Poppy and Cloudy Sky
Photo by smcgee.
Category: Society Page 65 of 69
Let’s start with this:
[A] tossup: approval of a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to a man and a woman.
Support is down to 49 percent from 52 percent last month. With 45 percent now opposed, up from 42 percent last month, the measure – already adopted by 20 states – could go either way because the voter split is within the poll’s variable for error. Six percent are undecided.
Read that again. Shocking as it is, there is still a hope that Virginia can defeat the hateful bit of political deception that is Question #1 on the Virginia ballot. Its supporters claim that it amends Virginia’s constitution to reflect current law (gay marriage has been in illegal in Virginia to 30 years – when it comes to bigotry, most states got nothing on Virginia . . .), but it goes far beyond that. Here’s the text of the full amendment:
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
If this amendment passes, it doesn’t merely throw another (significant) roadblock into eventually (as WILL happen) undoing the statutory ignorance that currently prohibits same-sex marriage, it goes much *much* further. How far? Take a look at what the Virginia Legal Review Committee has to say about it:
the [proposed Virginia] Amendment could be interpreted by Virginia courts to have the following effects:
• Invalidate rights and protections currently provided to unmarried couples under Virginia’s domestic violence laws;
• Undermine private employers’ efforts to attract top employees to Virginia by providing employee benefits to domestic partners, as the courts and public medical facilities may not be permitted to recognize those benefits; and
• Prevent the court’s from enforcing —
— private agreements between unmarried couples,
— child custody and visitation rights, and
— end-of-life arrangements, such as wills, trusts and advance medical directives, executed by unmarried couples.
Need some proof? Read the 70 page legal memorandum. Who’s the Virginia Legal Review Committee? Here’s a list of the over 200 Virginia lawyers, legal scholars, and constitutional officers that are members. Yes, that’s me on the list. And a number of excellent lawyers that I personally vouch for. Not enough? Then realize these names are on the list:
Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine, First Lady Anne Holton, and former Republican Governor Linwood Holton;
Former Attorneys General Stephen D. Rosenthal and Anthony F. Troy and former Republican candidate for Attorney General Wyatt B. Durette.
Also included are former Virginia Secretary of Education during the Wilder Administration, The Honorable James W. Dyke and former Virginia Secretary of Commerce and Trade, The Honorable Michael J. Schewel.
They might know something about Virginia law.
~
It’s hard for me to write well about this. I don’t believe that this is a matter on which reasonable people can disagree, and I’m not interesting in pretending than anything other than naked bigotry and partisan manipulation lays behind this amendment. So it’s extraordinarily hard to stay civil on this. And, in fact, I don’t really think one ought to stay civil. One of the bigger problems facing the America today is its unwillingness to laugh at and ridicule the racism, bigotry, and ignorance that seems to be driving so much of the political efforts. You might say that that someone voting yes on Question #1 is simply following his religious beliefs, and ought to be respected. I say he’s an ignorant bigot, who ought to be ridiculed in the public square.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I’ve really needed to stay quiet on this issue in the past month. Please help me not regret that – please *respect my basic dignity as a human being* – by voting NO on ballot question #1. Thank you. Sincerely.
Whatever the outcome next Tuesday, our basic political system is broken. Putting aside the fact that most jurisdictions are embracing voting systems that no one should trust, the twin powers of incumbency and redistricting have been manipulated and exploited to such an extent that even now, when there are approximately three people in the entire country who approve of the job that Congress is doing, 90 something percent of them will keep their seats.
TPM Reader DK notes:
Not to rain on the parade but all the talk of dramatic Democratic gains in the House has a tendency to downplay a serious underlying structural problem. Even under the rosiest scenarios, the Democrats only pick up somewhere around 50 seats. Realistically, it looks like 25-35 pickups. The House was designed to be the national political institution most politically responsive to the people. I would venture to say that given the massive train wreck that the GOP has created in public affairs, the founders would be stunned to see so few seats change hands. If these are the kinds of political conditions it takes to move 50 House seats, then we’re in trouble.
So what will be done about it? Well, nothing. No one seems to really care. Perhaps it’s because people are too risk averse – they want to desperately (through their parties) hold on to whatever political power they have, and aren’t willing to risk the loss of some seats in the next cycle, no matter what the future benefits might be. Or perhaps it’s the structural gridlock that’s in place – Democratic California has no incentive to fairly redistrict unless Republican Texas does the same, and there are no national leaders willing to push the matter forward. Representative democracy is nice, and all, but only when it results in more votes for your party, is apparently the thinking.
Or maybe it’s just because we, as a society, don’t give a damn about democracy anymore. We have become a country where the foot of one half is on the neck of the other, which itself is just about ready to break that foot. There is no national conversation, there are no reasonable differences over policy. It’s just another war, where one side has all but declared the other at one with those who would like to see America destroyed. It’s not democracy – it’s a raw power struggle, designed solely to reward those who win that power – fuck the rest.
DK reminds us where the fault ultimately lays:
I hope that when the political history of the last half century is written it will show, as it should, that the Republicans engaged in a brand of divisive electoral politics that pitted Americans against each other: white against black, men against women, rich against poor, native born against immigrant, straight against gay. Republicans deserve to be tarred by history for exploiting our weaknesses, our prejudices, and our lesser selves for their own political gain. But those are still our weaknesses and our prejudices. We own them. And it is our lesser selves that have succumbed to the Republican political pitch and been willing to be exploited. Removing the Republicans from power will only be a temporary fix unless we fundamentally fix ourselves so that no one, no party, no movement can exploit those same weaknesses again.
Amen.
