Political Machine

Gay Marriage Gaining Momentum

David Knowles — 2008-05-29T09:12:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Featured Stories, Gay Rights, Ballot Measures

Two major developments in New York and California have thrust the issue of same-sex marriage back into the political spotlight. First, California's Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on gay marriage, saying it violated the California Constitution. Second, yesterday, New York's governor directed all of his state's agencies to begin recognizing same-sex marriages performed in places, like California, where the practice is legal.

While California's court decision will be tested in November with a ballot initiative to amend the state's constitution so as to outlaw gay marriage, new polls indicate that the public may have turned the page on the issue and be ready to afford gays and lesbians the legal rights of state sanctioned matrimony. Indeed, California's R.I.N.O. Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger supports the court ruling and opposes any initiative to alter the constitution to exclude gays from getting married.

So does this action from two of our nation's three most populous states signal and end to the culture war, or have these blue states played right into the hands of their red state counterparts?

From CBS News:

The California gay marriage debate illustrates important national trends for Democrats. Growing numbers of Americans favor gay rights, including some form of partnership recognition for gay couples, especially when framed as economic and legal rights. This is particularly true of young voters; in California 55 percent of voters under 30 support gay marriage, and nationwide 63 percent of voters under 40 support civil unions or domestic partnerships. But this trend also holds true for voters of all ages; a 2007 Field poll reported that Californians young and old were four times more likely to say that they are becoming more accepting of gay relationships than less accepting. Moreover, when the symbolic weight of marriage is removed from the equation, support for gay rights becomes overwhelming. Nationwide, a whopping 89 percent of voters favor protecting gays and lesbians from employment discrimination.

Clearly, when it comes to gay rights, the country is becoming more liberal, and one big reason is Ellen Degeneres. Her wildly popular daytime talk show has helped introduce gay culture to much of the country. In just the past two weeks, she has confronted John McCain on the subject of gay marriage:

And then she received an offer from the president's daughter to hold her lesbian wedding at the Crawford ranch:

It's true that the GOP will try to use footage of the thousands of marriage ceremonies set to commence on June 14 in California as tools to try and get elected in sections of the country where people still revile the notion. But as a wedge issue to help Republicans, its potential is entirely short-term. Ten or fifteen years from now we'll look back and wonder what the big deal was. Gay marriage will no longer be a hot-button political issue, and we'll be a better country because of it.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Citizenship Proof Next Up in Voter ID Battle

Mark Impomeni — 2008-05-12T19:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, 2008 President, Ballot Measures

In the wake of the Supreme Court's approval of an Indiana law requiring voters to present a state-issued photo identification card at the polls, voting security activists are seeking to take the argument over voter ID one step further, just in time for the presidential election. Missouri lawmakers plan to vote on an amendment to the state constitution that would require voters to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote. The amendment would tighten the proofs required for registration in the state. The Missouri Constitution already requires that voters be citizens, but currently, Missourians can show a utility bill as proof of residency and are not required to provide a birth certificate to register to vote.

Nineteen other states are also considering similar measures, but only Missouri's stands to have an impact on the November elections. The amendment, if passed by the legislature, could go before the voters for ratification on the August primary election ballot in the state. If passed into law, it would be in effect for the presidential and congressional elections in the fall. Supporters of the bill say that it is necessary to prevent illegal aliens from voting while detractors say that the bill would do more harm than good by disenfranchising poor and elderly voters. Those arguments were made against the Indiana law at the Supreme Court and were soundly rejected.

Arizona already requires proof of citizenship for registration and its impact on the electorate are under debate. Michael Slater, of Project Vote, said that the law is hindering his group's voter registration efforts. "The requirement is having a devastating effect on our voter registration work in Latino communities because so many citizens simply don't have a passport or original birth certificate," he said. But Thomas Hearne, a Missouri lawyer and supporter of the proposed Missouri law was not swayed.

"To those who have spent great energy opposing some of the voter registration or voter identification requirements, I would say their energy would be much better spent working toward trying to provide identifications to those who need them or assisting these people with getting registered."

The debate over voter identification is sure to intensify as voting rights advocates fight to keep burdens on voters low and vote security advocates try to increase measures designed to protect the integrity of the vote. In general terms, Democrats line up on the voting rights side, while Republicans tend to side with the security arguments. Missouri is a bellwether state in Presidential elections, voting for the eventual winner in every election, with only one exception, since 1904. That statistic could cause the presidential candidates to weigh in on the Missouri amendment debate, seeking to curry favor with the state's notoriously prescient presidential voters.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Mitt Romney's Big Secret

Mo Rocca — 2008-01-02T15:59:00+00:00

Filed under: Mitt Romney, 2008 President, Viral Video, Ballot Measures

Is America ready to watch a President Barack Hussein Obama sworn in? What about a President Mike Huckabee?

What's in a name? Apparently a lot when it comes to electing an American president. Just ask "Mitt" Romney...

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Within the Walls of the American Home

Justin Paulette — 2007-12-18T12:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Religion, Ballot Measures

AOL News is fronting a USA Today article which questions the prominence of "family values" as a campaign issue. Moral or family value issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, have been a rallying call for conservative voters and a staple of the Republican platform and electoral strategy for the past 30 years.

However, while Mitt Romney (see here) and Mike Huckabee (see here) have focused their campaigns upon such moral issues, other GOP candidates have, as of yet, spent their energies elsewhere (the war on terror and the economy, for example).

The authors of the USA Today article speculate that the reason for the conspicuous silence might be that many of the GOP hopefuls do not exemplify traditional family values in their personal lives.

Several of the candidates have been divorced (several times), and one would not need to dig too deeply to uncover various sins of the flesh which would open the preaching GOP contender to attacks of hypocrisy. And the Democratic slate, while less likely to adopt such a platform on a policy basis, hardly proves a more wholesome picture of Rockefeller-esque American values.

