Marine who lost leg in Iraq booed by right-wing Christians

Eric Alva, who lost his leg serving in Iraq,
was booed by right-wing Christians
for speaking out in support of a proposed
San Antonio ordinance to ban anti-gay discrimination.

A Marine serves downrange in Iraq; comes home after losing his leg; and after rehab speaks out and stands up for anti-discrimination protections to include sexual orientation, gender identity and veteran status at a hearing at the City Council chambers in San Antonio, Texas this week.

Said Eric Alva, " I already spoke and even some of the religious groups even booed me as I spoke. Such disrespect as they preach the word of God."

Caught wind of this from the Wisconsin Gazette.

Righwinger "Councilwoman Elisa Chan went on an anti-gay tirade while discussing the ordinance privately in her office on May 21. James Stevens, a 28-year-old aide to Chan, secretly recorded her hateful remarks and released the audio to the San Antonio Express-News."

From Eva Ruth Moravec of the San Antonio Express-News. Said Eric Alva, age 42:

"I said that if this ordinance doesn't pass, I could be fired from a job and even thrown out of a restaurant, and people started to boo me. I was real hurt by that. It was unbelievable."

Alva was the first American injured in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He received a medical discharge and was awarded the Purple Heart. His prosthetic leg was visible Wednesday, under his khaki shorts. News of Alva's 3-minute speech spread via social media that night.

Yes, America just melts under the love and compassion of rightwing Christian love.

On a positive note, the anti-bias, pro-equality measure is expected to pass.

GOP Newspaper Keeps Up GOP Propaganda on Singing Citzens

Let-others-do-their-thing commitment by the solidarity singers puts lie to the GOP's stated rationale for targeting singers—GOP is trying to keep the capitol accessible for everyone

In gay-hostile Russia, singing citizens out-of-favor with the government (such as it is) are thrown in prison and treated like animals.

In gay-hostile Wisconsin (where the GOP holds sway), singing citizens out-of-favor with Scott Walker (wherever he is) are arrested and given $200 citations, handed out by the dozen.

It's pathetic for a GOP government to target its citizens systematically and fine them for perceived anti-Scott Walker sentiments.

Supporting this anti-American taxing requires a propaganda apparatus, which WMTV-Madison, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and the Wisconsin State Journal (Madison) supply for the authoritarian Republican Party's benefit.

Nothing is wrong with propaganda per se, but the Wisconsin State Journal, for example, should be straight with its readers and inform them: We support Scott Walker and the Republican Party and compose our newspaper accordingly, if the editors wish to be honest.

Sunday's Wisconsin State Journal features a banner headline "Experts dispute singers' defense" on the Solidarity Singalong.

The truth of the subject of the piece is quite different from the headline.

An honest headline would read, "Experts say GOP officials cannot target singers."

The piece is written by Matthew DeFour, a talented and reliably Republican writer, at least as his copy is run in the State Journal.

For some two years in Madison, meeting daily at noonish at the Capitol, some Wisconsin citizens sing civil rights anthems, among other anti-Walker expressions and miscellaneous songs.

The meeting is organic. Some folks come often, some folks drop by.

If some other group has an event the singers will move outside and sing songs, a fact DeFour ignores in his GOP propaganda piece today, repeated by omission in the State Journal's refusal to state this fact in its coverage.

This let-others-do-their-thing commitment by the singers of course puts the lie to the GOP's stated rationale for targeting the singers—that the GOP is just trying to keep the Capitol accessible for everyone—a falsehood stated as fact by DeFour this morning.

We Shall Overcome is a favorite of the singers', to the Republicans' chagrin.

Folks have been singing this anthem for decades in the civil rights movement, acclaiming the humanity of African-Americans and others who are oppressed, to the Republicans' disapproval. Singing is merely another form of exercising our first amendment right of freedom of expression. In Wisconsin, those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution are the very people who are violating it.

Republicans remain unhappy with Americans of color and their well ... breathing; in fairness breathing is okay as long as they breathe somewhere other than the Capitol building.

Madison Capitol police follow GOP orders, arresting and ticketing anyone per the GOP's David Erwin, Walker's former security guard now playing Capitol police chief (who began 'cracking down' on singing last year) and the GOP's Department of Administration (DoA) Secretary Mike Huebsch.

As usual, the State Journal spins, frames, and contorts this morning's copy to present the most GOP-friendly message to readers.

Buried on the inside (most readers don't read that far) of DeFour's piece in the State Journal are paragraphs admitting that the State through Scott Walker and DoA's Huebsch's (the Republican Party politico whom the State Journal refuses to identify as such) targeting of citizens because they are against Scott Walker is unconstitutional.

Also buried is the fact that Walker has been hostile to anti-Walker displays since he privately admitted he "dropped a bomb" on Wisconsin citizens whom he assiduously avoids today even as he pretends to run for president.

Will Williams, longtime Madison peace activist and Noon hour
singer at Wisconsin Capitol July, 31, 2013. Photo: Leslie Amsterdam

Walker, Erwin and Huebsch will continue the GOP's policy of cracking down on out-of-favor, singing citizens for the time they remain in office.

Citizens will insist on redressing their grievances, though I have heard young visiting families with children who are louder than the singers'.

Nothing wrong with that; we support families.

This is America; Walker, Erwin and Huebsch should grow up and realize that most people reject a Russia-like vision of government enforcing Party orthodoxy.

In the meantime, the least the GOP can do is stop arresting and handcuffing seniors in their 80s and veterans.

