From Stltoday.com: "JEFFERSON CITY -- Patrons of adult businesses might get a rude awakening come Saturday, if they haven't been paying attention to the news. They'll find the sexually oriented businesses they patronize closed after midnight.
There will be no more lap-dances. And strippers will not be allowed to be totally nude.
That's the result of a decision this morning by Cole County Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem to refuse to delay a new law regulating adult businesses from going into effect. Like most new laws, the so-called "porn bill" becomes a law on Saturday.
"The law will undoubtedly change the business practice of Plaintiffs," Beetem wrote in his decision, "and they will likely suffer some economic loss. But economic loss alone does not alter the analysis of legal issues surrounding Plaintiffs' constitutional challenges."
A coalition of adult businesses sued the state, seeking to declare the law unconstitutional. The lawyer for the group said the lawsuit would continue, but in the meantime, the businesses will have to comply with the elements of the new law.
Attorney General Chris Koster praised Beetem's ruling in a statement:
“We believe that this new legislation passed by the Missouri General Assembly is constitutional and should become state law,” Koster said. “Prior state and federal rulings have upheld similar provisions contained in this new law, and we will continue to argue on behalf of its constitutionality if necessary.”
Koster hired an outside attorney, Scott Bergthold of Tennessee, to help the state defend the law. Bergthold helped write the law in question. He is being paid $150 an hour for his services, not to surpass $7,500 in total fees.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Does Mehlman deserve our understanding?
Ex-RNC chairman out of the closet now, but hasn't clearly split with anti-gay agenda the GOP ramped up on his watch Does Mehlman deserve our understanding?
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Shame on you Ken Mehlman - Former GOP Chairman & Bush 2004 Campaign Manager Admits He is Gay After Running Anti-Gay Campaign
From RawStory.com: "Ken Mehlman, the erstwhile chairman of the Republican National Committee and campaign manager for George W. Bush's 2004 reelection effort, has come out of the closet as gay in a column published in The Atlantic.
Mehlman came out in a column by Mark Ambinder on the website of The Atlantic, after the blogger who outed former Idaho Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and onetime Virginia congressman Ed Schrock revealed that Ambinder was to publish the story. Blogger Michael Rogers was the subject of the documentary "Outrage," a film about outing gays in government who have used their positions of power to advocate against gay issues, which aired earlier this year on HBO.
Mehlman, 44, spearheaded the Bush re-election campaign. The campaign used aggressively anti-gay tactics, including the mailing of a flyer in some states which suggested liberals would allow gay marriage and ban the Bible. Some believe Bush’s support for anti-gay marriage measures carried him to victory, particularly in Ohio, which had a gay marriage measure on the ballot.
According to the Atlantic's Ambinder, "Mehlman arrived at this conclusion about his identity fairly recently, he said in an interview. He agreed to answer a reporter's questions, he said, because, now in private life, he wants to become an advocate for gay marriage and anticipated that questions would be asked about his participation in a late-September fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the group that supported the legal challenge to California's ballot initiative against gay marriage, Proposition 8."
Mehlman came out in a column by Mark Ambinder on the website of The Atlantic, after the blogger who outed former Idaho Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and onetime Virginia congressman Ed Schrock revealed that Ambinder was to publish the story. Blogger Michael Rogers was the subject of the documentary "Outrage," a film about outing gays in government who have used their positions of power to advocate against gay issues, which aired earlier this year on HBO.
Mehlman, 44, spearheaded the Bush re-election campaign. The campaign used aggressively anti-gay tactics, including the mailing of a flyer in some states which suggested liberals would allow gay marriage and ban the Bible. Some believe Bush’s support for anti-gay marriage measures carried him to victory, particularly in Ohio, which had a gay marriage measure on the ballot.
According to the Atlantic's Ambinder, "Mehlman arrived at this conclusion about his identity fairly recently, he said in an interview. He agreed to answer a reporter's questions, he said, because, now in private life, he wants to become an advocate for gay marriage and anticipated that questions would be asked about his participation in a late-September fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the group that supported the legal challenge to California's ballot initiative against gay marriage, Proposition 8."
