JC on a Stick

What is it with fundies claiming martyrdom? In particular, for about a decade since civil unions than same-sex marriage started in these United States, self-identified, self-proclaimed Christians and a few Jews insist they are being or will certainly be persecuted by those gay and gay-liking sorts.

I thought again about it today when Tom Lang linked to a loon with a rant entitled "Get Ready for Christians Going to Jail." It's not at all unusual. In fact, it's mundane and predictable, even standard at the infamously anti-gay MassResistance site.

The principal conceit is that any protections or rights given to LGBT anyone not only takes away from the straights, that it means attacks and punishment for what we used to call "normal" people. The facts that there are no intellectual, historical or legal support for that paranoia seems irrelevant to the loons.

They do like to look to England, Europe and particularly Canada for the most tenuous of analogies. Granted that our northern neighbor has a spare 8-page Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unlike the absolutist free-speech/free-exercise-of-religious First Amendment,the far more rational and humane Canadian charter does truly prohibit hate speech. So there is a bit of a rationale in fundies claiming that preachers might be told to cool it if they orate hateful or violent screeds.

That's not about to happen here but such realism does not deter fundies and wingers.

They love the bakers and photographers who refuse do service same-sex weddings or commitment ceremonies. They like to cite the Methodist owned New Jersey pavilion that refused to rent to gay groups, Catholic Charities stopping adoption services to avoid gay-couple adoptions, church-owned businesses who could not exclude birth-control coverage in employee health plans, and even the notorious publicity hound David Parker.

In each of those instances and many other similar ones, the principals claimed victim status...dishonestly and dishonorably. In the church and "conscience" related businesses, the assertion was that they were doing religious work and forced, forced I way, to choose bucks or God. In reality though, the Methodist and RC churches, as well as hospitals and other businesses owned in part by churches were running side businesses for profit. As such, they took state and often federal funds, thus being required to obey health, safety and non-discrimination laws in their ancillary roles. Catholic Charities was particularly egregious in their mythology about this, proclaiming loudly that they were forced out of adoptions when in fact they chose not to obey the laws while still demanding federal and state funds. Give me a break, Padre.

Parker was a pet amusement for me in that similar to the for-profit biz angle, he staged a sit-in at this kids' school until he forced the law to arrest him. Then and to this day, he claims he was arrested for exercising his rights to protect his children instead of the simple civil trespassing that he engineered. Triple shame on him.

The underlying question is what are these anti-gay and fundy types seeking? They seem intent on claiming they are being cruelly, unfairly martyred.

What is the motive? What is the idea?

Even in their tiny brains, it must be obvious that our Constitution, statutes and case law at both state and federal levels offer extraordinary levels of protection.No cleric will ever have to bless a homosexual marriage, even though the civil aspect is totally legally separate from the religious ritual. No preacher, no matter how obnoxiously anti-gay, will or ever has faced prosecution for bone-headed slanders.

Yet...yet...the wingers and fundies dearly love the idea that these things surely will happen. Despite all evidence, history and law, they return repeatedly to their feigned, potential persecution.

I was raised as a Christian. I believed in transubstantiation. I knew that Christ died on the cross for my sins. With that background, I have a felt sense that this attitude is hubris and arrogance. They want to identify with the most powerful and important character in their religion, their mythology. God, to abuse the term, that's arrogant.

The Beasts Who Cry Wolf

They're still at it. The anti-gay forces don't let history or reason or humanity or compassion deter them. Despite their lifetimes of doing their worst to hurt homosexuals, they continue to:

1. Predict certain martyrdom for themselves
2. Claim current and future cultural victimhood

Sure enough, immediately following the welcome but pretty benign Supreme Court decisions yesterday, fundy and winger airwaves, blogs and papers spewed out more of this craziness. Consider this recap of several examples put out by Yahoo News. Likewise, over at Boston's winger tabloid, the Herald, the least Christ-like columnist claimed victim status for the pro-Prop 8 voters.

In my insatiable news reading, politics watching and coming up on a decade of running a marriage-equality blog, I am very used to seeing and hearing this. I have never become inured. Sometimes these fools are amusing, other times pitiable, and occasional infuriating.

One odd aspect is the obvious I'm-not-a-bigot-but... one. Those folk can be plain silly, as in saying, "My nephew is gay and I love him. So that proves I"m not a hateful, prejudiced person." Others try to get Biblical and only end up looking intellectually feeble. By picking a verse or two from the early Old Testament and gainsaying all the contradictory verses, they utterly fail the religion references tests. When pointed to OT versions long used to justify human slavery, subjugation of women and physical abuse of children, they quibble instead of backing down.

The vast majority of People of the Book — Jews, Christians and Muslims — if you pardon the term, evolved as the scriptures did over the centuries. Leviticus is not good basis for a civilized and religious life.

I accept that most of those anti-gay folk who try to use scripture to justify their unjustifiable wackiness think differently. As noted in several posts in this blog, lefties and right wingers often have different brains. Wingers tend to be very literal, hence the vetting with a single Bible verse and claims they are only following the literal and perfect word of God. We won't get into the politics of the Councils of Nicaea and those of the Biblical-language-illiterate King James. Suffice it to note that anyone who points to an OT verse to justify taking a belt to a child or voting to deny rights to women or homosexuals is delusional in claiming that is the will of God.

Instead the conceit starting from at least the moment Vermont legalized civil unions that included homosexual couples is that this would be a zero-sum game. The idea is that anything allowed for a gay couple will mean something taken from all straight couples.

Huh?

Fairer, more rational and more inclusive

The asinine claim was first that slightly expanding the legal right to marry to two men or two women was at once redefining marriage and destroying different-gender marriage. Even President Obama and his missus, both lawyers, played at that when he was seeking election. They pretended not to understand the difference between marriage, which is the legal and binding contract of two people as controlled by each state, the DC and US territories, and religious ritual, which is the ceremonial icing on the matrimonial cake. Nearly half of couples have both, although only the civil marriage for which they get the license is legally marriage.