Failing that, the very, very least the GOP can do is: Stop  handcuffing and arresting 70-year-old Vietnam combat veterans, letting them fall down marble stairs while in GOP police custody and leaving them to lie on the stairs, to the GOP's officers' apparent contempt.

This is how people get hurt.

I'm not sure what unlawful and immoral activity the Wisconsin Capitol police would refuse to commit, if ordered. I posed that question to someone identifying himself as a Lieutenant in 2011. 

He refused to answer.

Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban Will Fall Upon Challenge in Fed Court

Update: Meanwhile, Fox News' Alternative Universe has moved Beyond DOMA, Gay Marriage and the Voting Rights Act, as the GOP tries awkwardly to position itself on the wrong side of history without anyone noticing, the GOP hopes.

Bigotry lost big today at the U.S. Supreme Court, and equality and equal protection won.

Bigots will have to find another way to disparage and injure fellow Americans whom they hate.

Now, Wisconsin's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage will fall the way of the national Defense of Marriage Act, struck down today because the law disparages and injures American citizens for no legitimate purpose.

In 2006, Wisconsin voters, like several other states, outlawed same-sex marriage and civil unions in a binding referendum that installed anti-gay marriage language in the Wisconsin Constitution.

Article XIII, Section 13 of the Wisconsin State Constitution now reads:

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

Today's ruling in United States. v. Windsor means Wisconsin's anti-gay marriage language will not withstand a Constitutional challenge under the federal Constitution, legal observers say, using the same logic and equal protection affirmed today.

The Wisconsin state constitution cannot deprive Americans of rights guaranteed and now recognized under the federal constitution in United States. v. Windsor any more than numerous state laws could deprive a black man and white woman (for example) from marrying after the noxious structure of racial bigotry was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

FAIR Wisconsin errs today in writing: "In order to achieve marriage equality in Wisconsin, we would need to repeal this (state) amendment first."

A challenge, hearing and decision in federal court is what is required to to achieve marriage equality in Wisconsin.

If, as was ruled today, the denial of marriage by federal law is a violation of equal treatment under the law; state law will not supersede the federal Constitution, specifically under the 14th Amendment, in which the "Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." See Equal Protection : An Overview.
---
President Obama reacted today to the Court decision.

Statement by the President on the Supreme Court Ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act

I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it. We are a people who declared that we are all created equal – and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

This ruling is a victory for couples who have long fought for equal treatment under the law; for children whose parents’ marriages will now be recognized, rightly, as legitimate; for families that, at long last, will get the respect and protection they deserve; and for friends and supporters who have wanted nothing more than to see their loved ones treated fairly and have worked hard to persuade their nation to change for the better.

So we welcome today’s decision, and I’ve directed the Attorney General to work with other members of my Cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly.

On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital. How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision – which applies only to civil marriages – changes that.

The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.

Update, No Voting Rights Decision Today ... Soon: Court Decides the Future of Voting Rights Act

More than a dozen states, including critical battlegrounds like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, adopted new laws to restrict access to the ballot—all of which disproportionately affected communities of color. “I was naïve to think voting rights were untouchable,” says [Julian] Bond, former chair of the NAACP. “I didn’t dream that Republicans would be as bold and as racist as they are.”- Air Berman, The Nation

The term "civil rights worker" carries with it no historical reverence or moral relevancy for the Republican Party.

The only relevance for today's Republican Party is the objective to dismantle the voting rights act and other the civil rights legislation passed after many civil rights activists were killed by racists in the 1950s and 1960s.

Today, the U.S. landmark decisions on major civil rights cases will be made by nine people.

Americans ought to check the site: SCOTUS blog.com beginning at 10:30 A.M. Eastern Time, Monday.

There, we can see what damage the Republicans on the Court might inflict upon minorities at disfavor with the Republican and Tea Parties.

See the Live blog of orders and opinions (sponsored by Bloomberg Law).

SCOTUSblog.com (sponsored by Bloomberg Law) notes expected U.S. Supreme Court rulings include the following civil rights cases on voting rights, marriage equity and affirmative action.

• Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin - Affirmative action
• Shelby County v. Holder - Constitutionality of Section 5 of Voting Rights Act
• Hollingsworth v. Perry - California's definition of marriage and the Equal Protection Clause
• United States v. Windsor - Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act

Dumb Ron Johnson: Gov Shouldn’t Prevent Employers from Discriminating Against Gay People

Damn, Ron Johnson is dumb.

Scott Keyes and Adam Peck have the story at ThinkProgress.

Beginning June 3, Supreme Court Will Decide Fate of Civil Rights, Affirmative Action, Voting rights, and Same-sex marriage

Will these five Justices on the left rule for equal protection,
with justice for all against the four of the right?

Update: No landmark decisions on major civil rights cases today; wait until next Monday, June 10. All decisions should be in by June 31.

Update: Waiting ... see SCOTUSblog.com.

Americans with access to an Internet ought to check the site: SCOTUS blog.com at 8:00 A.M., Monday, June 3.

There, we can see what damage the Republicans on the Court might inflict upon minorities at disfavor with the Republican and Tea Parties.

Check at 8:00 A.M., Monday at Live blog of orders and opinions (sponsored by Bloomberg Law).

Racism and bigotry v. Civil Rights

The next several weeks (possible beginning this Monday) will see whether civil rights for minorities are protected in four major political cases.

SCOTUSblog.com (sponsored by Bloomberg Law) notes expected U.S. Supreme Court rulings include the following civil rights cases on voting rights, marriage equity and affirmative action.

• Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin - Affirmative action
• Shelby County v. Holder - Constitutionality of Section 5 of Voting Rights Act
• Hollingsworth v. Perry - California's definition of marriage and the Equal Protection Clause
• United States v. Windsor - Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act

The Court will likely issue landmark rulings (but perhaps go narrow) as the culmination of (and in some cases the civil rights community's legal response to) to the Republican Party's work to disenfranchise gays from getting married; halt efforts that help minorities get a college education; and stop minorities from voting—all long-term GOP policy objectives.

Sometimes justices vote and join an opinion with which she disagrees out a political motive.

The Court is expected to recess at the end of June or early July.

Nation Awaits Supreme Court Decision on Major Civil Rights Cases

Racism and bigotry v. Civil Rights

The next several weeks will see whether civil rights for minorities are protected in four major political cases.

SCOTUSblog.com (sponsored by Bloomberg Law) notes expected U.S. Supreme Court rulings include the following civil rights cases on voting rights, marriage equity and affirmative action.

• Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin - Affirmative action
• Shelby County v. Holder - Constitutionality of Section 5 of Voting Rights Act
• Hollingsworth v. Perry - California's definition of marriage and the Equal Protection Clause
• United States v. Windsor - Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act

The Court will likely issue landmark rulings as the culmination (and in some cases the civil rights community's legal response) of the Republican Party's work to disenfranchise gays from getting married; halt efforts that help minorities get a college education; and stop minorities from voting—all long-term GOP policy objectives.

The Court is expected to recess at the end of June or early July.

It’s Time to Out Sen. Lindsey Graham, says John Aravosis

Lindsey Graham celebrating the anti-gay
Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

John Aravosis has the story:

"It’s time to finally out Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Graham has had it coming for a while now."

Not because he’s a Republican. But because he’s an anti-gay Republican. And while it’s one thing to be gay and a closet case, it’s quite another to be a hypocrite, an anti-gay gay, someone who uses his power to harm others in the name of 'morality,' all the while knowing secretly that he is one of the others."

Good for Aravosis.

Self-loathing Repulsivecans like Graham have to be called on their craziness when they take aim and harm others to sustain their political power in the sick collection of assorted whacks who comprise most of today's Republican Party.

Wisconsin Statute Struck Down Instructs Civil Rights Case Before U.S. Supreme Court This Week

I hate gays, is no argument against loving couples marrying

A fading majority of Americans in a given state in favor of bigotry towards gays and lesbians does not place the majority on firm constitutional ground.

As a great civil rights case of our day (Hollingsworth V. Perry) (12-144) is heard this week by the U.S. Supreme Court, a 1970s Wisconsin state statute, Zablocki v. Redhail (No. 76-879), struck down as unconstitutional stands as a precedent for marriage equity for gay and lesbian Americans in establishing marriage as a fundamental right of Americans.

There are no serious arguments against marriage equity for gays and lesbians. 'I believe what I believe' does not qualify as a serious argument (as most of us learned in elementary school composition) anymore than my-god-mommy-religion-tells-me-so counts as an argument. This is however, the argument repeated today by Republicans over and over.

As with the major civil rights battles of the past 60 years, a coalition of religious and political forces allied with unvarnished hate is armed with a striking lack of intellectual artillery in their views opposing the Constitutional rights denied a class of Americans, in this case the right of gay and lesbian Americans to marry.

As David Boies said today (March 24, 2013) on Meet the Press, we have established that marriage is a fundamental right of the American people, and proved three things to prevail at the U.S. Supreme Court.

• "We needed to prove first that marriage is a fundamental right. And I think we did that."
• "Second, we needed to prove that depriving gay and lesbian citizens of the right to marry seriously harm(s) them and seriously harm(s) the children that they are raising. And we proved that too."
• "Even if you simply applied a rational basis test. ["Under the rational basis test, the courts will uphold a law if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose," notes the Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute.] There us no rational basis to justify this (gay marriage) ban. And that's because of the third thing we proved, which was there no evidence, none, that allowing gays and lesbians to marry harms the institution of marriage, or harms anyone else." ...

 "Certain fundamental rights are too important to be left to the ballot box," said Boies.

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 Zablocki v. Redhail (No. 76-879) (1978)

Wisconsin's statute enacted in the late 1970s -- preventing those falling behind in child-support payments from getting married -- was overturned as unconstitutional (Zablocki v. Redhail ((No. 76-879)) in an eight-to-one decision opposed only by the late, statist-reactionary Justice William Rehnquist.

The Court ruled the right to marry is so basic that the economically impoverished or those otherwise refusing child-support obligations do not lose their fundamental right to marry, even if the state of Wisconsin, for example, enacts a law mandating this penalty. A state legislature, or a majority of a voters in a state similarly cannot determine that certain classes of Americans cannot marry just because a temporary majority does not like certain Americans: Gays, blacks, the poor, lesbians, Chinese and so on.

The relevance of the Wisconsin case to Perry is the Court's establishing, along with other precedents, the Constitutional importance of the right to marry. Having established marriage as a fundamental right, it becomes constitutionally difficult to deny this right to a particular class of Americans, though this difficulty will not likely prevent at least four (Republican) U.S. Supreme Court Justices from voting specifically to deny this right to gay and lesbian Americans.

But a majority of Americans in a given state in favor of bigotry towards gays and lesbians does not place the majority on firm constitutional ground.

As David Boies said (Bill Moyers Journal, Feb. 26, 2010):

If you didn't tell the majority of the voters they were wrong sometimes under the Constitution, you wouldn't need a constitution. The whole point of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment is to say, 'This is democracy. But it's also democracy in which we protect minority rights.' The whole point of a Constitution is to say there are certain things that a majority cannot do, whether it's 52 percent or 62 percent or 72 percent or 82 percent of the people. They can't say, for example, that blacks and whites can't go to school together -- even though 82 percent of the people may think that. They can't say that women aren't allowed to vote, or are not allowed to work in the workplace, or not allowed equal rights or equal wages -- even though a majority of people might vote that way in some places.