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
High costs led to closing of Ameristar Casino Home nightclub
From Stltoday.com: "There was no place like Home when the glitzy, $15 million nightclub in the Ameristar Casino in St. Charles opened during Christmas week 2007.
Months before it opened, fliers circulated around town promising that Home would "reshape the nightlife industry in the Midwest forever."
The club, with its crocodile upholstery, marble-meets-onyx bars and glass-blown chandeliers, brought in national nightclub names. During its opening week music personality DJ AM, reality star Kim Kardashian, actress Jaime Pressly and former Miss USA Tara Connor came to Home. Other celebrities visited over the next three years, including Paris Hilton, Lil Kim, DJ Jazzy Jeff and Pauly D. from "Jersey Shore."
But on Saturday night, Travie McCoy of the music group Gym Class Heroes turned out to be the last celebrity guest at Home.
The nightclub unexpectedly closed early Sunday morning, with a 4 a.m. e-mail from Jim Franke, Ameristar's senior vice president and general manager. Franke said Home was unable to turn a regular profit and was operating just two nights a week, down from its glory days when it was open nightly.
Home had become a destination not only for clubgoers in the St. Charles area, but in St. Louis.
"When Home opened, we saw a drastic decline in business, and rightfully so," said Mark Winfield, who owns Club 15 downtown. "It's a beautiful space."
But Winfield won't mourn the closing of Home. He says he never felt the playing field was even once Home opened.
Home was solidly backed by Vegas-based event company Angel Music Group during its first two years, allowing Home to pay celebrities huge fees.
"They priced us off the market," Winfield said.
Home spent big money to book talent, but there was a reason for it, says Mike Knopfel, public relations manager for Ameristar.
"We want to bring people to Ameristar," he said. "At the end of the day, what we are is a casino, and we use whatever we can to try to bring guests to our facility."
But the high cost of those big acts would be a problem over time, because the club wasn't drawing people like it used to. Someone like Paris Hilton can command $100,000 to $500,000 just to show up.
A drop in attendance, typical for a new nightclub after a couple of years, and the challenge of recouping its $15 million price tag made keeping the club open impossible.
"We couldn't make the numbers work," Knopfel said.
The club this year tried to cater to African-American patrons with the urban-themed 5 Star Fridays. This switch caused some resentment.
"A lot of clubs will only open their doors to African-American patrons when they are on their way out, and it's not just Home," event promoter Sharee "Mocha Latte" Galvin said. "It's something they all do because they know the African-American market will spend a lot of money, and it's a quick fix. I felt they were on their way out when they started 5 Star Fridays."
Knopfel said, "Ameristar approaches everything from a business standpoint. Is it in our best interest financially? And with that we've done different tweaks. It comes down to what works as a company."
Home will be used by Ameristar for conferences and other private events. St. Charles Fashion Week activities are taking place at Home today as scheduled. The space will not be changed and is not expected to reopen as a nightclub.
Promoter Amin Mohabbat of B&W Productions, who was planning to bring DJ Paul Oakenfold to Home in November, said it's unfortunate the market has lost Home.
"I don't think we'll ever see a venue of that caliber close to St. Louis again," he said. "It was a really nice venue, though it was further out. And now, people are saying, 'Awww, man, I want to go one last time.'"
Months before it opened, fliers circulated around town promising that Home would "reshape the nightlife industry in the Midwest forever."
The club, with its crocodile upholstery, marble-meets-onyx bars and glass-blown chandeliers, brought in national nightclub names. During its opening week music personality DJ AM, reality star Kim Kardashian, actress Jaime Pressly and former Miss USA Tara Connor came to Home. Other celebrities visited over the next three years, including Paris Hilton, Lil Kim, DJ Jazzy Jeff and Pauly D. from "Jersey Shore."
But on Saturday night, Travie McCoy of the music group Gym Class Heroes turned out to be the last celebrity guest at Home.
The nightclub unexpectedly closed early Sunday morning, with a 4 a.m. e-mail from Jim Franke, Ameristar's senior vice president and general manager. Franke said Home was unable to turn a regular profit and was operating just two nights a week, down from its glory days when it was open nightly.
Home had become a destination not only for clubgoers in the St. Charles area, but in St. Louis.
