As the “debate” over gay marriage reaches critical mass in Vermont, I can’t help but feel a deep sense of shame.
The shame comes, not from the fact that Vermont is, rightly, taking up the issue and fighting for basic human rights for all, but because there is even a debate at all.
To me gay marriage is one of the great no-brainers of our time: treat people equally. It is civics 101, not to mention a constitutional requirement.
But when Gov. Jim Douglas, despicably, announced he would veto any gay marriage legislation that came to his desk, I was once again reminded, to steal a line from Kurt Vonnegut, “how embarrassing it is to be human.”
It is appalling, both morally and intellectually. When I heard his statement, I thought I was listening to George Wallace defend segregation as the governor of Alabama in 1963, not the governor of Vermont – arguably the most progressive and humane state in the country – in 2009.
Generations from now that fact that this was even debatable will be a monumental embarrassment for Americans, and Vermonters, everywhere.
There once was a time, not very long ago, when our country engaged in “serious debate” over whether or not it should be legal to enslave human beings or allow women to vote. Thankfully, due to the hard work of rational, humane people, these issues are no longer controversial.
And there can be little doubt that the gay marriage issue will run a similar course. It is inevitable they will be recognized in time, just as struggles in the past led to progress on women’s rights, African-American rights, disabled persons rights and so on.
This effort to discriminate against gays is ultimately a losing one. Societal progress almost always takes shape in the form of acceptance, a thankful reminder of our own humanity in the face of the bigotry we are witnessing by Gov. Douglas.
According to very detailed PEW report, young people – described as “Generation Next” – are by far the most tolerant generation ever. When it comes to gay rights, secularism, immigrants, interracial relationships, and even recreational drug use, young people are historically accepting of others compared to older generations, and young people polled generations ago. They are also less pious than any other age group, which is of significant given the Christian opposition to gay rights. About half of Gen Nexters say the growing number of immigrants to the U.S. strengthens the country more than any generation. And they also lead the way in their support for gay marriage and acceptance of interracial dating.
I don’t find this to be terribly surprising. Young people have now grown up around gays to the extent where the behavior seems entirely normal to most. Compare this to how older generations viewed homosexuality–as a social taboo punishable by an eternity in hell.
And by the time today’s young people become the country’s power brokers, gay marriage will likely be accepted in most states, and attempts to discriminate against them will be met with contempt not currently seen.
And those public officials, who tried to reason that gays need their own consolation prize, the civil union, and should be “separate but equal” from their heterosexual brethren, will be remembered through the lens of history as enablers of discrimination.
To be fair, this applies to many Democrats in the federal government, including the President.
But Governor Douglas’ pathetic ruminations on the subject from Wednesday assure himself a very special footnote in this unfortunate element of our history. He is one of the first two governors in U.S. history to openly thwart a democratically-elected body’s decision to give gays the same right to marry as everyone else.
It is a detestable act now; years from now it will come across as bigotry pure and simple – a sad reminder of a time when politicians felt it was OK, even noble, to discriminate against gays.
(NOTE: Made a small correction to reflect the comments about how the gov. of California also vetoed gay marriage legislation)
(Some may be surprised that I have chosen to frontpage this. I am happily in most accomodating joy to be of explain.
There is a perception that only the Best of the Best get paid to blog. There are more paid bloggers out there than people realize, and, as we see from this, most of them are two-bit whores.
I suspect that we got hit with this because this blog has “Green” in its name. With Caoimhin’s annotations, this piece of crap spam becomes an excellent post.
I just hope these people see this. And, by the way, these people, like all spammers of GMD, have been banned. – promoted by kestrel9000)
[UPDATED – This piece of spam by new user auto.alliance left out a few details. Included, in bold, are links and additional information –cl]
The auto industry is undergoing a major transition. How can we set a course for its healthy development?
NOTE: Watch closely (no don’t watch this at all, it’s crap) but if you must, just think about the used car you’d be willing to buy from THIS guy!
The auto industry is undergoing a major transition. How can we set a course for its healthy development?
GMD SUGGESTION: Manufacture hybrids, use alternative fuel sources, stop using bailout money to lobby and sue against environmental standards: that’s a start.
Automakers, by their nature, must make plans many years in advance. Right now, we have people designing products for 2015. That means that, if environmental standards are to be effective, it is crucial that we have very good collaboration between government and the auto industry. It requires smart regulatory practices, achievable goals, and a national roadmap we can depend upon. “Collaboration” i.e. we’ll tell the government what not to regulate and hope they don’t.
We are in this thing together. It is time to collaborate.
Take emissions standards, for example. . . we fully expect a decade of rising standards, year by year, starting with the standards for 2011 to be announced in the near future. [WE’RE WAITING!]
We intend to accomplish those standards. In order to do that, we’ve urged the federal government to set emissions standards for multiple years into the future, to give us a predictable set of regulations to plan and design for. In recent years, California and other states have played an important role in setting emissions standards when there was no federal action on the issue.So, did you get that last part about California and other states and their important role?