Comedians and columnists have had a great time ridiculing the redefining-marriage lunacy.Truth be told, both religions and legislatures have had a great time redefining marriage for centuries. In general, it's been by limitations, with flurries of expansion. Women are no longer considered male property and most marriages are not for solidifying family fortunes. The Chinese and African-American citizens are no longer forbidden from marrying white folk. Polygamy here is outlawed now, while still allowed in numerous Islamic states, as is polyandry is a few matriarchal groups mostly in Africa. The traditional polygamy of the Biblical patriarchs became against the law here. And most recently a slight tweak to allow homosexual couples to marry in some states has not so much redefined marriage as made it a little fairer, more rational and more inclusive.

The winger madness also turns to wild, unsupportable claims of discrimination. That's not against gay folk, which has been systemic and easily proven. Instead, the anti-gay sorts would have us believe:

• Protecting homosexuals will certainly mean persecuting anti-gay types
• Legalizing same-sex civil marriage will certainly mean anti-gay clerics will be forced to dirty their souls performing those unions
• Giving any gay rights will certainly mean anti-gay types will be charged with hate crimes at the worst and shunned by society at best

Where do they get this crap?

Facts are that we have an expansive protection for religion in our Constitution. It is deeply and widely supported in statute and case law as well. Fundies love to point to churches' side businesses, like adoption services, that bring in cash, accept federal and state money, and have to adhere to equal-rights laws. Likewise, church affiliated hospitals and such are not churches, rather businesses, that have to obey state and federal guidelines and laws. Churches and do discriminate wildly, irrationally and, well, unchristian-like. They can do so legally. They know they can't do it in their sidelines. Yet many claim discrimination. Huh?

So now after yesterday's two SCOTUS rulings, we see and hear more of the woe-are-we jive. "They" (not really defined) will come for the clerics next. "They" will abridge our freedom of speech from the pulpit and in the public square. "They" this. "They" that.

If I had the power to heal by touch, I would go from one anti-gay winger to another, laying on my hands and freeing them from hatred and fear.

One Great, One Good Gay Marriage Ruling

The decidedly non-activist Supremes did as we blowhards had figured all along. This morning's rulings were:

• The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional on equal-protection grounds.
• California's Prop 8 banning marriage equality remains overturned by state and fed courts there, but does not affect laws in other states.

These are both victories of varying power for gay couples. The details of each were tossed to others by this oddly timid SCOTUS incarnation.

For DOMA, the Obama administration has to get its act together to make the revised rules. Like the overturning of the military absurd don't-ask/don't-tell policy, the feds need to specify how married homosexual couples will receive and be guaranteed access to the services and rights previously denied.

Of course, the feds can't make states that forbid same-sex marriage provide equal state tax, inheritance and other rights. They can make sure that even if the state does not recognize the marriage as legal within its borders, that the couple still gets the federal rights and benefits.

For California, the consensus is that in a few weeks or a month at most, same-sex couples can marry again there. They will join the 18,000-plus couples married there after the legislature passed marriage equality and before Prop 8 stopped that. The two-tiered marriage system ends in California.

At the same time, our most populous state brings the percentage of Americans with the legal option for marriage equality way up. While over three dozen states forbid same-sex marriage, we're quickly headed to half the nation having the legal option in their states.

We can be sure that more bozo state legislatures that rushed to have laws, constitutional amendments or both forbidding equality will be backing out and figuring how to get with the program gracefully.

He Spits on the Popular Guy

Putting the gab in Gabriel, that Gomez clown has been doing the winger whinger thing. He is shocked, shocked I tell you, to find that Democrats are openly supporting Democratic candidate for US Senate Ed Markey. Can you imagine?

WTF, Republicans? Day follows night.

Reading and hearing his non-stop petulance, I see the parallel with such lunacy as anti-gay MassResistance spewing about and wanting a boycott of the corporate sponsors of Boston's Gay Pride week and events. Year after year, twisted little Brian and Amy (the army-ette of two) revealed the shocking, shocking I tell you, truth that Pride had a huge list of sponsors.

Apparently, this was to elicit outrage among us far morally superior to libertarians, queers, Unitarians and other scum. We were supposed to see the long and getting longer list of corporate and governmental sponsors and produce steam from our ears, grab our checkbooks to write checks to MR, and boycott these dreadful enablers.

From my distance, I couldn't help but see it otherwise. The sponsor list was a catalog of America, like the city of Boston, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Bank of America, Apple, Verizon, and a huge cross-section of hotel chains, supermarkets and on and on and on. In fact MR got its shaming list from the Pride brochures and any current year's sponsor list will show similar political and corporate power.

This allegation was that this was an anomaly that people could correct with protests and economic sanctions. Somehow, the clueless couple has yet to see that their publicizing the kissy-face support of LGBT celebrations carries a very, very different import.

What shame?

The real message has been for well over a decade that the world has moved beyond anti-gay paranoia and silliness. The wide and deep list of companies and agencies that celebrate diversity and equality indicates that those who hate gay folk are out of touch and out of tune with America and these times. Publishing the lists does not shame the sponsors at all. Instead, it makes reasonable folk ever more aware of how mainstream equality is.

Likewise with Gomez and other Republicans, complaining that two Presidents, the other US Senator from MA and dozens of Dems endorse Markey does not smear him. In contrast, the good guys like Markey, like him enough to trot to places like Boston and Worcester to say so publicly and at length.

In contrast, the best Gomez has earned has been an email from the very short-term, fill-in Senator Scott I-have-a-truck-to-haul-hay-for-my-daughters'-horses Brown. That's right, Brown couldn't even bother to endorse him at an even or on camera. (Insert snicker.)

So Gomez says repeatedly, "That Markey is so popular. Big shots endorse him. That's terrible! Vote for me!"

Instead maybe the unenrolled and even the Republicans will listen to all those effusive and specific endorsements of Obama, Clinton, Warren and on and on. Gabriel needs some friends. After he loses this race, he should have the time to find some.

Herding Democrats

Yesterday's visit from President Barack Obama was certainly jollier than the recent trip related to the dead and maimed from the Boston Marathon bombs. He came to support US Rep. Ed Markey's bid to move to replace John Kerry.


