When Kathleen Kane was elected Attorney General here in Pennsylvania, I cheered — we haven’t had a Democratic AG in, well, forever it seems. Surely things would change.
I’m happy to report that they have.
The ACLU recently sued Pennsylvania (and some other states) over the gay marriage ban. Our Attorney General has announced that she will not defend a law she believes is unconstitutional. “If there is a law that I feel that does not conform with the Pennsylvania state constitution and the U.S. Constitution, then I ethically cannot do that as a lawyer,” she said.
It’s not like the law won’t be defended; our conservative governor vows to fight this and he has a legal staff to do so. He’s also, based on current polls, the most unpopular governor in the country, and I can only imagine this will hurt him even more in a state that has a majority of the population supporting gay marriage.
Chances are, nothing will happen here in Pennsylvania since we have a Republican-dominated Supreme Court. (One Republican Justice was recently removed — that happens when you get convicted of a felony — but she was replaced by someone almost as bad). So chances are this will move through the courts and get combined with the cases from the other states to later get before the US Supreme Court.
Still, it’s a step in the right direction, and it’s nice to know we have an Attorney General who has ethics.
During the Bill Clinton campaign, James Carville called Pennsylvania “Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama inbetween.”
Well, it’s changed a bit since that quote was given. The east coast of Pennsylvania (where I live, just a few miles from New Jersey) has become strongly democratic as people from Jersey and New York move away from the city.
Overall, Pennsylvanians always vote for Democrats for President and mostly for Democrats in the state races. In the last election, more people voted for Democrats for the House, but because of gerrymandering, more Republicans got elected.
I bring this up because the ACLU yesterday filed a lawsuit to try to bring Pennsylvania into line with all of the other northeastern states to allow gay marriage. The ACLU acknowledged that it was bringing suit in Pennsylvania because overturning the state’s gay marriage ban in the Republican-controlled legislature is a near-term impossibility. This is despite the fact a recent study found that 54% of Pennsylvania residents are in favor of it.
They are basing this suit primarily on Equal Protection lines apparently (I haven’t read the actual Complaint) and are using Justice Kennedy’s recent opinion in the DOMA cause to argue that discrimination of gay parents harms the children and is thus destructive and so on.
While I would much rather have our elected representatives do the right thing, I don’t expect that to happen any time soon. And while I support this suit, I also don’t expect it to get anywhere with the current Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has whittled away our basic rights tremendously in the fifteen years or so I’ve lived here.
Orson Scott Card is one of my favorite authors. I really enjoy his “Alvin Maker” series and I have quite of few of his books. I met him probably ten years ago at a convention and we had a nice talk.
He’s also a homophobic right-wing idiot who has absolutely hateful views about gays and gay marriage.
A movie of his most famous book (“Ender’s Game”) is being released soon, and there is a movement to boycott the film because of his politics. “Don’t give him any money!” they’re saying.
While I agree that his politics are hateful, I’m not sure we should be judging art based on the artist’s politics, and it seems like maybe that’s where this is headed.
Oh, I understand — you don’t want him to get rich off of this, and you don’t want your money going to causes you don’t agree with. Nothing wrong with that — that’s what boycotts are for. In that sense this isn’t any different from boycotting Chik-Fil-A.
But, I dunno, when dealing with creative stuff like books or art or music … should we always ask “Does this person have political views I agree with?” before enjoying their work? There are many artists who were terrible people (Picasso comes to mind) but does that diminish their work? I hope no one is refusing to read my books because they don’t like my politics …
Years ago, many conservatives boycotted the Dixie Chicks because they were mad about their politics, and liberals criticized them for doing so. I hate to think liberals are being hypocrites here. Either boycotting artists for their political views is fine or it isn’t.
And with things like movies, do we look to all the people who will profit from this film? Movies involve thousands of people, not a handful (like a band) or an individual (like an author). Do we need to know what the key grip thinks about gay marriage? Should we ask all the Foley artists to submit to a questionnaire before deciding whether we should see the film?
So while my heart says, “Yeah, I don’t want Card to think I agree with him,” at the same time I also ask “Should I boycott art that has nothing to do with the issue I am boycotting?”
What is it with these religious conservatives and sex with animals? Whenever people want to have a reasonable debate about gay marriage, it always degenerates into that. “If you allow gays to get married, then you have to also allow people to marry their dogs!”
Why don’t they ever use animals for other laws they’ve opposed over the years? “If you allow women to vote, then you’ll also have to allow turtles!” “If we allow schools to use affirmative action to admit minorities, then they’ll have to also admit squirrels!” “If you have to read rights to someone who committed a crime, then clearly you’ll also have to read rights to a cow before you slaughter it!”
Well, no. Those of us who are not crazy understand this.
I guess it’s because these people hate sex so much. I mean, these are also the same people who think that birth control, sex education, and oral sex are evil and should be illegal. To them, sex between two consenting men or women is just as evil as sex with a non-consenting animal. And so, like many of the more conservative right, they want to force their religious views on the rest of us.
The problem is that the faulty logic that works in their minds looks completely crazy to everyone else.
The defeat of DOMA is an important step, but the battle for justice and equality is never-ending. Thanks to the Court, someone can now get married in a state that doesn’t discriminate, move elsewhere, and still be able to get federal benefits such as joint tax filing and so on.
I’m sure I’ll have more to say about it later, but for now, I’m celebrating. After all, I have to — according to many religious fanatics, my 30 year heterosexual marriage is in danger of collapse because of this.
When I criticize someone who has a religious view that, for instance, claims that marriage between anything other than a man and woman should be illegal, they sometimes come back at me and say that I am being anti-Christian and disrespectful to them.
Well, no, I am not being disrespectful to them. I am being disrespectful to their views.
Sometimes these people claim I am violating their rights by “not respecting” their views. This is ridiculous. No one has the right to not be criticized. (Let’s not veer off into a discussion about discrimination based on views — totally different topic.)
I will always respect everyone’s right to have unpopular and even stupid views. I even supported Westboro Baptist Church‘s right to spout their nonsense.
But I’m sorry — if you believe that the world is 6,000 years old and evolution is a lie, I have no respect for your beliefs. Why should I? You obviously don’t know anything about science. The fact that you believe something really, really strongly because of your religion doesn’t mean it should get treated any different from someone who believes that unicorns and fairies are playing in his backyard. Silly beliefs should be challenged no matter where they come from.
Some religions also believe that women should cover themselves from head to toe, never talk to a man, and be treated as subhuman. This is another belief that I have no respect for, and, ironically, many Christians will gladly speak out against that view too, while turning around and complaining whenever anyone challenges their own religious views.
I can distinguish these views about beliefs from views I have about people. Many have these silly beliefs but otherwise are honest, friendly, and wonderful people. After all, there are also people I disagree with politically who are some of my closest friends. I can respect them as people while not respecting their views.
No one’s views should be beyond question or criticism.
ventrellaquest.com 