One endearing quality of Maine folk is their candor. In the Portland Press-Herald, for example, coverage of yesterday's announcement of a bill enabling same-sex marriage had the opposition talking strategy.
I'm predicting more than one go before this passes. A couple of anti-marriage equality types are planning their ballot appeal assuming it eventually will. I confess this is more civilized when all the cards are on the table.
The former Christian Civic League of Maine, now one of the scullery maids for Focus on the Family, and short on funds, wants an automatic rollover into a plebiscite. The Maine Family Policy Council's executive director, Mike Heath, said he wants the bill to include a provision of an public vote after the legislative approval. That's a kind of double jeopardy befitting the trials of Hercules, but he adds, ""If there is no referendum provision attached, I fully expect that won't be the end of it. I'm not prepared at this point to say what would happen, but we've more than once proven we can get the issue to the ballot if we need to."
The no-longer-CCL site doesn't comment yet. More than maple sap runs slowly in Maine. Yet, we should note that they have a long history of huffing and puffing, getting regressive measures on the ballot, and after much evil saying and waste of effort and money, losing in the end anyway. It had been a fair fund-raising system for a long time. After the last loss on gay-rights though, their fortunes have diminished considerably.
Just as candid, but stated in an unintentionally self-parody, the head of the Maine Marriage Alliance, Rev. Bob Emrich demands kneeling instead of healing. His group has proposed an unworkable DOMA-style amendment that would seem to void the state's domestic partnerships in their heavy-booted effort to prevent SSM there.
The Portland paper quotes him as hoping for a respectful debate on the SSM bill. Then he proceeds to say it is "really bad for society. It's changing the very foundation of our society. It's going to have a major impact on children. It says something about the importance, or lack of importance, of fathers and mothers."
There you are. He has your respect right there and is certainly open to fair debate, eh?
He likely has no awareness how absurd his statements and extreme positions are. Yet, he likely reflects one side of what we'll see and hear in the next few months or longer. No doubt the CCLers and Emrich's bunch are still smarting from getting anti-discrimination wording in housing and employment regulations.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, CCL, Maine Marriage Alliance, Maine
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Chuck Turner Coasts for a Bit
Boston City Council's new president, Michael Ross, turned down the flame on Chuck Turner today. He stopped the independent investigation the council started, citing the cost and a recent motion by prosecutors in the case.
The previous president, Maureen Feeney, had started the investigation. The council had no mechanism in place to deal with a member under indictment but not convicted of a crime. Turner likened this, in his kindest phrasing, as a trial and witch hunt, instead of an inquiry into process and possibility.
Feeney had also stripped Turner of his committee chairmanship. Ross said he'd continue that suspension, but allow Turner to keep participating in council and committee business otherwise.
Striking fear into the hearts of evil doers, Going all spongy, Ross also said he would introduce a new rule. When a councilor receives a felony conviction, the council would then vote on whether the councilor was still fit to serve. So, only the worst felons may be expelled, eh, Mikey?
Tags: massmarrier, Boston, Chuck Turner, Michael Ross, Maureen Feeney, corruption, City Council
The previous president, Maureen Feeney, had started the investigation. The council had no mechanism in place to deal with a member under indictment but not convicted of a crime. Turner likened this, in his kindest phrasing, as a trial and witch hunt, instead of an inquiry into process and possibility.
Feeney had also stripped Turner of his committee chairmanship. Ross said he'd continue that suspension, but allow Turner to keep participating in council and committee business otherwise.
Tags: massmarrier, Boston, Chuck Turner, Michael Ross, Maureen Feeney, corruption, City Council
Marry in Maine, Too?
The moment the Maine meanies dreaded was today. A state senator has introduced a same-sex marriage bill.
The reactionaries are not losing a step though. Over in the house, there's a move afoot (maybe stuck to the bottom of the shoe) to turn the state's current definition of marriage as between a man and a woman to a DOMA-style constitutional amendment.
It looks like Augusta will be plenty warm for the rest of the winter.
Sen. Dennis Damon (D-Hancock) sponsored An Act to Prevent Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom. Who could argue with such a noble bill, you ask? Well, for one, that would be Rep. Josh Tardy, house Republican leader.
Maine has domestic partnerships and finally passed a gay-rights bill (defeating efforts to reverse it at the ballot). In addition, Gov. John Baldacci is open to the SSM idea. However, he's not driving the bill. As he put it, "Unfortunately, there is no question that gay and lesbian people and their families still face discrimination...I’m not prepared to say I support gay marriage today, but I will consider what I hear as the Legislature works to find the best way to address discrimination."
Maine has indeed covered a lot of ground is a short time.
P.M. Update: Turn Maine Blue has both the text of the bill and comments from principals here. I would note that this follows the Massachusetts model in that marriage remains a civil contract and any couple entitled to a license can marry. The change, of course, is the gender neutrality, as in equal rights by gender. Good on 'em.
Back to speculation, I bet that neither measure goes very far. Tardy is just pandering to the wingers. That amendment process can't go forward until the next general election — 2010 at the earliest, assuming that his amendment proposal that flies in the face of current equal-rights law and regulations passes by two-thirds or better simultaneously in both houses. As for Damon's alignment of marriage procedure with equal-rights, the state is still a bit shell shocked over being fair to homosexuals in housing and employment. Moreover the lukewarm neutrality of the government does nothing to spark this little engine.
I think Tardy's will die the death of the rabid animal in the wilderness and that Damon's will take two or three years to get perking. Though in the end, this may be a race between New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Maine for the next marriage equality state in New England.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, Equality Maine, Josh Tardy, Dennis Damon, Maine
The reactionaries are not losing a step though. Over in the house, there's a move afoot (maybe stuck to the bottom of the shoe) to turn the state's current definition of marriage as between a man and a woman to a DOMA-style constitutional amendment.
It looks like Augusta will be plenty warm for the rest of the winter.
Sen. Dennis Damon (D-Hancock) sponsored An Act to Prevent Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom. Who could argue with such a noble bill, you ask? Well, for one, that would be Rep. Josh Tardy, house Republican leader.
Maine has domestic partnerships and finally passed a gay-rights bill (defeating efforts to reverse it at the ballot). In addition, Gov. John Baldacci is open to the SSM idea. However, he's not driving the bill. As he put it, "Unfortunately, there is no question that gay and lesbian people and their families still face discrimination...I’m not prepared to say I support gay marriage today, but I will consider what I hear as the Legislature works to find the best way to address discrimination."
Maine has indeed covered a lot of ground is a short time.
P.M. Update: Turn Maine Blue has both the text of the bill and comments from principals here. I would note that this follows the Massachusetts model in that marriage remains a civil contract and any couple entitled to a license can marry. The change, of course, is the gender neutrality, as in equal rights by gender. Good on 'em.
Back to speculation, I bet that neither measure goes very far. Tardy is just pandering to the wingers. That amendment process can't go forward until the next general election — 2010 at the earliest, assuming that his amendment proposal that flies in the face of current equal-rights law and regulations passes by two-thirds or better simultaneously in both houses. As for Damon's alignment of marriage procedure with equal-rights, the state is still a bit shell shocked over being fair to homosexuals in housing and employment. Moreover the lukewarm neutrality of the government does nothing to spark this little engine.
I think Tardy's will die the death of the rabid animal in the wilderness and that Damon's will take two or three years to get perking. Though in the end, this may be a race between New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Maine for the next marriage equality state in New England.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, Equality Maine, Josh Tardy, Dennis Damon, Maine
Monday, January 12, 2009
Barack Through Deval Filter
Theoretical comparisons of President-elect Barack Obama and President Abraham Lincoln abound. In fact, this has become a cliché so quickly that a few sites like The Root already have backlash posts.
Meanwhile, MSM and blogs nationwide are aware that Obama and our Gov. Deval Patrick are buddies, politically, philosophically and personally. With that comes a series of apt or inept comparisons and contrasts. Below, I'll rerun my view on this from last fall. Those who would be quick to bless our Speaker of the House Salvatore DiMasi or assume good intentions by Congress beware.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Chums Deval Patrick and Barack Obama have so many parallels the similarities are not even worth cataloging. Perhaps the President Elect has had the spare moments to reflect on — and plan on avoiding — Patrick's obstructions.
Locally, the Deval version of a progressive river has trickled instead of swept us along. In addition to their sharing considerable politics and philosophy, Barack can like look to the same sort of roadblocks.
Deval has and Barack will face the same, but differing, what sales types call opportunities.
The Money. The progressive agenda each campaigned on takes cash from all its sources — continuing government income from taxes and elsewhere, enabling legislation, bonds and so forth. Neither chief executive can appropriate funds solo. At best, he'll get what he asks for. At second best, he can use or alter the use of existing appropriations. Otherwise, it's game playing with the legislators to deal.
One key difference here is that Deval entered a game underway in which a primary rule is we won't raise taxes. That has proven wildly imprudent as the General Court, often in concert with the previous Republican governors deferred essential expenses repeatedly. Each time increased the cost and didn't make the need vanish. Now infrastructure improvements and maintenance have become absurdly high as a result.
Barack's version will be turning the great ocean liner of expenses. It has been sailing along since in an unbelievable borrow-and-spend party for eight years. Even when Bill Clinton showed how to balance a budget, the current President has seen no need to and Congress went along. Couple this with the two-front war expenses and cap it with the recent ongoing financial chaos.