"When Home opened, we saw a drastic decline in business, and rightfully so," said Mark Winfield, who owns Club 15 downtown. "It's a beautiful space."
But Winfield won't mourn the closing of Home. He says he never felt the playing field was even once Home opened.
Home was solidly backed by Vegas-based event company Angel Music Group during its first two years, allowing Home to pay celebrities huge fees.
"They priced us off the market," Winfield said.
Home spent big money to book talent, but there was a reason for it, says Mike Knopfel, public relations manager for Ameristar.
"We want to bring people to Ameristar," he said. "At the end of the day, what we are is a casino, and we use whatever we can to try to bring guests to our facility."
But the high cost of those big acts would be a problem over time, because the club wasn't drawing people like it used to. Someone like Paris Hilton can command $100,000 to $500,000 just to show up.
A drop in attendance, typical for a new nightclub after a couple of years, and the challenge of recouping its $15 million price tag made keeping the club open impossible.
"We couldn't make the numbers work," Knopfel said.
The club this year tried to cater to African-American patrons with the urban-themed 5 Star Fridays. This switch caused some resentment.
"A lot of clubs will only open their doors to African-American patrons when they are on their way out, and it's not just Home," event promoter Sharee "Mocha Latte" Galvin said. "It's something they all do because they know the African-American market will spend a lot of money, and it's a quick fix. I felt they were on their way out when they started 5 Star Fridays."
Knopfel said, "Ameristar approaches everything from a business standpoint. Is it in our best interest financially? And with that we've done different tweaks. It comes down to what works as a company."
Home will be used by Ameristar for conferences and other private events. St. Charles Fashion Week activities are taking place at Home today as scheduled. The space will not be changed and is not expected to reopen as a nightclub.
Promoter Amin Mohabbat of B&W Productions, who was planning to bring DJ Paul Oakenfold to Home in November, said it's unfortunate the market has lost Home.
"I don't think we'll ever see a venue of that caliber close to St. Louis again," he said. "It was a really nice venue, though it was further out. And now, people are saying, 'Awww, man, I want to go one last time.'"
Monday, August 23, 2010
Fight Over Net Neutrality Comes to Inner City
From Time.com: "
It's not often that the faces behind the federal government show up in places like South High School in the Corcoran neighborhood of Minneapolis, one of the city's poorest and most racially diverse sections. Especially to talk about the Internet, of all things. But this is where the Federal Communications Commission held its first public hearing about Net neutrality, the idea that all data transmitted over the Internet should be treated equally by service providers. In the weeks since Google and Verizon submitted a proposal that would not preserve Net neutrality for wireless Internet platforms like the iPhone, the issue has grown into a contentious one. In a brief speech before the public comment period, Minnesota Sen. Al Franken called Net neutrality the "First Amendment issue of our time."
Almost all of the 75 people who testified during the three-hour meeting last Thursday were in support of the FCC's push to gain regulatory authority over broadband services. Almost all. At the beginning of the event, Zach Segner, a 25-year-old in an "End the Fed" shirt, shouted, "The Internet's workin' fine right now!" Segner, who says he heard about the event from some members of the Tea Party, unfolded a large sign that reads "Hand off our Internet." He says that he's worried about government takeover of the Web. "I don't think that we should fall into a Chinese-style system," he says.
(Is the Google-Verizon plan bad for Net neutrality?)
The majority, however, were on the FCC's side. "Basically I'm unemployed," said a man named Doug Brown. "The Internet is a very crucial to locate job openings. And we don't need to have roadblocks to that." Jamie Taylor, who is deaf and blind, testified that that assisted technology such as video phones have allowed deaf and blind people increased accesses to the Internet. But she said that if Internet service providers are allowed to limit websites that require high bandwidth speed, the divide will increase for people with disabilities.
(See what Jim Poniewozik thinks about Net neutrality.)
Jim Haberkorn, 49, a medical-device salesman who volunteers for Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, stormed out of the meeting after having to wait through a series of pro-Net-neutrality public comments — each speaker was allotted two minutes. "This is an absolute joke," says Haberkorn, who argues FCC regulation over broadband may serve to quash freedom of speech and stifle innovation. "What's next? Are we going to say we should only have one car?" Adds Haberkorn: "The world's not vanilla. Equal access doesn't necessarily mean fair."
