Abraham Lincoln Died 150 Years Ago Today

Image from source, Mother Jones

The fact that Abraham Lincoln's death by assassination happened 150 years ago today is a little stunning when you think about it. In the scheme of things, that really isn't that long ago. I'll be 50 next year, and it's hard for me to believe that just three of my life-spans separate the here and now from Civil War America.

It's also roughly the same amount of time that it took to go from basically no modern conveniences to the world of today. There were some important inventions in use at the time of course, from photography to locomotives to telegraphs, but if you plunked a Millennial kid into 1865, he'd pretty much find it to be a dystopian nightmare. Similarly, if you plucked Lincoln out of Ford's Theater, and into 2015, he'd be mortified by the modern Republican Party.

In many of the discussions about civil rights (spurred by either a gay rights issue or Ferguson and the other racially charged controversies with police), I've seen countless conservative Republicans go on about how it's the Republican Party that blazed the civil rights trail. They'll start with Lincoln, and go all the way up to the Civil Rights Era. They'll point to George Wallace and other Democrats as proof. They're not wrong. . .but they're not right either. They disregard the massive shift both parties went through over the issue, and the fact that the "Dixiecrats" jumped ship and effectively overtook the Republican Party.

Look at a map sometime of the red and blue states, particularly in the 2008 and 2012 elections. Look at a map of the progression of same-sex marriage states. They echo closely the map of Confederate States vs. United States of Lincoln's time. I don't think that's a coincidence.

[Excerpt]

Lincoln Died 150 Years Ago Today and If He Were Still Alive He Wouldn’t Have Been a Republican

On April 14, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth while attending a play at Ford's Theater in Washington, DC. Lincoln died the following morning, just six days after General Robert E. Lee had surrendered and the Civil War, which lasted four years and killed an estimated 750,000 soldiers, officially ended. . .

Read more at: Mother Jones

SCOTUS Kills Key Provision of Voting Rights Act

Wade Henderson, president and C.E.O. of the Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights, criticized the decision on Tuesday;
from source, New York Times.

This one is a head-scratcher. I can't figure out why the Supreme Court found it necessary to carve out a cornerstone piece of the cornerstone piece of civil rights legislation ever passed. They basically said that since the Voting Rights Act has forced affected states to play by the rules, the act itself is no longer needed. What? Isn't that a bit like saying that stop signs have done a terrific job of getting cars to stop at intersections, so they are now no longer needed?

I just sit and shake my head, because I'm really not sure what to say. I mean, SCOTUS gave Congress the option of fixing the language, to modernize the act. . .but have they paid attention to this Congress lately? They're not doing shit. And already, states like Texas are pouncing, by ramming through voter ID bills and other things that--until Tuesday--were considered legally discriminatory against groups of voters. But no more! Sheesh.

And it really makes me queasy about the DOMA and Prop 8 marriage equality bills to be announced Wednesday. Ugh.

[Excerpt]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval. . .

Read more at: New York Times

Rhode Island 10th State (Plus DC) with Legal Marriage Equality

Get a room, you guys! Kidding. . .
Image from Huffington Post

Yes, the gay just keeps hitting the news cycle, and thus, the blog. Of course at this point, any regular readers have got to be used to it, or have already left, right? Anyway, it's worth pointing out that Rhode Island is the final state in New England to legalize same-sex marriage, rounding out 10 states in the union (in addition to Washington, DC), bit is actually the eleventh state to actually do it. California--where I was married to The Other Half in 2008--took it away in the same year, after it was already legal. That will ultimately be decided by SCOTUS in June, potentially putting the count back to 11+1. Counting the District of Columbia, that would put marriage equality at 23.5% of the country. One more state--Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, all possibilities--will put it over 25%. As my favorite blogger Joe.My.God. is fond of saying: "Zoom, zoom, zoom!"

[Excerpt]

Rhode Island Legalizes Gay Marriage

Rhode Island became the tenth U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage Thursday with a 56-15 vote.
Just before he signed the legislation into law, Gov. Lincoln Chafee took to the steps of the Rhode Island State House, where he told a jubilant crowd, "Today we are making history ... we are living up to the ideals of our founder. . ." 

Read more at: Huffington Post

Illinois One Step Closer to Marriage Equality

Happy Illinois legislators, from Chicago Tribune

Baby steps. Every phase of a civil rights struggle is made in baby steps. It's frustrating though, when it feels like the finish line should be behind us, and yet the tiny little steps haven't yet gotten us quite over the line. In Illinois--the latest state to take up marriage equality with any gusto--another hurdle has been crossed (and my metaphor becomes more strained). After a particularly nasty last effort by the anti-gay busybodies, a Illinois House committee has passed a marriage equality bill. Though there are officially two hurdles left--the full House vote, and the signature of the Governor--the last one has already been assured. Crossing my fingers, though it will mean two of The Other Half's home states will have legal same-sex marriage, while both of mine still don't. Still, it's good news!

