I'm Not Judging You, But You're Going to Burn in Hell

David Gregory is mostly awful, but he's correct here to press Michelle Bachmann on her anti-gay views:



Here's the transcript (you can also watch the full interview, if you like):

MR. GREGORY: OK. I want to also ask you about your interpretation of the Bible and your feelings about gays and lesbians. You have said in recent years that opposition to same sex marriage is defining a political debate in this country. You're opposed to it, you'd like to see a constitutional ban against it in this country. And during a speech that you gave in 2004 at an education conference, you spoke openly and in detail about gays and lesbians. And I want to play just a portion of that speech and have you react, react to it.

(Videotape, November 6, 2004)

REP. BACHMANN: It's a very sad life. It's part of Satan, I think, to say that this is gay. It's anything but gay. ... It leads to the personal enslavement of individuals. Because if you're involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it's bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair, and personal enslavement. And that's why this is so dangerous. ... We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: That is the view President Bachmann would have of gay Americans?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, I am running for the presidency of the United States. I'm not running to be anyone's judge. I do stand very...

MR. GREGORY: But you have judged them.

REP. BACHMANN: I, I, I don't judge them. I don't judge them. I am running for presidency of the United States.

MR. GREGORY: Is that the view of gays--gay Americans that President Bachmann would have?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, my, my view on marriage is that I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. And that's what I stand for. But I ascribe honor and dignity to every person no matter what their background. They have honor and they have dignity.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think that gay Americans hearing quotes like that from you would think that that's, that's honor and dignity coming from you about their circumstance?

REP. BACHMANN: I am not anyone's judge...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

REP. BACHMANN: ...and I'm not standing in as anyone's judge.

MR. GREGORY: Congresswoman, you have--I mean, do you think anyone hears that and thinks you haven't made a judgment about gays and lesbians?

REP. BACHMANN: That's all I can tell you is that I'm not judging.

MR. GREGORY: So your words should stand for themselves?

REP. BACHMANN: I'm running for the presidency of the United States. That's what's important.

MR. GREGORY: Would you appoint a gay, an openly gay person, to your administration, to your Cabinet, or name them as a judge?

REP. BACHMANN: My criteria would be the same for that--for, for--which would be, where do you stand on the Constitution, are you competent, and do you share my views. That's my criteria.

MR. GREGORY: But those views are, are, are pretty clear. So you would, you would--as far as judge, you talked about that, an openly gay person is acceptable as a matter of your administration, as a member of your administration?

REP. BACHMANN: I, I, I have, I have my criteria for what I--my appointments would be based on, and it's whether you uphold the Constitution, if you're competent, and if you share my views.

MR. GREGORY: So it would not be a factor?

REP. BACHMANN: I am not out asking any other questions.

MR. GREGORY: One last one on this. Can a gay couple with--who adopt children in your mind be considered a family?

REP. BACHMANN: When it comes to marriage and family, my opinion is that marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think that's, that's been my view, and I think that's important.

MR. GREGORY: So a gay couple with kids would not be considered a family to you?

REP. BACHMANN: You know, all of these kind of questions really aren't about what people are concerned about right now. This isn't what--this isn't...

MR. GREGORY: Congresswoman, you said it...

REP. BACHMANN: ...and I'm not judging them.

MR. GREGORY: You said that any, any candidate for president should be asked about his or her views and their record. This is a record of your statement. These were defining political issues for you as your political career advanced. You're the one who said that same-sex marriage was a defining political issue of our time. Those were your words back in 2004. So I'm just asking you about your views on something that has animated your political life.

REP. BACHMANN: Right. I think my views are clear.

The only clear thing is Bachmann's refusal to answer the question, and reluctance to reveal her anti-gay views on national television. Apparently, she thinks viewers are too dumb to suss out her views if she dodges the question. Sure, apart from connecting being gay to Satan and slavery, she's not being judgmental at all.

To my mind, bad "gotcha" journalism involves taking two statements (or positions) from a politician and juxtaposing them without context, presenting a complex issue in a simplistic, black-and-white way that might make for a good headline, but an awfully dumb, shallow discussion. However, often a politician's statement, or shift on a policy, is extremely important and revealing. The point is to get to the truth of the matter and a deeper understanding, whether that be about a politician's hypocrisy and opportunism, or why s/he changed a position for good reasons, or just to make clear what the candidate's true position actually is. Bachmann's been proud of these views in the past. Gregory's right to push her here. Bachmann holds very strong anti-gay views, extreme even in the Republican Party. She should own up to them. If she wants to court her fellow theocrats and bigots as she has in the past, fine, but it's gutless to deny her actual positions. (It reminds me of the cognitive dissonance or ludicrous dishonesty in some racist anti-Obama videos I've seen; fodder for a future post, perhaps.)

This video clip comes via mistermix at Balloon Juice, who was tipped off by Dan Savage, who writes:

Don't ask Michele Bachmann whether gay couples with kids are families. That's not a question Bachmann is willing to answer because she's running for president and that's not an important presidential-type issue question, David Gregory. But a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and deprive kids with gay parents of the benefits and protections of having married parents? That's a presidential issue right there! Ask away! Bachmann will also answer questions about whether gay people should serve in the military—guess what? She's going to singlehandedly reinstate DADT if she's elected president.

Bachmann doesn't want to irritate the conservative base, which is (with few exceptions) strongly anti-gay. But she's bright enough to realize that hating the gays doesn't play with a larger audience. It's not a coherent position, it's not a tolerant position, and it's not a principled position - so let her squirm. I hope more reporters press the candidates for honest, full answers on social issues such as gay rights, abortion and reproductive health. (While we're at it, throw in economics.) Candidates with nutty or dangerous ideas have every right to make their pitches, but they should be forced to own up to their actual positions, and fact-checked on them.

It Gets Better

10/11/10 was National Coming Out Day this year. As the Human Rights Campaign explains:

It’s a day for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to be open and honest about our lives. It’s a day for all fair-minded people to stand by your LGBT friends and family and speak out about your support for equality.

With the recent tragic suicide of Tyler Clementi, Dan Savage's "It Gets Better" project is especially timely:



I'd say "It gets better" hold true for most kids, certainly those who don't conform to the expectations of their school, home or community. However, The Trevor Project, a 24-hour suicide prevention hotline and resource for LGBTQ youth, relays the findings of a Massachusetts Youth Risk Survey from 2007, that "lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers." While things have gotten much better over the past 30 years, there's no good reason for them to still be that bad. I won't bother to link the despicable taunting of Clementi by some right-wingers; they were deliberately trying to be assholes, and they succeeded. I'd rather focus on the people who believe in shared humanity and compassion. Ellen Generes sums it all up well:



Update: Dan Savage had a good interview on NPR. His explanation of how the project started relates to aimai's comment about Olbermann and pitchforks in the thread below:

I had heard about the suicide of Justin Aaberg in Minnesota, and then this fall, early September, Billy Lucas in Greensburg, Indiana. And it was really in reaction to Billy Lucas's suicide. And he was not openly gay, but he was perceived to be gay as, you know, many victims of anti-gay bullying are not gay.

And I was really heartbroken and had the reaction that so many gay adults have when we hear these stories, is I wish I could have talked to that kid for five minutes and been able to tell him that it gets better.

But I would never get permission to talk to these kids or an invitation to talk to high school or middle schools. And it occurred to me that I was waiting for permission that I didn't need anymore because of YouTube and Twitter and Facebook, and I could record a video with my husband. We could talk about having survived bullying and our lives now and offer these kids hope.

And really, you know, and what's subversive about it is we're making an end run around a lot of these kids' parents, who don't want them to talk to openly gay adults or know that they can lead a successful, rewarding, content and happy life as an openly gay adult, their teachers, their school administrators and their religious, quote-unquote, "leaders" who don't want us to reach out to their kids and never have.

And we're done waiting for permission or an invitation, and we're going to address these kids and talk to these kids and give them hope whether their families, churches and schools like it or not.

NPR has a few angry comments on their site about the "like it or not" bit, which is utterly unsurprising. Let's break this down. One, sexuality is an important subject, especially for teenagers, but some parents are uncomfortable discussing it. Okay. But it's time to get over that, or sign that permission slip for the school to have those discussions (in a reality-based curriculum). Teenagers are becoming adults, capable of making their own choices, and it's their maturity, not their immaturity, that unnerves some adults. Let's be honest – it's not as if most social conservatives unnerved by homosexuality are really comfortable talking with their kids about heterosexuality either. That unfortunate, delusional "abstinence-only" sex ed approach in Texas has accomplished little other than increasing the teen pregnancy rate. And even if some social conservatives don't like the idea of homosexuality, it does exist.

Two, Dan Savage and Jewel and other people making these videos aren't going to make anyone gay. Mild homophobia is one thing and may be manageable, but organized homophobia is largely based on a deep-seated, irrational, fearful belief in the "Gay Cooties Theory." This entire project is based on compassion.