(See a primer on Net neutrality.)
The FCC, nevertheless, was adamant about its motives. "An open Internet is indeed the great equalizer. It enables traditionally underrepresented groups — like minorities and women — to have an equal voice and an equal opportunity," said FCC commissioner Mingon Clyburn, a Democrat. She added one of its studies showed that a greater percentage of African Americans and Latinos accessed the Internet only on their wireless phones. The location of the hearing was appropriate: the average income in this area is about $22,000, and roughly 25% of the population is Latino. Groups like Latinos for Internet Freedom were present to testify about how access to the Internet have helped members of their community find jobs and connect with family members outside the country.
Michael Copps, the other FCC commissioner on hand, blasted Google and Verizon's recent proposal. "The Internet was born on openness, flourished on openness and depends on openness for its continued success," he told the crowd. "We must not ever allow the openness of the Internet to become just another pawn in the hands of powerful corporate interests. The few players that control access to the wonders of the Internet tell us not to worry. But I am worried. How can we have any confidence that their business plans and network engineering are not going to stifle our online freedom? You know, history is pretty clear that when some special interest has control over both the content and distribution of a product or service — and a financial incentive to exercise that control — someone is going to try it."
It's not often that the faces behind the federal government show up in places like South High School in the Corcoran neighborhood of Minneapolis, one of the city's poorest and most racially diverse sections. Especially to talk about the Internet, of all things. But this is where the Federal Communications Commission held its first public hearing about Net neutrality, the idea that all data transmitted over the Internet should be treated equally by service providers. In the weeks since Google and Verizon submitted a proposal that would not preserve Net neutrality for wireless Internet platforms like the iPhone, the issue has grown into a contentious one. In a brief speech before the public comment period, Minnesota Sen. Al Franken called Net neutrality the "First Amendment issue of our time."
Almost all of the 75 people who testified during the three-hour meeting last Thursday were in support of the FCC's push to gain regulatory authority over broadband services. Almost all. At the beginning of the event, Zach Segner, a 25-year-old in an "End the Fed" shirt, shouted, "The Internet's workin' fine right now!" Segner, who says he heard about the event from some members of the Tea Party, unfolded a large sign that reads "Hand off our Internet." He says that he's worried about government takeover of the Web. "I don't think that we should fall into a Chinese-style system," he says.
(Is the Google-Verizon plan bad for Net neutrality?)
The majority, however, were on the FCC's side. "Basically I'm unemployed," said a man named Doug Brown. "The Internet is a very crucial to locate job openings. And we don't need to have roadblocks to that." Jamie Taylor, who is deaf and blind, testified that that assisted technology such as video phones have allowed deaf and blind people increased accesses to the Internet. But she said that if Internet service providers are allowed to limit websites that require high bandwidth speed, the divide will increase for people with disabilities.
(See what Jim Poniewozik thinks about Net neutrality.)
Jim Haberkorn, 49, a medical-device salesman who volunteers for Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, stormed out of the meeting after having to wait through a series of pro-Net-neutrality public comments — each speaker was allotted two minutes. "This is an absolute joke," says Haberkorn, who argues FCC regulation over broadband may serve to quash freedom of speech and stifle innovation. "What's next? Are we going to say we should only have one car?" Adds Haberkorn: "The world's not vanilla. Equal access doesn't necessarily mean fair."
(See a primer on Net neutrality.)
The FCC, nevertheless, was adamant about its motives. "An open Internet is indeed the great equalizer. It enables traditionally underrepresented groups — like minorities and women — to have an equal voice and an equal opportunity," said FCC commissioner Mingon Clyburn, a Democrat. She added one of its studies showed that a greater percentage of African Americans and Latinos accessed the Internet only on their wireless phones. The location of the hearing was appropriate: the average income in this area is about $22,000, and roughly 25% of the population is Latino. Groups like Latinos for Internet Freedom were present to testify about how access to the Internet have helped members of their community find jobs and connect with family members outside the country.