Barack has to lead us toward financial stability before anyone will support progressive goals. The exceptions may be the twofers — a New Deal-style investment in jobs that helps the economy at the same time. All but the stupidest of us must have learned that the trickle-down fantasy of giving rich people more money does not create jobs or help the broad economy.
Deval has a bit of an easier set of demands. He can't do anything meaningful for the national or world economies. The closest he can come is fostering high-tech and green companies and industries here that help with energy independence and licensing like the early software and computer industries. On the other hand, he was already in a money pinch before this fall's international and national crises.
The Pols. Deval certainly got the worst gang to rumble with. The General Court is a snake pit with entrenched vipers. Everything he promised and then proposed has been a fight, battles he has lost more often than won.
A complicating factor is that despite a nominal huge Democratic majority, Patrick struggles constantly with the real second party — not Republicans, rather the Democrats in Name Only (DINOs). They are often anti-progressives and socially conservative. They typically represent small cities, suburbs and exurbs. Each of these either opposes progressive goals on principle or wants some bacon to bring home for a vote.
The real roadblock has been with the leadership, particularly the local satrap, a.k.a. Speaker of the House Salvatore DiMasi. He repeatedly held up enabling legislation for progressive programs, programs that could have had financing in place and even been totally in motion before the current money crisis. He has been the worst of those who promise no new taxes, while letting necessary expenses soar.
Barack will need all his Democrats, plus a few Republicans, in each chamber to redirect expenses. Getting us out of Iraq will save many billions, perhaps one or two trillion, mid- to long-term. Yet, he has already made it plain in his debates and speeches that he wants bold strokes as well. He wants Congress to accept deficit spending, but only as investments. Big projects, like FDR-style jobs programs, should put money in workers' pockets and provide paychecks for those presently without. This flows back into the economy. Unlike the fantasy of giving the biggest companies and wealthiest individuals huge tax cuts and subsidies, and then believing they'll create new American jobs and companies, Barack's style of investment has a proven record here and elsewhere.
He and Deval face the same problem and promises they made running for office. Each claims to have a great record of bipartisanship and getting differing sides to work together. So far, Deval really hasn't proven that ability in the harsh Massachusetts political environment. Barack has a similarly demanding set of legislators. However, he also has ground-level pressure from a fearful public and wants and demands action on financials and on his progressive pledges.
Back in Massachusetts, it appears as thought DiMasi may be on his way out soon. A new speaker may play nicer, but again, that will fall to Deval to prove he can work with difficult people here. In Washington, it remains first things first for
Barack.
The Vultures. Many want both Deval and Barack to fail. Even before Deval was in office, conservatives and regressives fairly drooled in predicting failure. Some didn't want change. Some wanted to keep or get power. Some wanted to see the Democrats do no better than the Republicans. A few were just ideologues who wanted anything progressive to tank.
Barack can expect the same as Deval here. They'll sit like tukey vultures in the field, eager for any stumble. They'll conveniently forget how long the previous "management" took to screw things up and go ah-ha! when correction and reversal are not immediate.
This schadenfreude vulture group may actively hinder Barack or some of it may be content to gloat and point fingers. I think Barack will likely be as calm about these characters as Deval has been.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Republicans, Democrats, Deval Patrick, Obama, progressive, Crisis
Meanwhile, MSM and blogs nationwide are aware that Obama and our Gov. Deval Patrick are buddies, politically, philosophically and personally. With that comes a series of apt or inept comparisons and contrasts. Below, I'll rerun my view on this from last fall. Those who would be quick to bless our Speaker of the House Salvatore DiMasi or assume good intentions by Congress beware.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Deval Preview for Barack
Chums Deval Patrick and Barack Obama have so many parallels the similarities are not even worth cataloging. Perhaps the President Elect has had the spare moments to reflect on — and plan on avoiding — Patrick's obstructions.Locally, the Deval version of a progressive river has trickled instead of swept us along. In addition to their sharing considerable politics and philosophy, Barack can like look to the same sort of roadblocks.
Deval has and Barack will face the same, but differing, what sales types call opportunities.
The Money. The progressive agenda each campaigned on takes cash from all its sources — continuing government income from taxes and elsewhere, enabling legislation, bonds and so forth. Neither chief executive can appropriate funds solo. At best, he'll get what he asks for. At second best, he can use or alter the use of existing appropriations. Otherwise, it's game playing with the legislators to deal.
One key difference here is that Deval entered a game underway in which a primary rule is we won't raise taxes. That has proven wildly imprudent as the General Court, often in concert with the previous Republican governors deferred essential expenses repeatedly. Each time increased the cost and didn't make the need vanish. Now infrastructure improvements and maintenance have become absurdly high as a result.
Barack's version will be turning the great ocean liner of expenses. It has been sailing along since in an unbelievable borrow-and-spend party for eight years. Even when Bill Clinton showed how to balance a budget, the current President has seen no need to and Congress went along. Couple this with the two-front war expenses and cap it with the recent ongoing financial chaos.
Barack has to lead us toward financial stability before anyone will support progressive goals. The exceptions may be the twofers — a New Deal-style investment in jobs that helps the economy at the same time. All but the stupidest of us must have learned that the trickle-down fantasy of giving rich people more money does not create jobs or help the broad economy.
Deval has a bit of an easier set of demands. He can't do anything meaningful for the national or world economies. The closest he can come is fostering high-tech and green companies and industries here that help with energy independence and licensing like the early software and computer industries. On the other hand, he was already in a money pinch before this fall's international and national crises.
The Pols. Deval certainly got the worst gang to rumble with. The General Court is a snake pit with entrenched vipers. Everything he promised and then proposed has been a fight, battles he has lost more often than won.
A complicating factor is that despite a nominal huge Democratic majority, Patrick struggles constantly with the real second party — not Republicans, rather the Democrats in Name Only (DINOs). They are often anti-progressives and socially conservative. They typically represent small cities, suburbs and exurbs. Each of these either opposes progressive goals on principle or wants some bacon to bring home for a vote.
The real roadblock has been with the leadership, particularly the local satrap, a.k.a. Speaker of the House Salvatore DiMasi. He repeatedly held up enabling legislation for progressive programs, programs that could have had financing in place and even been totally in motion before the current money crisis. He has been the worst of those who promise no new taxes, while letting necessary expenses soar.
Barack will need all his Democrats, plus a few Republicans, in each chamber to redirect expenses. Getting us out of Iraq will save many billions, perhaps one or two trillion, mid- to long-term. Yet, he has already made it plain in his debates and speeches that he wants bold strokes as well. He wants Congress to accept deficit spending, but only as investments. Big projects, like FDR-style jobs programs, should put money in workers' pockets and provide paychecks for those presently without. This flows back into the economy. Unlike the fantasy of giving the biggest companies and wealthiest individuals huge tax cuts and subsidies, and then believing they'll create new American jobs and companies, Barack's style of investment has a proven record here and elsewhere.
He and Deval face the same problem and promises they made running for office. Each claims to have a great record of bipartisanship and getting differing sides to work together. So far, Deval really hasn't proven that ability in the harsh Massachusetts political environment. Barack has a similarly demanding set of legislators. However, he also has ground-level pressure from a fearful public and wants and demands action on financials and on his progressive pledges.
Back in Massachusetts, it appears as thought DiMasi may be on his way out soon. A new speaker may play nicer, but again, that will fall to Deval to prove he can work with difficult people here. In Washington, it remains first things first for
Barack.The Vultures. Many want both Deval and Barack to fail. Even before Deval was in office, conservatives and regressives fairly drooled in predicting failure. Some didn't want change. Some wanted to keep or get power. Some wanted to see the Democrats do no better than the Republicans. A few were just ideologues who wanted anything progressive to tank.
Barack can expect the same as Deval here. They'll sit like tukey vultures in the field, eager for any stumble. They'll conveniently forget how long the previous "management" took to screw things up and go ah-ha! when correction and reversal are not immediate.
This schadenfreude vulture group may actively hinder Barack or some of it may be content to gloat and point fingers. I think Barack will likely be as calm about these characters as Deval has been.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Republicans, Democrats, Deval Patrick, Obama, progressive, Crisis
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Another Pol Flush with Failure
Ex-U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) belatedly gave it all up today. One day before his deadline to appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, he bugged out.
Pun-Relief Note: I am one of those guilty of toilet jokes related to Craig's 2007 disorderly conduct arrest and his clumsy attempts to avoid anyone finding out. I'll do my best to step back a bit and resist today (except for the evocative illustration and headline).His pathetic posturing of innocence, entrapment and victimization have ensured his own niche in halls of infamy everywhere. Yet, he has done us a favor in helping highlight issues of government and law enforcement, and even journalism.
For today's action, this seems to mean he's headed back to exurban Idaho. He could do well to look to the likes of Jimmy Carter to see how a humble and saintly politician takes retirement, devoting himself to the good of others. He could start with that $4,600 plus defense fund he gathered by October when he pledged he'd fight unceasingly to clear his name.
However, that so far has not been Craig's temperament. He exhibits the arrogance of the long-term privileged, the wheedling dissemblance of a typical attorney, and the behavior of the personally stifled.
What Can We Learn?
