Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
Breaking News: Arizona Gov. Brewer Vetoes SB 1062
Folks, it’s official — as of 6:50 PM CST, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) has vetoed Arizona state Senate Bill 1062. MSNBC showed a press conference, where Gov. Brewer said many different things about how she listened to both sides, conferred with advisors, and came to the only decision that made sense.
Thus her veto.
This is a very good thing, both for Arizona and for the nation. As I said earlier, this was terrible legislation. It was impractical at best, too broadly worded (as Gov. Brewer herself said), and unConstitutional on its face.
Good for Gov. Brewer for vetoing this bill.
Arizona’s “Religious Freedom” Bill (aka SB 1062): Bad, Bad Bill that Needs to be Vetoed, Stat
What is wrong with the Arizona legislature?
Last week, on a mostly party-line vote, the Arizona legislature passed controversial state Senate Bill 1062, titled the “Religious Freedom of Expression” bill in much of the media. This bill seeks to amend the Arizona state statutes in order to allow people to deny services to people who don’t meet their own religious standards, as best I can discern, and is widely seen as an anti-LGBT measure.
As you might expect, many people — in and out of Arizona — are calling upon Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) to veto SB 1062, including both of its United States Senators — Republican John McCain, and Republican Jeff Flake. In addition, three Republican members of the state Senate who just voted for the bill last week are also calling for it to be vetoed. And their reasoning is somewhat surprising.
From the story at the Los Angeles Times:
“While our sincere intent in voting for this bill was to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has instead been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance,” State Sens. Bob Worsley, Adam Driggs and Steve Pierce wrote in a letter. “These allegations are causing our state immeasurable harm.”
In other words, they are saying the perception of the bill is harming the state much more than they thought, so the bill should be vetoed even though they still believe it’s a good bill.
(Hard to believe they didn’t understand just last week that they were making a mistake, but better late than never.)
The problem I see with SB 1062 goes far beyond it conceivably being an anti-LGBT measure. While that’s more than bad enough, after reading this bill in its entirety, I see it as having a much more fundamental flaw:
It is against the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plain and simple.
Why?
Well, the First Amendment is pretty straightforward. It says that you cannot establish a state religion, but you cannot deny someone the ability to express his or her own religious faith, either. And it also says you cannot deny freedom of expression (among several other things) . . . all of which seem in direct contradiction to Arizona’s SB 1062.
You see, if you allow a bill like this to stand as read, it conceivably allows someone to deny someone service based upon your religious faith or your own, personal beliefs. It makes your own discrimination allowable under Arizona’s state constitution, and further it shields you from harm if someone then sues you because you contravened their rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution of freedom of expression or freedom of religion.
None of that is acceptable.
Furthermore, there are additional, practical reasons as to why SB 1062 should be vetoed without delay by Gov. Brewer, including these stated by the website Arizona Central:
The CEOs of the state’s top business groups – Greater Phoenix Economic Council, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Greater Phoenix Leadership and the Southern Arizona Leadership Council – want Brewer to veto.
“The legislation is also already clearly having a negative effect on our tourism industry, one of the largest sectors of the economy,” several of the CEOs wrote. “The bill could also harm job creation efforts and our ability to attract and retain talent.”
From reading this, it seems these CEOs see SB 1062 as being a job-killer.
But wait, here’s more. From Arizona Central’s editorial:
The damage will grow the longer this bill survives. Brewer can start the healing with a quick, decisive veto. She can use the opportunity to loudly and clearly tell the world that Arizona is an open, welcoming state that does not countenance discrimination.
The Legislature’s approval of the bill undermined the state’s goal of attracting high-tech industry. Seventy percent of people born after 1980 support same-sex marriage, according to Pew Research. High-tech firms locate in places talented, young people find attractive.
The right to refuse service bill makes Arizona an unattractive butt of late-night comedy and snarky tweets.