There are certain rights that are so fundamental that the Constitution guarantees them to every citizen regardless of what a temporary majority may or may not vote for. And remember, what Ted (Olsen) said is very important. Nobody's asking to create a new constitutional right here. This is a constitutional right that has already been well recognized by the Supreme Court. And what the Supreme Court has said is that even a democratic-elected legislature in Wisconsin cannot decide by majority rule that marriage scofflaws, (p)eople who don't pay their child support, who abuse their children, abuse their wives, cannot get remarried again.

They said marriage is so fundamental that you can't take it away, even for people who have abused an initial marriage.

Boies' colleague in Perry, Ted Olson, amplifies the point:

David (Boies) mentioned that we have a Constitution and we have an independent judiciary for the very protection of minorities. Majorities don't need protection from the courts. The original Constitution didn't have the Bill of Rights attached to it. And the framers of our Constitution had a big debate and people said, 'Well, we're not going to ratify that Constitution unless you attach a Bill of Rights, which protects individual liberty, individual freedom, the right to speak, the right to assemble,' and those sorts of things.

Over our history, the voters have decided, because they get passionate about certain things, and they may not like certain minorities. Minorities are disfavored. Blacks have been denied the right to vote. California prohibited Chinese, a Chinese person from having any kind of business in California, or getting married. Those kind of votes are not acceptable if they violate fundamental constitutional rights. ...

The Congress and the President of the United States 50 years ago made it illegal for someone who is a gay or lesbian to have a job working for the federal government. Many states made it a crime for a homosexual to be in a bar and have a drink. We all remember the '50s. When civil rights were taken away from people because they were suspected of being a member of an organization that -- those sorts of things happened. And we frequently go to the courts and, Bill, it often happens that the measures that are passed almost unanimously in Congress, because Congress gets carried away, are overturned by the Supreme Court. And you go back to Members of Congress and you say, 'What happened there?' And they'll say, 'Well, we knew it was unconstitutional. We expected the courts to take care of that. We wanted to get reelected. The courts are the ones that come back and help us.'

The Internet offers us a window in the slow-motion civil rights battle of what will likely be a landmark legal case when it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court sometime in the next one to four years.

See Proposition Eight Trial Tracker for legal and political updates.
---
(Hollingsworth V. Perry) (12-144)

Gay Marriage and the Constitution

Why Ted Olson and I Are Working to Overturn California's Proposition 8

by David Boies

Monday, July 20, 2009

When I got married in California in 1959 there were almost 20 states where marriage was limited to two people of different sexes and the same race. Eight years later the Supreme Court unanimously declared state bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional.

Recently, Ted Olson and I brought a lawsuit asking the courts to now declare unconstitutional California's Proposition 8 limitation of marriage to people of the opposite sex. We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it. In 1978 the Court (8 to 1, Zablocki v. Redhail ((No. 76-879)) overturned as unconstitutional a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from getting married. The Court emphasized, 'decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.' In 1987 the Supreme Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying.

There were legitimate state policies that supported the Wisconsin and Missouri restrictions held unconstitutional. By contrast, there is no legitimate state policy underlying Proposition 8. The occasional suggestion that marriages between people of different sexes may somehow be threatened by marriages of people of the same sex does not withstand discussion. It is difficult to the point of impossibility to envision two love-struck heterosexuals contemplating marriage to decide against it because gays and lesbians also have the right to marry; it is equally hard to envision a couple whose marriage is troubled basing the decision of whether to divorce on whether their gay neighbors are married or living in a domestic partnership. And even if depriving lesbians of the right to marry each other could force them into marrying someone they do not love but who happens to be of the opposite sex, it is impossible to see how that could be thought to be as likely to lead to a stable, loving relationship as a marriage to the person they do love.

Moreover, there is no longer any credible contention that depriving gays and lesbians of basic rights will cause them to change their sexual orientation. Even if there was, the attempt would be constitutionally defective. But, in fact, the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters. It is also a condition that, like race, has historically been subject to abusive and often violent discrimination. It is precisely where a minority's basic human rights are abridged that our Constitution's promise of due process and equal protection is most vital.

Countries as Catholic as Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa, and as near as Canada have embraced gay and lesbian marriage without any noticeable effect -- except the increase in human happiness and social stability that comes from permitting people to marry for love. Several states -- including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont -- have individually repealed their bans on same-sex marriage as inconsistent with a decent respect for human rights and a rational view of the communal value of marriage for all individuals. But basic constitutional rights cannot depend on the willingness of the electorate in any given state to end discrimination. If we were prepared to consign minority rights to a majority vote, there would be no need for a constitution.

The ban on same-sex marriages written into the California Constitution by a 52% vote in favor of Proposition 8 is the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay-bashing. California allows same-sex domestic partnerships that, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court, provide virtually all of the economic rights of marriage. So the ban on permitting gay and lesbian couples to actually marry is simply an attempt by the state to stigmatize a segment of its population that commits no offense other than falling in love with a disapproved partner, and asks no more of the state than to be treated equally with all other citizens. In 2003 the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas held that states could not constitutionally outlaw consensual homosexual activity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy elegantly wrote rejecting the notion that a history of discrimination might trump constitutional rights, "Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion - and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law.

Gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters, our teachers and doctors, our friends and neighbors, our parents and children. It is time, indeed past time, that we accord them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It is time, indeed past time, that our Constitution fulfill its promise of equal protection and due process for all citizens by now eliminating the last remnant of centuries of misguided state discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The argument in favor of Proposition 8 ultimately comes down to no more than the tautological assertion that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But a slogan is not a substitute for constitutional analysis. Law is about justice, not bumper stickers.
#

Mr. Boies is the chairman of Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP.
---
A similar version of this piece appeared in 2009 here.

House Speaker's Commitment to the Party of Stupid

Updated - As the civil rights fight for marriage equity continues in the wake of Sen. Rob Portman's (R-Ohio) decision to support the right of individuals to marry, Americans were treated to a perfect example of the Republican Party's incoherency on legal discrimination.

Asked about Portman's change of heart, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), explained on ABC's This Week, "I believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman."

Asked if his position might change, Boehner explained and elaborated (not really):

 "Listen, I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. … It’s what I grew up with. It’s what I believe. It’s what my church teaches me. And I can’t imagine that position would ever change."

Boehner's repeated assertions that he feels this way because he believes this way is not an argument any more than is: 'I feel blacks and whites should not marry; it's what I believe. I don't like them blacks.'

ABC's Martha Raddatz did not reply, 'Mr. Speaker, you are proposing denying this right to marriage to gays and lesbians, but you won't explain yourself. What is your reasoning? Repeating how you feel or what you believe is no argument, is it?'

But Raddatz like every other network pundit interviewing Republicans on this issue refuses to point out in a simple follow-up that the GOP's I-feel nonsense is not reasoning in an adult democracy. It's infantile.

Why? What is Raddatz thinking?

Here is the perfect opportunity to expose Republican Party idiocy on a major civil rights issue presently before the courts set to rule on two possibly landmark cases—United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly known as Perry v. Brown and Perry v. Schwarzenegger).

A House Speaker should have to at least explain himself, right?

Raddatz is as indictable as Boehner. And Sen. Portman is not much better.

"By Portman’s own account, in other words, he opposed gay marriage until he realized that opposition to gay marriage stands in the way of his own son’s happiness," writes Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine (March 15, 2013). "Wanting your children to be happy is the most natural human impulse. But our responsibility as political beings — and the special responsibility of those who hold political power — is to consider issues from a societal perspective."
As Chait wrote in a needed sane commentary a short three years ago in making what is an obvious point on the I-feel, I-believe mantra:

Gay-marriage opponents have made that [I-feel] formulation their mantra. It’s a really strange way for them to summarize their argument, because it’s not an argument at all. ...

In a liberal society, consenting adults are presumed to be able to do as they like, and it is incumbent upon opponents of any such freedom to demonstrate some wider harm. (Chait. The New Republic, June 19, 2009)

Thompson’s senior adviser attacks Baldwin for her sexual orientation

Louis Weisberg has the story at Wisconsin Gazette.

Happy Easter

Jesse Purcell (Montreal)

A good man, Jesus Christ, once said: "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

- Matthew 25:45

Pious GOP Celebrates Christ in a Perverse Manner

One translation of a lovely quote from Jesus Christ is: "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."
- Matthew 25:45

Actually, the so-called Christians running for the Republican nomination for the presidency, U.S. Senate, down to the local school board, loudly acclaiming their devotion to Christ, don't know much about tolerance, compassion and peace.

When they take their campaign money from Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, or America's abundant supply of the merchants of hate, they betray Christ.

Such notions as compassion and peace tend to get in the way of the path to the Republican nomination for public office now-a-days.

Much easier to demonize gays, Muslims, the working class, blacks, and when expedient: Jews.

Santorum: Gay Soldiers Will Cause Many to Leave U.S. Mil

Active-service troop, Stephen Hill, booed by GOP audience

GOP tests the bottom in striking anti-American display of fanaticism and hate

By Igor Volsky

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) doubled down on his commitment to reinstating Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell during an appearance on Fox & Friends this morning, telling co-host Gretchen Carlson that the nation hasn’t “even begun seeing the consequences” of repeal.



Perhaps projecting his own feelings towards LGBT people, the former Pennsylvania senator said he worried that soldiers will feel “uncomfortable” and “odd” around openly gay servicemembers:

The night Republicans booed a deployed, U.S. soldier

SANTORUM: The man and women who sign up for the military are now going to be placed in very difficult and uncomfortable personal situations, very close quarter situations…We got to recruit people who would want to do this and now you’re going to put them in a very odd and uncomfortable environment. A lot of people, I believe are going to leave a lot of people aren’t going to join who otherwise would have joined, and that’s going to hurt our ratings, it’s going to hurt our ability to defend this country, and we shouldn’t be playing social experimentation….There is no role for playing sexual experimentation games in the United States military.

During last night’s GOP presidential debate in Orlando, Florida, Santorum told Stephen Hill — a gay soldier who served in Iraq — that “any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military,” as the audience booed Hill’s service. Santorum wasn’t asked about and didn’t address the reaction.

David Prosser Chokes Woman Colleague

Multiple sources say Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser (R-Wisconsin) grabbed fellow justice, Ann Walsh Bradley, by the neck and briefly choked her on June 13, the day before the Court corruptly ruled [4-3] against collective bargaining rights of state public employees and the open meeting clause of the Wisconsin Constitution. Justice Bradley also affirmed the attack.

Update: Two Wisconsin Agencies Now Investigating Alleged Judge-on-Judge Assault

Bill Lueders of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism reports:

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck in an argument in her chambers last week, according to at least three knowledgeable sources. But other sources have offered a conflicting account, and Prosser on Saturday declared that the claims, once investigated, will be 'proven false.'