Despite a nearly three-hour wait to get into and kill time in a very hot track-and-field gym across from Roxbury Community College, several thousand Dems, pinkos, and locals who just wanted to be part of the excitement did stand in lines, had previously filled out forms and waited for free tickets, did herd outside, did file dutifully through the chutes, did wait and wait. They got political rewards.

I actually had gotten a couple of those tickets, but I also ended up wangling a press pass. Mine was at the bottom-feeder level, blogger and podcaster. There were national folk video recording. There were local puffballs like Jon Keller, who seems to live to announce how insightful and important he is (he is neither) and local true pundits like David Bernstein, who actually is insightful and not ego poisoned.

Folk were sweating, campaign and DNC staffers were handing out tiny bottles of water, but figuratively everyone was cool. The doors had opened on time at 11 AM but Obama was not due on stage until at least 1:45 PM.

Fear not, like a good pre-game show, theater started a little after noon with stuff...lots of non-stop stuff. A cute kid led the pledge, a very talented local student sang the anthem, several Bostonians, including the country sheriff and Markey's local campaign head, started firing up the thousands.

I know these were their moments,but the real action and political appetizers started with MA Sen. Sonia Chang-Díaz. She's highly accomplished, a solid progressive and it doesn't hurt that she is both gorgeous and very pregnant.

I haven't seen or heard much of her remarks today, but they were in turn funny, rousing and insightful. Click the arrow on the player below to hear a five-minute clip from Sen. Chang-Díaz' speech.

---

---

She differs from most remarks on both sides of this campaign in several ways. She in fact differs from both Markey and Obama. She came from a really local, really pragmatic political view.

She softened up the masses with jokes about how she wasn't due for another eight days....and she waved her absentee ballot form that she had in case she was in labor on June 25th. Then she cut to the teamwork motif that has been lacking in this campaign, at least to my awareness.

Markey has not stressed that he'd be a one-two punch for Dem values with Sen. Elizabeth Warren. He should. He only says that GOP opponent Gabriel Gomez would cancel out Warren's vote. Chang-Díaz worked the teamwork theme from several angles for him. She first noted that big Massachusetts liberal victories came from widespread teamwork, including marriage equality, CORI reform and healthcare reform that spread nationally (she welcomed Obama for joining in).

In a great take on the current race, she made a credible call for GOTV efforts. First in Spanish, then English, she said that Gabriel Gomez was not the only Latino in the race, then pointing to the audience and herself. She called for at least as big a turnout as last November's that send Warren to the Senate.

Markey wasn't on stage, but I hope his minions paid attention and informed him.

For the big show, Obama was pretty damned good. He was on at least his B+ game. There was show cutesy stuff, as there was with Markey, about the Boston/Chicago Stanley Cup Final teams, but the POTUS quickly got serious.

NECN has his whole half hour, which is worth a watch and listen. Click here for that.

Big Dog Next

What I'll watch for now is Bill Clinton's endorsement of Markey this Saturday in Worcester. I can't get to that but I definitely want to compare it to his pitch for US Rep. Steve Lynch three years ago in Boston. That one surprised and appalled me. It was all about Clinton when it should have been about the candidate.

In contrast, Obama was focused and balanced yesterday. He started, continued and ended with specific reasons to campaign for and vote for Ed Markey. Where the President inserted himself into it, the point was that "I need Ed Markey" in Washington to pursue the big goals...shade of Chang-Díaz' teamwork.

I'll catch the video of that show and see who's the hero of those remarks.

Better Safe...AND Sorry?

Cue continued outrage from left and right on American phone and internet transactions being spook monitored. This hoo-ha is disingenuous and decades late. The mice that are Americans long ago gave it up.

As a baby boomer, I was wee when Sen. Joseph McCarthy terrified my parents' generation. He ran the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, as well as inspiring similar lunacy at the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the Subversive Activities Control Board, and even linked to the Hollywood (really all entertainment industry) blacklisting. He couldn't have destroyed so many lives, lied so many lies and instituted the mechanisms without lots of help, such as Ronald Reagan, then head of the Screen Actor's Guild, and a McCarthy's good buddy and fellow Senator Richard Nixon.

Art note: The period Soviet poster exhorts young builders of communism to educate and convert.

Until 9/11, the craziness of that era seemed far away and unreproducible. Lists of covert communists insinuated in the State Department? Actors living to subvert us with their performances? Professors converting innocent students to Soviet control? Clear crap, we might have thought...until recently.

Now our irrational nation fear is not of Russians nor their contemporary Yellow Peril as the WWII generation dubbed the rising Chinese. Rather, terrorists in the form of the various al-Qaeda incarnations, the Taliban, and any person or group who kill Americans, particularly in the United States are, well, terrorizing us.

---

Granny Says

---

Maybe your grandmother used the folksy, "Better safe than sorry," as mine did. That was an analog of the Boy Scouts' "Be prepared." Sure, there irrefutable simple-mindedness there, but little else.

I eventually learned that such verbal tics are merely I-told-you-so placeholders. It's like hearing either, "It's only commonsense," or "Let's not reinvent the wheel." The message behind those wheezes is, "I have nothing, not reasoning or proof. I'm about to make bald assertions that I don't want challenged."

Back in the post-WWII Red-Scare times and now again in post-9/11, those with little or no regard for this nation's famous, hard-won, clearly defined freedoms do their worst. Yes, it was McCarthy, Nixon and Reagan before and after their presidencies, the Bushes both spook and the lesser, and now President Obama.

---

Time to Reverse

---

There is cause for outrage, for extreme wariness, for remedies.

Again, as a boomer, I grew up with the idea and ideals that we were exceptional as a nation. It wasn't the unjustifiable manifest-destiny thing. Rather, from  the Colonial era, through our revolution, into our states' and federal constitution and its add-ons, we set the world tone for liberty. We guaranteed a free press, free church, and even forbade the English occupation evils such as no-due-process for searches, trials or punishments.

Wow, we goofed up big time again and for the past 12 years in particular.

We've sent uncharged vaguely defined enemies off for torture and almost certainly did the same here. We run a concentration camp in Cuba where hundreds of uncharged suspects despair. We allow civilian-on-civilian gun murder on the skimpiest of excuses of feeling our lives or even property just might be somehow, someway threatened.