HELLO! California played such an important role that you folks spent millions of dollars suing California and millions more in federal government resources under the Bush administration fighting California EVERY.STEP.OF.THE.WAY.
So what does the Union of Concerned Scientists have to say about “The Auto Alliance” during one of its recent disinformation campaigns in California?
* GM, Chrysler and The Auto Alliance create websites to sway consumers to contact Congress
* Automakers create radio and print ads in an attempt to stall fuel economy regulations
“This is another dishonest campaign from an auto industry willing to deceive lawmakers and the public on legislation that could save people money and clean up the environment. Just two weeks ago, the auto companies’ lobby group aired misleading radio ads about federal fuel economy legislation. Just last week, the alliance came to California to speak out against the Pavley clean car law. Now they’re lying about the Clean Car Discount bill. The automakers have fallen into a sad pattern of using lawyers and slick public relations tactics to fight good laws instead of using their engineers to build cleaner cars.
“Contrary to what the automakers say, the Clean Car Discount bill (AB 493) preserves consumer choice. . . .
“While the auto industry ad implies that there’d be a huge surcharge on a lot of vehicles, only the most highly polluting models, such as the Ford Excursion and Hummer H2 would incur the maximum surcharge of $2,500. The bill also waives surcharges for many small businesses, emergency responders, and low-income drivers.
“This is a bill that can make cleaner cars more affordable for everybody. California has been leading the way on smart environmental legislation and it’s a shame that automakers are trying to drag us backwards. People want cleaner cars, not dirty tricks.”
That’s the Auto Alliance. Thanks for stopping by to visit GMD, ASStroTurfers!
But today, the federal government is acting. Additional uncertainty can only undermine that progress. A single, national standard administered by the federal government is a reliable roadmap and we can move forward rapidly.
We also need to know that the infrastructure will be in place to support the advanced technologies we’re developing. You can’t have a fleet of plug-in hybrids and electric cars without a place to plug them in, or without sufficient energy to power them all.
In other words, let’s use that bailout money and lobby against states applying their own environmental standards, which is the right of any state to do.
Patchwork fixes and band-aids are not a good solution to our common problems. Our environmental and economic problems involve our whole country. So do the solutions. An integrated national plan provides a stable foundation for progress.
And if we don’t get our way, we’ll keep on suing and building guzzlers. When we fail, again, we’ll do what we always do, blame our failures on our workers who have spent three decades making wage concessions and suffering through layoffs all because of Detroit management’s decisions to manufacture shitty cars that drive consumers to foreign models and have turned the world market against U.S. made cars.
We’re committed to reinventing the automobile. We will provide you with an even wider range of efficient automobiles. And if we can depend on a smart and stable set of regulations, the auto industry will be the driver behind a new low-carbon economy.
It’s been almost four decades since the first oil shock, we’re waiting!
Automakers, by their nature, must make plans many years in advance. [EVEN THOUGH THEY CAN’T PLAN BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESOURCE AND GLOBAL COMPETITION FACTS THAT THEY KNOW TODAY] Right now, we have people designing products for 2015. That means that, if environmental standards are to be effective, it is crucial that we have very good collaboration between government and the auto industry. It requires smart regulatory practices, achievable goals, and a national roadmap we can depend upon.
We are in this thing together. It is time to collaborate.
I think I’m getting car sick reading this. The rest of this post is just more propaganda. Might as well stop reading now. It’s all bullshit with howlers sprinkled into it like kernels of corn.
Take emissions standards, for example. We understand the direction of the carbon economy. We embraced 40% higher federal fuel standards in the 2007 energy bill, and we fully expect a decade of rising standards, year by year, starting with the standards for 2011 to be announced in the near future.
We intend to accomplish those standards. In order to do that, we’ve urged the federal government to set emissions standards for multiple years into the future, to give us a predictable set of regulations to plan and design for. In recent years, California and other states have played an important role in setting emissions standards when there was no federal action on the issue. But today, the federal government is acting. Additional uncertainty can only undermine that progress. A single, national standard administered by the federal government is a reliable roadmap and we can move forward rapidly.
We also need to know that the infrastructure will be in place to support the advanced technologies we’re developing. You can’t have a fleet of plug-in hybrids and electric cars without a place to plug them in, or without sufficient energy to power them all.
Patchwork fixes and band-aids are not a good solution to our common problems. Our environmental and economic problems involve our whole country. So do the solutions. An integrated national plan provides a stable foundation for progress.
We’re committed to reinventing the automobile. We will provide you with an even wider range of efficient automobiles. And if we can depend on a smart and stable set of regulations, the auto industry will be the driver behind a new low-carbon economy.
The truth is out. The guy who told the truth was Abu Zubaydah, one of the planners of the 2001 terrorist attacks. One of the most vicious criminals you could ever hope to meet.The guy who lied was the President of the United States.