I forever ask my sons when something bad happens, particularly if one of us causes it, "What can we learn from this?" Apparently Craig didn't grow up being asked that, which implies in part taking responsibility.He is just one of many politicians who refuse to admit their errors, do what is necessary to prevent it from happening again, and take their lumps. We've had several recently here, a state Senator, a city councilor and the speaker of the House. Each has stonewalled, denied or played various tricks to stay in power and out of jail.
Craig's arrest was on a trivial matter, but it too revealed how the privileged are regularly astonished that anyone might think the laws and rules might apply to them as well. His matter has the further complication of possible sexual unmasking though.
It seems virtually everyone in Idaho and Minnesota is white (97% and 87%). So, Craig didn't get to play the race card, as a couple of our local politicians did. On the other hand, he was quick with the entrapment one, so beloved here.
Not What It Looks Like
I grew up in a simpler America. Honesty was a virtue.In contrast, Craig took cues from the impeachable President Bill Clinton. What can I get by with? Aren't I clever enough to get out of this mess?
The answers for both of them, as it is for many politicians doing this nasty or that, are nothing and no. They could have learned from my mother who told me not to lie — I'd have to remember exactly what I said, be consistent from that point on, and likely get tripped up somewhere. Plus I wouldn't like myself.
In Craig's case, his disorderly conduct was two forms of cruising for sex, according to the arresting officer. He peered into the officer's stall for several minutes, with the fellow in that genitally exposed dishabille on the toilet seat. Then, so the records say, he entered the abutting stall, tapped his foot repeatedly and for a long time in a common gay cruising signal, before running his hand under the stall wall, also repeatedly.
Risibily, Craig contended that there were other ways of viewing his actions than considering them solicitation. No one, including the judges who have heard the evidence, buys that.
Yet this is a teaching opportunity beyond the obvious lesson of the risks of seeking sex in very public places. How meaningful and worthwhile was this sting operation that brought in Craig and 40 others over four months?
There's a good argument that this is a waste of policing for victimless crimes. Another view is that this is primarily directed at gay men, and as such is unfair legally.
On the other hand, the court in Craig's case noted that if there's a place where we have a reasonable expectation of being left alone is on the toilet in a closed stall with our pants and underwear around our ankles. Craig's peering into the stall initially was one egregious violation of that privacy.
Instead Craig and our own politicians under arrest love that innocent-until-proven-guilty chant. They fustigate the media, including bloggers, for covering their cases. Even publishing available evidence and comments in the most obvious failings is somehow un-American. We are to pretend that not found guilty in court and then sentenced means they are above reproach or even accusation. That's not what the law demands of the press, not how humans think, and not reasonable.
Prosecutors have burdens of proof for cases that go to court. Meanwhile, claiming that any mention of their accusations or evidence against them prevents the arrested and indicted from getting a fair shake is absurd. It becomes the job of judges and, where they come into pla,y juries to hear, see and consider evidence.
How refreshing it is on those rare cases when an accused criminal admits blame. As a former newspaper reporter, I recall more than one convicted felon in prison saying, "Yeah, I'm innocent. We're all innocent in here," and laughing.
Who You Callin' Gay?
Word in Boise has long been that Craig is and has always been gay. It's even made Wikipedia, with references to the articles published by the state's largest newspaper, The Idaho Stateman.He would not be the only homosexual man in the state and may not have even suffered politically if he were publicly recognized as such. Yet, it appears as though his decision was to deny the perception, as well as to marry a woman with children. While there is common slang for both those, the bigger point is that when arrested in the Minneapolis airport toilet, he pleaded guilty after thinking about it for a month and paid the fine, hoping that no one would notice.
As awful as sexually based sting operations are, it must be terrible also to feel compelled to plead to a petty crime and accept the fine, all the time just hoping that it remains private even while being on the public record. Certainly if he was comfortable with himself, he instead could have made noise and brought a defense that the entrapment was unfair and illegal.
Simple Virtues
I also grew up, as Craig surely did, on books, movies and TV dramas with Western and crime plots and players. The simple virtues that found public presence so clearly in and after the two world wars could speak as clearly today.Typically in a crime story, the bad guy would say something at the end like, "Okay, copper, you caught me fair and square." He'd put out his wrists for the cuffs and things would be right. Over in Perry Mason, there'd be an almost weekly courtroom confession by the evildoer.
Insidiously, the question has become, "How much justice can your afford?" In autocratic and deferential societies, the aristocrats and wealthy have always fared better under accusation. Now it seems almost like a contest to see what politicians and others can get away with after they are caught in the act.
At the most extreme, it brings to mind Senator Joe McCarthy, who was not accused of crimes himself. Rather, he seemed to live to destroy others in his Red baiting fits. That stopped after U.S. Army attorney Joseph Welch demanded of him in a public hearing, "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Well, I think we can and should expect decency and honor from our politicians.
Tags: massmarrier, toilet, Larry Craig, Idaho, Minneapolis, politicians, honesty
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Ethics Gang Does Pretty Well
A three-quarters ass job by the Governor's Task Force on Public Integrity was far better than I expected. Assuming the 13-member panel (plus Gov. Deval Patrick) can say pretty please enough to get the legislature to pass the resulting ethics reform package, we'll take a pretty big stride. We'll end up not too far behind the civilized and honorable world.
Key to the report is an easy-to-implement set of changes the legislature can make. The TF did not deliver typically spongy generalities that would get lawmakers to harrumph to each other, saying, "We'll study the ramifications and get back with you on what's practical."
Unfortunately, the tone throughout the document is one of peering over the shoulders of other states. Again and again, recommendations such as increasing this or that penalty for ethics violations point to some other state's harsher levels. What the other guys are up to is much less powerful than what is appropriate on its own for Massachusetts and what is right and ethical.
Fools on the Hill
None of the increases in power for the Attorney General, Secretary of State, Ethics Commission and such will happen if the legislators don't act and act fully in compliance with this report. That's the way we do business here and part of what the TF gingerly addresses.
Immediately, Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi said he would be in no hurry to implement the recommended laws. He, as too many other members of the General Court, maintain huge egos. In DiMasi's case, it is the size of a Western state, maybe Wyoming.
Unfortunately, some likely sensible deference to the big shots appears in the TF findings. Most obviously, criticisms and calls for reform largely refer to "employees" of the state. In fact, there are elected, appointed or hired officials and employees who are targets of lobbyists, bribers and such. In reality, legislators are the most powerful and thus the most likely to find ethical temptation in influencing legislation, contracts and other big-money matters.
Above Reproach
Beyond increasing fines and possible (crazy unlikely) jail terms for violations, the report wants power — for the Ethics Commission, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General most of all. This too will likely run afoul of the General Court. Those guys love to make people, cities, and whole offices of government come hat in hand every time they want to do their jobs.
The TF wants the AG to have a statewide grand jury, for example. Presently, the AG can call one only in Suffolk County. (See the reasoning for expansion, starting on page 31.) Also, it wants the AG to be able to bring civil-enforcement procedures for ethics violations.
That was one of many what?! moments from reading the report. If civil fines are the workable and reasonable way to deal with lower-level ethics violations, why hasn't our chief law-enforcer been empowered to do this all along?
Moreover, much has been and will be made of the request to let the AG ask for wiretaps and other recording of transactions, typically of legislators and lobbyists or other favor seekers. I'm not big on bugging, but here the question is one of balance. If getting bribes and other such illegalities on tape is SOP for other law enforcement arms, why hasn't the AG been able to play the same game with the same rules all along?
There are other powers spread around. For example, the TF wants the Ethics Commission to have enough money to operate without begging the legislature for each new expenditure. It wants the Secretary of State to be able to make ethically related rules and regulations too.
These have the right aims, but include two perils:
The promulgation of rules and regulations that act as laws is trickier. At the state and particularly at the federal level, this can create problems. We can end up with satraps off with their own agenda and forces.
Keeping nearly all the power in the hands of the legislators is not workable. It is slow, subject to petty politics, and expensive in many ways. The General Court should create good structures, approve good people and keep their eyes on important business instead of playing big shots.
At the national level, whether it is the old Atomic Engergy Commission or the IRS, agencies and offices with the power to make their own rules need monitoring and sometimes push back. They can be private clubs as much as a legislative chamber can.
And Next
The TF recommendations are not ground shaking and the very self-interested legislators shouldn't flip out. Many of the increases in fines, for example, are relatively trivial and will not deter the greedy and corrupt. A bump from $5,000 to $10,000 for a major violation wouldn't.
If the lawmakers dawdle or balk on these largely common sense refinements, the public, press and governor should scream and point fingers.
The bad guys need to go away. Despite the benighted assertion by the governor and the opening TF statement that "...the existing substantive ethics rules governing the conduct of government employees are generally strong and broad, but substantial improvements are needed in the areas of enforcement, penalties, and education," that's not convincing. There have been nearly no prosecutions and loopholes abound in ethics rules and enforcement. I suspect the TF found it politically expedient to write what was necessary to get its recommendations enacted or enabled.