[Excerpt]

Illinois House committee advances gay marriage bill

A bill legalizing gay marriage cleared a Democratic-led committee late Tuesday and now moves to the full House, where the issue is expected to meet its toughest test. The proposal, approved on a 6-5 vote in the House Executive Committee shortly before 10 p.m., is coming under increasingly heavy fire from church organizations who say same-sex marriage violates moral and religious principles. But advocates have ratcheted up calls for swift action. . .

Read more at: Chicago Tribune

President Obama "Evolves" to Suppport Gay Marriage

Thanks, guys. Image from CBS News.

What a difference a day makes. It was Tuesday night when gay rights supporters and activists were angry and saddened by yet another loss at the ballot box in North Carolina. Aside from the insanity of putting civil rights up for a vote, there was the belief that we were coming out of the woods on this one. Though we expected to lose, we were still upset about it.

Then on Wednesday, the President of the United States came out in support of same-sex marriage. It is a view most of us suspected he privately held. But we were frustrated with the muddy message he and the White House were putting out. I'm among those who tried not to make much of a fuss, believing that Obama would "evolve" after securing a second term. So, this is surprising, historic, welcome. . .and I don't see much of a down side.

People who are rabidly anti-gay marriage were for the most part not going to vote for Obama anyway. Those in minority communities who are both anti-gay marriage and pro-Obama are unlikely to vote against him over that one issue, particularly when there is no legislation or policy attached to his opinion. So, I'd like to say thank you to President Barack Obama. You already had my vote, but this ups my enthusiasm!

[Excerpt]


The audacity of evolution on same-sex marriage

Joe Biden has such power over evolution he might make an amoeba get up and walk. Three days ago the vice president announced on Meet the Press that he supported same-sex couples getting married. Wednesday, President Obama announced that after a many-year evolution on the issue, he believed the same thing. The first African-American president became the first ever to announce his support for same-sex marriage. . .
Read more at: CBS News

Iowa House of Reps Trying to Un-Marry Legally Married Couples

Image from source, The Advocate

Sure, as soon as we get a little good news (this time in Illinois), we get a little bad news. It always seems to go this way. In Iowa, where same-sex marriage is legal, the newly resurgent Republicans are looking to flex their muscles. That means doing something mean, naturally.  There are currently legally married same-sex couples in Iowa, but the GOP thinks they ought to be annulled, by popular vote. Because really, in America, shouldn't everyone's marriage be decided by other people? No? Okay, then here's the real reason. . .

Rather than focus on the economy or jobs, Republicans all over the country seem determined to resurrect every "culture war" issue that they've lost over the last few years.  They want to roll back any progress made by gay people of course. And they want to make at least token gestures to restrict abortion rights, so the base stays on board. After that, anything that makes President Obama or other prominent Democrats look bad. Only after all of those things are done will they (maybe) address more important issues.

The bad news is that this now becomes a ping-pong match. It used to be that when a civil right was won, it was won. Sure, you might have to fight to make sure your rights were respected and not infringed, but they weren't rolled back. Eventually, most people agree, same-sex marriage will end up being the law of the land. But how many times are we going to have to win it, lose it, and win it again? The good news is that Republicans show no signs of playing it cool. They're going to go balls-to-the-wall and overplay their hands again.

UPDATE: I wanted to add something. When I said the Republicans were being "mean," I wasn't just venting. This vote was to rescind existing rights to same-sex marriage, and also preclude civil unions, or any other legal recognition of any kind for same sex couples. That isn't "protecting marriage." That's just mean.

[Excerpt]

Iowa House Votes For Marriage Ban


The full Iowa house voted Tuesday afternoon to approve a resolution that proposes a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality, which would effectively repeal the 2009 state supreme court decision that legalized marriage for same-sex couples. . .

Read more at: The Advocate

President Obama's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repeal Speech

It is historic, but it isn't yet complete, I know. It's still a big deal, and with all the nay-saying by people like me about President Barack Obama's "fierce advocate" status on gay rights issues, credit where it's due.

Captain Obvious: The Constitution Trumps "The Will of the Voters"

Now that California's Proposition 8 has been ruled un-Constitutional, we're already hearing a lot of belly-aching from the right.  Why they're so invested in this fight is anyone's guess, but on one thing they are very consistent:  all of their arguments are wrong. Don't believe me? Read Justice Vaughn Walker's response to the best Prop 8's proponents could do, you'll see.