Three, and most importantly – we're talking about some adult's disapproval weighed against a teenager killing him or herself. That's not remotely a hard call. And in a situation where a gay kid has killed him or herself - even if their parents were/are homophobic - even if they've gone so far as to disown their kid - after the kid's committed suicide, most parents would still rather have their kid back alive. (Unfortunately, I know of a situation precisely like that, and I'm sure there are many more. It makes me sad, and it makes me angry, because it's all so pointless.) Given those realities, I feel it shows tremendous restraint to put things the way Dan Savage did. It's one thing to say, "These are our ways," but when kids are dying unnecessarily as a result of those ways, it's time for some reflection. Obedience is the wrong metric here. This is about suicide prevention and compassion.

 

CA Prop 8 Overturned

(AP Photo/Eric Risberg, via Digby.)

Exciting news this Wednesday, as federal district court judge Vaughn Walker has ruled that CA Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage in California on a narrow vote, is unconstitutional. Here's the key section:

CONCLUSION
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

REMEDIES
Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants anddefendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

You can read the whole decision (136 pages) here or here (PDF). I haven't read it yet, but have heard some general praise for its detail, thoroughness and persuasiveness. I'm sure more comprehensive analyses will be out shortly.

This is far from over. As David Dayen and karoli at Crooks and Liars note, Judge Walker has issued a temporary stay until Friday while the Prop 8 supporters file a request for a longer stay. They don't want his ruling to go into effect while they appeal Walker's decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, although it's likely this one will go all the way to Supreme Court. However, that process will probably take a few years. From what I've read so far, this means new gay marriages will probably remain illegal in California in the interim. (As the LA Times explains, "An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.") Still, this rulling is an important victory.

The LA Times has much, much more. Here's their main article, one on reactions, a timeline, a good photo gallery, and editorials - one and two.

World O' Crap passes on Truth Wins Out's roundup of initial far right reactions, and also links this fun, satirical piece on the trial:



Roy Edroso also finds some real wingnut gems – and I'm sure many, many more will be coming.

I wrote a couple of fairly extensive posts on Prop. 8 back in 2008: one and two. Oh, and don't forget the Prop. 8 musical! While mild homophobia is one thing, working to deny a minority group essential rights is quite another. And as the posts outline, the Prop. 8 proponents consistently lied. I also think this "No on 8" ad featuring Sam Jackson is worth revisiting:



It really puts it in perspective, doesn't it?

However, now that it's the homophobic Prop. 8 supporters facing the setback, we might as well admit that all their paranoid fantasies were true and their worst fears will now be realized. Don't be fooled by all those sweet photos of loving couples! Gay couples don't just want to live their lives in peace and happiness. They're power-mad, just like Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich, and prone to cackling evilly in trendy bistros and at art shows, mostly because they know that absolutely nothing can stop the spread of dance hall electronica gay cooties. The Great Gay Conspiracy has leaked the memo of their nefarious plans to liberal bloggers everywhere, and given the important victory today, the embargo on revealing this plot has finally been lifted. As noted in Judge Walker's decision (in a footnote missed by Michelle Malkin), effective immediately, all churches in California must now perform this song as a regular hymn:


(The video's out of synch, but it's still, what's the word? Fabulous.)

Of course, to perform the song in the proper style shown here, in some churches, some big hair women will have to tamp down their 'dos, and the preachers will to dress less flamboyantly.

Seriously, congratulations to all the gay couples out there, and here's hoping the appeals process yields swift and wise decisions. This ruling could have a positive ripple effect throughout the nation.


(Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times)

Geeks 1, Homophobes 0

Actually, "homophobes" is too tame a word for Fred Phelps and the hate-filled gang of the Westboro Baptist Church. But when they showed up to protest at Comic-Con, they were met by some counter-protesters:

Unbeknownst to the dastardly fanatics of the Westboro Baptist Church, the good folks of San Diego's Comic-Con were prepared for their arrival with their own special brand of superhuman counter protesting chanting "WHAT DO WE WANT" "GAY SEX" "WHEN DO WE WANT IT" "NOW!" while brandishing ironic (and some sincere) signs.

The Phelps crowd might think they have God on their side, but do they really want to get into a stamina war with folks who can wait hours in line for a sneak peek at The Green Hornet or an autograph from Stan Lee or Ray Bradbury? Mess with fanboys and fangirls on Star Wars Day and the Force will not be with you.

Major style points to the counter-protesters on this one. There's a short video and more photos at the first link. (Via.)


Fox News immediately announced an investigation – where is the liberal media on robot-on-human violence? Why the double-standard?

(Cross-posted at Hullabaloo.)

 

Equality in Maine

This is easily the coolest damn thing I've seen today. I lived in Maine for a few years, and while New England certainly has its busybodies, there's also a strong live-and-let-live contingent. This comes via DougJ at Balloon Juice, who writes, "Why does this hippie want to undermine the sanctity of marriage?"