Virginia’s Constitution is really a work to behold. Its priorities are evident from the moment you start reading it – the first article is entitled Bill of Rights, and the very first section reads:
“That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
That was written 230 years ago, before the colonies had even declared independence, nevermind adopted the U.S. Constitution. Its ideas – of liberty, independence, and equality – served as a model for many. And now those ideas are under direct attack in Virginia.
Vivian Page brings us the highlights the Virginian Pilots’ editorial against the proposed amendment that Virginia voters will be facing on November 7th:
Parse them anyway you like, but those 87 words [of the amendment] seek no less than to undo what Mason wrought in Virginia’s first days, sentiments that have stood the test of 230 years.
[…]
The mere possibility that such gracelessness might find its way into Virginia’s high-minded Bill of Rights – among protections for religious liberties, assembly and free elections – is insult enough to the commonwealth’s founding sentiments.
But the marriage amendment’s intent – to deprive unmarried people of basic legal rights otherwise guaranteed by Virginia’s constitution and by common law – makes a mockery of Mason’s hope of protecting the inherent rights of all men to be equally free and independent.
The whole editorial is here. This amendment is an abomination. Vote No, Virginia.
So I’m a big Joss Whedon fan. Since, say, the second episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Go ahead, laugh – it’s your loss. Whedon’s creative talents have just kept getting better and better, earning himself an incredibly devoted fan base. One so devoted that he credits them with being a significant part of the reason he was able to make Serenity, a movie based on the abruptly canceled Firefly television series. Serenity’s storyline revolved around a group of exiles working against the authorities to make sure that a truth isn’t buried. That storyline is woven around a central message – the truth is a signal that can’t be stopped.
Unlike many (most?) successful director/writers, Whedon has a very positive and active relationship with his fans. And that relationship worked to great benefit for both him and his fans when it came to Serenity. For his part, Whedon kept fans up to date during production, dropped lots of hints without spoiling the story, and invited an enormous number of fans to screenings of the movie while it was still in post-production. What did the fans offer in return? An amazing amount of time and energy devoted to promoting the movie. Not just word-of-mouth “oh, yeah, go see that, it’s good”, but an extraordinary effort by people who simply wanted others to share in wonderful storytelling. People gathered up friends for the screenings, they talked it up in local media, and produced some incredibly well done derivative promotional materials.
Like what? Well, I can tell you – posters, bags, clothing. Some of it was simple, and some of it was amazing. But I can’t show you. Why not? These devoted fans have been shut down. Over a year after Serenity’s successful release, Universal’s lawyers have come to town, and not only want these fans to quit supporting the movie, they want money. In at least one case, the opening demand appears to be $9000. Nice, eh?
Yes, in return for all that devotion, all that hard work, all that energy – Universal is billing fans. They could have simply come out and said “Okay, folks, we know that we’ve traditionally turned a blind eye to this, but we have companies paying us for exclusive rights, and you need to stop now. We know that Joss has even encouraged you to make these things, but it’s not his decision. It’s ours. Thanks for your help, and we know you’ll understand.” No, instead my brethren at the bar embarrass me (yet again) by opening up with nasty demand letters and intimidation tactics. Aimed big guns at people who would have stopped with a simple request. A favorite tactic of the industry, sadly.
But I doubt they’ve ever been on the receiving end of an invoice in response. That’s right, fans have retroactively invoiced Universal for their marketing and promotional services. Can’t stop the signal.
Josh Marshall is usually one of the more circumspect of the influential bloggers on the left. In discussing the latest Republican attack ads, though, he lets go – and catches it perfectly:
Again, let’s be honest with ourselves. Racism is one of the key building blocks of Republican politics in the United States. Don’t look at me with a straight face and tell me you don’t realize that’s true. That doesn’t mean that all Republicans are racists. Far from it. It doesn’t mean that a lot of Republicans don’t wish the stain wasn’t part of their party’s recent political heritage. They do. But racism and race-baiting is the hold card Republicans take into every election. When times are good, guys like Mehlman ‘reach out’ to blacks and Latinos to try to take the edge off their opposition to the Republican officeholders. But when things get rough the card gets played. And pretty much every time.
This isn’t surprising. It’s expected.
[ . . . ]
The point is that as vile as this race-hucksterism is, for my part I welcome the opportunity that Republican desperation provides, to show these guys for who they really are. Scratch the surface of ‘outreach’ Mehlman and he’s a Southern strategy man after all. So, fine, bring it on. Cut away the veil and the mask. Let everyone come out from under their rock and be who they really are.
Let them lose their majorities and their souls.
The whole thing is here.
Yesterday, CNBC reported that Clear Channel (the largest radio station group in the US) has been in discussions with a number of private equity firms. Presently, Clear Channel is a publicly traded company, with the Mays family as the largest shareholder. The aim, it is reported, is to get the private equity firms to work with the Mays family to fund a buy-out – which would take Clear Channel private.
Why would that matter to you and me? Well, as much as it seems that Clear Channel is free to do as it likes now with the massive megaphone that is 1200 radio stations (in the US alone), as a private firm, it would have even less of a responsibility to the public for its actions and programming decisions. As a private firm, not accountable to public shareholders or the worries of quarterly earnings, it could afford to take the hit associated with, say, broadcasting stronger political viewpoints . . .
To be clear – there’s nothing inherently nefarious in taking it private (and considering the stock performance, it’s understandable), but should Clear Channel get more interested in being nefarious, being private will make it a whole lot easier. The FCC will have to approve any such transaction, and given all the friends that Clear Channel has made over the years, it sure could be an interesting docket . . .