll to 80% in 2003. Our own military ordered a study concerning gays serving openly. The study was conducted by the RAND corporation, a think tank created by our military, back in 1993. The study showed that sexual orientation is irrelevant to military performance. A March, 2000 study by the Naval Postgraduate School found that disapproval of gays in the Military dropped from 57.8% to 36.4%. Finally, the Center for Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, revealed that since 1992, the number of U.S. Army men who “strongly oppose” gays serving in uniform dropped nearly half, from 67% to 37%. 

If the enlisted and officer men and women can accept homosexuals amongst their ranks, then why should their leaders have any objection? As long as they are doing their jobs, then why should anyone care? 

Roughly 1000 able bodied homosexual men and women are unceremoniously drummed out of the military, via the Pentagon, every year. This forced exodus costs tax payers nearly 27 million dollars annually. In an all volunteer military, why should certain individuals be forced out, based on nothing more than their sexual orientation? 

Homosexuality is not the end all and be all of evil incarnate on this planet. Ignorance and discrimination are. 

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Part 1

Court rejects challenge to 'don't ask, don't tell'

Pentagon policy forbids gays, lesbians from serving openly in the military

 Updated 10:47 a.m. MT, Mon., June 8, 2009

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down a challenge to the Defense Department policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.

The court said Monday that it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.

In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman referred requests for comment to the Justice Department, but said the military policy "implements the law."

"The law requires the (Defense) Department to separate from the armed services members who engage in or attempt to engage in homosexual acts; state they are homosexual or bisexual; or marry or attempt to marry a person of the same biological sex," Whitman said in a statement.

Advocates vow to press ahead
A legal advocacy group vowed to press ahead with efforts to reverse the policy despite the legal setback.

"We don't see that at all as bad news for repeal," said Kevin Nix, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "What happened today puts the ball back into the court of Congress and the White House to repeal the law, and that's where we think it should be right now."

Nix said there are no objective studies showing unit cohesion, morale and order are harmed by openly gay people.

"There are people out there and still serving, and the unit is not crumbling beneath their feet," he said, adding that attitudes among troops and society are far different than they were in the 1990s when the policy was instituted.

"Times have changed ... fast forward 16 years," Nix said. "The service members in Iraq and Afghanistan — their attitudes toward gay people are very different than some retired generals in their 50s and 60s who served in the 20th Century. It's a different world."

Opposition to gay marriages, for example, has eased nationwide and six states have legalized same-sex unions. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa allow gay marriage, though opponents hope to overturn Maine's law with a public vote.

California briefly allowed gay marriage before a public vote banned it; a court ruling grandfathered in couples who were already married.

Polls show younger Americans are far are more tolerant of gay marriage than are older generations.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was established in 1993. President Bill Clinton had to abandon efforts to allow gays to serve openly in the armed forces after facing strong resistance from the military and members of Congress.

Obama's campaign pledge
During last year's campaign, President Barack Obama pledged to overturn the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January.

Meanwhile, the White House has said it will not stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.

Last year, the federal appeals court in San Francisco allowed a decorated flight nurse to continue her lawsuit over her dismissal.

The court stopped short of declaring the policy unconstitutional, but said that the Air Force must prove that ousting former Maj. Margaret Witt furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.

First evaluation since Texas sodomy verdict
The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was the first that evaluated "don't ask, don't tell" through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.

The administration did not appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court and Witt's lawsuit is ongoing.

The appeals court in Pietrangelo's case also took the high court decision into account, but concluded that it should defer to Congress' determination that the policy fosters cohesion in military units.

The case is Pietrangelo v. Gates, 08-824.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

An e-mail from HRC

Dear Mike,

Yet another major victory in New England: today New Hampshire's governor signed marriage equality into law, making it the sixth state to allow loving same-sex couples to marry.

The bill survived a spate of propaganda from the right-wing National Organization for Marriage – the same group that ran the fake "Gathering Storm" ad – hammering Gov. John Lynch to veto equality.

We prevailed. But now Gov. Lynch and the courageous lawmakers who passed this bill are about to feel the sting of a right-wing backlash. Let's show them they did the right thing.

Thank Gov. Lynch and New Hampshire's lawmakers for passing this landmark bill.

This was no easy victory. After several close votes and months of hard work by many, the bill reached Gov. Lynch's desk and was signed into law.

This is a clear case where every single effort made a big difference – every donation, all 11,000 petition signatures, all 1,000 phone calls, and every volunteer hour made this narrow victory possible in New Hampshire.

With your support, we were able to offer the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition on-the-ground help from HRC staffers, as well as grassroots support during key moments in the campaign. Watch our new video to get the full story >>

Of course, New Hampshire is not the end of our fight for marriage equality. We'll continue our work to expand equality in states like New York, where a vote on marriage equality could come within a few weeks. We're also working to protect our recent victory in Maine against a Prop. 8-style campaign and to win back marriage in California.

Right now, we need to make sure that our lawmakers know they have our support when they do the right thing, despite the right wing's desperate threats to unseat any lawmaker who votes for equality.

Celebrate another tremendous victory for marriage equality by giving New Hampshire's leaders the praise they deserve.

Send your note to the leaders of New Hampshire who stood up for what's right.

Your spirit and dedication is the driving force behind every single step in this journey together toward full equality for every American. I cannot thank you enough for all that you do.

Warmly,

Joe Solmonese
President

And yet another state...

              New Hampshire governor signs gay marriage bill

Law to take effect in Jan.; state becomes sixth to allow same-sex unions: If you wait long enough, another state will legalize same sex marriage. Here's the latest news...

Gov. John Lynch, D-N.H., signs gay marriage into law in Concord, N.H. on Wednesday.

updated 5:22 p.m. MT, Wed., June 3, 2009

CONCORD, New Hampshire - New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage after the Senate and House passed key language on religious rights and Gov. John Lynch — who personally opposes gay marriage — signed the legislation Wednesday afternoon.

After rallies outside the Statehouse by both sides in the morning, the last of three bills in the package went to the Senate, which approved it 14-10 Wednesday afternoon.

Cheers from the gallery greeted the key vote in the House, which passed it 198-176. Surrounded by gay marriage supporters, Lynch signed the bill about an hour later.

'Standing up for liberties'
"Today, we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities — and respect — under New Hampshire law," Lynch said.

Lynch, a Democrat, had promised a veto if the law didn't clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services. Legislators made the changes.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa already allow gay marriage, though opponents hope to overturn Maine's law with a public vote.

California briefly allowed gay marriage before a public vote banned it; a court ruling grandfathered in couples who were already married.

The New Hampshire law will take effect Jan. 1, exactly two years after the state began recognizing civil unions.

The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, elected in New Hampshire in 2003 as the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, was among those celebrating the new law.

"It's about being recognized as whole people and whole citizens," Robinson said.

"There are a lot of people standing here who when we grew up could not have imagined this," he said. "You can't imagine something that is simply impossible. It's happened, in our lifetimes."

Opponents, mainly Republicans, objected on grounds including the fragmented process.

"It is no surprise that the Legislature finally passed the last piece to the gay marriage bill today. After all, when you take 12 votes on five iterations of the same issue, you're bound to get it passed sooner or later," said Kevin Smith, executive director of gay marriage opponent Cornerstone Policy Research.

For the full story, please click on the link below...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31092122/displaymode/1176/rstry/31090983/