Prop 8 Ruling: Now What?

You’ve probably heard about the decision by the Ninth Circuit invalidating Proposition 8. But if you’re hungry for more information, I want to simplify your search a bit.

I’ve read a lot of articles today about the decision, and I think Phil Reese of the Washington Blade has the best broad, yet in-depth analysis. And he does it without getting too wonky.  Excerpt:

Official "Vote NO on Prop 8" logo

Image via Wikipedia

In a two-to-one decision, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional in a federal case challenging California’s marriage ban.

The opinion, authored by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, affirms Judge Vaughn Walker’s 2010 ruling that the law passed by California voters at the ballot violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

The court also rejected the argument that Judge Walker should have recused himself from the case because of his sexual orientation and relationship status.

Legal experts began to weigh in on the meaning of the decision immediately.

“I think the biggest story is how narrow [the majority decision] really is,” Douglas NeJaime, associate professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, told the Blade Tuesday. “Which in some ways I think that might disappoint some folks who were hoping it would expand to more states, but I think in terms of setting it up for a Supreme Court review — either the Supreme Court not taking it, or approving it — for supporters of same-sex marriage, this is actually the most strategically sound way for the case to proceed.”

Legal experts agree that the decision represents a big win for same-sex couples in California, even though it was a narrow decision limited to California. The Ninth Circuit encompasses multiple Western states and some Prop 8 opponents had hoped the court’s decision would impact a wider swath of the country.

He also goes in to the likely next steps, which I find an excellent resource for those of us who wonder what kind of impact this will have across the country.

Read the full article here.

Rehberg’s “Year Of Disaster”

One day after an Associated Press investigation found that Dennis Rehberg hid tens of thousands of dollars in cash from lobbyists, today the millionaire Congressman marks the one-year anniversary of his U.S. Senate campaign.

And what a year it’s been.
The Montana Democratic Party today released a video highlighting Rehberg’s most memorable, out-of-touch moments from the past year.  
“From calling Pell Grants ‘welfare’ to supporting an unpopular federal land-grab bill that undermines our rights, Congressman Rehberg has shown all of us how out of touch he is with Montana values–over and over again,” said Ted Dick, Executive Director of the Montana Democratic Party.  “Montanans deserve someone who stands for their values in Washington–not Dennis Rehberg, who was forced to drop a lawsuit against Billings firefighters.”
2011: A year of blunders for Congressman Dennis Rehberg:
February 6, 2011: Congressman Rehberg announces his candidacy for United States Senate alongside controversial presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann.  Bachmann had just proposedcutting $4.5 billion in veterans’ benefits.
February 8, 2011:  Rehberg makes national headlines for suggesting that judges should be on theEndangered Species Act.
April 1, 2011: Rehberg calls Pell Grants “the welfare of the 21st century.”
April 28 2011: Congressman Rehberg tells the Missoula City Club that although he is one of thewealthiest members of Congress, he is “struggling like everybody else” and “cash poor.”
September 2011: Montanans of all political backgrounds criticize Rehberg’s controversial sponsorship of his unpopular HR 1505, legislation that would give one federal agency the power to seize public lands in Montana.
October 8, 2011: The Associated Press notes that Rehberg has held “far more infrequent” public events in Montana.  Shortly thereafter, Rehberg stood by as a uniformed sheriff removed a Montana Democratic Party employee from Rehberg’s so called “public” event.
November 11, 2011: Amid a sea of controversy, Rehberg is forced to drop his wildly unpopular, 15-month lawsuit against Billings firefighters.
February 5, 2012: An Associated Press investigation finds that Rehberg hid tens of thousands of dollars campaign contributions, even as he criticizes others for taking campaign contributions.

Catholic Progressives: Speak Up!

From my friends over at New Ways Ministry:

From a Kensington.Patch.com article on marriage equality in Maryland entitled “O’Malley’s same-sex marriage bill to provide more religious protections” comes this quote which serves as a reminder that  Catholic progressives need to speak up to their civil and church leaders:

” ‘I’m getting some people that are calling me to say they don’t support it, and they’re coming from churches, mainly the Catholic Church,’ said Delegate James W. Hubbard (D-Prince George’s County), a bill supporter and member of the Health and Government Operations Committee and chair of the Public Health and Long-Term Care subcommittee.