While I’m not necessarily moved by the need for any state to specifically attract “young people,” I agree that if you want high-tech industry, you want smart people of all ages. And most smart people just do not see the practical sense in legalized discrimination, regardless of age . . . which is why there are people in all age groups who believe marriage should be a civil right irrespective of whether or not your partner is of the opposite sex or the same sex, providing you are both of sound mind and are both adults.
So to sum up, here’s the two big problems with Arizona’s SB 1062:
- It appears to legalize discrimination against people based on a person’s religious beliefs — a no-no under the U.S. Constitution.
- And it appears to be something that’s highly impractical that actively harms the state of Arizona.
If I were Gov. Brewer, I would veto this bill without any further delay . . . it’s clearly the right thing to do, it will save the state of Arizona from having to defend this terrible bill in court (where it’s likely to be struck down and the state penalized for wasting the federal government’s precious time), and it will stop harming the state’s image in the court of public opinion.
The Governor has until February 28 to either veto this bill or sign it. So keep your eyes on Arizona, to see if she’ll do the right thing . . .
Or not.
U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down DOMA, California’s Prop. 8, in Historic Rulings
Today, the United States Supreme Court struck down two laws, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA) and California’s controversial Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in that state. With two different 5-4 rulings, the Supreme Court has affirmed that discrimination on the basis of whom people love is illegal — at least, if you are in one of the twelve states where gay marriage is legal already, the District of Columbia (where it’s also legal), or in California, where it’s soon to be legal again.
Here’s a link to a story on Yahoo regarding the overall historical impact of these two different decisions, what the groups on both sides plan to do next, and so forth and so on.
As for what I think? Well, I’m very pleased that the Supreme Court struck down DOMA and threw out California’s Prop. 8 (albeit on a technicality), because I believe everyone who’s above the age of consent and is in love with a supportive and loving partner should be allowed to marry that partner. Whether it’s a man and a woman marrying, two women, two men, or two transgendered individuals, what matters is the love — not the form of that love.
The only thing that bothers me about these particular decisions is the limitations placed upon them by the Supreme Court. In striking down DOMA, the Supremes basically said that if you legally married a same-sex partner in the various states where it either is legal now or has been legal in the past (and was legal at the time, such as in California until Proposition 8 was voted for by that state’s voters), the federal government must treat you as married. And that way, you have all the rights and privileges of a married couple — which is exactly as it should be.
However, if you’re in a state like Wisconsin, where we have a state-specific version of DOMA on the books, if you are a same-sex couple you still cannot marry under the law. You are still allowed to be legally discrimination against in taxation, adoption, and other issues, under the law. And unless and until we get a Democratic Assembly and/or a Democratic Governor, things are unlikely to change due to the bunch of radical Republicans we have right now in Wisconsin, as in addition to these radical Rs running the state into the ground, they also oppose same-sex marriage on reactionary terms — not on realistic ones.
In other words, the Rs in Wisconsin see marriage as a religious ceremony first, with statehood recognition of that ceremony coming second. (This does not really make much sense because many non-religious people or those who are religious but want to save on money go and get married before the judge in a courthouse in a non-religious ceremony. But it’s how they seem to believe.) The rights and privileges a married couple gets in Wisconsin cannot go to a same-sex couple — not even in Madison, which has had domestic partnership benefits for many years — because that’s what the radical Rs want.
I have news for these Rs. Marriage is for everyone. That’s basically what the Supreme Court said today, even though they stopped short of striking down other statehood bans like Wisconsin’s in their narrowly targeted rulings. If you are in love, and you want to get married, and if you want to raise a family, you should be allowed to get married and raise that family. Period.
This is one of the few cultural issues where the Rs have largely been out of step with the mainstream of Wisconsin and the rest of the country. For example, there are now three Republican U.S. Senators who are for gay marriage — Rob Portman of Ohio, who has a gay son, Mark Kirk of Illinois, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. There are a few others, like John McCain, who’ve said before that they have no problem with gay couples, per se, but they don’t think these couples should be allowed to marry. Then the rest of the Rs basically want to take the country back to the 1950s, if not earlier, on cultural issues — which isn’t likely to happen, fortunately for the rest of us.