By far, one of the loudest shrieks from the right is "the will of the voters" has been overturned, and this represents a failure of democracy.  Bull pucky.  Civil rights should never be put to a vote in the first place.  When they are, you get what we've gotten: 31 states have put same-sex marriage to a vote, and 31 times, gay people lost.  Imagine if voters had gotten a chance to vote on slavery. Or integration. Or women's suffrage. Does anyone really believe that the batting average would have been different in those scenarios?

Prop 8 was found un-Constitutional, and as such, the Constitution trumps public sentiment. Period.  You can't get more American than that.

Steven Weber: 'Night, Court

Photo from AOL

For all of their bluster about strict Constitutional conservatism, the far-right has been acting very strangely (well, stranger than normal). They think it's standard American operating procedure for anyone who might look like they are an illegal immigrant (but they won't profile 'em!) to carry identification papers on them at all times. They think that the unwarranted wire-tapping of phones is nifty (as long as a Republican is in the White House). And now they think that if you try to blow something up you should not be Mirandized, you should not get a trial, and you should be stripped of your citizenship (if you had it in the first place).

That attitude is very strange to me, and is also strange to Steven Weber, actor and blogger (and a damned site better than me). He's got a great post up on the subject, and I couldn't agree more.

[Excerpt]

'Night, Court

Can anybody tell me why, when it comes to accused terrorists, military tribunals are preferable to normal judicial proceedings in a civil court of law?


Is it because they don't want those fancy pants New York lawyers being all wise-cracky during a "You can't handle the truth!" moment?

Is it because the three military judges are allowed to smash the defendant on his turban with their gavels? . . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Oklahoma Accidentally Removes Protections for Race & Religion

So, some homophobic jerks in Oklahoma wanted to rip protections away from gay people. . .and they sorta missed. By a mile.

Thanks to Stupid Monkey Planet for pointing me to this hilarious story.

[Excerpt]

IN SEEKING TO STRIP LGBT OKLAHOMANS OF HATE CRIMES PROTECTIONS, OKLAHOMA REMOVES PROTECTIONS FOR RACE AND RELIGION

In October, President Barack Obama signed The Matthew Shepard Act, expanding the reach of the 1969 hate crimes law to "authorize the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute certain bias-motivated crimes based on the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability." Previously the law only allowed for the federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin. . ."

Read more at: Out in Oklahoma City

Marriage Equality Takes Another Hit: NJ Says "No" to Same-sex Unions

Image from source, NJ.com

Frak! Damn the goram New Jersey State Senate. Sorry for the mixed sci-fi cursing, but I'm so sick of this. I'm more and more convinced that most politicians are more worried about being re-elected than in doing what is right. I still want to know what the non-religious argument is against same-sex marriage might be. Haven't heard a convincing one yet.

[Excerpt]

N.J. Senate rejects bill legalizing gay marriage

The state Senate rejected a same-sex marriage bill today, a major victory for opponents who contend the measure would infringe on religious freedom and is not needed because the state already permits civil unions.

The 20-14 vote defeating the measure followed an hour and a half of public debate inside the packed Senate chamber. The nearly thousand supporters and opponents of the bill held rallies on the Statehouse steps. . .

Read more at: NJ.com

Sarah Palin on Terrorists: "Hang 'em High!"

Image from source, Think Progress

There is a very strange cowardliness coming from the right wing. Oh, sure, they talk a good game. George W. Bush was reknowned for his bravado, swagger and "shoot first, ask questions later" approach. But what's all this about right-wingers being so afraid of bringing terrorists to American soil? Sure, dumping them off in Central Park or at the local Dairy Twist would be a spectacularly bad idea. But nobody is talking about that. They're talking about putting them into supermax high security prisons. And trying them for crimes. There has never been an escape from a supermax prison, so what is with all the fear mongering? You'd think these prisoners were supervillains out of Action Comics or something.

This seems to me to be yet another case of exaggeration by the GOP to instill fear into the hearts of their knee-jerk base. It also gives them a chance to propose their alternative of torture, abuse and frontier justice. It really is bizarre. I even heard a few right-wing pundits (whiny Mark Levin among them) opine that these people can't be tried in a court of law because they were never Mirandized, possibly tortured, held without council for years, etc. Crikey! Where was all this concern when the Bush Administration was a-doin' all that crap?