Details of the incident, first disclosed Saturday morning in a joint report by Wisconsin Public Radio and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, remain sketchy. The sources spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing a need to preserve professional relationships.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, in an article published late Saturday, reported that the incident took place in Justice Bradley’s chambers on June 13, the day before the court issued its decision upholding a bill to curtail the collective bargaining rights of public employees.The sources who spoke to the Center and WPR said an argument about that ruling culminated in a physical altercation in the presence of other justices. They say Bradley purportedly asked Prosser to leave her office, whereupon Prosser grabbed Bradley by the neck with both hands. ...

In March, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reportedthat, in a disagreement over a case last year, Justice Prosser had called [Chief Justice] Justice Abrahamson a 'total bitch' and threatened to 'destroy' her.

Prosser is the former GOP speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly and is known to occasionally becoming unhinged. See video: David Prosser Gets Butchy, Ahh Bitchy.

Prosser won reelection by less than one percent after a 13-year former Assembly Republican caucus computer specialist [and now County Clerk of heavily GOP Waukesha County] who last year insisted—over the objections of I/T experts concerned about integrity of election data—that her election results collection-tallying system must be placed under her personal control for "security" (MJS) reasons claimed to have found 14,315 votes two after election day that tipped the race to her old boss, Prosser, after an incident in which she claims to have personally failed to save some election results. Prosser won the April race with some 7,000 votes out of some 1.4 million cast.

We have said before here that Prosser is a quarrelsome man who lost his 1996 race as a Republican nominee for congress in the right-leaning Wisconsin 8th district because he was a bad cultural fit for the bigoted milieu of traditional gender roles that predominates in Northeast Wisconsin. See also National ReviewTries to Masculate David Prosser.

This guy does not like women, an attribute typical of the self-loathing, closeted Republican.

If Prosser were to resign, a special election next April would be held.

Video: David Prosser Gets Butchy, Ahh Bitchy

Exclusive Video: Prosser Unhinged

Judicial temperament and ethics are essential and David Prosser has shown he simply cannot control his unhinged temper. The troubling video of David Prosser charging at his political opponents with his fist in the air and screaming at them it is a sight to see.

Watch the One Wisconsin Now video of David Prosser’s behavior

National Review Tries to Masculate David Prosser

Justice David Prosser

You can tell much about the perceived deficiencies of Republicans by efforts of their hacks to imbue certain politicos with improbable qualities.

With George W. Bush, we were treated to reports of how much he read and how freedom-loving he was. Truth is Bush was incurious, dogmatic and authoritarian.

Among these clumsy branding attempts, the National Review Online (Robert Costa) today has a desperate, comical 2,300-word column which includes the supposed quality of Justice David Prosser. See Wisconsin Fight Goes to Court. And Walker’s big win could ride on a single judicial election.

Here's how Prosser is described in NRO: "Gruff."

The truth is Prosser is a whiny, quarrelsome man who lost his 1996 race as a Republican nominee for congress in the right-leaning Wisconsin 8th district because he was a bad cultural fit for the bigoted milieu of traditional gender roles that predominates in Northeast Wisconsin.

Well, I guess Prosser has to be gruff today, up against those vicious liberals hiding among the palm trees of Madison winters.

Hulking thugs at Capitol

Writes Costa, "As the dust settles in Madison, Wisconsin Republicans face a troubling coda: Gov. Scott Walker’s budget-repair bill is being tripped up in the courts. Union heavies smell blood. And the unruly parade of lefty activists and hulking Teamsters that occupied the state capitol for weeks is back for a bruising final round."

Costa might wish to read some classic Christopher Hitchens before Costa embarrasses himself with his o-f-f descriptions on the nature of David Prosser and the Wisconsin pro-worker movement:

Union Thugs Pretending They Are Cops

In his imperishable Treatise on the Art of Political Lying, published in 1714, Dr. John Arbuthnot laid down a standard for falsifiers and calumniators that has yet to be excelled:

Detractory or defamatory lies should not be quite opposite to the qualities the person is supposed to have. Thus it will not be found according to the sound rules of pseudology to report of a pious and religious prince that he neglects his devotions and would introduce heresy; but you may report of a merciful Prince that he has pardoned a criminal who did not deserve it.

Year In Review—Nice on DADT and NewStart, Naughty on Afghanistan, Palestine, and Wikileaks

There's been a few pieces of good news as this year draws down. But in most ways, this year has been a really hard one, even as the international Palestinian solidarity and anti-war movements have consolidated, predictably earning the enmity of the FBI. Wikileaks, aka CableGate, has been exposed as an "orchard of exposés over-ripe for cherry-picking"—disinformation meant to incite and disinform

Repeal of Don’t Ask Don't Tell, New Start

There's been a few pieces of good news as this year draws down. The repeal of Don’t Ask Don't Tell sets an important marker in the struggle to end official homophobia and anti-gay discrimination in the U.S. That's huge. (And an Obama campaign promise realized — that's huge too.) And the passage of New Start means at least a symbolic gesture towards Obama’s claimed vision of a nuclear-free world.

But in most ways, this year has been a really hard one.

Talking Points -- By Phyllis Bennis

In Afghanistan the latest "review process" resulted — surprise, surprise! — with the announcement that the U.S./NATO occupation will continue at least until 2014. Another four years of war, death, and devastation for the people of Afghanistan as well as for the young U.S. soldiers drafted by poverty and lack of opportunity and sent to kill and die there in escalating numbers.