In Wisconsin, I don’t know of any single one Republican Senator or Assemblyman who believes that same-sex marriage should be legal in all 50 states. (Or even just in Wisconsin.) All eighteen Senators oppose same-sex marriage; all sixty Republicans in the Assembly oppose it.
And, of course, Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker also adamantly opposes same-sex marriage, mostly on religious grounds.
Look. For the most part, I’m for most religions, providing they help people and give meaning and value to their lives. But when a religion insists that some people are better than others — in this case, a heterosexual married couple matters more than a same-sex married couple — that’s where I start to get upset.
And when a politician can’t even be bothered to say, “Look. I haven’t really studied the issues yet, but my religion has always said that gay people are sinful. That’s why I really cannot support marriage equality,” but stands behind the religious fig-leaf as if the religion is doing his or her thinking for him, that really bothers me.
My thought right now is that this issue, along with the new legislation that Scott Walker said he’ll sign that mandates that all women get trans-vaginal ultrasounds before having a medically necessary abortion (unless you’ve been raped or a victim of incest and have gone to report the same), is the most likely one to defeat the Wisconsin Rs.
So those of us who worked so hard to recall Scott Walker (myself included) may still have hope. This is an obstinate man we’re talking about, someone who firmly believes everyone in the state is behind him despite the recall evidence to the contrary. And he’s leading a radical party that’s done a lot of things that voters disagree with, to boot — so when he’s up for re-election in 2014, if we have a Democrat with statewide recognition to run against him (please, not Tom Barrett again — I like him, but he has proven he can’t win against Walker), we should be able to get him out.
As for me, I voted against Walker, signed the recall, voted to replace him, and will vote against Walker again in 2014. (I’m on the record as saying I’d rather vote for an empty paper bag rather than Walker, as that empty paper bag will do far less harm.) But I’m a realist. I know Walker hasn’t done what he said he would do — not with regards to jobs, not with regards to honesty and transparency, not with regards to anything, except for one (he kept his promise to turn down the money for light rail, as he found it unnecessary; however, in so doing, he also eliminated at least three hundred prospective new jobs) — and I want him out of there before he manages to harm the state even further.
My advice for the Wisconsin Rs is this — get with the program regarding same-sex marriage. This issue is not going to go away any time too soon, and most younger voters disagree with you and your stated beliefs on this issue. And if you are unwilling to change with the times, and admit that all marriages should be equal under the law, you will be voted out.
Maybe not in 2014. Maybe not even in 2016.
But you will be voted out.
And I, for one, will be very happy once you are, as you’ve done more than enough damage already.
Hillary Clinton, Rob Portman Latest Pols In Support of Same-Sex Marriage
In the last week, two prominent politicians have come out in favor of same-sex marriage — one, of course, being far more prominent than the other.
The latter person is former Secretary of State, Senator and First Lady, Hillary R. Clinton, who today endorsed same-sex marriage with a video put out by the Human Rights Campaign, while the former is Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. Portman said his main reason for changing his stance from firm opposition to firm support is his son — who has told him he’s gay, and wants full rights to marry any partner he may take in the future.
This article from PennLive points out how difficult it’s been for Portman, the only Republican Senator in open support of gay marriage, since he’s made his stance public last week. And despite such well-known Republicans as former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Sec. of State Colin Powell also being in support of same-sex marriage, it’s far more easy for a Democrat like Mrs. Clinton or sitting President Obama to admit that he or she supports same-sex marriage than it is for any active Republican officeholder.
Why is this?
PennLive points out that Portman said:
Portman said his previous views on marriage were rooted in his Methodist faith. However, he wrote, “Ultimately, for me, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.”
Yet most Republican leaders apparently met this with either stony silence or, as PennLive’s article put it, “a shrug,” while Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner actually told ABC’s This Week that he’d oppose gay marriage even if his own son was gay.
It’s hard to see this particular comment as anything except a slam against Senator Portman.