Now again we find that covertly and with or without Fourth Amendment safeguards, our very words and movements are captured, stored and analyzed. The oppressive policies we decry in China, Indonesia and elsewhere seem to too many to be OK here, as in better safe than sorry.

The pathetic corollary to such unjustifiable intrusion is a pattern of individual brutality. In the Red-Scare era, people (as in Americans) were denied their livelihoods, accused of and brought to trial for treason, hounded from their homes and professions, and beaten down even into suicide.

Let's forget the slippery-slope argument. Instead, this should be binary. What if one of more security agencies or some level of cop decide your internet activities or phone calls "prove" you are a terrorist or otherwise threat to the nation or one its politicians? Our legal system's background aside, that seems more like Gitmo than innocent until proven guilty.

If it's, "See right here. This known terrorist's number called yours four times." Ta da!

Sorry, guys. This reeks and cannot stand.

For once, I have to agree with the squawking class. We've backslid during stressful times, but as a nation, we've given up too much and worked too hard for freedoms unimaginable in the rest of the world. We can't join them in cowed acceptance in the name of better safe than sorry.

Tell your President. Tell your members of Congress.

Endorsement Door 3, Ed Markey

Kisses. Kisses. Kisses.

This morning over in DOT at the IBEW Local 103, Business Manager Mike Monahan loved Mayor Tom Menino and Rep. Ed Markey. Menino loved Monahan, the union, unions, and Markey. Markey loved Menino, Monahan and, well, everybody.

The occasion was for Menino to endorse Markey in the special election to the U.S. Senate, replacing suddenly Secretary of State John Kerry. Markey won the Dem primary over Rep. Steve Lynch and faces the GOP's Gabriel Gomez near the end of next month.

As Menino's endorsement of Elizabeth Warren in the previous special, to replace the late Ted Kennedy, was key to her victory, you might have supposed the crowd would have been bigger here than about two hundred.

Then again, Menino squatted like an owl on a limb before coming out for Warren. The anticipation was palpable and fierce. At the endorsement rally in the middle of Roslindale (at Adams Park, a.k.a. Roslindale Square), every bench, bit of sidewalk and patch of grass was populated. The crowd spiraled with increasing passion for 90 minutes before Menino  and Warren appeared. A virtual political talent show ordinary women spoke powerfully for Warren. She ascended the stage to swelling music and louder cheers.

Two years earlier, at another endorsement to-do, former President Bill Clinton came on for Lynch's re-election bid. That was the strangest of such events I ever attended. Everybody got up at the Ironworkers hall to say how wonderful a prez Clinton had been. In a odd juxtaposition, Lynch spoke before Clinton, saying of  course what a wonderful prez he had been. Only at the end, did Clinton podium up to say, yes, what a wonderful prez he'd been. Then at the end of the remarks, he briefly praised Lynch and urged voting for him, campaigning for him and donating to his campaign.

Not today. It was the natural order of things. Monahan introduced Menino, who introduced Markey. Everybody had plenty of praise for the other two.

There was also no tension or doubt. Gomez held no trump card as Scott Brown did as incumbent Senator. No one was surprised the Mayor went for Markey.

There was pretty good stuff around, substance and detail as well as a love fest. They spoke of gun control, protecting Social Security, ensuring equal opportunity in education, or as Markey put it to great appreciation (hear clip below), "...every child should have access to the skill set they need..."

He also said that the kind of partnership he's had with Menino is exactly that he'd need as a Senator "to fight for the cities." He listed urban concerns and what he and Menino had worked on together.

On the other hand, there was no mention of him and Warren as a team, as a one-two punch in the Senate. If I can finally get him on Left Ahead, I'll ask about that.

This show was pretty short, a campaign stop, in and out in a half hour. I have seen and heard Markey do better on the stump. In particular, three months ago at JP Licks, he spoke with wit and power to over 100 crammed into the ice cream parlor. Today, he was warm and generous in praise, but you could see the audience looking around a bit and shifting from foot to foot as he spent most of his time speaking of the splendors or Boston and her Mayor.

He could have benefited from a slice of Clinton's ego. He has a good story and tells it well. He should learn to acknowledge praise and then move to the important stuff. He has some time to practice before the two debates with Gomez.

Click the arrow on the player to hear a two-minute clip from Markey endorsement acceptance.

---

---

Milhous or Millstone?

Let us lefty types praise Congressional Republicans, at last for their current stupidity. That is, their reanimation of the odious GOP disgrace Tricky Dick Nixon.

They seem to be oblivious to the low comedy nature of the likes of "I know you are, but what am I." When the Pee-wee Herman character responded that way to an insult, it was more evidence of his puerile foolishness. Now Congressional GOP type and their not so foxy media touts chant an unending Greek chorus of "Nixonian."

The knowledgeable and analytic know first that the evils of the lawless, ruthless Nixon are not at all like the events Obama haters are failing to turn into scandals. Moreover, winger media as well as Republicans push and push the comparisons with Nixon, first the same as and then even worse than Nixon.

I accept as so many pundit types of all political stripes have said or written, that Republicans won't rest, vindicated until they force a Democratic President from office. Nixon, of course, slithered away ahead of impeachment, indictment and jail and under a pardon from his replacement.

Alas, the unrelenting efforts to drive Bill Clinton from office surely were driven by the Nixon stain. The GOP did get him impeached for lying about and inducing others to lie about his being fellated by an intern. He did not leave office and if anything his personal and political stock climbed. (It's worth noting that several of those leading that impeachment effort were at the time involved in long-term adulterous relationships, and lying about those.)

Regardless, this full chorus singing for Obama's impeachment serves two purposes:

1. Highlighting governmental problems, while even in the short term having hearings that show the President to be innocent of the allegations.
2. Reminding all voters that Republicans have decades of nefarious association with the sleaziest of all Presidents. 

Yes, the GOP loves to claim being the Party of Lincoln. Really though, they have revivified that awful zombie to make us aware they are the Party of Nixon.

Younger voters who had only a vague historical reference to Nixon are learning more and more about his sordid administration. They now know that this is the Republican way. The GOP would have been far wiser to leave hid corpse undisturbed.