Unlike the British electorate, which consumes itself with trifling matters of rubbish removal taxes and highway tolls while leaving moral decisions to their betters in Parliament, the American voter continues to view moral values as within their scope of competence and subject to their enlightened discretion. This is probably due to the more conservative nature of the American population. Liberalism tends to speak in term which appear to eschew claims of moral authority, rather preferring to cloak moral opinions in terms of political or civil rights. Conservatives, however, are far more comfortable confessing that their opinion on any given matter stems from their moral conscience and religious conviction.

However, the term "family values" is somewhat undefined. Terrorism is certainly a moral issue to many, for at its most fundamental level, terrorism is murder and degrades human dignity. On the other hand, personal security and self-interest will always weigh on a voter's mind. The economy may have a moral context in the need to provide for those less fortunate - but it also encompasses ones own well-being.

I do not think the era of family values has passed, and woe to the candidate who misinterprets the times. The American fabric has not changed so drastically that the driving issues of the past decades have fallen from memory. Other issues may have presented themselves as top-tier concerns, but moral concerns have a strong tendency to resurface in the final moments of the decision-making process. Romney and Huckabee's early securing of this high-ground may serve them well in the future.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Did Cali Ban Mommy and Daddy?

Tommy Christopher — 2007-11-26T17:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Religion, Gay Rights, Ballot Measures

I was talking to my Mom the other day about The Political Machine, and she asked if I could look into something she'd heard about in an e-mail from a friend. The friend had sent her this link, to a comment on a forum. She was convinced that teachers in California were now forever forbidden to utter the words "mother" or "father, or any permutation thereof. I immediately said, "Mom, don't believe stuff you read in e-mails. I'm sure it's just a twisting of some new law, to scare people." I promised to check it out.

Turns out it's all true, according to this breathless account by World Net Daily. Check out the text of the law in question, SB 777. It's all right there...written in secret gay code, I guess...let's see if "Fox News" can clear this up for us. While the debate there may have seemed "fair and balanced", note the banner headline throughout the story, and note how the Fox anchor tries to pin down the pro-SB 777 guest on the textbook issue. Even so, not bad for Fox.

I think this is the offending section:

"SEC. 32. Section 60044 of the Education Code is amended to read: 60044. No instructional materials shall be adopted by anygoverning board for use in the schools that, in its determination,contains: (a) Any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.

Section 220 of the Education Code is amended to read:
220. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis
of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion,
sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in
the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the
Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational
institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial
assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid."

Now, if this law was to be implemented perfectly, the most it could mean to textbooks would be the inclusion of things that aren't there now. I don't see the leap in logic to banning words like "Mom" and "Dad". A textbook company might try to think up some kind of neutral catchall to save money, but hey, let the invisible hand of the market guide that choice.

As far as promoting sexual lifestyles in the schools, I don't remember a whole lot of Mom or Dad, or even sex, in the curriculum. Wasn't it pretty much some microscope slides and that gross "visible human" diagram, followed by a list of diseases and accompanying sores? If that's "promotion", the best thing the fundies could hope for would be an expansion of that. There have been a lot of things in my life that have made me want to have sex, but the school curriculum definitely was not one of them.

There are some legitimate concerns here for certain religious people, no doubt, but there are lots of things that get taught in school that you have to unteach your kids when they get home. That's why they're called "personal beliefs." The inclusion of a "non-nuclear" family in a textbook might require some explanation to your child, but I'm sure you're up to it.

The main idea behind this law is that children don't need to be made to feel like freaks. I think that is the standard that courts will apply when deciding on challenges to this law. Don't you think that's reasonable?

This is another great example of people, who beat us over the head with pragmatism 98% of the time to deny funding for things that aren't war, resorting suddenly to the freest of abstract thought when it suits their needs. It's kind of funny, except that it upset my Mom. She likes it when I call her that.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Utah Vouchers Go Down in Flames

Dave — 2007-11-07T07:10:00+00:00

Filed under: Education, Elections 2007, Ballot Measures

Voucher Proponents must face reality. School vouchers are not selling to the American public. The latest example is Utah, the reddest of red states, where a comprehensive, although limited voucher program went down by 2-1. I'm in general support of the concept. In the university system, which has a mix of public and private institutions, has broad public support and government underwrites much of the tuition at both. I see no reason why the same could not be true at lower educational levels.The problem is getting it done. So far the only headway vouchers have made is in true hellholes like Cleveland or Milwaukee or even Washington DC, where very limited programs are targeted at removing students from the worst school systems. Utah was a much more aggressive program designed to attract more popular support. it would have made available from $750 - $3000 to anyone who applied. But therein lies the problem.

The hard cap of $3000 would not cover anyone but the poorest section of parents and would help nowhere but religiously subsidized schools. But more than that would blow the budget unless you start taking it directly out of the school system budget. Any less than that, and you start losing even more popular support. It's a catch 22.

And then there's accountability:

Knocks against vouchers were that they helped too narrow a section of the public and that the bill didn't provide enough accountability. Proponents said it would help minorities and the poor get out of a public school system that was failing them.

Another Catch 22. Start requiring more accountability and you will lose support faster among those who were originally pro-voucher. Accountability to them means "more government control".

I think it's time to admit defeat and retool. For those who want to reform the school system and help parents who wish to get their kids the best education available, maybe tax credits are more of an answer. A state led credit against taxes for educational expenses should be more acceptable and with less worries about accountability and government funding for religious schools.

That's just off the top of my head, there may be other ideas to better redirect the time and effort of the public school reformers. But Utah shows the current voucher effort has serious flaws toward getting any kind of public support.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments