Florida Agenda

“Faith and science have at least one thing in common: Both are lifelong searches for the truth.
But while faith is an unshakable belief in the unseen, science is the study of testable, observable
phenomena. The two coexist, and may at times complement each other. But neither should be
asked to validate the other. Scientists have no more business questioning the existence of God
than theologians had telling Galileo the Earth was the center of the universe.” – Bill Allen

By Cliff Dunn

I always enjoy explaining the difference between what’s “natural” versus what’s “normal.” For something to be considered normal, it just needs the behavioral approval of the thundering herd. What defines the “norm” explains what is normal. (Example: Culturally, it is “normal” for many African-American males to disdain the homosexual lifestyle.

This, of course, fails to account for the large number of brothers who are living on the “down-low.”) What’s “natural” is informed by one’s “nature” (duh). This isn’t to say that all things that are natural are necessarily good (Ted Bundy, for instance, found it perfectly natural to kidnap, sexually assault, and murder young women). This is where a strong moral compass (and a liberal application of impulse control) comes in handy, but I suspect that all of us deal with personal demons (or at least imps) as we marry behavior that is socially-acceptable with that which is secretly-desired, and live productively as members of the greater mass of humankind. This isn’t the point I want to make, however.

I was secretly pulling for the chop-logic coalition of libertarians, establishment stalwarts, Ron Paul mavericks, and gay conservatives who banded together in Tampa last month in an effort to drag the Grand Old Party of Lincoln and Eisenhower into the 21st Century (and the company of the rest of the civilized world) and modulate the anti-gay flame that has burned so brightly since the late-1980s in the party’s ideological cauldron. (The thinly-disguised veneer of soft homophobia that was ushered in by Pat Robertson lived long past the political career of his protégé, some time-hottie Ralph Reed, and of the bullhorn they wielded— the now-discredited Christian Coalition. Clearly, dreams can come true.)

Unfortunately, when the dust settled, the Republican National Committee adopted language that calls court decisions supporting marriage equality “an assault on the foundations of our society,” and adds that “we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman, must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage.” Take that, child-corrupters in GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans.

This lurch to the extreme would have drawn consternation from even Ronald Reagan. You scoff? Consider: When “Dutch” accepted his party’s nomination in 1980, the Republican platform acknowledged the national debate over reproductive freedom, introducing its abortion plank by saying that “we recognize differing views on this question among Americans in general—and in our own party.” Consider that conciliatory prose in light of this year’s authoritarian “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.” (The 2012 GOP platform also calls for public display of the Ten Commandments.)

As a small “d” democrat (and a small “l” libertarian), I believe that religious and socially conservative folks should have a voice in our great democratic republic, and representation in our halls of legislation. I have had many close friends from my childhood to the present who were Jehovah’s Witnesses, Southern Baptists, Latter-day Saints, Evangelical Christians, and orthodox Jews, and they have each had a way of believing how the world/cosmos/ existence works, as seen through the prism of their individual faiths, as well as a humane way of treating and dealing with those who their beliefs might consider “different.”

That’s perfectly well and good. Score one for tolerance. (Or in the words of Tony Soprano, “They don’t want my son with their daughters, and I don’t want their sons with mine.”)

Every one is entitled to their own beliefs—but no one is entitled to their own facts (a word that comes from the Latin factum, or “deeds”), and when all is said and done, in a nation of laws, every citizen is entitled to engage in the same “deeds” as every other citizen, including that most desperate deed of all—getting married to the consent adults of their choosing.

Gay Republicans are certainly free to vote how they like, selecting the candidates and ideologies that most closely calibrate to their beliefs, values, morals, principles, and ethics. But they must know that they are doing so as second tier technocrats, who have been granted only the most grudging of nods in their party’s platform. (“We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.”)

From my vantage point, that just encourages the bad behavior, perpetuating the “Jim Queer” mindset in many on the far right with the tacit endorsement of those who should instead be calling for the full measure of their civil rights the loudest. A dirty deed, indeed.

TAMPA — A strongly-worded platform approved last week by the Republican National Convention (RNC) would ban federal recognition of marriage equality through a constitutional amendment, along with outlawing all abortions and changing the nature of delivery of Medicare benefits. With a warning that the “American Dream is at risk,” the platform opens with a pledge that a Republican Party in power will “begin anew, with profound changes in the way government operates; the way it budgets, taxes and regulates.”