Sarah Palin, in her never-ending quest to remain in the public eye (and to help sell copies of her sure-to-be unspectacular book, Goin' all Mavericky) has spoken from her throne atop Mount Facebook to let us know where she weighs in on the issue. Also.

[Excerpt]

Palin Calls Decision To Try 9/11 Defendants In Federal Court ‘Atrocious,’ Wants To ‘Hang ‘Em High’

. . .But the U.S. justice system apparently isn’t good enough for former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (who believes that the White House has a “Department of Law“). Last night she went on Facebook and posted a message calling the Obama administration’s decision “atrocious”. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Same-sex Marriage Approval by State and Age

The defeat in Maine came as a real bummer for same-sex supporters. Though state votes on the matter were 0-30, we still held out hope, but it was not to be. I hold the position that civil rights should never even be up for a popular vote, and I really wish there was more effort given to that argument.

Same-sex marriage supporters are soldiering on, attempting to get states like New York and New Jersey on board. But opponents are revved-up by their "victory" in Maine, and aim to undo all of the success that was obtained last year. The silver lining in this busybody, religion-driven dark cloud is age. As opponents age and ultimately die off, they will be supplanted by today's younger voters. And younger voters don't seem to give a hoot if I'm married to The Other Half (thanks, kids!). It looks like this thing is just a matter of time.

Source: Newsweek

First They End Gay Marriage, Next Stop. . .Yours?

Here's a brilliant video that puts the whole "majority rules/the people have spoken" argument in a new light. So, the California Supreme Court has decreed that the people can vote to remove marriage rights for same-sex couples? What else could the majority rule? What other rights could be voted on and taken away? This video presents only the possibilities for marriage, but I'm sure you can think of others.

Karl Rove: You Don't Have to Worry About Your Rights

Photo from source, Raw Story

The only thing good about Karl Rove is that he is (allegedly) no longer affecting policy. Even better, in less than a month, even the "allegedly" will be removed. But Rove still has the ear of many a conservative (thanks to his regular appearances on FOX "News") and is spinning like mad to polish up the mess of a legacy left by the Bush Administration.

Rove's latest words of wisdom have to do with our rights, and the potential infringement upon them by the current administration. He's essentially saying "trust me," don't worry about it! Mmm hmm. I trust him about as far as three men could throw him.

[Excerpt]

Rove: Don't worry about government taking away rights

John Kasich, guest-hosting for Bill O'Reilly this week, ventured a bit off the Fox News reservation, giving voice to the myriad concerns over the expansion of power President Bush has concentrated in the White House over the last eight years, particularly when it comes to his extraordinary ability to spy on Americans. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Gay Marriage Ban to be on California's Ballot

Image from source, Planet Out

Well of course. As Cleavon Little said in Blazing Saddles, "Can't you see this is the last act of a desperate man?" A constitutional amendment is what you shoot for when you have no other options left. Can't change a law? Change the constitution, and you can make all sorts of crazy laws (thank you, The Simpsons).

Full disclosure: The Other Half and I intend to tie the knot in California at the end of the month. Whatever the electorate decides, we'll be legally married in the state of California--for at least a couple of months. Sure, we live in Nevada, where we have our own constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, but we're gonna do it anyway.

My gut instinct when voting for Nevada constitutional amendments is to vote "no." Particularly when the act is to deny rather than permit something. I implore California voters to think long and hard before casting a "yes" vote. Should civil rights issues be open to popular vote? Would interracial or interfaith marriages have been permitted if everyone got to vote on it? I think not. The tyranny of the majority against the minority was--at least I've always believed it to be so--a major no-no to the founding fathers. Put your prejudices aside and ask yourself, if some religion objected to your marriage--for whatever reason--would you think that a valid reason to nullify your union? Because--don't kid yourself--this all boils down to religion, and religion should not be codified into law.

[Excerpt]

Gay marriage ban qualifies for California ballot

An initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters. . .

Read more at: Planet Out

Unreasonable Search and Seizure at Chain Stores

Photo from the Christian Science Monitor

On our day out, I realized that our comfort level with being searched--for no reason--has risen in America. As we attempted to leave Fry's Electronics with our purchases, we had to wait in a long line to get out of the store. Why? Because security guards had to go through every shopper's bags, and check their purchases against their receipts.

It used to be this only happened at stores like Costco or Sam's Club. There, we put up with the practice because we were members of their "club." You cannot shop at these stores without having a membership card, so the search seemed like one of the rules you had to follow. But more and more, this is becoming standard practice at non-membership stores.

You cannot leave Fry's, Best Buy, Circuit City, or many other stores without going through the same procedure. Why is this OK? Why do I have to get in line to leave a store? I'm not a thief, and I don't appreciate being treated like one.

