The Catholic Church has taken up a new strategy to fight against abortion and gay rights–talking about “religious liberty” to reject equal rights for gays and the right of women to control their own bodies.
I would say that whenever an institution is forced from the support of direct oppression to taking on the mantra of being oppressed, it’s a sign of victory for progressive forces. It doesn’t mean the victory will be complete–white homeowners used this very language in the 1960s and 1970s to protect their neighborhoods and schools from integration. But even in this case, this move was a significant response to just how much the civil rights movement had accomplished.
While I am less confident about the long-term availability of legal abortion in this country, the Catholic bishops are clearly being routed on gay marriage. I’d expect to see more of this language, talking about how not encouraging kids to beat up gay kids impinges upon their free speech.
Chick-Fil-A: worth boycotting for reasons other than the quality of the food. It’s always nice when expedience and principle can coexist easily…
Logically consistent Maggie Gallagher: The fact that members of LGM are not routinely given speaking gigs by Republican organizations is a clear violation of their civil rights.
Shorter Maggie Gallagher: Gays and lesbians must be treated as second-class citizens because otherwise people might disagree with the views of homophobes, a violation of their civil rights.
Yes, Santorum is dumber than a bag of lube and fecal matter. There’s also this:
I — I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. And the fact that they’re making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to — to — and removing “don’t ask/don’t tell” I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military’s job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country.
Ah, yes, the oldest scam in the bigot’s playbook; it’s demanding “special rights” to ask for rights that people like Rick Santorum take for granted. Like Santorum, this defender fails to explain how denying someone who otherwise meets the criteria for military service the right to serve is about “special rights.” Imposing unique burdens in groups is just about rights, period. Speaking of John Marshall Harlan, he was on to this in 1883, in his solo dissent in the Civil Rights Cases:
My brethren say that, when a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of beneficent legislation has shaken off the inseparable concomitants of that state, there must be some stage in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank of a mere citizen, and ceases to be the special favorite of the laws, and when his rights as a citizen or a man are to be protected in the ordinary modes by which other men’s rights are protected. It is, I submit, scarcely just to say that the colored race has been the special favorite of the laws. The statute of 1875, now adjudged to be unconstitutional, is for the benefit of citizens of every race and color. What the nation, through Congress, has sought to accomplish in reference to that race is what had already been done in every State of the Union for the white race — to secure and protect rights belonging to them as freemen and citizens, nothing more. It was not deemed enough “to help the feeble up, but to support him after.” The one underlying purpose of congressional legislation has been to enable the black race to take the rank of mere citizens. The difficulty has been to compel a recognition of the legal right of the black race to take the rank of citizens, and to secure the enjoyment of privileges belonging, under the law, to them as a component part of the people for whose welfare and happiness government is ordained.
Given the massive attack by conservatives on teaching U.S. history (particularly with the Texas textbooks), I am very pleased to hear of Jerry Brown signing a bill ordering the teaching of gay history in California schools. Like with Texas, California controls a huge chunk of the history textbook market and the inclusion of gay history in the textbooks means that students in many other states are likely to get it too.
I have some reflections on the belated passage of same-sex marriage legislation in New York. The two most important are that 1)the belief that achieving policy victories through legislation will insulate them from backlash is silly, and 2)while the arc of history might bend toward progress, even in the medium term substantial progress on same-sex marriage is far from certain, and to a frightening extent rests on the shoulders of Anthony Kennedy.
Shorter Verbatim William C. Duncan: “What remains to be seen now is whether the people of New York will look kindly on the legislators who ignored them, listening instead to the Hollywood stars and other glitterati who became lobbyists for this fashionable cause.”
The thing is, in not allowing a minority of bigots to short-circuit marriage equality legislation, the governor and Senate were acting in concert with the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers. Projection in defense of discrimination is most definitely a vice.
Looks like the vote will finally pass. Outstanding! At lease one member has unexpectedly switched to a “yes”; once the logjam has been broken you’d think some GOP members would prefer not to emulate Strom Thurmond.
Whew, it’s good that I was able to get married before the institution of heterosexual marriage ceased to exist in New York! Alas, the newest member of the blog was not so lucky. There’s still going to be an open bar tomorrow, right?
…It’s official. And now let us praise the framers of the New York constitution for not including an initiative process.
Fortunately, the idea that Judge Walker should recuse himself has been treated with the seriousness it deserves.
Ed “But he even lives near San Fransisco!” Whelan doesn’t like the ruling. I look forward to his post arguing that it was inappropriate for the majority in yesterday’s securities litigation ruling not to recuse themselves. I mean, how can it be appropriate for wealthy men to have heard the case? Do we know that any members of the majority won’t eventually retire and judge corporate boards that will want to form subsidiary corporations so that they can lie to their customers with legal immunity? I don’t see how they can be impartial; we need some poor, badly-connected people appointed to the Court so that we can have a truly impartial ruling.
Same sex marriage — the increasingly popular majority position.
Of course, if it wasn’t for Goodridge it would have support from at least 110% of the public…