“This ambitious blueprint projects a sea change in the way that government works,” said Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-Virginia), chairman of the RNC platform committee. “It offers a solution for workers without jobs, families without savings, and neighborhoods without hope.”

In spite of the efforts of gay delegates, including Log Cabin Republicans, and libertarian-leaning members (Ron Paul supporters among them), the RNC platform champions the rights of states and the federal government not to recognize gay marriage, and calls for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a prominent Hispanic Democrat, called parts of the platform “draconian” and “extreme,” and said of Romney, “What you have seen from him is that he does one thing, he says another.”

By JARRETT TERRILL

(Photo: Courtesy WMXDESIGN)

Paul Ryan is really something to look at, isn’t he? On the rare occasion that he smiles, it’s like heaven has just opened up before you. His square jawline, small ears, and light eyes are the stuff that we seek in models for gay magazines. He’s got that whole Abercrombie-meets-Bass Pro Shops thing going on that I find adorable.

Just looking at Paul Ryan gives me a sort of “tingle” that even Chris Mathews could never understand. I become disoriented and light-headed. His appearance motivates me: I want to lace up my boots and go out to do his bidding.

It’s important for America to eventually have a sexy Vice President, right?

That being said – when Paul Ryan speaks to the issues, he’s clearly Satan in a necktie. The Log Cabin Republicans don’t dare look at what the Human Rights Campaign has to say. It only took them one digit to send him straight to gay hell. He received the pitiful “0%” ranking on their congressional scorecard.

Let’s say for a moment, though, that you don’t give any weight to the most powerful gay rights lobbying group in America. There are other reasons that Paul Ryan is toxic. Ryan has repeatedly professed that he serves three gods: The first almighty recipient of the congressman’s devotion is clearly the Temple of Ayn Rand. Rand, as you may know by now, is the much-maligned preacher of the “Objectivist” philosophy and doctrine of unrestrained— extreme—Free Market Capitalism. This philosophy does not allow for LGBT persons to have any federal protections in the workforce. Ayn Rand says that you are not special for being either a minority or in the majority. You are an individual to whom anything can happen in capitalism, and your only shot at success is by being more of a carnivore than the next guy.

The next house in which Ryan will worship is nestled in a little place called Vatican City. The Roman Catholic Church is always going to be greater than the sum of its parts by design: There is currently a band of wayward nuns who are saying something about contraceptives in Indiana, but they are of no consequence to the Holy See- No-Evil. The Pope does a better job of protecting child molesters than he does gays or women.

The last—reluctant and beleaguered— object of Paul Ryan’s heavenly gaze is Mitt Romney himself. This faux fascination will be short-lived, I guarantee. We often reward those who bestow greatness upon us with temporary adoration. Ryan recently said that he stands firmly behind Romney’s record as a “job creator.” This is great news for China, where those jobs were actually created. It doesn’t quite wash with the people of Florida, however, where our unemployment level leaves us weighing the pros and cons of prostitution in its sincerest form.

I really do regret having to rain my “liberal hatred” all over Paul Ryan’s parade. Perhaps I’ll change my mind about him if I can see him with his shirt off.

CLIFF DUNN

I was at a barbecue over the weekend at my boyfriend’s family’s place, and before the corn on the cob had even been thrown onto the gas grill, someone asked me for whom I was voting in November’s presidential election. After good-naturedly breaking his balls about the sacro-sanctity of my vote and its very personal nature, I told him which of the candidates was more in line with my political views, circa-2012, and was immediately assailed with comments, pro and con, about my “guy.”

I honestly don’t have a lot of patience for this kind of ‘polite conversation,’ because I was a radio and television talk show host for ten years, and it doesn’t take much to set my gorge to rising, especially during the quadrennial presidential election cycle. There is very little in the current political climate (that’s watchable for more than three minutes, anyway) that smacks of intelligent, articulated, sober, and rational conversation about the most important issues that matter to us, as a community and as a nation.

The talking heads are spewing the talking points, and talk radio is so Agenda-driven (pardon the pun), that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have become the equivalent of World Wrestling Entertainment “stars:” Loudmouthed, opinionated regurgitators of a canned message that won’t brook (or invite) any debate. (There’s plenty of this to go around on the Left, too, but my homo-animus is momentarily directed towards the ’tards of the Right, thank you.)

I know when I watch one of the tights-clad personae created by promoter Vince McMahon that I am being treated to Theatre of the Grotesque, with larger-than-life depictions of dime-novel villains (or for a more recent, pop-culture relevant specie, Tom Hardy’s Bane in the latest “Batman” film is a perfect example), little more than caricatures to tease some Jungian archetypal yearning of the psyche.