” ‘I listen to everybody, and I’ve been here 20 years. Those who really get wound up on these things are the ones who call. The people who support these things don’t call,’ he said.”

Point taken. As ridiculously hard as it is sometimes, it’s heartening to remember that the Roman Catholic Church is not the official far right- it’s got a progressive side, too. And plenty of people who go to mass regularly identify as “liberal”. Not to mention the rich history of dissent that has, arguably, saved the church’s bacon on more than one occasion (see: Catherine of Siena).

Reminder: don’t let the right-wing hijack your churches. When any institution moves too far to one side, it not only becomes unbalanced, it begins to convince itself that it’s supposed to be leaning that way.

Montana’s Last Best Chance

Washington State is soon to add itself to the list of states that have legislated for marriage equality- arguably the most democratic way to achieve human rights there is. Forget referendums- most people don’t know what they’re actually voting for, they just read the synopsis on the ballot and make a two second decision. But I digress.

The question for me is this: Now that the State of Washington has voted for Marriage Equality, what does that mean for Oregon, Idaho, Alaska and Montana?

It means we need to keep up the momentum for full LGBT equality. This is not the time to sit on our laurels. This is the time to step it up.

Kris Hermanns in Red Lodge

The Pride Foundation is the only LGBT organization actively involved for LGBT Equality throughout the entire Pacific Northwest- and it is deeply committed. New Executive Director Kris Hermanns last week said to a gathering of Montanans in Bozeman, “Our commitment to you is clear, and together we will have full equality throughout the Pacific Northwest.”

I am a proud member of the Pride Foundation’s Montana Leadership Action Team- along with a number of amazing people- and we have big plans for Montana.

But without the organizing and financial power of Pride Foundation, this amazing group of people would never have been recruited, organized and utilized- and the tens of thousands of  dollars would never have been spent to support LGBTQ causes, events and organizations in 2011.

I believe that the Pride Foundation is Montana’s last best chance to achieve dignity and rights in the state of Montana.

We can’t do it without you. And I’m going to blatantly ask for your support.

If you believe in equal rights for all, support us. Join us here on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter. And please consider financially supporting Pride Foundation- Ken and I are monthly givers.

To do that, click here.

And thank you.

Waiting For Equality

By Amy White on Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 at 9:00 pm

The Big Vote: Pride Foundation's Kris Hermanns and Doug Exworthy surrounded by marriage equality supporters

Hundreds of marriage equality supporters, some driving for hours to get to Olympia, filled the Washington State Senate Gallery Wednesday night to witness the critical Senate vote that brings Washington closer to marriage equality. Supporters were not disappointed. The bill passed in the Senate 28-21.

“This is a huge win and historic day for all Washingtonians,” said Kris Hermanns, Pride Foundation’s Executive Director. “This has been a long-time coming and reflects decades of hard work and courageous leadership. Yet, we know that this is just the first step towards recognizing the full equality, humanity, and dignity of LGBTQ people and families in our state. We have much more work in the coming months to ensure that today’s vote creates permanent equality. ”

Though the bill is expected to pass in the House, and Governor Gregoire has committed to signing the bill, opponents of marriage equality – supported heavily by out of state organizations – are expected to collect enough signatures to force an anti-equality initiative for the November ballot that would seek to reverse the Marriage Equality bill.

Your support will be needed to ensure that Washington becomes the 7th state to allow loving and committed same-sex couples can marry. In the coming months, there will be lots of opportunities to get involved.

Right now, you can make sure you and your friends are following Pride Foundation page on Facebook and Twitter. You can sign-up to the Washington United for Marriage Campaign to share your story on why you support marriage equality. You can also join us for Lobby Day on February 16 in Olympia. Lobby Day will be the chance to thank legislators for their ongoing support and to gain further allies for the equality movement. Contact Christina at christina@pridefoundation.org to get involved today.

Making Change: (L-R) Kris Hermanns, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, Sen. Ed Murray, Doug Exworthy

Together we make make marriage equality magic!

Rick Hill: Destroyer Of Montana’s Fabulous Business Climate?

According to The Montana Democrats (fact-checked of course):

English: Rick Hill

Image via Wikipedia

A study recently released by the Tax Foundation found that Montana has the eighth-best business tax climate in the nation.  That top 10 status is due in large part to Montana’s lack of a sales tax, according to leading in-state business organization that bills itself as “the driving force in promoting a favorable business climate.