There's nothing shocking in here, even with the requests for more AG power. If the legislature is savvy as a group, it will say, "We welcome these improvements, blah, blah." If Coakley wants to be seen as a Teddy Roosevelt tough cop deserving of political elevation, she'll champion the findings and get busy catching crooked lawmakers and bureaucrats.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, ethics, task force, attorney general
Restraint Note: I promise not to let my twitching fingers go on too long. I read the TF report and would point the detail minded to the summary and whole thing. Both are available here. In addition, the large document has itemized proposals, legislation and such starting in appendices after page 61. That's right, you only need read 61 and not the whole 107 pages to get it all. The appendices have far more information than the newspapers and blogs have been running.
Frenetic Accomplishment
We should all note that this is a masterwork under incredible pressure. The gang of 13 on the TF (no doubt with many minions doing research, legal and clerical work) analyzed existing laws, regulations and procedures. They compared and contrasted these with federal and other states' versions. Then basically within a month and a half over the holidays, they produced very specific recommendations in each area.Key to the report is an easy-to-implement set of changes the legislature can make. The TF did not deliver typically spongy generalities that would get lawmakers to harrumph to each other, saying, "We'll study the ramifications and get back with you on what's practical."
Unfortunately, the tone throughout the document is one of peering over the shoulders of other states. Again and again, recommendations such as increasing this or that penalty for ethics violations point to some other state's harsher levels. What the other guys are up to is much less powerful than what is appropriate on its own for Massachusetts and what is right and ethical.
Fools on the Hill
None of the increases in power for the Attorney General, Secretary of State, Ethics Commission and such will happen if the legislators don't act and act fully in compliance with this report. That's the way we do business here and part of what the TF gingerly addresses.Immediately, Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi said he would be in no hurry to implement the recommended laws. He, as too many other members of the General Court, maintain huge egos. In DiMasi's case, it is the size of a Western state, maybe Wyoming.
Unfortunately, some likely sensible deference to the big shots appears in the TF findings. Most obviously, criticisms and calls for reform largely refer to "employees" of the state. In fact, there are elected, appointed or hired officials and employees who are targets of lobbyists, bribers and such. In reality, legislators are the most powerful and thus the most likely to find ethical temptation in influencing legislation, contracts and other big-money matters.
Above Reproach
Beyond increasing fines and possible (crazy unlikely) jail terms for violations, the report wants power — for the Ethics Commission, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General most of all. This too will likely run afoul of the General Court. Those guys love to make people, cities, and whole offices of government come hat in hand every time they want to do their jobs.The TF wants the AG to have a statewide grand jury, for example. Presently, the AG can call one only in Suffolk County. (See the reasoning for expansion, starting on page 31.) Also, it wants the AG to be able to bring civil-enforcement procedures for ethics violations.
That was one of many what?! moments from reading the report. If civil fines are the workable and reasonable way to deal with lower-level ethics violations, why hasn't our chief law-enforcer been empowered to do this all along?
Moreover, much has been and will be made of the request to let the AG ask for wiretaps and other recording of transactions, typically of legislators and lobbyists or other favor seekers. I'm not big on bugging, but here the question is one of balance. If getting bribes and other such illegalities on tape is SOP for other law enforcement arms, why hasn't the AG been able to play the same game with the same rules all along?
There are other powers spread around. For example, the TF wants the Ethics Commission to have enough money to operate without begging the legislature for each new expenditure. It wants the Secretary of State to be able to make ethically related rules and regulations too.
These have the right aims, but include two perils:
- The assumption that the AG and SoS are honorable and will actively monitor and punish friends, peers and the powerful equally and equitably.
- The autonomous, new authority to make what are in effect laws will not be abused. Trust 'em.
The promulgation of rules and regulations that act as laws is trickier. At the state and particularly at the federal level, this can create problems. We can end up with satraps off with their own agenda and forces.
Keeping nearly all the power in the hands of the legislators is not workable. It is slow, subject to petty politics, and expensive in many ways. The General Court should create good structures, approve good people and keep their eyes on important business instead of playing big shots.
At the national level, whether it is the old Atomic Engergy Commission or the IRS, agencies and offices with the power to make their own rules need monitoring and sometimes push back. They can be private clubs as much as a legislative chamber can.
And Next
The TF recommendations are not ground shaking and the very self-interested legislators shouldn't flip out. Many of the increases in fines, for example, are relatively trivial and will not deter the greedy and corrupt. A bump from $5,000 to $10,000 for a major violation wouldn't.If the lawmakers dawdle or balk on these largely common sense refinements, the public, press and governor should scream and point fingers.
The bad guys need to go away. Despite the benighted assertion by the governor and the opening TF statement that "...the existing substantive ethics rules governing the conduct of government employees are generally strong and broad, but substantial improvements are needed in the areas of enforcement, penalties, and education," that's not convincing. There have been nearly no prosecutions and loopholes abound in ethics rules and enforcement. I suspect the TF found it politically expedient to write what was necessary to get its recommendations enacted or enabled.
There's nothing shocking in here, even with the requests for more AG power. If the legislature is savvy as a group, it will say, "We welcome these improvements, blah, blah." If Coakley wants to be seen as a Teddy Roosevelt tough cop deserving of political elevation, she'll champion the findings and get busy catching crooked lawmakers and bureaucrats.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, ethics, task force, attorney general
Monday, January 05, 2009
In the Works for SSM
Even the huge marriage-equality fight in California is not over. In Massachusetts and elsewhere, we'll need lots of eyes in 2009 and 2010 to keep track of skirmishes and trends.
After taking a fair year-end break, I am looking for:
- Resolution in California in the next couple of months
- Likelihood of a couple of breakthroughs in Eastern states this year
- Positive entrenchment in Massachusetts and Connecticut
- New SSM champions emerging in Massachusetts
- Slow, steady advances in the rest of New England
Golden State Warfare
Proposition 8, halting legalized SSM in California is far from settled. The good guys, including AG Jerry Brown want the state's high court to invalidate the vote. The other side wants to make sure it strips homosexual couples of existing rights by rescinding over 18,000 marriages there.The request by Brown to the state Supreme Court, plus several other suits will keep this boiling and roiling for several months. Leaving no doubt that their aim was punitive against GLBT couples, Prop 8 supporters are demanding that those thousands of legal marriages be nullified. Brown and separately the legislature as a group want full equality. TBD
New Battlefronts
We could easily see legalized SSM in New Jersey, New York and maybe even conversion of civil unions to full marriage in New Hampshire and Vermont this year. Rhode Island could go at the end with a change in their statehouse.A few other states scattered about might have high-court decisions mandating equality — sure to bring screaming, court fights and maybe rushed, revised legislation. Here, the fights were foreshadowed years ago, with the nation and individual states more firmly favoring equal rights, including for homosexuals, highlighting the conflict with anti-gay/anti-SSM legislation and amendments. These fights could go for decades.
Even very low-key Maine looks at a pro-equality legislature, gay-rights victories, and open organizing toward SSM. With safe SSM in Massachusetts and Connecticut, a solid marriage-quality New England, plus New York and New Jersey, is a very real possibility within a couple or three years.
Bay State Tumbling
A couple of Massachusetts lefty pols did manage to find disgrace last year. One's gone and the other is not long for any influence or position. Yet, the replacement for the pro-equality state senator looks at least as strong for GLBT and related rights. It may take her (Sonia Chang-Díaz) awhile to be as influential in the African-American community, but she is tenacious and a strong civil-rights advocate.We can use more people to stand up and speak out. Despite the overworked cliché of an ultra-liberal Massachusetts, we saw the danger of that in similarly stereotyped California — laissez-faire and liberal, anyone? Both states have plenty of wingers and other conservative extremists of narrow aims.
Here in Massachusetts, the chief anti-equality and anti-gay groups lost considerable influence politically and financially. After a long series of defeats in the courts, legislature and ballot initiatives, they have a hard time getting crowds, volunteers or donors. Moreover, they smell of losing and are largely abandoned by national groups that see better pickings elsewhere.
They won't go away, even in their diminished forms. They'll continue to lie and try, but will be easier to defeat in any given effort. They are best at wasting everyone's time, money, intellect and emotion.
The Prop 8 vote was a bitter surprise. It illustrates all too clearly how even good struggles are not necessarily linear. Yet, the direction remains positive, nibbling away at the ambivalent states and even the DOMA ones.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, California, New England
Monday, December 29, 2008
Craig's Celebrity in Crapper
Alas, U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) has run out of his 15 flushes of fame. While even Jesus' maybe image in food products, clothing and architectural features gets a shrine, the monument to the formerly famous toe-tapper is monumental no more.According to the Spokane Spokesman-Review, interest dwindles in his airport arrest site. Toilet tourists are so 2007. People no longer seek out the stall where the pol polled police.
The two flashes for the flusher seem to have been a skit on the Daily Show and a bid of $5,000 for the stall. The humorless Minneapolis bureaucrats didn't allow Jon Stewart's team to film inside the stall walls, nor did they accept the bid.
Moreover, after Craig had allegedly peered into the neighboring stall of a cop and repeatedly reached his hand (only in the non-gayest way, of course) under the wall, no privacy modifications have happened. "The restroom looks exactly as it was when the senator was arrested," said Patrick Hogan, director of public affairs for the Metropolitan Airports Commission. "Why spend tens of thousands of dollars, when the problem had dissipated due to the publicity over the senator’s arrest?"
You'd suspect that if a taco with an allegedly holy sort-of image deserves a shrine and high eBay bid that Craig's seat of shame would too. I bet if he'd chosen a stall in a less frequented location, he'd be set for infamy. Instead, this arrest occurred in the busiest john in the airport. Pervs come, pervs go. Vice charges happen. Craig, it seems is all too common.