That’s all well on TV—but it has no place in a grownup political conversation, and certainly shouldn’t inform a citizen’s voting choice.

(You can stop laughing now.) Unfortunately, there’s no such “mental warning label” accompanying the likes of Rush Limbaugh as when you are watching the antics of say, Hulk Hogan. But Limbaugh is no less a clown for all that he advocates policies and positions which are oh-so-less-than funny.

But at least I personally know that the pill-popping hypocrite is a clown—what excuse do his legions of Ditto-heads have to offer? Are they so starved for guidance and a firm hand (“paging Dr. Freud”) that they are willing to overlook the dishonesty, fact-twisting, and blatant lies that spew from his nicotinestained lips? They obviously don’t mind that Limbaugh never cast a vote for Ronald Reagan (because he didn’t register to vote until he was 35). Telling other people how they should think is easier, I guess, than making up your own mind.

There’s nothing wrong with being a Democrat, or a Republican, or a Libertarian (small or large “l”), or a progressive, traditionalist, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. What’s wrong is refusing to be an HONEST one of those things. The modern political party system, as practiced in the U.S., is two major corporations competing for sponsorship dollars.

Period. To say it a different way, the DNC and the RNC are like Ford or General Motors, competing for you as a consumer of their product, which is one of ideas. Brand loyalty is fine when it comes to soft drinks, sports teams, and clothing. It’s okay to be a “Chevy man,” or a “Binaca boy,” but to call oneself a “Yellow Dog Democrat” in the context of a modern information age is being willfully ignorant, something which, sadly doesn’t un-qualify a person to vote. My respect and admiration for FDR isn’t about to cloud my worldview concerning the gross and corrupt Vito Lopez of Brooklyn, just as my reverence of Lincoln and my appreciation for Reagan won’t blind me to the disappointment of George W. Bush, or the embarrassment of Sarah Palin and Todd Akin. Nor should they you.

Because I choose—when it comes to my voting franchise, anyway—to be willfully informed, I refuse to allow “brand loyalty” to inform my choice for president any more than it will impact my choice for dinner.

I “enjoy” (in the broadest definition of the word) listening to Limbaugh barn-burn his way to the fringe, because I “get” that he is, on some level, playing a part (as hatefully as did Father Coughlin in the 1930s), just as I get a kick out of the acerbic barbs of the more rational (to my mind) Rachel Maddow. But I understand it to be info-tainment, and I am more likely to make a voting choice based on something that the Economist said about the euro than something Kathy Griffin said about Romney.

The stakes for marriage equality, as well as ongoing efforts like the repeal of the bigoted and un- American Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the passage of ENDA (which even Paul Ryan— although not Mitt Romney— supported), and lingering concerns like the final vestiges of DADT, are too high to do otherwise.

OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON – State Rep. Maureen Walsh (R-Walla Walla) recorded a video ad this week supporting Washington State marriage equality. The three-term Republican lawmaker is one of two GOP House members who voted in favor of the state’s same-sex marriage bill, which passed in February and now faces a voter referendum to affirm or reject the measure.

During debate on the legislation, Walsh delivered an impassioned speech about her gay daughter and her hopes to someday throw her a wedding. The video of the speech went viral, and scored millions of hits on YouTube.

By RICHARD K. CLAYCOMB

In a recent piece in the Florida Agenda (August 15, 2012, “The Consequences of Run-Amok Liberalism,” by Jason Otero), a gay Republican stated that Democrats have done nothing to address the economy. Let’s look at the facts:

• Provisions in the “Cash for Clunkers” program—which allowed Americans a tax break only if they bought autos made in the U.S.A.—was blocked by Republicans. The number one auto brand purchased under that program was Toyota, the majority of which are made in Japan.

• President Obama’s stimulus package had provisions that encouraged Americans to buy American-made goods, to help create jobs. Republicans blocked that provision.

• That stimulus package has pulled the U.S. out of the Great Recession. Republicans repeatedly attempted to block it, and now claim the stimulus has failed.

• Republican President George W. Bush started wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over a trillion dollars in taxpayer money has being spent for those wars and to rebuild the infrastructures in those countries destroyed by American bombs. America’s infrastructure is in sorry need of repair. Republicans repeatedly block job creation bills designed to make those repairs.

• Republicans say we can’t afford health care for uninsured Americans, and attempted to block legislation which would result in job creation in the health care industry to provide for uninsured Americans.