Boomers and older voters hear this dreadful belch from the past. We too re-associate Republicans with the sneaky, lawbreaking, Constitution abusing Nixon.

When Watergate became his Waterloo, Nixon tried to defend his criminal leadership and simultaneously shift the focus from this abuse of office to whether he had profited financially from his misdeeds. Among his remarks at the time were, "People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got."

Well, he seemed incapable of honesty, but truth be told, he was a crook, on many levels.

So, thanks GOP'ers. You have successfully and repeatedly reminded us how the Party of Nixon acts and speaks.

Consalvo Powers On

The myriad Boston mayoral candidates have four months to stand out from the other 23 running. Last evening, Rob Consalvo did a very credible job at that.

In his kickoff rally, his opening acts of supporters wound up the crowd of four or five hundred filling the Cedars of Lebanon hall in JP. Then his wife, Michelle, humanized him with personal and family vignettes. He kept the energy with a rousing stump speech.

One-on-one, Rob is a serious, sincere pol. I wondered whether he could put the hammer to the anvil. No problem last night.

He hit on the high points, what used to be called the vision thing, following the list items on his scant website. He'll surely get more detailed heading to the September preliminary. Meanwhile the skillfully skirted the border of specificity that would give his many opponents targets. Being out early brings big risks.

His skeletal platform hits constituent passions:

• High quality education, a tier-one school in every neighborhood. (Promises longer school days and year, with more funding, and somehow getting teachers, unions and parents working together.)
• Strong fiscal foundation for the city. (That seems to mean growing businesses, fostering high-tech and other innovation, and not from austerity.)
• Improved public safety...in every neighborhood. (Some technology like ore ShotSpotter installs, but mostly funding police, fire, youth groups, neighborhood watch and more.)
• Finding and eliciting ideas and innovations from citizens, businesses, academicians, and government in MA and beyond. 

The emcee, MA Sen. Anthony Petruccelli, three constituents and his wife heaped on his credentials to advance that he can deliver.

He works absurd hours, apparently without fatigue. He solves constituent problems, like ensuring vacant land became a neighborhood's green space. He innovates as in pressing for John's Law to prevent drunk drivers from getting right back in their cars happened in MA; he takes credit for helping it spread nationwide. Maybe even more effective and memorable was Michelle's tale of how he stopped when they were on the way to a hospital for her to deliver their youngest  but he noticed graffiti on the Grew Elementary and hod to call it in before heading to delivery.

She claims it didn't surprise or upset her.She is what Rob called his best asset in the race and Petruccelli said was his "greatest campaign prop."

He's been at it for 11 years on City Council, representing District 5 with parts of Hyde Park, Mattapan and Roslindale. That was Mayor Tom Menino's district.

Disclaimer: Rob is my district councilor. I know him and he has been a guest on Left Ahead a couple times.

During his tenure, Rob has been known for his constant innovations and sticking his neck out on what he decides are good ideas. He comes up with some of those on his own, gets some from constituents and makes no bones about eagerly accepting or adapting others from Councilors, other politicians and elsewhere. He has been one of the few on Council with the reputation for proposing projects, regulations and what they like to call legislation on the fifth floor of city hall.

Missing last evening were politicians likely to support and endorse early. With two dozen declared candidates — maybe 10 to 12 likely to get enough signatures for ballot slots — pols are necessarily very cautious about such displays. I had to think of 2010 when Matt O'Malley ran in a special to replace Councilor John Tobin and had a monster, politically starry kickoff. No one can beat that kind of display for this race.

So far, no one in the race has advanced either a brilliant slogan or a revolutionary platform. Rob's catchphrase Making Boston Better is more than adequate. He simply has to convince enough voters that he can pull that off, that he can harden up his kind of spongy goals and achieve each one. Last evening was promising.

Marriage Tipping Points

Back a decade ago (ooooo) Hawaii said, "Why not?" to marriage equality — to be quickly legislatively stifled — Vermont passed civil unions (now known as same-sex marriage LITE), and then MA's high court rules that constitutional equal rights are just that in Goodridge. As those transpired, regressive legislators state by state, both WWII sorts and boomers alike, over-reacted with panic.

The tipping point then and in all those places was sent the big, honking message to all those queers and queer loving liberal sorts. Laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, often backed up by a voter-approved constitutional amendment forbidding hoe-moe-sexual marriage (oops, "marriage" always in quotes of disdain), flourished like garlic mustard poisoning the lawns of liberty. It was a trend amplifying Prez Bill Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act.

The anti-gay, anti-marriage equality forces loved to chant how 30 or 40 states forbade gay marriage, implying that was permanent. Not so fast, nasties.

We have 11 states, D.C., and a few Native American nations who have legalized SSM. Plus, CA did and will almost surely return next month when the SCOTUS stops futzing around.

Today, Minnesota's House approved SSM. The governor is ready to sign as soon as its Senate does it's proforma consent Monday.

By the bye, Illinois is likely to join the equality party this month.

The tipping point is tipped.

When Illinois and California jump in, suddenly we don't have a freak nation of a few areas approving SSM. Rather, a huge chunk of the population — both coasts and in the middle — say they actually believe in and support equality.

If, as expected, the SCOTUS, hedges on full equality nationwide, only letting CA revert to its legislatively passed SSM, we are left with a modern and primitive America. Texas and South Carolina won't want to give homosexuals American rights, dagnabbit.  Short of a Supreme Court mandate, they'll fester with their regressive stupidity as they did with race laws for a bit longer.

The point is that I was wrong. I thought getting this far would take another decade or two. Once I saw that my boomer generation was little better than our parents on gay rights, I feared for the nation until most of us from both groups had died. I, fortunately, was wrong. America is tired of the irrational and emotional crap and its distractions.

Tip that.

Mega-Sota and Marriage

Watching and hearing several hours of the Minnesota House debate marriage equality, I was moved again, as I was in hearing the New Hampshire and Maine legislatures. The rhetoric was similar, as was the result.

The body today approved same-sex marriage by 75 to 59. The Senate had already approved it and will vote Monday in a pro forma confirmation. The governor is eager to sign the bill into law. Full marriage will start August 1st.