Fortunately, it’s not as difficult for a well-known Democrat to let it be known she is in favor of marriage equality.
Mrs. Clinton said that her work at the State Department, including the signing of measures meant to protect long-term same-sex couples, made her reconsider her beliefs (best paraphrase from her video for the HRC, which is available via PennLive). That’s why she, too, has now come out in full support of same-sex marriage.
And, thus far, the Democratic (or democratic-leaning) talking heads on both MSNBC and CNN seem in full support of Mrs. Clinton’s stance, which is not a surprise. The titular head of the party is the President, who is also in support of same-sex marriage (though perhaps less wholeheartedly than Mrs. Clinton).
So, on the one hand we have the Republican Party, which doesn’t seem to want to budge except for a few brave individuals like Senator Portman and several retired Republicans like Cheney and Powell. And on the other, we have the Democratic Party, which has an openly lesbian sitting Senator (Wisconsin’s own Tammy Baldwin), and has embraced advocacy of same-sex marriage as a human rights issue.
Which, to my mind, it is.
Look. This is an issue that everyone should get behind, but it may be impossible for some older Americans to fully understand. Nevertheless, if two people want to marry, and both are consenting adults, the state should allow them to marry. Not stand in their way.
And as far as the religious objections go, we have separation of church and state in our Constitution for a reason — which is why individual churches may still say no to same-sex marriage without penalty.
But it’s also why our country, as a whole, should say yes.
On a personal note, I’m very pleased that Senator Portman has been willing to publicly admit that his stance has changed. This makes me believe there’s at least some hope for the Republican Party to stop making marriage equality a partisan issue — despite well-known obstructionists such as Speaker Boehner.
US Rep. Scott DesJarlais: One of the Most Hypocritical Reps in America
One of the political stories that’s been flying under the radar in Wisconsin this week is the bad behavior and utter stupidity of Republican United States Representative Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee. DesJarlais, a medical doctor, according to the Chattanooga Times Free Press, has done the following things:
- Carried on at least two sexual trysts with patients
- Had at least three sexual encounters with co-workers
- Slept with at least one pharmaceutical representative
But what’s making the news more than DesJarlais horrendously bad judgment is this: he’s a pro-life legislator. But he encouraged his ex-wife to have not one but two abortions — one of which appears to have been medically necessary, while the other probably wasn’t — and didn’t tell his constituents a thing.
All of this came out due to the lengthy transcript of DesJarlais’s 2001 divorce trial; the transcript had been requested by the Times Free Press prior to the election, but as it hadn’t been completely typed up, it didn’t get released until two days after all the votes had been counted.
But DesJarlais didn’t pay a price at the ballot box, possibly due to the fact that much of this wasn’t public knowledge. As the Washington Post account puts it:
DesJarlais . . . (won) reelection with just slightly less of the vote than he took in his first campaign in 2010. He defeated state Sen. Eric Stewart (D) 56 percent to 44 percent.
However, DesJarlais’ medical license should be in jeopardy due to these recent revelations, as DesJarlais most definitely violated most of his professional ethics — not to mention whatever is left of his good, common sense.
Some of what DesJarlais admitted to during his divorce trial is so repugnant that it’s hard to even fathom it. As the Times Free Press article points out:
The transcript reveals new details about DesJarlais’ interactions with a 24-year-old-patient, who claimed she became pregnant with DesJarlais’ child during a brief fling in 2000 that ended with the doctor pressing her to have an abortion.
DesJarlais, who is now 48 years old, admitted in court to urging the woman over the phone to get an abortion, but said the whole conversation was a scheme orchestrated by him and his wife — with whom he had reconciled — to get the 24-year-old to admit she was not really pregnant.
So, did you catch all of that? DesJarlais, who was married at the time, slept with a much-younger woman and apparently got her pregnant. Then he pressured her to get an abortion.
Mind you, the last part isn’t even the worst part, though it is extremely hypocritical due to DesJarlais’ strong pro-life stance.
Nope.