• Republicans attempted to block loans to the auto industry—now being repaid—which if not made, would have resulted in job losses during a time the U.S. continued to shell out financial aid (not loans) to other countries. The revived American auto industry has been hiring new workers because of an increase in sales of American-made cars.

Otero said the younger generation doesn’t care who gets married: But look up the ages of the young men who killed Matthew Shepard. He wrote we should work on the economy, stop trying to give gays the right to marry, and make abortion illegal again. Hitler took away the rights of gays, and ordered their extermination, while the majority of Germans supported him because he promised jobs. Criminologists in the 1970s predicted that America would become a police state to handle rising crime. Legalized abortion allowed women living in poverty the option to not have unwanted children.

Many of those born into poverty turn to crime because of the lack of jobs in communities at the poverty level.

Republican President Ronald Reagan ignored the AIDS crisis, resulting in an epidemic number of dead gays across America. If you’re a gay Republican, you belong to a political party that includes people who would like to see you put away in camps or exterminated. If you’re a gay Republican, you follow a political agenda that makes money more important than the teachings of the major religions, including Christianity, so you really shouldn’t complain about losing friends in the LGBT community because of your political beliefs, as Otero complained, since the majority of mentally-balanced people don’t want to associate with people who don’t practice what they say they believe.

By JOE HARRIS

Walk with me, if you will, through the fields of my political imagination, while we analyze if former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist’s endorsement on Sunday of President Obama’s re-election campaign gives us a window into what turns him on. Although “comeback” is on the lips of many observers, the first word to pop into my mind is “punishment,” followed by “masochist,” and an image of the Once-and-[He Hopes]-Future- Governor playing a B&D/S&M scene with political operatives from both major parties.

The Republicans have already talked about Crist’s endorsement in the same terminology a dominatrix might use to scold a naughty businessman during a lunchtime quickie. Florida GOP chairman Lenny Curry slammed the former governor as “a self-centered career politician,” “repugnant,” “selfish,” and “looking after his own interests,” and then verbally spanked him, adding, “in spite of an approaching hurricane, no less!”

The notion of Crist as a “political masochist” seeking release through punishment is only heightened (exponentially) with the thought of how DEMOCRATS will go after him once his plans are known. It’s a pretty safe bet that Crist’s move was timed to maximize the media attention, and is another major step by the once-popular politician to crawl up from the ash heap of history towards rebirth as a Democrat and a return to competitive politics. It also increases the buzz to a fever pitch concerning Crist’s intentions to run for governor in 2014, or other elected office—but this time as a Democrat. You’ll have a chance to see his “audition tape” next week, when he addresses the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Republicans will have a field day condemning a recycled Crist, attacking him like they did John Kerry as a flipflopper, but also as a party traitor, and a collaborator with the hated Occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. They have already pointed to his abandonment of his previous positions, including his 2010 admonition against Obama that, “I don’t agree with the guy on hardly anything he does,” his self-description as a “pro-life” “Ronald Reagan Republican,” his opposition to ObamaCare, and his “cheerful” support of a state constitutional amendment banning marriage equality.

And the Republican Party “talking points” actually suggest, “You should take every opportunity with the media to remind Floridians that Crist has made a career out of bashing the Democrat Party and everything President Obama stands for.” Imagine how much hay other Democratic candidates will make of that when they stand against Crist during a future primary.

In the words of the Florida GOP’s Curry, “Charlie Crist has demonstrated, yet again, that his political ambition will always come first.”

For his part, Crist has been invoking the memory and paraphrasing the words of Ronald Reagan, suggesting that he didn’t leave the GOP in 2010, but that rather the party left him, by embracing extreme positions and beliefs. The GOP talking points try to blunt that defense by noting that the ex-governor jumped the party’s ship for an electoral opportunity, and “left because polls showed he had a better chance to win the [U.S.] Senate seat as an Independent.”

Does Crist have a right to a “second act” in politics? Sure he does. But Republicans have a legitimate right to cast him as an opportunist—a professional politician who is just looking for an elected office to occupy. South Floridians have seen this before (sorry, Jim Lewis). My own fascination with train wrecks leaves me wondering what kind of punishment the members of his own (new) party have planned for Crist: Florida politics’ Once-and-Future whipping.