Michael Copps, the other FCC commissioner on hand, blasted Google and Verizon's recent proposal. "The Internet was born on openness, flourished on openness and depends on openness for its continued success," he told the crowd. "We must not ever allow the openness of the Internet to become just another pawn in the hands of powerful corporate interests. The few players that control access to the wonders of the Internet tell us not to worry. But I am worried. How can we have any confidence that their business plans and network engineering are not going to stifle our online freedom? You know, history is pretty clear that when some special interest has control over both the content and distribution of a product or service — and a financial incentive to exercise that control — someone is going to try it."
Ameristar Casino Nightclub, Home Closes Due to Business Decline
From Stltoday.com: "Home nightclub at Ameristar Casino closed unexpectedly, and for good, after a performance Saturday night from Travie McCoy of "Billionaire" fame.
A statement was issued Sunday morning announcing the closing of the glitzy, Vegas-style club that hosted Paris Hilton, Nelly, DJ AM, Kim Kardashian, Brody Jenner, Jaime Pressly, Lil Kim, Wilmer Valderrama, Amber Rose, Tiesto and many more during special events.
Ameristar senior vice president and general manager Jim Franke said the venue wasn't able to continually turn a profit, despite meeting Ameristar's standards of quality and excellence.
"We want to thank our guests and appreciated their patronage and loyalty in making Home one of the top nightclubs not only in the St. Louis area but throughout the Midwest region," he said.
Mike Knopfel, public relations manager for Ameristar, said "we were down to those two nights (Friday and Saturday) and we had a full staff and programming. It wasn't exactly inexpensive. Originally when we opened, it was seven days a week and it was very popular."
Knopfel said they'd been mulling the club's closing for a while. "It doesn't happen overnight. We'd been researching it."
It's not known what will happen to the massive space, but there are no plans to change it. Franke said "Ameristar will continue to use the facility as an exciting high-energy venue for the property's group sales business," meaning Ameristar will continue to use it privately only.
Ameristar is looking to place Home employees, most of whom were part-time, into other positions within the company.
Arty J, lead VIP host-emcee at Home, said "I've met so many people and gained great relationships. It was an amazing run and I ran the marathon...I really did love the place."
Home opened Christmas week 2007.
A statement was issued Sunday morning announcing the closing of the glitzy, Vegas-style club that hosted Paris Hilton, Nelly, DJ AM, Kim Kardashian, Brody Jenner, Jaime Pressly, Lil Kim, Wilmer Valderrama, Amber Rose, Tiesto and many more during special events.
Ameristar senior vice president and general manager Jim Franke said the venue wasn't able to continually turn a profit, despite meeting Ameristar's standards of quality and excellence.
"We want to thank our guests and appreciated their patronage and loyalty in making Home one of the top nightclubs not only in the St. Louis area but throughout the Midwest region," he said.
Mike Knopfel, public relations manager for Ameristar, said "we were down to those two nights (Friday and Saturday) and we had a full staff and programming. It wasn't exactly inexpensive. Originally when we opened, it was seven days a week and it was very popular."
Knopfel said they'd been mulling the club's closing for a while. "It doesn't happen overnight. We'd been researching it."
It's not known what will happen to the massive space, but there are no plans to change it. Franke said "Ameristar will continue to use the facility as an exciting high-energy venue for the property's group sales business," meaning Ameristar will continue to use it privately only.
Ameristar is looking to place Home employees, most of whom were part-time, into other positions within the company.
Arty J, lead VIP host-emcee at Home, said "I've met so many people and gained great relationships. It was an amazing run and I ran the marathon...I really did love the place."
Home opened Christmas week 2007.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Target CEO is Clueless: Refuses HRC Request for Donation After Making Making Anti-Gay Donation
From Politico.com: Target Corp., for now, has rejected demand from the Human Rights Campaign that the retailer donate to pro-gay rights candidates in order to balance its contribution to a group backing Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, an ardent opponent of gay marriage.
In a statement released Monday, HRC President Joe Solmonese said “all fair-minded Americans will now rightly question Target’s commitment to equality.”
The company maintained it fully supports the gay and lesbian community, but decided to keep its options open to avoid the appearance that it made a political donation as the result of outside pressure, “given the current political and emotionally charged environment” surrounding the election.