What we hear about is waterboarding, but that isn't half of it. It isn't even the beginning. Throw out all the allegations of waterboarding, and what U.S. forces did was still torture under any definition, or at least any definition worthy of respect from a civilized people. In other words, any definition except that promulgated by torture apologist John Yoo. The findings come from a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross, and they are damning. You should read the entire article in the New York Review of Books to get a full understanding of what happened, but even what little I have room for here is shocking.
The report details other techniques, used in combination, including constant cold temperatures, loud noises, forced standing (one prisoner was forced to stand by being handcuffed to the ceiling of his cell for an entire month), repeated beatings, sleep deprivation (water was sprayed in their faces whenever they dozed off), prolonged exposure to light or dark, prisoners being repeatedly slammed against the walls of their cells, prisoners being handcuffed to chairs or hospital beds, naked, for weeks on end. It seems endless.
Remember what Bush said. “We do not torture.” He lied.
Remember a few other things. Remember the “ticking time bomb” scenario. We have constantly heard that the euphemistically named enhanced interrogation techniques have protected us against further terrorist attacks. This is almost certainly a lie.
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/12/10/PH2007121002144.jpgOr, on another tack, remember the gloating tone with which the American sources reported that Abu Zubaydah folded immediately after being waterboarded, with the unstated message that he clearly wasn't man enough to take it. Now see the report from John Kiriakou, the CIA officer who tortured him:
We hear claims about bringing the criminals to justice. When those claims are made, they generally refer to Osama bin Laden and his accomplices. Criminals they are, no question about it. Justice, though? When will we see Rice, Ashcroft, Cheney, Kiriakou, and Bush prosecuted?
While many people surely noted the Free Press’ editorial supporting gay marriage (March 15), possibly no one read that opinion with greater interest than I. Of course, thousands of Vermonters care deeply about this issue. But the Free Press’ declaration reversed a 1999 editorial saying Vermont was not ready for same sex marriage. I wrote that editorial — to my enduring shame.
It’s a boon for the cause, I suppose. But I’m less than impressed. It is, frankly, a much easier position to take now than it was then. And if Kiernan sincerely wants to attone – well, let’s just say, that’s a much easier thing to do to a large anonymous population than to look real people in the eye – and there are two real people conspicuously left out of his act of contrition.
Old Free Press pieces are impossible to find online, making it easier for Kiernan to gloss over the particulars – but I have a copy of that original editorial right here. And while it does indeed condemn the notion of same-sex marriage it does so first and foremost by crudely, condescendingly, and arrogantly condemning two of the only politicians who were willing to come out in favor of marriage equality at the time – then-Lieutenant Governor Doug Racine and then-House Speaker Michael Obuchowski. Until Kiernan specifically and directly apologizes to these two men, as far as I’m concerned, his confessional is just a little bit too easy.
Check below the fold for the salient excerpts…
At the time, of course, Racine-bashing was a routine thing in the Free Press editorial page. The paper loathed Racine like nobody else except for Bernie Sanders. To all of us working for the Democratic Party at the time, it was… weird. And the right leaning paper was, of course, no fan of Speaker Obie’s either.
Kiernan didn’t need to malign the two in order to make his point, but he chose to predicate the entire piece on his disdain for them. I’d love to post the whole thing, but fair use restrictions limit me to excerpts. Here, then, are some of Kiernan’s words from his editorial entitled “Gay ‘I dos’ fraught with legal, cultural dont’s”:
One of the most dangerous things a politician can do is speak about a huge and controversial subject without weighing the consequences first. Yet that is precisely what Lt. Gov. Douglas Racine and House Speaker Michael Obuchowski did last week on the issue of same-sex marriage.
In response to a mailing by a Hawaiian advocacy group opposed to same-sex marriage, both men declared their support of granting homosexual couples marital status identical to heterosexual couples. That was a serious mistake.
There are legal obstacles to same-sex marriage that are far from simple. There are cultural concerns profound enough to to make any responsible politician treat this issue with greater care than the two Democrats showed…
With all due respect to people on both sides of the issue, there are clear reasons why the definition of marriage should not be changed. They are legal and cultural…
…there is a voluminous legal precedent for legislatures to treat classes of people differently – so long as they have a reason for doing it, and the issue in question is not a fundamental right of democracy (such as the right to vote)… That’s why leaders such as Gov. Howard Dean and Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin have shown discretion, and respect for the seperation of powers of government, by keeping their views on this issue private…
Homosexual couples do not have the same legal rights as heterosexuals in many situations… Repairing these inequities does not require redefining marriage. Racine and Obuchowski have not sponsored legislation to remedy any of them. They might score political points by supporting same-sex marriage, therefore, but they do not address the actual fairness issues…
…Good Vermonters stand on both sides of the schism on this issue. However, they can agree on what the law allows and doesn’t allow….They can agree that making such a fundamental change in one of society’s most sacred institutions – in the absence of that consesnsus – is inviting warfare within Vermont’s borders and unprecedented assault from without.
If Stephen Kiernan really wants to, as he says “look back at (his) conduct with a clear conscience,” he’ll swallow his pride and do the mature thing: apologize to Racine and Obuchowski for maligning them – directly and publicly.
Loading ...