The absolutely worst part of this extremely repugnant episode is that DesJarlais got his own wife to help him pressure this poor young woman.
(Why DesJarlais’ then-wife did that, I’ll never know.)
All of this adds up to one thing — this man, Scott DesJarlais, should not be a United States Representative. Not in Tennessee.
Not anywhere.
DesJarlais has a terrible attitude, as he seems to believe that he’s above it all. And that he’ll get away with it all, too . . . all of this because he was voted back into the US House of Reps.
For the moment, it appears that DesJarlais will get away with it. (As in, keep his current job; I would hope that the Tennessee Board of Health will finally strip DesJarlais of his medical license.)
However, it may not be all gravy for DesJarlais in the next election cycle as the Times Free Press article states:
But according to Republican state Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey, the congressman’s political life could be endangered in 2014. Asked before Thursday’s disclosures how many Republican senators he expects might challenge DesJarlais in the 4th District primary, Ramsey quipped, “How many live in it?”
While this may hold some promise for 2014 and beyond, that does nothing for the poor people of DesJarlais’ district right now. Instead, they’re stuck with one of the most hypocritical members in the House.
Aand considering how many hypocritical people sit in that chamber right now, that’s really saying something.
Tammy Baldwin Wins US Senate Race in Wisconsin Over Tommy Thompson
Tonight, history was made in Wisconsin. Democrat Tammy Baldwin won election to the United States Senate over Republican former Governor Tommy Thompson. Baldwin becomes Wisconsin’s first female Senator and the United States’ first openly gay, lesbian, bisexual and/or transgendered Senator.
See this link from the Huffington Post for further details.
Here are a few words from Senator-elect Baldwin (via the above-mentioned link):
“Now, I am well aware that I will have the honor to be Wisconsin’s first woman U.S. senator. And I am well aware I will be the first openly gay member of the United States Senate,” she added, with the crowd drowning her out and chanting “Tammy! Tammy!”
“But I didn’t run to make history,” she continued. “I ran to make a difference –- a difference in the lives of families struggling to find work and pay the bills, a difference in the lives of students worried about debt and seniors worried about their retirement security, a difference in the lives of veterans who fought for us and need someone fighting for them and their families when they return home from war, a difference in the lives of entrepreneurs trying to build a business and working people trying to build some economic security.”
Baldwin’s former seat in the US House of Representatives was won by state Assemblyman Mark Pocan (D), who’s also openly gay. (Pocan is a liberal firebrand who should do an excellent job for the residents of Wisconsin’s 2nd District.) As GayPolitics.com put it, Pocan will be the “next out member of Congress.” Pocan’s win is also the first time one openly gay member of Congress has been succeeded by another in the same district (also per GayPolitics.com).
Congratulations, Senator-elect Baldwin and Representative-elect Pocan!
Vice Presidential Debate: My Assessment
After listening to tonight’s Vice Presidential, one thing is clear: both current Vice President Joe Biden (D) and United States Representative Paul Ryan (R), who is the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, are thoughtful and articulate individuals.
However, everything else depends on context, to wit:
1) Did you expect Biden to lay an egg? If so, Biden is your clear winner because he didn’t do this.
2) Did you expect Ryan to lay an egg? If so, Ryan is your clear winner, because he also didn’t do this.
Or to put it another way — if you were expecting a game-changer, you didn’t get it. Instead, you got two impassioned individuals who are well-versed in both domestic and foreign policy (Ryan was surprisingly well-versed; I know Ryan well as he’s my U.S. Rep.) and managed to make most of their points.
Since I wasn’t really expecting much from either candidate, I was pleasantly surprised with both.
Pluses for Biden: he was much more articulate and much more forceful in this debate than he was in 2008 against Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska.
Minus for Biden: he interrupted Ryan. (A lot.)
Bottom line for Biden: he made the points he wanted to make. And of course Biden sounded like he could do the job of President, should it ever fall to him, as Biden sounded much better in this debate than President Obama did last week.