CLIFF DUNN

“It is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the President or anyone else.” – Theodore Roosevelt

I used to love the national political conventions, but no longer. Over the next two weeks, politically active Americans will “drink the Kool Aid” and engage in saber-rattling diatribes and unleash the most unpleasant hyperbole concerning their fellow countrymen since Republicans questioned the bravery, honor, and military awards of John Kerry in 2004 (unless you count their 2008 vilification of Obama’s putative “Muslim religion” and their calling into question his citizenship). Democrats don’t get a pass here, with 30-year-old irrelevancies about Ronald Reagan’s senility, the 1988 “wimp” bombs they threw at George H.W. Bush, accusations in 2004 that his son, George W. Bush, was somehow complicit in the September 11 attacks, ad nauseum. More galling to me than that sort of nonstarter is the quasi-tribal, siege mindset that overtakes the most partisan among us, and the accompanying notion that members of the opposing party are the ENEMY (as if Osama bin Laden gave a rat’s toenail what the political party affiliations were of the World Trade Center’s honored dead).

Each year, the Democrats and Republicans host annual fundraising dinner events which bring local, state, and national brass to the trenches (in this case, ones filled with rubber chicken and contribution envelopes) in an effort to rally the—moneyed—troops and preach the Gospel of Talking Points to the chewing choir. The Democrats’ Jefferson- Jackson and the Republicans’ Lincoln- Reagan dinners are ideological red meat for “starved” political operatives and wannabes, and it never ceases to amuse me that most of the party stalwarts have no clue just who— or what—they are honoring.

Thomas Jefferson was a “small government” progressive who envisioned America as an agrarian society, where laws and regulations would be minimal, allowing the “good sense” of the people to reign as well as rule. In this, he was opposed by Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists, who resemble Mitt Romney and the modern GOP in that they favored the moneyed classes and capital, but they also supported a centralized Federal government to facilitate the growth and stability of the new nation.X

Although many Republicans claim that in today’s political climate, Jefferson would be a member of the Grand Old Party, this doesn’t take into account the 18th Century realities: In the 1700s, America WAS an agricultural nation, and didn’t require the degree of government regulation that a modern, industrialized society demands.X

In fact, it was two bona fide Republican Presidents who set into motion the very “Era of Big Government” that a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, proclaimed to be “over” in the 1990s. Abraham Lincoln’s calls for a national military draft during the American Civil War was the first of its kind—and made northerners hate the Great Emancipator as much as did slaveholders in the then-solidly Democratic south.

Legal scholars of the 1860s were as divided as the nation was in their opinions over whether Lincoln had the constitutional power to prevent southern secession and dissolution of the Union. And his suspension of habeas corpus foreshadowed the modern debate over the Patriot Act’s encroachment into civil liberties (a law, incidentally, that was championed by a “small government” conservative President, Bush-43).

Possibly America’s “biggest government” President, Theodore Roosevelt gave nightmares to bosses of his day’s GOP for his support of progressive causes. (When he was chosen as running mate for the incumbent president, Republican William McKinley, an exasperated machine boss, Mark Hanna of New York, shouted, “Don’t any of you realize that there’s only one life between that madman and the Presidency? What…will he do as President if McKinley should die?” As if on cue, McKinley was assassinated 15 months later.)

The Republican Teddy spoke of a “Square Deal,” a progressive outline for equal opportunity for all Americans—with special emphasis on the importance of fair government regulations over corporate “special interests.” (Read about the Triangle Shirt Factory fire and tell me that employees need LESS workplace protections.) Does that mean that he—or Obama—stand for harm to small business? Uh—no.

Roosevelt made America’s natural resources a national issue. He favored using them wisely, and opposed wasteful consumption. He leaves a legacy of five national parks, 18 national monuments, and 150 National Forests, among other works. Does that make the Rough Rider— or Obama—a tree-hugging nature lover? Is this even actually a bad thing?

In his 1908 Annual Message to Congress, T.R. spoke of the need for the federal government to regulate interstate corporations (under the constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause), and cited big business’ battle against federal regulations, by appealing to the importance of states’ rights (which was as much a canard in 1912 as it is in 2012).

Child labor laws, workplace safety requirements, an eight-hour work day, and the Republic itself—we owe all these to liberal Republicans. Enjoy Tampa, members of the Grand Old Party.

Republican Traditionalists: “It’s Chick-fil-A’s carcass, and I helped!”

It seems that high-profile members of the Grand Old Party love themselves some fried chicken—as long as it features a Chick-fil-A sticker someplace on the packaging. Since his interview last month with Baptist Press, CEO Dan Cathy’s comments espousing “the biblical definition of the family unit” have gone viral, and netted the support of such prominent Republicans as former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who declared August 1—today—to be “Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day,” former Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (who genuflected over his family’s love for the chicken joint’s peach shakes, via Twitter), and ex-Alaska governor Sarah Palin, who told Lone Star State supporters last week that she was planning a post-rally poultry-binge— and posted her proof online (replete with pics of her and hubby Todd, pullet prizes in hand).

Images touted by conservative activists depicted traditionalists standing in long lines at Chick-fil-A franchises, presumably waiting for their buckets and side dishes. It would seem that Republicans have succeeded in mobilizing the “base” to rally around the fast food chain as a cause worth protecting. But a new analysis from international internet market research firm YouGov suggests that the company’s brand is being hurt by all this Republican-ized romance— not to mention CEO Cathy’s suggestion that too much progressive thinking (like same-sex marriage) is just “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.”

The U.K.-based online pollster’s Brand Index uses an algorithm that takes its nearly 2 million American fast-food consumer poll subjects, and subtracts their negative feedback numbers from positive totals. Since July 19, perception of the Chick-fil-A brand has dropped to 4 points below the national average—a drop of 15 points (from 19 points above the average) before Cathy bashed gay marriage (and divorcees). According to YouGov, the conservative Midwest is the only place the pullet hasn’t hit the fan.

“Marriage is an important part of getting ahead. It lets people know
you’re not a homo. A married guy seems more stable. People see the
ring, they think ‘at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch.’
Ladies see the ring, they know immediately that you must have some
cash, and your **** must work.”

Cliff Dunn

The latest attack on the civil liberties
of LGBT Americans came on Friday, when
the three highest ranked Republican
members of the U.S. House leadership
filed an appeal with the U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San
Francisco, and asked them to overturn the
decision of U.S. District Judge Jeffrey
White, who on Wednesday ruled that the
loathsome Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) is offensive to the Constitution.

Judge White—a Republican
appointed by President George W. Bush–
is the second federal jurist to rule that
Section 3 of DOMA, the part that defines
marriage as between one man and one
woman, violates the Constitution’s equal
protection clause. In his ruling, White—
in the 1970s, a Nixon-appointed Justice
Department lawyer–said that the 1996
law does not satisfy a “heightened
scrutiny” test, which means that DOMA
does not further any ‘important’
government interests. This means that
the DOMA potentially could fail a
“rational basis” test, which is a lower
standard that asks if the law furthers a
‘legitimate’ interest. The case White ruled
upon concerns a gay attorney for the 9th
Circuit, Karen Golinski, who was refused
spousal health care benefits for her wife.

“The Court finds that DOMA, as
applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right
to equal protection of the law,” wrote
White “by, without substantial
justification or rational basis, refusing to
recognize her lawful marriage to prevent
provision of health insurance coverage to
her spouse.” White then became My
Favorite Person This Week when he threw
the hypocrisy of the states’ rights crowd
back into the teeth of Ron Paul and the
Tenth Amendment Set who hide behind
federalism when pointing an accusing
finger at a bullying federal government.

He lambasted the law as an egregious and
“stark departure from tradition and a
blatant disregard of the well-accepted
concept of federalism in the area of
domestic relations.” I now know what is
meant by an “honest constructionist.”
Far from protecting marriage, DOMA
actually weakens it, denying as it does
federal benefits to same-sex spouses. If
two gay men marry in Massachusetts, for
instance, where marriage equality is legal,
they can’t file a joint federal tax return,
and aren’t entitled to Social Security
survivors’ benefits. That’s un-American.

Last February, the Attorney General of
the United States said that his
department would no longer defend
DOMA in court. That’s when Boehner and
the Republican leadership of the House
formed the conspiracy called the
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Committee, to
take up the Justice Department’s slack.

It was a clever idea, since they appointed
the two senior House Democrats, Nancy
Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, to sit on
the board and ensure there was no
funny business.

That funny business was in full force
last week, however. Once Judge White’s
ruling was made, any pretext of states’
rights and that other Constitutional
inconvenience, Separation of Powers,
went out the window, along with the
suggestion of an actually “bipartisan”
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Committee,
whose Democrat members abstained
from challenging the civil rights of
LGBT Americans.

There’s an old joke about marriage
being a “three-ring circus: there’s the
engagement ring, the wedding ring, and
the suffering.” If Boehner & Co. would
only dish out less of the suffering.

Cliff Dunn - Editor

Cliff Dunn is the Editor of Florida Agenda. He can be reached at editor@floridaagenda.com