“We believe that it is impossible to avoid turning any further actions into a political issue and will use the benefit of time to make thoughtful, careful decisions on how best to move forward,” according to a statement the company issued Monday.
HRC and MoveOn.org, a liberal political action group, have spearheaded petition drives and a boycott of Target since it became public that the retail chain gave $150,000 to a business group backing Emmer, a conservative who also has angered the progressive community for his positions on abortion and birth control.
The donation, which came from Target’s business account rather than an internal political action committee, was made possible by a controversial Supreme Court decision issued earlier this year that overturned a long-standing ban on corporate political activity.
Target officials have said they gave to the newly formed business group, MN Forward, to show support for Emmer’s record on economic issues and because he appeared to be the strongest pro-business candidate in the race.
After employees and outside groups complained, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel issued memos to his workers explaining his motivation for the donation and apologizing if it upset them. He also reiterated the company’s commitment to equal rights within the workplace and its sponsorship of gay rights events in Minnesota.
But MoveOn and HRC weren’t satisfied. HRC had hoped to convince the firm to donate $150,000 to pro-gay rights candidates and groups in Minnesota to “make right” its support for Emmer. After weeks of negotiations, HRC officials said Monday that the talks had broken down without a deal.
HRC said it will devote $150,000 of its resources to defeat Emmer. And MoveOn members are still calling for a boycott of the national chain that had nurtured strong ties to the gay community through its store locations, marketing and nondiscriminatory employee benefits program.
In addition, Solmonese said the gay community is now pressuring Best Buy Co. Inc., which donated $100,000 to MN Forward’s pro-Emmer advertising campaign. Like Target, Best Buy receives one of the highest corporate rankings for workplace equality issues from the HRC.
While nodding to those rankings, Solmonese said that “before they can regain that exalted status among their consumers, they need to make things right in Minnesota.”
In a statement released Monday, HRC President Joe Solmonese said “all fair-minded Americans will now rightly question Target’s commitment to equality.”
The company maintained it fully supports the gay and lesbian community, but decided to keep its options open to avoid the appearance that it made a political donation as the result of outside pressure, “given the current political and emotionally charged environment” surrounding the election.
“We believe that it is impossible to avoid turning any further actions into a political issue and will use the benefit of time to make thoughtful, careful decisions on how best to move forward,” according to a statement the company issued Monday.
HRC and MoveOn.org, a liberal political action group, have spearheaded petition drives and a boycott of Target since it became public that the retail chain gave $150,000 to a business group backing Emmer, a conservative who also has angered the progressive community for his positions on abortion and birth control.
The donation, which came from Target’s business account rather than an internal political action committee, was made possible by a controversial Supreme Court decision issued earlier this year that overturned a long-standing ban on corporate political activity.
Target officials have said they gave to the newly formed business group, MN Forward, to show support for Emmer’s record on economic issues and because he appeared to be the strongest pro-business candidate in the race.
After employees and outside groups complained, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel issued memos to his workers explaining his motivation for the donation and apologizing if it upset them. He also reiterated the company’s commitment to equal rights within the workplace and its sponsorship of gay rights events in Minnesota.
But MoveOn and HRC weren’t satisfied. HRC had hoped to convince the firm to donate $150,000 to pro-gay rights candidates and groups in Minnesota to “make right” its support for Emmer. After weeks of negotiations, HRC officials said Monday that the talks had broken down without a deal.
HRC said it will devote $150,000 of its resources to defeat Emmer. And MoveOn members are still calling for a boycott of the national chain that had nurtured strong ties to the gay community through its store locations, marketing and nondiscriminatory employee benefits program.
In addition, Solmonese said the gay community is now pressuring Best Buy Co. Inc., which donated $100,000 to MN Forward’s pro-Emmer advertising campaign. Like Target, Best Buy receives one of the highest corporate rankings for workplace equality issues from the HRC.
While nodding to those rankings, Solmonese said that “before they can regain that exalted status among their consumers, they need to make things right in Minnesota.”
Monday, August 16, 2010
Friday, August 06, 2010
Is Obama's position on gay marriage sustainable?