The eighth-best ranking is one that the Montana Chamber of Commerce says is something they’ll “promote the heck out of” when attracting companies to do business here, but that ranking that would be lost if Montana instituted former Congressman Rick Hill’s sales tax.

According to a story in Lee Newspapers
, Webb Brown, President of the Montana Chamber of Commerce, said the Tax Foundation gives a lot of credit in its rankings to states that don’t have certain major taxes, such as general sales taxes or individual income taxes.

“Not only would Congressman Hill’s tax-hike take money from the wallets of middle-class Montanans, it would make it harder to create jobs, allow Montana businesses to expand and attract businesses to invest here,” Montana Democratic Party Executive Director Ted Dick said.

As one of the leading contenders for the GOP nomination for Governor, insurance-executive Hill has been a strong supporter of a sales tax.  Hill was the lead lobbyist in the 1993 Montana Legislative Session to put a $400 million tax increase on the ballot – which is over $620 million in today’s dollars.  More recently, Congressman Hill has advocated  for a sales tax as a candidate for Governor.

Governor Schweitzer sees Montana’s standing as one of America’s best business tax climates only getting better, telling reporters that the several states ahead of Montana in the rankings may be looking to raise taxes because they lack the financial stability we enjoy.  Moreover, Montana has cut taxes, like the business equipment tax, this year – which will also play into future rankings.

That may all be lost if Hill is able to ram through his sales tax.

###
Hill Lobbied for $400 Million Sales Tax, $72 Million Income Tax
During the 1993 legislative session, Hill lobbied to pass two measures that would drastically increase taxes on Montanans.  The first measure was a bill to place a $400 million sales tax measure on the ballot.  It was rejected by the voters 75% to 25%.  Hill also lobbied on behalf of a bill that would have increased income taxes by $72 million, but was again rejected by voters. [Billings Gazette State Bureau, 5/23/1996]

Hill Still Supports a Sales Tax
INTERVIEWER: You would support a sales tax as a substitute tax, you would be open to that?

HILL: I would be open to it as a substitute tax. [Voices of Montana, 8/18/2011]

“A lot of people have advocated in Montana for a long time that we need three stools to our tax structure; got to have the income tax, the property tax, and the sales tax. I have often been an advocate for sales tax as a substitute.” [Hometown Helena, 6/2/2011]

Catholics Defend The President

St. Peter's Basilica at Early Morning

Image via Wikipedia

It seems as if the Obama Administration’s rule change requiring that contraception (to those who want it) be insurance-paid commodities was seen to be a nuclear missile aimed directly at St. Peter’s in Rome.

But mostly just by the bishops…. The fuss! The hierarchy’s view of sexuality is- and has always been, about 160 years behind science- and popular understanding, not to mention practice. Humanae Vitae was the most dismal failure, in my opinion, to come out of the era of the Second Vatican Council. The chain attached to a wall in a room that no longer existed. (see below)

And some people realize that. In The Boston Globe today, Joan Vennochi says that the hierarchy is manufacturing a war against the president:

Last Sunday, the Catholic Church declared war on President Obama. Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida quickly took up the cause, signaling the outlines of a serious religious rumble to come in 2012.

The president should be ready for the fight, knowing that on this one he is right.

At Sunday Mass, Catholic parishioners across the country were read letters denouncing the Obama administration’s recent decision to require religiously affiliated hospitals, colleges, and charities to offer health insurance coverage to employees for contraception and the “morning-after pill.’’ On Monday, Rubio, a Republican star who is often mentioned as a VP candidate, introduced a bill that would override the Obama policy by allowing religious institutions that morally oppose contraception to refuse to cover it.

But not all employees of Catholic institutions are Catholics. Why should their employers impose their religious beliefs on them and deny coverage for birth control and other medical care? As long as those Catholic institutions are getting taxpayer money, they should follow secular rules. That’s the Obama administration’s argument, and it makes sense.

But if truth is a casualty of war, reason is an even more specific casualty of culture war. Obama can’t let the other side frame the argument, which it is already doing in typically ferocious fashion.