Tags: massmarrier, toilet, Larry Craig, Idaho, Minneapolis, Spokesman-Review
Kicking Prop 8 Dirt
The Mass Family folk know how to leverage even tangentially related themes and event. They figure they can make a buck on California's Proposition 8...and rub the pro-equality folks' noses in it at the same time.
They don't have the announcement on their site yet. The link in their email news blast is, shall we say, impotent. The news is that on Saturday, January 10th, they are sponsoring the Celebrate Prop 8! fundraiser.
For only $18, you can figuratively kick the GLBT folk around the hall. You can still make your nap time too. This is earlier than the early-bird special, running from noon to 2:30 in Quincy,California Massachusetts.
I never cease to be astonished that these malevolent bozos insist they are pro-family. In this particular instance, they state, "The passage of Prop 8 was a critical win for family values. While radical homosexuals show their true intolerance across the country with violent, disruptive and hateful protests, we want to show our support for those who stood up for marriage."
Back in the real world, the Prop 8 supporters aimed to stop same-sex marriages in California. They are also attempting to nullify the 18,000 or so already legalized. These are many of the same folk who would outlaw adoption by single adults or sames-sex couples. In other words, they are anti-marriage, anti-family and willing to let kids linger in orphanages or foster homes.
So, there's a chance to celebrate the misfortune of others and the stripping of existing rights from fellow citizens. That sounds like the makings of a real party.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, MFI, California, Prop 8
They don't have the announcement on their site yet. The link in their email news blast is, shall we say, impotent. The news is that on Saturday, January 10th, they are sponsoring the Celebrate Prop 8! fundraiser.
For only $18, you can figuratively kick the GLBT folk around the hall. You can still make your nap time too. This is earlier than the early-bird special, running from noon to 2:30 in Quincy,
I never cease to be astonished that these malevolent bozos insist they are pro-family. In this particular instance, they state, "The passage of Prop 8 was a critical win for family values. While radical homosexuals show their true intolerance across the country with violent, disruptive and hateful protests, we want to show our support for those who stood up for marriage."
Back in the real world, the Prop 8 supporters aimed to stop same-sex marriages in California. They are also attempting to nullify the 18,000 or so already legalized. These are many of the same folk who would outlaw adoption by single adults or sames-sex couples. In other words, they are anti-marriage, anti-family and willing to let kids linger in orphanages or foster homes.
So, there's a chance to celebrate the misfortune of others and the stripping of existing rights from fellow citizens. That sounds like the makings of a real party.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, MFI, California, Prop 8
Friday, December 26, 2008
Prey and Pay
Make it stop. Evil doers seem to have increasingly fallen into a delusory atonement...all with the abetment of the legal system.
How much cleaner and easier it seems to have become for major transgressions against individuals and the public to buy your way out. How much neater and simpler to attorneys general and prosecutors to take the check and say, "All square."
Consider just recently:
- The commonwealth's Ethics Commission fined the governor's economic development aide $10,000 for sewing up the $350,000-a-year presidency of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council and using his state position to give that group's members tax breaks. He neither lost his job nor paid an onerous fine. Of the $10,000, he did not beg forgiveness and admit guilt, just saying, "I'm glad to have this matter resolved. I have a great job and I love coming to work every day to lead an organization that represents not just jobs and growth opportunities, but most importantly improving the lives of patients."
- On a corporate level, Exxon Mobil bought off prosecution for a major diesel-fuel spill in Everett. It paid $6.1 million to settle a criminal charge. Because its management and operations folk did not maintain equipment, leading to the pollution, it also will have a court-appointed monitor there for three years. The clods who didn't do their jobs will remain unnamed and unpunished.
- Ex-State Senator Dianne Wilkerson may be facing corruption charges, but she already bought her way out of charges that would have sent many of us to jail. She admitted to not paying income taxes for multiple years, civilly she fought and lost a trial that she stiffed her condo association and wrote them repeated bad checks, also she cut a deal with AG Martha Coakley for repeated campaign-finance violations. She too paid fines and wouldn't have spent a month in a halfway house if she hadn't also violated curfew.
- In the most extreme of the recent bunch, Powers Fasteners paid $16 million to Boston and Massachusetts for dropping manslaughter charges from a tunnel ceiling-tile collapse that killed JP resident Milena Del Valle. Here again, this was tit for tat. There will be no prosecution of the company as a legal person nor any effort to identify responsible people at Powers.
Indulgences as they took detailed form in the middle ages required that a sinner:
- Repent of a specific sin
- Confess the sin
- Pay a penalty
In infamous reality, of course, in the medieval world and still somewhat now, people would and did buy indulgences. Rather than listening to specific liturgies, attending retreats or performing other acts of penance, folk let money be their atonement. Some even paid upfront.
With cynicism and expeditiousness, attorney generals, prosecutors, regulators and elected officials tamp down morality and legality alike. They'll take the clearly achievable. They'll do a Dick Nixon and proclaim victory by compromises and sellouts.
No doubt, it is easier to fine an offender rather than pursue an investigation and trial. The alleged enforcers can and do claim then that they swung the hammer of justice and exacted penalty and repentance.
Instead, we see fines for major corruption and campaign-finance violations equal to NFL penalties. Patriots' Wes Welker got a league penalty of $10,000 for a four-arm-flap snow angel beyond the end zone. Granted politicians get less pay on average, but that fine would be a major one for their corruption charges.
Yet, we simpleminded bluenoses remain unconvinced. What does a small or even moderate fine do? Do we have any fantasy that this will prevent others, or even the same evil doers, from repeating or varying their crimes? When the penalty is far less that what would compensate the victims, how would that dissuade the malefactors?
Swindlers and politicians do not use guns or even threat of violence. They do not commit petty drug offenses that bring long prison terms. They have enough money and buddies with money to afford more justice than someone from the low or middle classes.
The most cynical among us can say, "That's the way the system works." It doesn't have to and the message from the likes of our governor and incoming President should be that justice demands more than what someone can get by with and what is easy to negotiate with a defense team.
Tags: massmarrier, Boston, Massachusetts, corruption, cynicism, indulgences, expediency
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Chuck Turner All In
William Ramsey Clark, Esq., will be 81 tomorrow. Apparently he'll celebrate by association with our own Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner. The latter is under indictment for extortion and lying to the FBI. The former seems to be leaving the stage very poorly.
In this era and this season of high-priced theater tickets, we should thank Turner. As drama queen extraordinaire, he presents his show for free.
I am sure I would not want to be a passenger when Chuck drives. It must be at high speed and right next to the canyon drop off. In this case, he chose a both famous and infamous lawyer. For a pissant case that either is or isn't simple bribery, yoking himself to a one-time anti-war humanitarian turned war-criminal defender is a look-at-me-right-now decision Turner is almost sure to regret.
As the Herald quotes local defense guru Robert George, this is a "high stakes gamble." He added that Clark's involvement"on behalf of any criminal defendant is a high-profile endorsement of a person’s innocence, (but) this was the defense attorney for people such as Saddam Hussein, which some people may take the wrong way."
I'm not huge on Wikipedia, but the entries for Clark and some of his more reviled client are rife with references and detail. For your amusement check:
The list of Clark's clients includes, Nazi concentration camp commandant Karl Linnas, Branch Davidian leader David Koresh, Elizaphan Ntakirutimana (eader in the Rwandan genocide), and contract killer Joe "Mad Dog" Sullivan.
In fairness, he was generally on defense teams for the worst of his clients. He also took on clients who were prosecuted for their anti-war activities here, as well as Lori Berenson, nabbed in Peru in a political incarceration. His few cases like those are overwhelmed by his choice of mass murders and war ciminals. Defending the unpopular client doesn't make one an Atticus Finch.
In Turner's instance, we can set aside his flair for the melodramatic. Instead, let's ask what the devil was he thinking? It almost has to be that the higher the profile of his prosecution, the greater his chances of prevailing.
He shouldn't count on it. Consider:
- Milošević — Indicted 1999 and finally to trial when captured in 2002. A flood of witnesses to his genocide and war crimes was sure to bring conviction. He sicked, maybe exacerbated by the stress, and died in prison.
- Karadžić — Finally captured after a long-term fugitive life. He is in the Hague awaiting his trial. He too faces many witnesses and much evidence of heinous crimes against humanity in killing thousands of Bosnian Muslims.
- Hussein — Convicted of and hanged for his crimes.
Many laugh at Turner for this theatrics, yet no one seems to question his guts, just his judgment. In advance of a public announcement today of his latest elevation (farther to fall, though) of this case, Turner's defense site includes:
Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General and recipient of the 2008 United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights, will be in Boston on Wednesday, December 17 to voice his support in the defense of Chuck Turner and demand that the government immediately drop the frame-up charges. He will focus attention on the role that the US Attorney’s office and the FBI has played in the politically motivated prosecutions that are taking place not just here in Boston but throughout the US. Ramsey Clark charges that that US Attorney Sullivan and the FBI have violated their constitutional duties and must be held accountable for their actions.So, there you have it, brinkmanship at its plainest. I don't think he has the hand to deal. He thinks so.