Oh, that earlier promise of July 2011 as the pull-out date? That one was always at least partially a sham — designed to pacify Obama's powerfully anti-war base, the language even when first announced was a carefully ambiguous version of "July 2011 will start a process to determine whether conditions might allow preparation for beginning consideration of when the partial transfer of control to Afghan forces might allow for a partial withdrawal of a few U.S. troops…"

This time around the Obama administration continued their pattern of claiming success regardless of the situation on the ground. If violence rises, as it has so dramatically this year (with over 2,500 Afghan civilians killed so far, and almost 700 U.S./NATO troops) it's because "we're taking the fight to the enemy." If violence drops, it's because "our strategy is winning."

This is a war we cannot "win" and we cannot afford. In 2011 we're going to have to take our anti-war fight to different places too — specifically, with the new Congress even less likely to respond to the 60% of people in this country who now believe the war in Afghanistan "is not worth fighting." We're going to have to broaden our targets to new and different centers of power. That means working locally to get "Cities for Peace"-style anti-war resolutions in city councils and mayors' resolutions, moves in state assemblies to demand the return of state funds and National Guard contingents, and much more.

Israel-Palestine

On Israel-Palestine, we had the announcement that the Obama administration has abandoned its already-failed effort for an Israeli settlement "freeze." That's not going to change much (if you didn't get a chance to see it before, my discussion of this issue on al-Jazeera a couple of weeks ago might be interesting). When The Washington Posteditorialized against U.S. aid to Egypt, claiming all such aid should be linked to human rights, and criticizing how Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak was rude to President Obama, I got this letter published in the Post:

A Double Standard on Middle East Aid

December 3, 2010

The Post editorial board is absolutely right that the Obama administration should consider the $1 billion a year in U.S. aid to Egypt in the context of Egypt's domestic repression and the role of its military, and that Congress should "link military funds to human rights, as it has for several democracies that are U.S. allies" ["Mr. Mubarak vs. Mr. Obama," editorial, Nov. 27]. And yes, President Obama should "make it clear that he will not be dismissed or pushed around" by regional leaders.

Shall I assume The Post's next lead editorial will say the same thing about the $3 billion in military aid (and potentially $3 billion more in "incentives") that the Obama administration will give to Israel this year?
Phyllis Bennis, Washington

Cablegate

Beyond Israel-Palestine, there have been some interesting developments in these last weeks. The Wikileaks "Cablegate" documents, a new trove of State Department correspondence from, to, between, and about U.S. diplomats, their Washington superiors and a host of global leaders, continues to provide new glimpses of how, sadly, U.S. diplomacy continues to be used in the interest of war, not to find ways of preventing wars.

My Wikileaks piece in The Huffington Post was titled "War, Diplomacy, and the Search for Ban ki-Moon's Toothbrush."

Let's start with what the WikiLeakstrove of diplomatic cables is not. It's not a collection of documents whose release will undermine all potential for solving global problems through diplomacy rather than war. It's not a set of shocking revelations of positions or opinions that completely reverse our understanding of global issues. And it's not a bunch of documents providing nothing but new justifications for going to war against Iran.

What it is is two things. First, it is an ineffably sad body of evidence that President Obama's promise to engage with the world in a whole new way still remains unfulfilled, and that continuity, rather than change, still shapes the Obama administration's foreign policy. And second, it is an orchard of exposés over-ripe for cherry-picking.

And cherry-picking they are. If you watched only Fox News or some of the outraged-but-gleeful mainstream pundits, you would believe that all the documents prove the dangers of Iran's nuclear program and world-wide support for a military attack on Iran. If you read only the Israeli press, you would think the documents provide irrefutable proof that "the entire world is panicked over the Iranian nuclear program."

Certainly this first batch of Cablegate includes some seemingly startling remarks on Iran -- the king of Saudi Arabia calling on the U.S. to "cut off the head" of the Iranian "snake," the leaders of Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates supporting more aggressive U.S. action against Iran. But those positions are not in fact new. Arab leaders have longstanding hostile relations with Iran; virtually every Arab government supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. The significance of the new documents lies far more in their secrecy -- demonstrating once again the huge chasm between the U.S.-armed and U.S.-backed Arab leaders, and the views of the people over whom they rule ... .

And at IPS we held at four-part panel discussion on Wikileaks, with my colleagues Emira Woods, Sanho Tree, and Daphne Wysham. We included some assessments of the value and limitations of the leaks, as well as some of what we can learn from Cablegate about U.S. policy in the Middle East, Africa, and global climate change.

One other place you can join me. On Sunday, January 2nd starting at 12 noon est. I'll be featured on a three-hour BookTV special on C-Span. The program is "In Depth," and we talk about all the books I've ever written, and the issues those books examine: Israel-Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the United Nations, U.S. foreign policy…and more. It's a call-in show, so please tune in and CALL IN too!

And of course, I remain grateful for all of your support and solidarity. To those who have contributed to help my New Internationalism Project continue it's vital work, my deepest thanks. For anyone still able to do so, please give what you can.



And have a fabulous holiday season, with joy and some time with family and friends to prepare for what lies ahead.

Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and co-author with David Wildman of the new Ending the U.S. War in Afghanistan: A Primer.

President Obama Signs Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010

Landmark civil rights legislation signing this morning is the culmination of a long battle against Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and an array of political forces fighting against equality for all Americans. See the White House for more information.

"Out of many, we are one!"

By Mark Smith

WASHINGTON — Fulfilling a campaign pledge, cheering his party's downcast liberals and striking a blow for what he sees as basic human rights, President Barack Obama is signing a landmark law Wednesday that tells America's armed services to let homosexuals serve openly for the first time.