Student Grills Karl Rove

Hat tip to Drew for sending me this Think Progress post, about a Choate student grilling Karl Rove on gay marriage. Here's a more extensive excerpt from the original article:

[Marla] Spivak, a senior from Hamden, was one of the students invited to have lunch earlier with Rove. That left her somewhat emboldened as she stood before the crowd and asked Rove to explain how giving gay people the right to marry would endanger other people.

Rove took issue with the way the first gay marriages came about, through the Massachusetts Supreme Court. An issue as important as the definition of marriage should be resolved by a legislature or a referendum, not a court, he said.

Gay couples could gain the legal rights of married couples through legislation without actually getting married, he said.

But wouldn't creating a separate body of legislation for gay people be creating a separate but equal system, a step back?, Spivak asked.

Rove replied with an answer about Mormons changing their views on marriage to conform with the nation's laws.

Spivak kept pressing. "You never actually answered, how does it threaten anyone?" she asked.

Rove asked, what's the compelling reason to throw out 5,000 years of understanding the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman?

What, Spivak countered, was the compelling reason for society to allow interracial relationships when they had once been outlawed.

Then Rove invoked the Declaration of Independence before Spivak interjected that its reference to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" seemed to support her claims.

Their verbal pingpong match tapered off after Rove brought up polygamy and Spivak acknowledged that she did not know enough about polygamy to answer. Rove later asked when she planned to run for political office.

I'll give Rove credit for two things — praising the importance of studying Shakespeare, even for non-English majors a bit later, and recommending The Looming Tower. However, he ducked Spivak's question, and brought up polygamy, a slippery slope argument, to derail her. Spivak did well, but she was going up against a pretty slick hack who was able to escape with a classic logical fallacy and some other tricks. Realistically, it's doubtful he would have answered honestly. Still, just imagine if the media always pressed political figures like this. Some do, but many are content to be suck-ups and apologists for even the most authoritarian, dangerous BS.

Rove's stepfather was gay, and he was quite close with him by most accounts. It appears he even lied to the Choate students when he claimed he didn't know whether his stepfather had been gay or not, since that contradicts several public accounts of his contact with gay friends of his stepfather after his stepfather's death. In any case, his stepfather's sexuality didn't stop Rove from using a 2004 campaign strategy that depended in large part on exploiting homophobia (Al Franken sharply called the campaign "Fear, Smears, and Queers"). Rove's approach was very similar to Reagan's consistent race-baiting, even if Reagan was rather clever about it, using code words like "welfare queens." There are apologists who maddeningly claim that Reagan wasn't personally racist (I don't know if you caught the NYT editorials back and forth on this). Perhaps Reagan wasn't, although I'm not convinced — he certainly seemed both ignorant and biased, and just because that was the social norm for his crowd doesn't mean they weren't bigoted, even if Reagan was no David Duke. In Rove's case, I'd imagine he's not personally a raging homophobe. But really, who cares? Does it really matter if Rove or Reagan weren't personally bigoted when they pressed bigoted policies and exploited bigotry? Why should they get any points for that? Isn't that even worse? A Klansman is a bigoted scumbag, but at least one knows where he stands, and most of society will condemn him. But Reagan and Rove are somehow respectable because when they did something they knew if wrong, their hearts supposedly weren't in it? Aww, poor dears! Realistically, such disingenuousness is common to politics, but especially since we're talking about demonizing an entire group of people, if we're talking ethics, that's clearly wrong, or even evil.

But back to Ms. Spivak. Her conduct was fantastic. This is why I loved working with teenagers, who are consistently undersold by adults, the press, and much of our society. Yes, there's plenty of immaturity and self-absorption in the demographic as a whole, but there's also some really sharp, well-informed, conscientious young adults out there. (I certainly remember a hell of a lot of condescension when I was that age.) This election season has seen a record youth turnout, including teenagers of 17 who will be 18 in the fall coming out to vote in the primaries. That's profoundly exciting. Meanwhile, adults have been complaining about how horrible the kids are today are and how they won't listen since at least Socrates' time. Those periodic, stock pieces slamming the wastrel youth of today always lack insight, and are partially to completely full of crap. I'm not saying the young don't have a great deal to learn about the world and life, and wise mentors are always welcome, but at their best, young people have great bullshit detectors and try to keep the older, complacent and corrupt folks honest.

So good for Marla Spivak, who as a senior should be voting this fall with many others her age for the first time in a national election. (I hope it's as exciting and successful as my first voting experience was.) Welcome aboard, and keep up the good work!

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)