Perhaps what attracted him was Clark's high profile, as high as Turner's ego. Perhaps instead it was Clark's comments that align with Turner's own to date. As the lawyer's Wikipedia entry reads:
On March 18, 2006, Clark attended the funeral of Slobodan Milošević. He declared: "History will prove Milošević was right. Charges are just that: charges. The trial did not have facts." He compared the trials of Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein by stating: "both trials are marred with injustice, both are flawed." He also condoned and justified Hussein and Milosevic's brutal regimes and their anti-American policies in which Clark described Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein as "both commanders who were courageous enough to fight more powerful countries."Afternoon Follow-Up: Clark's charge into town (and charges) are well detailed at PolitickerMA. He not only called Turner's indictment racially and politically motivated, he tried to turn tables by calling for an investigation of U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan. Clark further called for "a moratorium on any further action until a new and independent prosecutor can come in here and review this whole matter." As a lawyer and former AG of the nation, he might know more about how criminal cases advance. Meh.
Tags: massmarrier, Boston, Chuck Turner, Ramsey Clark, corruption, City Council
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Non-Political Posts...This Way
In this festive season — nothing like dying plants and freezing rain to catalyze joy — those looking for my non-political rants can head to the sibling blog, Harrumph!
Too much politics here you say? Consider:
For those who claim I babble about nothing but politics, click to find other objects of my interest.
Tags: massmarrier, Harrumph, John Tobin, Nicole Freedman, Eugene O'Neill, New Rep, Cummings, O.J. Simpson
Too much politics here you say? Consider:
- Lamprey in Watertown. on New Rep's gotcha fees.
- Beantown = Bike Town?. teaser on this Wednesday's podcast with our bike czarina.
- Uh Oh, O.J., vignette of when I whored for a grocery magazine and O.J. Simpson whored for groceries.
- Visiting My Councilor, (not counselor, whom I may or may not need) on John Tobin's latest stint at JP Licks.
- Right Present for a Dead Writer, on what folk leave on the tombstones of two famous writers in Forest Hills.
For those who claim I babble about nothing but politics, click to find other objects of my interest.
Tags: massmarrier, Harrumph, John Tobin, Nicole Freedman, Eugene O'Neill, New Rep, Cummings, O.J. Simpson
Friday, December 12, 2008
Idaho Ho Ho from Larry Craig
The most graceless of us are incapable of self-awareness and what to most folk would be obvious moral behavior. Let us take special note of soon-to-be ex-U.S. Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho).
This has been an annual celebration, including last year's Craig in the Box Keeps Popping Up. Come next month, after 28 years in one Congressional chamber or the other, he'll be back home, wrangling poodles or whatever he favors to pass the time.
As if to construct his own public stocks and keep himself displayed in his shame, he has set up a defense fund. The Fund for Justice (stop that snickering!) couldn't pay for half a week of legal fees yet. Then again, Craig will soon have lots of time to devote to this.
Actually, I suspect he'll continue his quixotic crusade to pretend he wasn't cruising in the Minneapolis airport john. I have been seeing in Idaho papers and blogs that people predict that his latest effort to withdraw his disorderly conduct plea in that case would end it. He got the Minnesota Court of Appeals to consider his risible claim that peering into a stall occupied by a man for two minutes, then tapping his foot to get his attention and repeatedly displaying his hand under the stall were protected free speech.
To heighten the amusement, let me note that the ACLU continues to support Craig. It has an agenda that apparently does not include increasing the seasonal merriment. They claim that the Minnesota law that the police used in their toilet-stall sting is too broad.
Sting operations can, if you pardon the expression, suck. Yet, the conduct law coupled with the Craig written guilty plea makes this truly an odd case for the rights organization to join.
December 9th, the court disagreed with Craig's claims. In an unpublished opinion (don't try to cite it for legal precedence, per another law, Sect. 480A.08, subd 3 [2006]), a three-judge panel of the court denied his request to withdraw his plea. That included a finding that the law was not too broad. People reasonably expected privacy on the toilet seat. "Offensive speech may be prohibited as intrusive when the 'captive' audience cannot avoid the speech," wrote the probably seated judges.
The rest of us with normal social graces would have taken our lumps on this one. Despite hoots from many, he continues to insist he is not gay and has never had sexual contact with males. He frequently mentions his
In the Idaho Statesman's Washington bureau, Erika Bolstad has been on the investigation, including the defense fund. She detailed the $4,645 he reported in his October filing (those reports are not online) for the fund he had registered on September 12th. Bolstad reported that his lawyer, Billy Martin, opened the fund in June. Craig has subsequently gotten scolded by the Senate ethics folk for using campaign funds for his legal expenses but then got permission to register and use the new fund.
His fund site is amusing on its own. It uses that spooky, skeletal portrait that is also on his Senate site. It is a single web page, with an email link but no phone, an address for mailing checks to, wording about how your donations are limited to $10,000 per year and other restraints, and a single button at the bottom to link to an online store-style credit card or PayPay system.
Apparently the $10,000 has not been a problem yet. There seem to be some chums kicking in at the housewarming-gift level. As Bolstad put it, "Most of the donations to Craig's expense fund range from $50 to $300." At the high end, one couple (Vicki and Franz White of Star) gave $1,000, another (Larry and Marianne Williams) $500 and one other (neighbors Joseph and Elizabeth David) $250. The others were tokens so far.
The consensus is that, come January, Craig will back off this absurd innocence routine. I bet otherwise.
Some fish when they retire. Idaho is one of the world's best places to do that. Others pretend to exercise on the golf course. I say that if Craig has been willing to show such graceless jive about his behavior and sexual orientation for so long, he won't be able to leave it alone.
He has a month, until a few days before he is out of office, to file an appeal with the Minnesota Supreme Court on some picayune legal point. I'd put money on that failing, likely in the form of the high court refusing to waste its time on it at all, but I would be surprised if he didn't try.
As thoroughly and as long as he has made himself the object of ridicule and disdain, he has a real side. Agree with his positions or not, he has a long list of real-life bills that he has supported or introduced.
It is his broad delusional self that has brought him so low.
Tags: massmarrier, Statesman, Larry Craig, Idaho, Congress, Fund for Justice
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Genitalia-Based Religion by Huckabee
Relentless champion of marriage equality Jon Stewart did it again and did it right on his 12/9 segment with Mike Huckabee. The Daily Show host again out-reasoned and out-humanized the former Arkansas governor and likely repeat GOP Presidential candidate.That's particularly important in that before a large audience, Stewart showed us how it should be done. We who favor and demand equality can get excited, emotional, angry challenging those who want to prevent or remove rights from homosexual couples. Instead, Stewart gently, but steadily, poured acid on the thin surface before him.
Huckabee is the dangerous sort of anti-gay/anti-equality spokesman. His sangfroid and joviality combine into a semblance of reason and compassion. He will speak the nastiest ideas while looking pleasant and speaking calmly, as though his rants were reasonable in their modulation.
Consider some of their exchange as below. This is the heart of it, but do click over to the whole segment, which is under eight minutes.
Huckabee: Even anatomically, the only way we can create the next generation is through a male-female relationship. For 5,000 of recorded human history, that's what marriage has meant.Stewart: (He noted that Huckabee's time-line went to the Old Testament), where polygamy was the norm, not a heterosexual relationship between two couples (sic; I'm sure he meant people) who choose each other. Marriage has evolved greatly over those 5,000 years from a property arrangement, polygamy. We've redefined it constantly.
(He added that it was only when courts and laws intervened that interracial marriage was legalized here). It strikes me as very convenient to go back to the Bible and say, "Hey, man, we got to look at the way they define marriage."
Huckabee: If we change the definition, we really have to change it to accommodate all lifestyles. There's a difference between the equality of each individual and the equality of what we do, and the sameness of what we do. Marriage is under our law a privilege, not an absolute, divine right.
There's a big difference between a person being black and a person practicing a lifestyle and engaging in a marital relationship...
Stewart: I think the difference is what you believe gay people are and what I do...I'll tell you this, religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality...and talk about a lifestyle choice, that is absolutely a choice. Gay people don't choose to be gay.
I think it's an absolute travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to make their case that they deserve the same basic rights as someone else.
You keep talking about, geez, it would be redefining a word and it seems like semantics is cold comfort when it comes to humanity. And especially someone such as yourself who is, I think, an empathetic person.
Huckabee: Words do matter, definitions matter, and I think we have to be very thoughtful before we're going to under an entire social structure. Let's face it, the basic purpose of a marriage is not just to create the next generation but it's to train our replacements and it is in the context of 23 male and 23 female chromosomes coming together at the point of conception to create the next human life.
Stewart did not get into the common fallacies Huckabee iterated, except to point out that over the now clichéd and very false "5,000 years" society has altered the definition and limits of marriage constantly. He also noted that polygamy was the Biblical norm and that marriage was not a sacrament even as an option until 700 or so years ago.
Nor did he get into the silliness about procreation as the basis for sexual and emotional relationships. Precluding the unable and unwilling from marriage would eliminate most straight couples from consideration. In addition, Stewart didn't deal with adoption, medically aided pregnancies and such for either straight or gay couples.
However, in the end, he got to what I call genitalia-based theology. Stewart noted that Huckabee's talk was about sexuality, not theology. Bishops and bigots alike do the parts-fit-together jive to the entertainment and reinforcement of their believers. We who speak out for marriage equality see and hear such nonsense regularly.
