It's been a while since I have posted, but now I'm back with things to say. Rather than posting individual topical posts, I'm going to go through the gamut in one, so here goes:
Iowa's legislature has voted by large margins to pass a constitutional amendment, which will now go before the voters, to ban all same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnership laws within that state. There are a whole host of reasons that this is a problem, not the least of which was because the supreme court decision in that state that legalized same-sex marriage resulted in a hateful and bigoted campaign that successfully removed three of its justices from the bench during the last election. More than that, Iowa is at times a progressive state. It voted for Obama in both the primary and in the general election in 2008. It is also a neighboring state of my own home state of Minnesota. The LGBT community had hoped that the legalization of gay marriage in that state signaled a shift in politics on the issue. Of course those radical social conservatives who helped fuel the sweeping election of Republicans into Congress also ran one of the most hateful and disgusting campaigns in recent memory against it, and managed to inspire fear in enough Iowans that they voted out three state supreme court justices, including the chief justice.
There is a silver lining on the way, I think, with the federal suit against Prop 8 which will hopefully clear the appellate court soon. That case, I believe, will sweep away all legislation throughout the country that bans same-sex marriage. It is also a case that brilliantly and articulately presents the case for the legalization of same-sex marriage, proving arguments against it to be irrational by definition and to not be substantive legal arguments. That alone, the case built against Prop 8, is enough to make the suit worthwhile, and advocates across the country should be including language used in the briefs and arguments made by the lawyers for the case to rebut and repudiate all those who are virulently pushing for discrimination. Studies have shown that children raised by gay parents suffer no harmful effects because of their parent's orientation. Moreover, children raised by lesbians are statistically more likely to be successful in school and psychologically stable than either those raised by gay men or by heterosexual couples. That is proof that the argument for child safety is not based on fact or sound reason, i.e. irrational. It is also irrational to argue that the principle purpose for the civil contract of marriage is procreation and that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry because they cannot procreate. Not only is that not true, it does nothing to inhibit individual's actual reproductive capability, but it also calls into question the millions of couples who either choose to not have children or are unable to have children.
In addition,
the speech delivered by Zach Wahl eloquently identifies the amendment as outright discrimination. His speech illustrates the unequivocal similarities between gay married couples in committed relationships and their families, and those families of married heterosexual couples. He provides an example of at least one family where the same-sex parents raised a successful, motivated, and intelligent child who is likely to succeed in life and plainly states that he was sure if he was the child of one of those legislators at the hearing, that they would be just as proud of him as his mothers were. It is an illustration of how the amendment then calls into question whether the families of same-sex couples are real families, and also tells them they are not as worthy of either full citizenship or legal recognition. He points out that voting for the amendment was truly and inarguably a vote for discrimination.
The next thing that I wanted to talk about was the recent abortion legislation presented in Congress. Rachel Maddow pointed out some time ago, before the elections, how the large number of high profile Republican candidates this last cycle who expressly did not support the exception to outlawing abortion in cases of rape or incest was evidence of how radical the shift in conservative politics was. That used to be the standard tagline, the moderating factor to a candidates otherwise staunchly right-wing stance on abortion. Now it has become part of the standard for the social conservatives that took over the Tea Party from whatever actual independents were out there. Everyone talked about taxes this past cycle, but the fact remains that the electorate, and specifically the Tea Party cowed Republican Party, advanced radical social conservative politics in a historic way.
Now the legislation proposed seeks to end federal funding of abortions through social programs such as Medicaid, limiting the definition of rape to 'forcible rape'. Those who are victims of statutory rape, then, do not qualify for funds. It also forbids use of federal tax benefits, such as the pre-tax money set aside in an account for medical purposes. The implications of this are broad, especially in cases of date-rape or spousal rape by a married partner. I have no doubt in my mind that if they could erase the incest exception as well, they would do so. In spite of the rhetoric from progressive women's groups for the last twenty years about threats to Roe v. Wade, Republicans are ideologically at the point where they feel they have a referendum approving their efforts to make that a reality.
Update: The Republicans have now removed the language that classified only certain types of rape as part of their 'no federal funding for abortions' bill. It is also important to note that actual abortions are less than ten percent of their actual activity. Also, there was already legislation in place that made federal funding for 'abortion' illegal. The funding received by Planned Parenthood was for the purpose of and used for many other health services provided to women, especially to minorities and the poor.
In spite of the rhetoric from Republicans that their first priority would be jobs and debt has proven a lie. Their priority, the bills they've put for first, have been about health care and abortion. Once more the discussion about health care can shift from the idiotic rhetoric about death panels and constitutionality toward discussing the real issues that went into shaping that legislation. We can discuss the quality of care, we can discuss the price of care, the price of insurance, qualifying for insurance or qualifying for keeping their insurance rather than being denied coverage or having coverage being cancelled because of illness. We finally are able to discuss coverage for children and health care options for families struggling financially.
The Republican Congress and moreover the Republican attorneys general and governors are turning away federal money meant to help implement the changes, some of which was money meant for state social services. So, here's the problem: What are they going to do instead? Let's say that the constitutional question goes their way and the health care legislation is overturned altogether. What are their ideas and what are they going to do to address the staggering costs of health care? I just listened to Real Time With Bill Maher and somewhere in the last couple shows the conservative, a Republican strategist, said ideally the government wouldn't have anything to do with paying for health care, meaning cutting Medicare and Medicaid altogether, and even businesses wouldn't have to offer insurance and individuals would have to buy insurance directly from providers out of pocket.
My answer to that last is, What? Really? Has that strategist every had to try and get health insurance out of pocket? I was lucky to sign up for insurance during a push a few years ago when BlueCross BlueShield was offering options to try and get twenty-somethings on insurance. Before that, however, I was on Cobra after losing my insurance from my employer. That insurance was $450+ dollars a month for insurance I payed less than $100 for while insured threw work. That premium was also low because I was a single person. For someone over the age of forty, for anyone trying to carry kids on their Cobra policy, that price becomes staggering. So, really? A party who is against any government regulation, will they just rely on the good will and altruism of insurance companies to offer low premiums and make sure that people are going to get the care they paid into and quality care?
If anyone thought that or thinks that Republicans are at all interested in the middle class or saving America from economic disaster, can you really gloss over these things? I'll deal with the 'facts' v. reality in another post. That's it for now, though.