…Obama isn’t trying to undermine Catholicism. He’s telling Catholic leaders they can’t regulate the beliefs of those of other faiths.

Keith Soko in The National Catholic Reporter agrees that a war is brewing but it may be one-sided:

But which Catholics would really be against providing access to contraceptives in health care coverage for women? Is it the 90-some percent of Catholic married couples of child-bearing age who use contraceptives? Is it the 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women who use contraceptives? No, it is not.

So who would it be? It must be a small minority.

One, of course, is the U.S. bishops and the rest of the Catholic hierarchy, including the Vatican. They are all men. In 1968, Pope Paul VI published the “birth control encyclical” called Humanae Vitae (“Of Human Life”), which affirmed the Catholic church’s opposition to contraception. This was in spite of the pope’s own commission, which voted 75 out of 90 in favor of changing the church’s teaching and allowing contraception for married couples. Immediately, Catholic theologians issued a statement arguing against the document’s methods and conclusions. Years later, the long pontificate of Pope John Paul II began, with him reaffirming the “official” Catholic teaching against contraception, despite the fact that most Catholic theologians disagreed and most Catholics rejected the teaching.

So, the bishops are taking moral “high ground”- which is designed to… well, what, exactly?  Soko gives us some insight:

If the U.S. bishops and the conservative Catholic and Christian media are going to appeal to “conscience,” then they better allow for the well-informed consciences of Catholics and non-Catholics who work at Catholic institutions to make their own decisions.

No one is forcing Catholics to use contraception. It is merely stating that they should have access to contraception. Many Catholic theologians have argued that it is a fair and just decision that respects the ability of Catholic and other women to follow their own consciences and make decisions as responsible adults about their own health care and that of their families.

And they also must respect the well-informed consciences of professors at academic universities whose job is the pursuit of knowledge and truth, and for some, the pursuit of justice as well. This includes Catholic theologians who are trying to give advice on improving the church. Since the bishops and others have introduced this into the public arena, they need to respect the consciences and expertise of those voices without the threat of job loss or excommunication.

This is not a question of teaching Catholic doctrine in a classroom; this is wrestling with public policy in a democratic and pluralistic society, and that can get messy. And Catholic teaching has in the past acknowledged that public policy and morality are two separate things. Everything that Catholic teaching argues is immoral is not illegal, as that would not always be practical public policy.

Which Catholics are really against providing contraceptive coverage? My guess is not many, but they are vocal. And probably most of them would be men. Men controlling women. History marches backward.

The bishops are always decrying “cafeteria catholicism”- for the way some pick and choose what they’d like to believe and practice. You gotta believe the whole package, they say. But their use of conscience is carefully controlled and shifty- picky and choosy, if you will. But not according to them.

Credibility, boys, credibility. The people will notice.

 “It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy
by a resort to mathematics,
though she is still forbidden to resort to physics and chemistry.”
~H.L. Mencken

Komen Foundation Cuts Funding To Planned Parenthood

In a surprising (or maybe not) press release yesterday, The Susan G Komen Foundation announced it is cutting off funding to the breast cancer screenings and education programs run by Planned Parenthood. The New York Times:

The move will halt financing to 19 of Planned Parenthood’s 83 affiliates, which received nearly $700,000 from the Komen foundation last year and have been receiving similar grants since at least 2005.

Planned Parenthood contends that the Komen foundation is yielding to longstanding pressure from anti-abortion groups, which Komen denies.

A spokeswoman for the Komen foundation, Leslie Aun, told The Associated Press that the main factor in the decision was a new rule adopted by Komen that prohibits grants to organizations being investigated by local, state or federal authorities. Ms. Aun told The A.P. that Planned Parenthood was therefore disqualified from financing because of an inquiry being conducted by Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida, who is looking at how Planned Parenthood spends and reports its money.

After the A.P. article was posted on Tuesday afternoon, the Komen foundation declined to make Ms. Aun or another staff member available to discuss the Planned Parenthood decision. The foundation issued a statement saying it was seeking to “strengthen our grants program” and had “implemented more stringent eligibility and performance criteria.”

The statement added, “While it is regrettable when changes in priorities and policies affect any of our grantees, such as a longstanding partner like Planned Parenthood, we must continue to evolve to best meet the needs of the women we serve and most fully advance our mission.”

Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, said that the decision “came so abruptly in the face of a long, good, working relationship with Komen” and that the change in financing criteria “was written specifically to address the political pressure that they’ve been under.”

Planned Parenthood’s press release on the action stated that

Planned Parenthood’s quality, accessibility and affordability make it a leader in identifying breast cancer early when there is the best chance of successful treatment. Nationwide, Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses provide nearly 750,000 breast cancer screenings annually, offering risk assessments, breast exams, breast health information and education, and diagnostic and surgical referrals.

Led by a generous $250,000 gift from Amy and Lee Fikes’ foundation, Planned Parenthood has established a Breast Health Emergency Fund to provide immediate funding to ensure that Planned Parenthood health centers can continue to provide breast cancer screenings and care that had previously been supported by Komen.

Amy and Lee Fikes said: “Our family is saddened that the far right has relentlessly and successfully pressured the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation to cut funding for breast screening, referral, and education support to low-income women who, until now, have been able to depend on the partnership between Komen and Planned Parenthood for their health. In response to this disappointing news, our family foundation has granted $250,000 to establish a Breast Health Fund at Planned Parenthood, so that their health centers across the country can continue to put the real needs of women ahead of right wing ideology. We encourage others to join us in replacing the funds lost, so that no woman’s health is imperiled by Komen’s unfortunate decision.”

Some have seen a connection between the hiring of Karen Handel, a Georgia gubernatorial candidate who ran on an aggressively anti-abortion platform and the cut of funding to Planned Parenthood- which also provides abortions at some of its sites. Laura Bassett writes that

 Handel wrote in her campaign blog that she “do[es] not support the mission of Planned Parenthood.”

“During my time as Chairman of Fulton County, there were federal and state pass-through grants that were awarded to Planned Parenthood for breast and cervical cancer screening, as well as a ‘Healthy Babies Initiative,'” Handel wrote. “Since grants like these are from the state I’ll eliminate them as your next Governor.” She also wrote that she opposes stem cell research and supports crisis pregnancy centers, which are unregulated, Christian-run operations whose main mission is to convince pregnant women not to have abortions.

After Handel lost the gubernatorial primary, Susan G. Komen for the Cure named her to be its senior vice president in April 2011.

Komen’s Race For The Cure has become one of the most successful fundraising events in the U.S., with races in virtually every market. On the blogosphere and Twitter, there is chatter about boycotts, protests and closer scrutiny of Komen’s funds. We’ll see if it has any teeth.

Dissatisfaction With Candidates Growing Among Republicans

The Pew Research Center has released a new report showing that Republican voters are becoming increasingly unhappy with the field of candidates- the majority (52%) giving them a “fair” or lower rating.

Click graph for link

By comparison, just 46% of Republican voters have positive opinions of the GOP field, according to the latest survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 26-29 among 1,006 adults, including 341 Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters. In early January, shortly before the New Hampshire primary, 51% gave the field excellent or good ratings while 44% rated the candidates collectively as only fair or poor.

That survey showed that GOP voters’ ratings of the field are far less positive than were opinions of the Republican field in 2008. At about this point four years ago, 68% of Republican and GOP-leaning voters rated the field as excellent or good. (See “GOP Voters Still Unenthused about Presidential Field,”Jan. 9, 2012.)

A Tale Of Two Polls

…from The Montana Democrats:

The red "GOP" logo used by the party...

Image via Wikipedia

Dennis Rehberg’s supporters tonight are pushing a new GOP poll about Montana’s 2012 Senate race.  But a second poll released today—conducted by the same GOP polling firm—tells a much different story.

The first poll, conducted by the firm Public Opinion Strategies for Karl Rove’s secretive organization American Crossroads, shows questionable and uncharacteristic results for the race between Jon Tester and Congressman Dennis Rehberg.

The second poll released today, also conducted by Public Opinion Strategies, has much different results.  It shows the race much closer—well within the margin of error.

“Montanans don’t trust Crossroads or Dennis Rehberg, so why would they believe numbers from a firm that can’t even decide which numbers are accurate,” said Ted Dick, executive director of the Montana Democratic Party.  “Congressman Rehberg believes secrecy and unlimited corporate spending belong in Montana’s elections, and he and his allies will stop at nothing to try to influence the people of our state.”

Fascinating.