Stewart's approach is a good one for us to take to heart and mind. The Huckabees are irrational about this. They use very simple-minded and illogical arguments in the main. Instead of flinging facts back into their emotion, we should keep our focus on key points such as:
- Marriage is not immutable and has constantly evolved for millennia.
- Religion is a lifestyle choice, while sexual orientation almost never is.
- Denying gay couples marriage protects nothing and no one.
- Marriage as an institution has been troubled for many decades. Encouraging loving couples to wed makes sense as well as being humane.
Tags: massmarrier, Jon Stewart, marriage equality, Huckabee, Daily Show
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Hasty Bush Sing-Out from Lawyers
Just in the rare possibility that you don't pore over the comments on posts here, a singing attorney left a winner yesterday on the GOP fabulists one. I'll embed the vid below.
It's a good-riddance wish from Matt Farmer (yeah, for real) from the Blue State Cowboys in Chicago. They bill themselves as Chicago's Most Litigious Band. Listening seems to be free and there are additional goodies on their site.
In the country tradition of get-lost songs (extraordinarily well deserved in W's case), the lawyers sing:
Huge thanks to Farmer and his chums for the 3:24 of giggles in a tough time...and the freedom to spread the joy.
Tags: massmarrier, Blue State Cowboys, Crawl Back to Crawford, Bush
It's a good-riddance wish from Matt Farmer (yeah, for real) from the Blue State Cowboys in Chicago. They bill themselves as Chicago's Most Litigious Band. Listening seems to be free and there are additional goodies on their site.
In the country tradition of get-lost songs (extraordinarily well deserved in W's case), the lawyers sing:
CRAWL BACK TO CRAWFORD
(Matt Farmer)
VERSE
Well, for eight long years we’ve been payin’ your rent
But now your lease done run
And all our money’s been spent
So pack up your bags
And take a last look around
At how you drove a great nation straight into the ground
CHORUS
And don’t let the door
Hit you in the ass on the way out
Don’t bother with the goodbyes
Just make sure that you stay out
There ain’t no need to call
No need to write
We don’t even need you to turn out the light
Just crawl back to Crawford, brother
Promise that you’ll leave us alone
VERSE
Every step of the way, your story’s been the same
Just cruisin’ through the world
On your daddy’s name
You had the oilmen friends
You had the Skull and Bones
But it never would have happened if your name was Jones
REPEAT CHORUS
BRIDGE
Slam dunk, privatize, deregulate
Tax cuts, trickle down
The politics of hate
Flag pin, waterboard
Intelligent design
You were handed your throne by just five of the nine
REPEAT CHORUS
Huge thanks to Farmer and his chums for the 3:24 of giggles in a tough time...and the freedom to spread the joy.
Tags: massmarrier, Blue State Cowboys, Crawl Back to Crawford, Bush
Monday, December 08, 2008
GOP Tricksters and Fabulists
Oo, ah. Watch closely as Bush reaches deeply into a balanced budget and extracts a huge recession! Look carefully as Condi and W. use prestidigitation to transform their lies and blunders into — Ta da! — faulty intelligence.The Bush administration of magical fools have not even left the stage, but they're performing all the way out. They're strutting, not slinking, stage right.
In our glee to see these malicious incompetents off, we shouldn't lose sight of the less obvious forces at work. It is far too easy to note accurately that they, particularly Bush, have the fantasy that they can frame historical assessments of the past eight years. Somehow, Nixon the Evil did recast himself as a statesman, but he at least had foreign-policy achievements as a basis.
More insidious than trying to game history is the underlying lying, for the next Presidential election.
Already, our own smarmy elephant, Willard Mitt Romney, is raising money and doing well in polls (third behind Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee for 2012). He's hired staff and consultants too.
The next GOP go will depend on magic that John McCain lacked the skill to perform. Sure, the next candidates must separate themselves from the chaos and failures. Yet, to keep the core of the party's voters, they can't reject even the most disastrous Republican ploys. Those would include:
- Tax cuts are sound financial policy that grow the economy
- What's good for big companies is good for America
- Borrowing and spending hundreds of billions and calling it defense is sustainable
- Invading other countries will make us safe from terrorism
- Redacting the Bill of Rights is the American way
- Empowering the Executive Branch at the expense of the other two is good government
- We can win every war and our economy will always return to an endless growth spiral if left alone
Consider just a few examples of the 2012 harbingers. President G.W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would have us believe they were fooled into a trillion-dollar misadventure in Iraq by bad spy reports. Karl Rove, Bush's long-term chief adviser, holds that it was not bad ideas, merely a campaign-fund disparity that caused McCain's loss. On the economy, Bush's current ploy is that all the bad stuff that led to the terrible stuff took place before he was in office — not his fault or that of his party.
Shameful Links
Bad advice. Bush puts the onus on invading Iraq on the "intelligence failure" falsely claiming Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and the will to use them. Rice regrets reliance on "flawed intelligence" leading to the invasion of Iraq.Economy? Not Mine. Bush has tap danced around the GOP Presidents' total financial failures. Then in his recent ABC interview with Charlie Gibson, he did the rich-kid finger-pointing avoidance thing:
GIBSON: Do you feel in any way responsible for what's happening?
BUSH: You know, I'm the President during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President.
I'm a little upset that we didn't get the reforms to Fannie and Freddie -- on Fannie and Freddie, because I think it would have helped a lot. And when people review the history of this administration, people will say that this administration tried hard to get a regulator. And there will be a lot of analysis of why that didn't happen. I suspect people will find a lot of it didn't happen for pure political reasons.
Some of us bloggers and MSM types note (with unconcealed glee) that his time-line would place the blame on his father's administration. We can also add that he avoids the judgment that without great help by external economic forces at home and abroad, Reaganomics and its variants destroy economies.
Trust Us. More obviously for the regrouping of the GOP, Rove's outrageous spin on the loss to Obama is a call to return with vengeance and hope. He would hold that they didn't lose because their policies and plans were bad, rather they were just outspent. Hence, donate more next time and we'll show those filthy liberals!
Tricksters and fabulists
Let us not conflate the honorable and politicians. The battle for 2010 Congress seats and the 2012 head office are underway. It certainly was long before November, when McCain's weakness and Bush's irredeemable failures were too obvious.Again, Democrats, even in their centrist and quivering kneed totality, have to try to rescue the nation from the other party's economic failure. Moreover, unlike previous administrations in which the GOP at least did a better job with foreign affairs, we face disdain, distrust and hatred from much of the world as Bush's legacy.
Already to hear their advance tricksters and fabulists tell it:
- The economic problems were inherited, not the GOP's fault, and caused by companies not by government
- We can, in fact, have guns and butter, regardless of they way it looks now (and in the past 20-plus years).
- The tragic loss of thousands of American and tens or hundreds of thousands of others', plus the towering debt, was justified.
- Republican politicians and bureaucrats are wise and pure of heart. Incompetent spies fooled them into bad actions (which continued for seven years unabated).
- Give rich people more money and tax cuts, and they'll do the right thing by the rest of us.
- Give the GOP enough money, and they'll not only smack down the Dems, they'll make American perfect again.
Meanwhile, Dems will be busy trying to keep America afloat and steer it into calm waters. Some group of them must act as a truth squad though. If we as a nation are not to repeat stupid, incompetent and delusional blunders of recent years, the bad and terrible ideas need constant exposure.
Republicans need more than new candidates. They need workable ideas instead of fantasies.
Tags: massmarrier, election, Republicans, Rove, excuses, McCain, Democrats, Obama, 2012, economy
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Barry Stole My Election Money!
Republicans in general and John McCain in particular can learn from Uncle Scar in Lion King. Let us pause to reflect, "Life's not fair, is it?"
Karl Rove revivified the certain GOP kvetch of the campaign. In the Wall Street Journal, he wails like a drunken college freshman feeling lonely. We'll be hearing more of this for the 2010 and 2012 campaigns. Life's not fair. Barack pushed me down and took my campaign funds!
Early on, McCain repeated what came to be the strangest complaints of the long, overly long campaign. He tediously whined that 1) Barack Obama was piling up more contributions than he, 2) voters and media types liked Obama better, and 3) Obama made the smarter/less honorable decision not to stick to public funding (á la the McCain/Feingold Act of 2002 — yes, the same McCain).
His org even ran TV ads likening Obama to Britney Spears and such flashy celebrities. McCain's not very hidden subtext was plain in the is-he-ready-to-lead tags. This whole area may have been McCain's worst misjudgment of his drive, at least until he named his idea of a ready-to-lead vice president.
For McCain's blunder, consider what he thought he was saying, "Everyone likes Obama better and gives him more money." How could he and his advisers not know that this means, "Everyone likes McCain less and wants Obama to be President"? McCain turned himself into Charlie Brown, with no help at all from the Democrats.
In Rove's dizzying spin, only Obama's money edge decided the election. It was "the Obama/DNC juggernaut" that "buried Mr. McCain on TV." Rove picked his stats carefully, as in by the state (Indiana) that McCain ceded and where Obama outspent him the most (nearly 7 to 1 by Rove's estimation). He also left off the many millions of hidden, soft Republican funds spent around McCain to elect the ticket. That would in fact severely undercut the money argument.