The heartland arguments differed little from the coastal ones. Most reps, regardless of gender, orientation, age or other factors, were intellectually and emotionally and patriotically on the side of liberty and equality for all.

The scattered naysayers tried tired clichés about (discredited) studies saying a mom/dad was the only OK family for kids or that marriage existed just for procreation or such tripe.

The pro side was often at once rational and passionate. They spoke of fairness, American ideals, and even of the relatives, friends, neighbors, coworkers and fellow legislators who were gay and denied fundamental rights and inclusion.

Yes, it was time in Minnesota.

Yes, Delaware

Not to be outdone by the other tiny state, Delaware joined the Eastern Seaboard trend toward marriage equality a few minutes ago. Last week, Rhode island finally, finally made same-sex marriage real after years of rubbing up against it.

This follows last year's Delaware half-hearted civil-unions effort. Today, it went for the real thing, to begin July 1.

Of course, the new law has the unnecessary legally but crucially emotionally for a subset of citizens proviso that clergy and churches can continue to scream, "Do not darken my door, you queens!" in refusing to perform same-sex rituals. That has long been the US Constitution as well as per-state law, but for the anti-gay putting in writing yet again remains a thing of consequence.

 Blessed be.

Boston Corpse Shaming

OK, boys and girls, in the how-provincial-can-you-get contest Boston remains a major competitor. When it comes to dishonoring the dead, we're down there with the worst.

Consider alleged and highly photographed Marathon terrorism suspect Tamelan Tsarnaev. Cops and his brother produced his corpse in Watertown, but the nasty remains went off to Dyer-Lake Funeral Home and Cremation Services, North Attleboro. They shipped it off to the gutsier Graham Putnam & Mahoney Funeral Parlors in Worcester. They are not afraid of preparing and plugging controversial bodies, including gang members.

As owner Peter Stephan told the Telegraph, "“Our job is to bury the dead. Can we pick and choose the circumstances surrounding the person – be it their death or what they did? Everyone deserves a respectful burial.”"

Meanwhile of course Boston Herald writers and others are swarming like dung beetles and squatting like carrion birds. "Oh, they got welfare money!" "Lawdy, they are proof all immigrants should be turned back!" "God, condemn their souls forever and let us drag their bodies around the city behind garbage trucks!"

Forget the de mortuis nil nisi bonum crappolo, it's lynch mob time on the Charles. Any respect for the dead, for due process or other constitutional rights be damned.

This is not our first go at this either. A little less than a century ago, the most egregious parallel was Bartolomeo Vanzetti and Nicola Sacco. These admitted anarchists were convicted — almost certainly falsely — of murder and put to death. For their families, that didn't end the anguish.

No funeral home would cremate the corpses and no Catholic cemetery would accept the remains. Finally, the WASPy haven, Forest Hills Cemetery agreed to burn the bodies and ship the ashes to the parents in Italy. On the way from the Langone funeral home in the North End, protesters were abetted by the Boston police in rioting, disrupting the transit and shaming the mourners. It was as disgraceful a day as the BPD has had before or sense.

Forest Hills staff had a similar attitude to the Worcester folk. Corpses have a sacred patina that deserves respect and expedience. The politics and self-righteousness of nasties are not relevant. Bless them.

On the Rhode Island to Hell

Tossing back some champers and worst of all wishing the newlyweds happiness may send you to hell, says Providence Bishop T.J. Tobin. Like donkeys braying in the back field, that's the scattered nastiness from the few angry that Rhode Island legalized marriage equality yesterday.

(Art note: A section of Rodin's gates of hell bronze at Stanford U.)

The usual clowns, like NOM, joined him in handwringing and in fear mongering about pious business owners surely, surely being forced to accommodate gay folk.

Tobin had the instant classic though, including:

Catholics should examine their consciences very carefully before deciding whether or not to endorse same-sex relationships or attend same-sex ceremonies, realizing that to do so might harm their relationship with God and cause significant scandal to others.

Non-Catholics may not be aware of his insider code there. Scandal does have the ordinary meaning, as in scandals of bishops protecting child abusing clerics and all the related disgrace. His churchy use means an action or word that would ruin another person's soul. Such scandal is evil in itself and puts one on the express train to hell.

The bishop might do well with less politics and more Bible study. Consider the number of places particularly in the New Testament that judgment is God's not man's. I'm pretty sure Tobin falls in the latter group.

My late mother used to say, "We're all adults here," with the implications of maturity and rationality. Were that the case in RI, the bishop and other anti-gay types might have said, "We fought long and strong against fairness and equality but finally got out butts handed to us."

New England is solidly for marriage equality now. When California returns to the same rights, almost certainly after the June SCOTUS rulings, a big chunk of the population will be too. DOMA is on its way out. It's all happening much quicker than I predicted.

OK Rhody

Finally, for Christ's sake, Rhode Island passes the two necessary bills to formalize marriage equality. Gov. Chafee promises 5:45 PM signing. The House backs up the Senate by 56 to 15. When he signs, it's a done, regional deal. Ten states for fairness and love.

Let's not do the what-took-you-so-long thing! RI has danced around same-sex marriage for years, accepting  Massachusetts marriages, offering benefits, yadda yadda. We await only te

Now New England is a jolly family of fairness.

RI same-sex marriages begin August. 1.

Herd of Stallions

Da Mare, a.k.a. Boston Mayor Thomas Michael Menino, made a massive (22) herd of all male would-be replacements appear. Simply by announcing he would not run for a sixth four-year term, he gave the ambitious, the vain, and the delusional permission to run for the open spot in the September preliminary.

Today's Boston Globe has the full list of the 19 who have pulled papers and three others who have already said they're in the hunt. Candidates have until May 13th at 5 PM to apply and May 21 at 5 to hand in the required 3,000 registered Boston voter signatures.

In reality, they likely each need 4,500 or 5,000 signatures to have enough legit ones. Moreover, pundits and consultants figure candidates will need one million dollars to run a competitive race.