Pluses for Ryan: he sounded like he knew what he was talking about, and sounded like he’d make a good Vice President. That he also sounded like he’d be a loyal lieutenant for Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney was a bonus, especially due to past media coverage that had depicted a strain between Romney and Ryan. Best of all for Ryan, he seemed like he’d be capable and confident if he ever had to step in to the job of President.
Minuses for Ryan: he didn’t have the specifics he needed regarding the new health care plan (“Obamacare”) and he also didn’t have the specifics regarding Romney’s proposed tax plan, which purports to cut most loopholes yet raise more money. This seems like a logical impossibility on its face, and Ryan certainly wasn’t able to make it sound any better. And he, too, interrupted Biden — a lot.
Bottom line for Ryan: he did well, and made the points he wanted to make. But for a policy wonk like Ryan to not be able to make numerical points is a bit troubling, as that’s something Ryan should know in his sleep as he’s on the House Ways and Means Committee (and has been for over ten years).
My view: Biden stayed more on point despite having less time to make his points (as Ryan tended to give lengthy answers). And as I had half-expected Biden to lay a huge egg — as Biden can be scattershot in his approach, which doesn’t always lend itself to either interviews or debates — I have to admit that I found Biden’s poise and confidence to be quite refreshing.
My debate grades:
Joe Biden: A-minus.
Paul Ryan: B.
Which means the advantage goes to Joe Biden . . . who’d have thunk it? (Probably not me, even though on balance I like Biden despite his scattershot approach — or maybe because of it.)
Former Bush Advisor Ken Mehlman Now for Marriage Equality
Sometimes, life throws you a curveball.
This is the only way to possibly describe Ken Mehlman’s change of heart regarding marriage equality. Mehlman, as you may now, was a former advisor to President George W. Bush, and was instrumental in getting many “defense of marriage act” initiatives on the ballot in 2004. These initiatives, rather than defending marriage, were an attempt by the Right to shut gay people out of the process entirely; what they did was encourage many voters who felt scared of the possibility that gay people might want to get married to vote for these initiatives. Those people, perhaps not so incidentally, ended up voting for George W. Bush en masse.
Mehlman, who came out in 2010 as gay (something I somehow missed), now regrets what he’s done. Here’s a link to the story at the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/ken-mehlman-i-am-sorry-fo_n_1316199.html
And here’s a relevant quote:
“At a personal level, I wish I had spoken out against the effort,” he told Salon in an interview published Friday, referring to the campaign’s attempt to draw out the conservative base by attacking same-sex marriage.
“As I’ve been involved in the fight for marriage equality, one of the things I’ve learned is how many people were harmed by the campaigns in which I was involved,” he continued. “I apologize to them and tell them I am sorry. While there have been recent victories, this could still be a long struggle in which there will be setbacks, and I’ll do my part to be helpful.”
You see, Mehlman’s role was far from incidental. He was a key advisor and helped Bush immensely. Eleven states passed the “defense of marriage acts” in 2004 (Wisconsin passed it in 2006), so this was not a minor thing. But the only thing Mehlman can do now to make up for the damage that his advice may have caused is to work on behalf of marriage equality — which, to his credit, he is now doing.
This past week, Maryland became the eighth state to legalize gay marriage in the United States; the law won’t take effect until January 1, 2013, but it’s still a major step forward. In New Jersey, both houses in the Legislature passed bills in 2012 legalizing gay marriage — making marriage equal for everyone, regardless of sexual preference — but Governor Chris Christie vetoed the bill. Before that, New York legalized gay marriage in late 2011, which allowed my favorite figure skater, Johnny Weir, to legally marry his husband, Victor Voronov, this past New Year’s Eve.
In addition, the initiative that reversed California’s stance on gay marriage, Proposition 8, has been struck down by a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; gay activists have asked the Ninth Circuit not to take the case up again, because if the full Court declines to take it up, the hope is that marriages for everyone — including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people — will start to take place later this year. Of course, the people who put the initiative on the ballot in the first place — a number of conservative groups — want the Ninth Circuit Court to take it up, but even if the Ninth Circuit does take it up, that does not mean that they will allow Proposition 8 to stand. So there’s still hope that GLBT Californians, in the near future, will again be able to legally marry their partners.