Chalk it up to "everything changed after 9/11." We go through pointless "security" measures at the airport, so that we feel like we're safer. We remove shoes, belts, watches, empty our pockets, allow our bags to be ransacked, even allow pat-downs. And we've gotten so used to it, that we start to agree to the same sort of treatment at chain stores. How long until we're stopped on the street with the demand, "show me your papers?"

On a tangential, but related note, I heard a discussion on local Las Vegas talk radio the other day that gave me the creeps. Apparently, a student was suspended for refusing to participate in, or stand silently during the pledge of allegiance. The talk hosts asserted (and callers agreed) that the student should be forced to at least stand silently "out of respect" during the pledge, to learn what this country is really about. Hmmm. I thought we were about being a free country. But I guess we should force people to agree with that. Sheesh.

Big Brother is Watching, Listening, Taking & Copying

The story below is but one example of our government's overzealous behavior as it pertains to "security." We have really given up just about every civil right we have as it pertains to privacy. There is nothing the government/George W. Bush will not claim is necessary, and apparently nothing that any other governmental agency will do to prevent it.

A question that gets somewhat glossed over in all of this is, what exactly are they looking for? Sure, they say they're trying to prevent terrorist attacks. They say that al-Qaeda is hiding behind every rock. And conservatives, by and large, nod their heads vigorously, and support whatever the government says.

Did you notice that seismic shift? The anti-government party; the same folks who's extremist wing holes up in Wyoming or Idaho with arsenals and survivalist gear are enthusiastically supporting this behavior.

Does anybody think that once the government has been given this much rope, that they won't try to use their newfound abilities for other things? Do we think they aren't using data mining for the war on drugs? The war against Democrats? Really?

[Excerpt]

Clarity Sought on Electronics Searches

Nabila Mango, a therapist and a U.S. citizen who has lived in the country since 1965, had just flown in from Jordan last December when, she said, she was detained at customs and her cellphone was taken from her purse. Her daughter, waiting outside San Francisco International Airport, tried repeatedly to call her during the hour and a half she was questioned. But after her phone was returned, Mango saw that records of her daughter's calls had been erased. . .

Read more at: Washington Post

Story tip from Stupid Monkey Planet

Gay Marriages Must be Recognized in New York

Image from Yimg.com

The focus of this blog has never been on gay-rights issues, though they are important to me. It's just not the focus of the blog. But this is pretty big news.

It also should be by definition the law of the land all across the United States. The full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution guarantees that contracts entered into in one state are automatically valid in another. All of those state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage ought to be automatically unconstitutional under US law. And one day, they probably will be. But in New York, at least, it is a reality.

[Excerpt]

State Court Recognizes Gay Marriages From Elsewhere

A New York appellate court ruled Friday that valid out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples must be legally recognized in New York, just as the law recognizes those of heterosexual couples solemnized elsewhere. Lawyers for both sides said the ruling applied to all public and private employers in the state

Even though gay couples may not legally marry in New York, the appellate court in Rochester held that a gay couple’s 2004 marriage in Canada must be respected under the state’s longstanding “marriage recognition rule,” and that an employer’s denial of health benefits had discriminated against the couple on the basis of their sexual orientation. . .

Read more at: New York Times

Government Using Cellphones to Track Without Cause

How did we come to this? Does everyone forget what being an American is supposed to be about? It was made very clear to me as a kid in school that America was a place of justice, fairness, and that privacy was a right. In America, you couldn't just be hauled into a paddy wagon without a darn good reason. You couldn't have your home, car or person searched without probable cause, and a warrant.

Now, we seem to have given all that up, and without a fight! In fact, if you ask one of the remaining 25% of the public that still thinks Bush is da bomb, they'd probably think civil rights are socialist or "izlammo-fashist" idea. Hey, if it keeps me safe! Bah.

When did we become such bed wetters? How did we let the people running this government to scare us into giving up what we're all about? Do we forget that this country has faced fear and won before? Excuse me, the British burned the White House, Pearl Harbor was attacked, and at one time we were one button push away from the end of the world! What about 9/11 was worse or scarier than potential nuclear annihilation? All of this ridiculous fear-induced police state crap has got to stop, and you'd think that conservative Republicans would lead that charge. If they'd only come out from under their beds. . .

[Excerpt]

Cellphone Tracking Powers on Request

Federal officials are routinely asking courts to order cellphone companies to furnish real-time tracking data so they can pinpoint the whereabouts of drug traffickers, fugitives and other criminal suspects, according to judges and industry lawyers. . .

Read more at: Washington Post