The current herd includes:

• City Councilor Felix G. Arroyo
• John F. Barros
• Lee Buckley
• Robert Cappucci
• Charles L. Clemons Jr.
• Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley
• City Councilor John R. Connolly
• City Councilor Rob Consalvo
• Miniard Culpepper
• William J. Dorcena
• Althea Garrison
• John G.C. Laing Jr.
• Divo Rodrigues Monteiro
• David S. Portnoy
• City Councilor Michael P. Ross
• Gareth R. Saunders
• Bill Walczak
• State Representative Martin J. Walsh
• Hassan A. Williams
• Christopher G. Womack
• David James Wyatt
• City Councilor Charles C. Yancey

Some seem to be vanity candidates, like Charles Clemons and John Laing, co-founders of 106.1 TOUCH (pirate) radio, and likely Barstool Sports head David Portnoy. Plus there are I'll-run-for-anything perennial candidates like Althea Garrison. Several community activists jumped in with yet-to-be-determined levels of seriousness.

Likewise, five of the 13 City Councilors are in. Apparently four are willing to vacate their seats and show the confidence of running only for the top job. One, longest-serving Councilor Charles Yancey filed for his district seat as well. In theory, if he won both, he could choose one office to take. If he loses the preliminary on September 14th, he'd still be up for his district seat.

Others are apparently still mulling. Many progressive sorts were sorry to see that Councilor Ayanna Pressley would not run for Mayor. We have yet to hear from Council President Steve Murphy. He's in his 50s and this could be his one shot at the office, but that's a hell of a big, rough herd to run with.

It makes me dizzy for this blog and the weekly Left Ahead podcast. It's tempting to be as cowardly as the local dailies, not covering individuals until some drop out and most lose in the prelim. Over at the podcast though, we have pretty recently spoken with Connolly, Dorcena and Consalvo. That was Dorcena as the first to announce, a year ago, and the other two because they had worthwhile political and policy commentary.

This could be fascinating or tedious before September. Certainly if any forum group tires to put 22 on the stage at a time, each would get 15 to 30 seconds a go and resolve absolute nothing. I'm still looking forward to the show.

France Joins Marriage-Equality List

Love expands legally in France. The National Assembly passed same-sex marriage 331 to 225 today in a bill identical to the Senate one already approved.

The plug nasties have a last-gasp effort to beg the Constitutional Council to overturn, "censor" the bill. Those judges have up to a month to decide. There seem virtually no chance of reversal happening.

Homosexual couples can start marrying nationwide by the middle of June.

Le Monde has the story (in French, mais oui).

Straight to Crazy After Boston Bombings

Well now, there's crazy like a fox and crazy like FOXnews. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell most definitely remains in the latter class of stupids.

Following Monday's Boston Marathon bombings, with their death, dismemberment and massive injuries, he took the mic on the Senate floor to make absurd political claims. Those centered on counter-terrorism following the 9/11 attacks. His punchline was, "With the passage of time, however, and the vigilant efforts of our military, intelligence and law enforcement professionals, I think it’s safe to say that for many, the complacency that prevailed prior to September 11th has actually returned."

Think Progress has the full quotes and clip.

Know you will hear more of such baseless claims. From what should be a leadership position, McConnell instead points the way to the unprovable, untenable, and impotent. As a nation, both government and individuals, we are more aware of dangers than ever, have numerous agencies and procedures at work constantly, and have thwarted many terrorism attempts. The ones that happen are God awful but very rare.

As usual, his implication is that somehow, someone (read President Obama) coulda, shoulda done something unspecified that woulda prevented the Boston bombings.So far for the first day and one half, most winger commentators have managed to stifle such base words. Here's betting McConnell's were just the first.

The larger and underlying issue continues to be that Congressional Republicans and GOP leaders neither like nor truly understand the post-WWII America. Let us recall that over 400,000 Americans were among those who died in WWII. To a one, they would say then and later that it was about keeping the United States and larger world free. Likewise those who fought in Korea, Southeast Asia and the Middle East almost all echoed that.

The trend we have seen in recent years though, particularly after 9/11, has been expanding government powers to limit liberties. Among the most pervasive are TSA airport procedures. Unlike say Israel, we don't use savvy airport agents and sensible observation. We go for mindless rules about a couple of ounces of liquid and resort to frisking and even to strip searches.

---

Safety Fantasies

---

The wingers at the state level instead reserve their version of freedom to actual murder threats. That would be stand-your-ground laws that literally permit individuals to decide when they can execute someone. That would be permits to carry loaded sidearms into drinking sessions at bars. That would be the right to own and walk around with semiautomatic rifles with 30 or 100 shot clips attached.

Let us constantly be aware that international and domestic terrorists want to cripple Americans. They want us to be afraid all the time. They want our country more like autocratic ones, where big, intrusive government rules and citizens must obey.

The crazy-like-FOX crew seem to be all for that anti-freedom movement. They're fine with every bigger, ever more intrusive government spying on us, our calls, emails, travels and more. Likewise, they are fine with employers deciding what health care their workers can get (think contraception). At the state level, many seem delighted to restrict the most fundamental American right, that of voting.

McConnell and his ilk clearly don't like the America that grew, evolved and matured around them. They want a much more confined America. They lie about wanting less government while they ever expand agencies to control us.

I call them out.

The Boston bombings brought many tragedies — a word I never use lightly. Personal ones include the murder of 8-year-old Martin Richard.

There is no need for or utility in political lies about complacency. Likewise, being in denial about susceptibility to terrorist acts right here in the United States is simply delusional. We're not in a war zone. Then again at the most basic level, we, and the whole world, are. Fantasizing that big-daddy government can keep us safe every hour everywhere from every monster goes straight to crazy.

Melissa Crosses the Nasties

Apparently MSNBC is new to the parents-rights mini-movement. This week, they've been wringing hands and trying valiantly to be amused by winger bloggers and Fox talking heads slamming Melissa Harris Perry.

At the bottom is a segment in which Chris Hayes and she seemed surprised and even stunned. The Fox-ies had spent much of the week literally ranting and feigning high-pitched outrage. She had only called for larger community involvement in ensuring the safety and successful development of children.

The winger drama centered on her saying that a family's children are not the sole responsibility of the parents, that the community can help and should help. Of course that is a simple, generally religiously based concept going way back to Old Testament days and before. The idea that if there are problems, you're on you own, is a more recent, destruction and cold one.