Here’s the deal, folks: marriage should be legal for any two consenting adults over the age of eighteen who aren’t already married, or for two consenting adults who are adjudged to be legally adult (meaning emancipated minors should be allowed to contract marriages on the same basis as everyone else). It shouldn’t matter what your sexuality is, how it’s expressed, or anything other than the fact that two consenting adults who aren’t already married want to get married; the government should not interfere with anyone’s plans to marry.
I applaud Ken Mehlman for the reversal of his stance regarding marriage equality, and for making that reversal public. Better yet, he’s now working on behalf of marriage equality, which means he’s put his money where his mouth is; that’s an encouraging sign, and it’s one I hope long continues.
So hat’s off to Maryland for doing the right thing, and hat’s off to Mehlman, too. Now, let’s hope that New Jersey’s legislature somehow comes up with enough votes to override Christie’s veto, or that Christie decides to reverse himself; truly, it’s in the state’s best interest to stop discriminating against people merely because of their sexual preference.
———–
To my conservative friends: you don’t have to like it that GLBT individuals want to marry, but you need to respect it. Some of you may have brothers, sisters, or good friends who are GLBT, and they should have the same rights and responsibilities that I have as a straight American, including the right to marry the partner of their choice. Anything less is plain, flat wrong.
Rush Limbaugh Goes too Far: Calls Woman “Slut” and Publicly Asks for Pornographic Videos
Rush Limbaugh has gone too far this time.
Recently, Sandra Fluke, a law student, testified about the need for women to have contraception be covered by health insurance before the Congress. She said that it could cost as much as $3000 to pay for contraception out of pocket, which is a great deal of money for a student — or, really, anyone at all.
Rush Limbaugh took exception to this, and called her a “slut” on Wednesday, February 29, 2012. Going further, he said this today, March 1, 2012 (quoted at US News and World Report, and reposted by MSNBC’s Web site):
“So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.”
This is much worse than anything Don Imus ever said, yet he was fired by MSNBC; nothing at all so far has happened to Limbaugh, and that’s not just sad — it’s disgusting.
How can Limbaugh say such reprehensible things and get away with it? Why is there no penalty for him, at all? Is he like Howard Stern, the “shock jock,” who can literally say anything now that he’s on Sirius/XM Radio and not lose his job? And if he is, why?
I’m sorry — women need contraception for many reasons, and not all of them are because we are intending to have sex. Women often use contraception to help regulate the menstrual cycle; this is a real problem that the all-male “official” Congressional panel doesn’t seem to understand, possibly because they’ve never had to deal with it themselves.
Limbaugh should be ashamed of himself for calling this woman a “slut,” and be even more ashamed for equating the need for health insurers to pay for contraception with pornographic videos.
Congressional Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was quite right to call for Limbaugh to apologize for the “slut” comment; when Limbaugh “doubled down” on Thursday and called for Ms. Fluke to put up pornographic videos of Fluke using the contraception she’d been asking for, he not only spit in Pelosi’s face — he spit in the face of all women.
I am appalled that Limbaugh, rather than apologize, “doubled down” in this manner. I can only hope that his employers, who are paying him to be controversial, will realize this is way over the line and put a stop to it. Immediately.
————
Further thoughts:
The fact is, I’d be surprised if Limbaugh himself had never used a condom — which is a form of contraception. He probably paid for it himself, for all I know, but even if he didn’t, who cares?
If you’re an adult, you’re likely to need contraception at some point. All Fluke was doing was asking for health insurers to pay for something very basic that prevents unwanted pregnancies from happening — something everyone should approve of, because pregnancies in this world should be planned if at all possible, considering the expense of raising a child.
Bottom line here is that Limbaugh should be punished. Because if Don Imus lost his job over something far less offensive, why should Limbaugh continue to have his?
Barb Caffrey's Blog 