From The Plume Line: "That seems to be one of the core political questions in the wake of the overturning of Proposition 8. How can the president continue opposing gay marriage while supporting the decision to strike down Prop 8, on the grounds that it's "discriminatory," as the White House said in a statement last night?
Making it more dicey, the White House statement also said that the president continues to push for "full equality" for gay and lesbian couples. How can that not include support for gay marriage?
This morning, senior White House adviser David Axelrod struggled to defend this position on MSNBC. Here's what he said:
"The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time. He felt that it was divisive. He felt that it was mean-spirited, and he opposed it at the time. So we reiterated that position yesterday. The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control. He's supports civil unions, and that's been his position throughout. So nothing has changed."
But as John Aravosis says, everything has changed.
Here's another problem: In the interview with MSNBC this morning, Axelrod clarified that Obama believes that gay marriage is an issue for states to decide, and it's true that Obama opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, which codified a federal ban on gay marriage.
But as Michael Shear notes, his administration has yet to actively seek a repeal of DOMA, and is acquiescing to Congressional leaders who insist that the current political reality dictates that repeal is impossible. And his administration continues to defend DOMA in court against appeals.
Also: Obama has in the past claimed there's no inconsistency between opposing Prop 8 and opposing gay marriage by arguing he thinks gay marriage is wrong but we shouldn't be prohibiting it legally.
"When you're playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about," he said in a 2008 MTV interview. "Usually constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
But DOMA does just this, and while Obama opposes it, actively moving to repeal is what would turn this argument from mere eloquence to reality.
The problem for the White House is that the Prop 8 decision will force this issue onto full boil nationally, just as the Arizona law did with illegal immigration. And heading into his 2012 reelection campaign, the gay and lesbian community -- an important Dem constiuency -- will be demanding full support for gay marriage, and a repeal of DOMA.
They'll be demanding complete consistency, and won't want to be lectured about what is and isn't possible amid some arbitrarily defined "political reality."
By Greg Sargent | August 5, 2010; 12:38 PM ET
Making it more dicey, the White House statement also said that the president continues to push for "full equality" for gay and lesbian couples. How can that not include support for gay marriage?
This morning, senior White House adviser David Axelrod struggled to defend this position on MSNBC. Here's what he said:
"The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time. He felt that it was divisive. He felt that it was mean-spirited, and he opposed it at the time. So we reiterated that position yesterday. The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control. He's supports civil unions, and that's been his position throughout. So nothing has changed."
But as John Aravosis says, everything has changed.
Here's another problem: In the interview with MSNBC this morning, Axelrod clarified that Obama believes that gay marriage is an issue for states to decide, and it's true that Obama opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, which codified a federal ban on gay marriage.
But as Michael Shear notes, his administration has yet to actively seek a repeal of DOMA, and is acquiescing to Congressional leaders who insist that the current political reality dictates that repeal is impossible. And his administration continues to defend DOMA in court against appeals.
Also: Obama has in the past claimed there's no inconsistency between opposing Prop 8 and opposing gay marriage by arguing he thinks gay marriage is wrong but we shouldn't be prohibiting it legally.
"When you're playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about," he said in a 2008 MTV interview. "Usually constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
But DOMA does just this, and while Obama opposes it, actively moving to repeal is what would turn this argument from mere eloquence to reality.
The problem for the White House is that the Prop 8 decision will force this issue onto full boil nationally, just as the Arizona law did with illegal immigration. And heading into his 2012 reelection campaign, the gay and lesbian community -- an important Dem constiuency -- will be demanding full support for gay marriage, and a repeal of DOMA.
They'll be demanding complete consistency, and won't want to be lectured about what is and isn't possible amid some arbitrarily defined "political reality."
By Greg Sargent | August 5, 2010; 12:38 PM ET
Marriage is a Constitutional Right
From NYTimes.com: "Until Wednesday, the thousands of same-sex couples who have married did so because a state judge or Legislature allowed them to. The nation’s most fundamental guarantees of freedom, set out in the Constitution, were not part of the equation. That has changed with the historic decision by a federal judge in California, Vaughn Walker, that said his state’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment’s rights to equal protection and due process of law.
The decision, though an instant landmark in American legal history, is more than that. It also is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a chain of pathbreaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults.