So many gay rights and Democratic activists were expected at the signing ceremony that the White House booked a large auditorium at the Interior Department.

"This day has come!" said an elated Mike Almy, an Air Force major discharged four years ago when his sexual orientation became known. "'Don't ask, don't tell' is over, and you no longer have to sacrifice your integrity."

While the elation is real, Pentagon officials caution it could be premature, since the bill requires service chiefs to complete implementation plans before lifting the old policy – and certify to lawmakers that it won't damage combat readiness, as critics charge.

Also, guidelines must be finalized that cover a host of practical questions, from how to educate troops to how sexual orientation should be handled in making barracks assignments.

While officials have avoided timetables, the process will probably take months.

Still, for gay and lesbian Americans, Wednesday is a watershed. And for Obama, it is a day to revel in the achievement of a goal he's long championed.

It is also the second of three expected victories in what's turned out to be – for Obama – a surprisingly productive lame-duck Congress. Weeks after his self-described "shellacking" in the midterm vote, he's won lopsided approval of a tax cut compromise, and the Senate is poised to deliver his top foreign policy goal: ratification of a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia.

Many Democratic liberals were furious over the tax package, believing Obama blithely yielded to Republican demands to retain the same tax cuts for the rich he had loudly denounced on the campaign trail. That's not the case with the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. Lifting of the ban on gays serving openly was something Obama not only campaigned on in 2008 but reiterated in this year's State of the Union speech.

"I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are," he said in January to cheers in the House chamber, adding, "It's the right thing to do."

Born 17 years ago as a compromise between President Bill Clinton and a resistant Pentagon, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy became for gay rights campaigners a notorious roadblock on the way to full acceptance.

Speaking in June at a Gay Pride Month observance at the White House, Obama likened the fight to end it to the struggle of American blacks for civil rights.

"We have never been closer to ending this discriminatory policy," he declared.

Yet he has also faced rising discontent among gay activists who believed he hadn't moved forcefully enough. He's been heckled at campaign appearances over AIDS funding and the failure to end the military service ban.

Obama countered that as commander-in-chief, he had to ensure the ban's end is carefully prepared for.

That's just what the bill from Congress mandates.

"The implementation and certification process will not happen immediately; it will take time," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz warned in an e-mail that went out right after Saturday's Senate vote. "Meanwhile, the current law remains in effect. All Air Force members should conduct themselves accordingly."

Military and administration officials are wrestling with numerous legal questions raised by the end of the ban – knowing that courts are waiting in the wings. They include what to do about pending expulsion proceedings, and when those ousted under don't-ask-don't-tell might apply to rejoin the armed forces.

For Almy, who appeared at a Capitol Hill ceremony Monday, the important thing is that gay and lesbian service members are no longer singled out because of who they love.

"That's all we ever wanted," he told reporters, "not special rights, just the same as our straight counterparts. "

___

Associated Press Writer Sagar Meghani contributed to this report.

Nein! No Gays! Christian General Tries to Set the President Straight

Another Christian General Trying to Tell Commander-In-Chief What's What on Gays and Lesbians to Openly Serve in Military

Marine Corps Commandant says gays would cause Marines to become casualties, losing their limbs

Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, says he believes gay and lesbians are a detraction that would cause Marines " 'to break or potentially break ... focus. I don't want to permit that opportunity to happen. And I'll tell you why. If you go up to Bethesda [Naval] Hospital . . . Marines are up there with no legs, none. We've got Marines at Walter Reed [Army Medical Center] with no limbs," said Amos.

Amos is a self-identified Christian who was a speaker at Shirley Dobson's big National Day of Prayer Task Force event on Capitol Hill in 2009 in Marine uniform, in violation of DoD regulations against endorsing non-federal entities; and was the keynote speaker at Quantico's National Day of Prayer prayer breakfast in 2007, pointed out Chris Rodda, Senior Research Director for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), and the author of Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History.

By Craig Whitlock in the Washington Post:

The Marine Corps' top general suggested Tuesday that allowing gays to serve openly in the military could result in more casualties because their presence on the battlefield would pose "a distraction."

"When your life hangs on the line," said Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, "you don't want anything distracting. . . . Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines' lives."

In an interview with newspaper and wire service reporters at the Pentagon, Amos was vague when pressed to clarify how the presence of gays would distract Marines during a firefight. But he cited a recent Defense Department survey in which a large percentage of Marine combat veterans predicted that repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" law would harm "unit cohesion" and their tight-knit training for war.

"So the Marines came back and they said, 'Look, anything that's going to break or potentially break that focus and cause any kind of distraction may have an effect on cohesion,' " he said. "I don't want to permit that opportunity to happen. And I'll tell you why. If you go up to Bethesda [Naval] Hospital . . . Marines are up there with no legs, none. We've got Marines at Walter Reed [Army Medical Center] with no limbs."

Amos had said previously that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly could cause "distractions" and "risks" for combat units. But his remarks Tuesday were the first time that he or any other senior military leader has suggested that repealing the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" law could directly endanger troops and cost lives.

The propriety of Amos speaking out the issue will likely come under review. From the Christian Fighter Pilot blog that hails Amos:

Should a military Christian publicly oppose the proposed repeal? The military leadership has already made it abundantly clear such opposition is not acceptable. While Christian tenets encourage participation in the culture, they do not necessarily demand such participation. In that regard, a Christian is not explicitly obligated by his faith to publicly oppose the repeal. If a Christian feels compelled by his faith to speak out against the change while in the military, he should be willing to accept the repercussions, which might include official sanction or dismissal.