Yet, winger media are always eager to pounce. They have been outdoing each other depicting these old fashioned values as collectivism, communism and other such drivel.

Hayes and Harris Perry were generally confused about where all this overreaction originated. Welcome to the world of parents rights.

That subgroup of wingers claims legal and moral ownership of their children, be it in how they are educated or whether parents can beat them freely and on any whim.

I did a series here (search for parents rights). One post links to several others by their emphasis. MSNBC folk can be sure if they again dare call for community involvement in helping kids, and particularly if they use the expression that "our children are not our own" as the metaphor for people helping each other, these vipers will pop out of their holes.

---

---

Pols (Not) Hedging Election Bets

Oh, now it becomes clear. Nothing, other than smart politicking, prevents our office holders from running for a higher office while simultaneously running for re-election.

I have been reading in the local rags that Boston City Councilors, for one example in the news, had to resign to run for the suddenly, shockingly available mayoralty. As is my wont, I headed to the City Charter and the Council rules to find, cite and link to the specifics. I pored through each with no results.

Then I ran across a piece in the J.P. Gazette that revealed reporter Peter Shanley's query to Mayor Tom Menino's office. It seems that it's savvy convention to show confidence by stepping down, but it's not required. In this case, a Councilor could run for both the mayoralty and re-election to Council. Then, assuming victory in both races, the double winner would choose which job to take.

Of course, at that level, it screams a lack of confidence to run for two offices. The perception is that voters would assume you presume loss before the first vote registers.

Yet we don't have to go very high up to see hedging bets for other offices. U.S. Senators John McCain,  Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, as other examples, held their seats while running for President (and Sen. Joe Biden as VP candidate). Likewise, both U.S. Reps. Steve Lynch and Ed Markey are running in the special election for U.S. Senate without resigning.

In a bit of humorous math, the risk level for Mayor is vastly higher than that for U.S. Senator this time and place. The field is wide and diverse. Some candidates are already well financed (as in $250,000 to $700,000 in the checkbook). At least four of the 13 Councilors are in and one or two more may make the leap in the next few days. The DA from Boston's Suffolk County is in, as were two early announcers (sill badly underfunded, but swearing money won't win this race). A state rep joined and so it goes.

There's no party affiliation in the preliminary in September, but nearly everyone is a Democrat by the bye. So far, we have no women running. It's also coincidentally the Middle Earth of Boston politics, with few candidates of color and nearly everyone Irish American. That's our history after the brahmans and before the ascendancy of those of Irish and Italian heritage.

The Council itself is a little more diverse. It only has one woman, one Latino, and three African Americans (including the woman).  Oh, and there's one Jew, and he's the most recently announced candidate for Mayor. The body certainly does not represent Boston's makeup ethnically or racially.

Now I wonder how many of those Councilors will or are even considering running for two offices in September and should they be in the top two finishers for Mayor, in the general in November.

Candidates who step away from secure spots and announce, "There is no plan B," as they run for higher office can seem heroic and confident. Yet, voters don't automatically reject those who hedge their bets.

Here, the Council could have the largest shakeup in memory if the candidates do not run for re-election as well as the mayoralty. Right now, that could mean openings for:

• Felix G. Arroyo, at-large
• John Connolly, at-large
• Rob Consalvo, district 5
• Mike Ross, district 8

Plus, maybe Steve Murphy, at-large, and the slim possibility of Charles Yancey, district 6.

There's no certainty that any one of them would win. They'd all take a huge flyer. The district Councilors are each and all from safe seats for them. Murphy is generally a big vote getter at-large, as are Arroyo and Connolly.

Murphy has held the Council presidency the past three times. That might well be at risk if four or more new Councilors come to office after November.  He's still thinking, he says.

The Boston Herald, our winger tabloid, has been flogging Suffolk DA Dan Conley. Their highly biased staff points fairly to his large checkbook at the beginning of the campaign. However, when he was a Councilor, he was neither particularly powerful nor memorable. He's had a much greater impact as a prosecutor. He hasn't had a chance to make his platform pitch. If it's law-and-order up top, that remains to be seen whether voters will weigh that heavily.

I'll be monitoring the stump speeches, tweets, FB postings and websites as these develop. Right now, the scrum to announce following Menino's decision not to run again has the runners still metaphorically tying their laces. As soon as enough of them put their platforms out, I'll comment on site contents and presentations.

A few quick thoughts though for the announced Councilors:

• Arroyo: Bright, confident, progressive, charming, he's also a good speaker. I've also been to numerous meetings where I overheard young female voters of various ethnic backgrounds commenting that he's very handsome and saying they know he has a wife who's even prettier. While that shouldn't make any difference, people have noted they like to look at him...and Jasmine. He's the first Latino to run for the office and has a large supporter base.
• Connolly: Wonderfully Boy-Scout level sincere, he has a deep passion for improving Boston schools...right now! He's run the Council's education committee for several terms, which is a royal pain on many levels, one that others run from. He was a teacher, his wife is, and they have two kids starting public school. He'll have other planks, but he is building his campaign first on the tough goal of high-quality schools in every single neighborhood. The question here is that if he's seen as the education guy, will voters who care more about jobs, housing and safety bypass him?
• Consalvo: He is turbo-charged. He's been among the most active idea guys (like shot-spotter), proposing regulations and programs incessantly. He has the constituent services role down pat and learned from his Hyde Park friend and neighbor Menino to show up at every event and meeting, to know voters and get known. Rob seems to figure that if Tom can do this, he can. (Disclosure: He's my district guy, has done constituent services for me, and I like him.)
• Ross: He's the Council smarty, which comes with mixed value. We saw in the last mayoral election that smart was not enough, as Sam Yoon came in third and out of the runoff. People tell me they find Ross cold. I don't; he and I have talked cycling and I thought he ran a ship-shape cruise when he was Council president. He is a more visionary sort with larger goals for the city. Will those ideas intrigue voters? Is the timing right for something demanding and different?

I love this stuff. I'm also glad I'm not running for anything. I do promise to pay attention to them though.