As the case heads toward appeals at the circuit level and probably the Supreme Court, Judge Walker’s opinion will provide a firm legal foundation that will be difficult for appellate judges to assail.
The case was brought by two gay couples who said California’s Proposition 8, which passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, discriminated against them by prohibiting same-sex marriage and relegating them to domestic partnerships. The judge easily dismissed the idea that discrimination is permissible if a majority of voters approve it; the referendum’s outcome was “irrelevant,” he said, quoting a 1943 case, because “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.”
He then dismantled, brick by crumbling brick, the weak case made by supporters of Proposition 8 and laid out the facts presented in testimony. The two witnesses called by the supporters (the state having bowed out of the case) had no credibility, he said, and presented no evidence that same-sex marriage harmed society or the institution of marriage.
Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and raise children, he said. Though procreation is not a necessary goal of marriage, children of same-sex couples will benefit from the stability provided by marriage, as will the state and society. Domestic partnerships confer a second-class status. The discrimination inherent in that second-class status is harmful to gay men and lesbians. These findings of fact will be highly significant as the case winds its way through years of appeals.
One of Judge Walker’s strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,” he wrote. “That time has passed.”
To justify the proposition’s inherent discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, he wrote, there would have to be a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage. But no rational basis for discrimination was presented at the two-and-a-half-week trial in January, he said. The real reason for Proposition 8, he wrote, is a moral view “that there is something wrong with same-sex couples,” and that is not a permissible reason for legislation.
“Moral disapproval alone,” he wrote, in words that could someday help change history, “is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and women.”
The ideological odd couple who led the case — Ted Olson and David Boies, who fought against each other in the Supreme Court battle over the 2000 election — were criticized by some supporters of same-sex marriage for moving too quickly to the federal courts. Certainly, there is no guarantee that the current Supreme Court would uphold Judge Walker’s ruling. But there are times when legal opinions help lead public opinions.
Just as they did for racial equality in previous decades, the moment has arrived for the federal courts to bestow full equality to millions of gay men and lesbians. "
The decision, though an instant landmark in American legal history, is more than that. It also is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a chain of pathbreaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults.
As the case heads toward appeals at the circuit level and probably the Supreme Court, Judge Walker’s opinion will provide a firm legal foundation that will be difficult for appellate judges to assail.
The case was brought by two gay couples who said California’s Proposition 8, which passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, discriminated against them by prohibiting same-sex marriage and relegating them to domestic partnerships. The judge easily dismissed the idea that discrimination is permissible if a majority of voters approve it; the referendum’s outcome was “irrelevant,” he said, quoting a 1943 case, because “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.”
He then dismantled, brick by crumbling brick, the weak case made by supporters of Proposition 8 and laid out the facts presented in testimony. The two witnesses called by the supporters (the state having bowed out of the case) had no credibility, he said, and presented no evidence that same-sex marriage harmed society or the institution of marriage.
Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and raise children, he said. Though procreation is not a necessary goal of marriage, children of same-sex couples will benefit from the stability provided by marriage, as will the state and society. Domestic partnerships confer a second-class status. The discrimination inherent in that second-class status is harmful to gay men and lesbians. These findings of fact will be highly significant as the case winds its way through years of appeals.
One of Judge Walker’s strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,” he wrote. “That time has passed.”
To justify the proposition’s inherent discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, he wrote, there would have to be a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage. But no rational basis for discrimination was presented at the two-and-a-half-week trial in January, he said. The real reason for Proposition 8, he wrote, is a moral view “that there is something wrong with same-sex couples,” and that is not a permissible reason for legislation.
“Moral disapproval alone,” he wrote, in words that could someday help change history, “is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and women.”
The ideological odd couple who led the case — Ted Olson and David Boies, who fought against each other in the Supreme Court battle over the 2000 election — were criticized by some supporters of same-sex marriage for moving too quickly to the federal courts. Certainly, there is no guarantee that the current Supreme Court would uphold Judge Walker’s ruling. But there are times when legal opinions help lead public opinions.
Just as they did for racial equality in previous decades, the moment has arrived for the federal courts to bestow full equality to millions of gay men and lesbians. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)