Regardless, the amusing aspect is that Obama likely did have a larger ad budget. He certainly organized and had organized for him a much bigger, better, wider and deeper volunteer organization. Put another way, this is yet more celebrity proof when more people wanted to give their time as well as money to elect that other guy.
For decades. Republicans have been the money party. The rich white folk in Congress and the Administration look out for the rich white folk in the nation. The most political money went to keep that huge and dirty machine working. The GOP had the money and won the Presidency and control of Congress the most.
It wouldn't be Rove without hypocrisy and irony, of course. He ends his WSJ piece with, "Mr. Obama's victory may show the enduring truth of the old Chicago Golden Rule: He who has the gold rules." This from the man who has a history of buying elections and undercutting democracy by any means is sweet.
Life was fair when Republicans get the most money. Life's not fair when they don't. I don't think I have the time or energy to feel sorry for McCain and Rove.
Tags: massmarrier, loss, election, Rove, excuses, McCain, Obama
Karl Rove revivified the certain GOP kvetch of the campaign. In the Wall Street Journal, he wails like a drunken college freshman feeling lonely. We'll be hearing more of this for the 2010 and 2012 campaigns. Life's not fair. Barack pushed me down and took my campaign funds!
Early on, McCain repeated what came to be the strangest complaints of the long, overly long campaign. He tediously whined that 1) Barack Obama was piling up more contributions than he, 2) voters and media types liked Obama better, and 3) Obama made the smarter/less honorable decision not to stick to public funding (á la the McCain/Feingold Act of 2002 — yes, the same McCain).
His org even ran TV ads likening Obama to Britney Spears and such flashy celebrities. McCain's not very hidden subtext was plain in the is-he-ready-to-lead tags. This whole area may have been McCain's worst misjudgment of his drive, at least until he named his idea of a ready-to-lead vice president.
For McCain's blunder, consider what he thought he was saying, "Everyone likes Obama better and gives him more money." How could he and his advisers not know that this means, "Everyone likes McCain less and wants Obama to be President"? McCain turned himself into Charlie Brown, with no help at all from the Democrats.
In Rove's dizzying spin, only Obama's money edge decided the election. It was "the Obama/DNC juggernaut" that "buried Mr. McCain on TV." Rove picked his stats carefully, as in by the state (Indiana) that McCain ceded and where Obama outspent him the most (nearly 7 to 1 by Rove's estimation). He also left off the many millions of hidden, soft Republican funds spent around McCain to elect the ticket. That would in fact severely undercut the money argument.
Regardless, the amusing aspect is that Obama likely did have a larger ad budget. He certainly organized and had organized for him a much bigger, better, wider and deeper volunteer organization. Put another way, this is yet more celebrity proof when more people wanted to give their time as well as money to elect that other guy.
For decades. Republicans have been the money party. The rich white folk in Congress and the Administration look out for the rich white folk in the nation. The most political money went to keep that huge and dirty machine working. The GOP had the money and won the Presidency and control of Congress the most.
It wouldn't be Rove without hypocrisy and irony, of course. He ends his WSJ piece with, "Mr. Obama's victory may show the enduring truth of the old Chicago Golden Rule: He who has the gold rules." This from the man who has a history of buying elections and undercutting democracy by any means is sweet.
Life was fair when Republicans get the most money. Life's not fair when they don't. I don't think I have the time or energy to feel sorry for McCain and Rove.
Tags: massmarrier, loss, election, Rove, excuses, McCain, Obama
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Marriage Equality Arc
Okay, for any of us who have had a breather, the game is back afoot. Marriage equality remains a key civil rights issue. Same-sex marriage will be fully realized, even in this very socially conservative nation.
There is no better moment than now to reflect again on the ideas of that old Transcendentalist, abolitionist, Underground Railroad leader, Unitarian reformer Rev. Theodore Parker. He engaged in many seminal struggles that would not find quick resolution, not in a ballot initiative nor in a court decision nor in some mystical and sudden enlightenment of the masses. Not even knowing that many of his causes would not resolve until after his death dissuaded him.
The frail minister died at 49 in 1860. He didn't even live to know the emancipation of the slaves here.
Parker is surely best known now for his inspirational long view. The well redacted version by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is what many of us know — The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
That carries the sentiment. Of course, as a liberal preacher, he could not have been quite as precise. His wordier original was, "Look at the facts of the world. You see a continual and progressive triumph of the right. I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice. Things refuse to be mismanaged long."
That illustrated as well his humility. Yet in this thought, he clearly was and is right.
I keep the idea in mind and it helps me from being discouraged at setbacks like the passage of Prop. 8 last month.
We saw it with gay-rights in Maine and SSM in Massachusetts. In both states (among other examples), conflicts continued for several years before the public joined the legislatures and courts in saying in effect, "What's the matter here?" The rest of the industrialized world has largely gotten beyond creating second-class citizenship for groups. Only here do we continue to debate such civil rights or pretend that voting on them is a matter of democracy.
On both coasts, with each vote, even by plebiscite when it came to that, the arc has bent more toward justice. If the California courts don't overturn Prop. 8, there surely will be another ballot question and almost as certainly, it will finally favor equality as it did in Maine when it came the third time.
We can look at those who would deny or strip rights from fellow citizens as misguided, nasty or cruel. Doing so may make us feel superior and wiser, but it does nothing to deliver those rights.
Instead, Parker's view is the clearest one. As he did his entire short life, we must work toward justice, knowing that we are helping our universe bend further where it is going.
Tags: massmarrier, Prop. 8, , California, same-sex marriage, civil rights, Theodore Parker
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Loitering in Chaos Alley
Finally! Red Mass Group has a post I can link to. Click on over for a brief, LITE but still telling Q&A with Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.
A typical citation on this blog ridicules their absurd predictions of disaster following gay-rights and same-sex marriage. Simply being obviously wrong again and again does not seem to deter Mineau and similar folk, as the RMG answers show too plainly. In that way, MFI seems like a doomsday cult, one that does not specify the date of THE END.
Then too, such groups have clearly dwindled in number, contributions and influence. Having repeatedly lost efforts to overturn SSM here, they no longer get the crowds of bused-in protesters. It's a sure bet that many who gave them money for years for anti-gay/anti-SSM causes don't any more. Even they eventually see the pattern of failure even if their emotions remain.
So, the Mineau on record seems too like an old Confederate sympathizer. Instead of the South rising again, it will be Republicans, social conservatives, and anti-gay forces.
Mineau reports:
First, it was if SSM starts, Massachusetts will spiral down immediately, the good people will leave (Atlas Shrugged, anyone?), and marriage will virtually end here. Then it was all those things will happen soon. Then, chaos and disaster will happen...just you wait and see.
Meanwhile, of course, after four years, our divorce rates are one of the very lowest in the nation (even lower among SS couples). More kids are being adopted, expanding the number and percentage of stable families. We have increasing numbers of straight and gay marriages, making us about the best state for the institution in the country. It looks like SSM is pretty damned great for marriage.
So, Mineau waits and watches. He says at least that he expects tragedy. It appears he'll have to wait a long, long time.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, MFI, Red Mass group, Mineau
Boner Note: This post has a dead link (extraneous quote at the end of the URL) to the first in this What Happens Next series by garrett3000 — an interview-ette with resigned commonwealth GOP head Peter Torkildsen. You probably shouldn't bother; Torkildsen makes no predictions and says largely that the party needs more social moderates to thrive. If you want to see that, use this link.To me, MFI is most decidedly on the wrong side of history, morality and humanity. Mineau is not about to concede that.
A typical citation on this blog ridicules their absurd predictions of disaster following gay-rights and same-sex marriage. Simply being obviously wrong again and again does not seem to deter Mineau and similar folk, as the RMG answers show too plainly. In that way, MFI seems like a doomsday cult, one that does not specify the date of THE END.
Then too, such groups have clearly dwindled in number, contributions and influence. Having repeatedly lost efforts to overturn SSM here, they no longer get the crowds of bused-in protesters. It's a sure bet that many who gave them money for years for anti-gay/anti-SSM causes don't any more. Even they eventually see the pattern of failure even if their emotions remain.
So, the Mineau on record seems too like an old Confederate sympathizer. Instead of the South rising again, it will be Republicans, social conservatives, and anti-gay forces.
Mineau reports:
- The state of Massachusetts politics is "Despicable!...ultra-liberal Democrat agenda controls everything."
- The local Republicans have largely "deserted our principles."
- MFI will throw itself into fighting the bill to protect transgender rights.
- SSM will not stand. "We sincerely believe that this is a radical and delusional social experiment that will ultimately fail when people see the tragic results on the traditional family and most of all, children."
First, it was if SSM starts, Massachusetts will spiral down immediately, the good people will leave (Atlas Shrugged, anyone?), and marriage will virtually end here. Then it was all those things will happen soon. Then, chaos and disaster will happen...just you wait and see.
Meanwhile, of course, after four years, our divorce rates are one of the very lowest in the nation (even lower among SS couples). More kids are being adopted, expanding the number and percentage of stable families. We have increasing numbers of straight and gay marriages, making us about the best state for the institution in the country. It looks like SSM is pretty damned great for marriage.
So, Mineau waits and watches. He says at least that he expects tragedy. It appears he'll have to wait a long, long time.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, MFI, Red Mass group, Mineau
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)