“G.O.P. Opposition Dims Hope for Arms Treaty With Russia”  New York Times headline 11/17/10

I have begun writing frequent letters to Republicans in Congress who are taking it upon themselves to thwart good policy in this country so that they can just say NO to President Obama.  Would it help if lots of us wrote letters every time we see obstructionism, or bad policy?  Here is my letter for today.

Dear Senator Kyl,

I am very concerned that you are planning to shut down the Arms treaty with Russia, after having been a central part of the negotiations.  I have 3 children under the age of 10, and it seems to me that a more verifiable Russian nuclear arsenal is vital to our National Security, and thus the security of my family.  I understand that your party’s new goal is to prevent the reelection of the president in 2012.  Please do not let that goal cloud your judgment about what policies are best for the American people.  Please reject being a part of the faction of your party which insists on being the party of NO, and move to verify the Russian Arms Treaty

An anecdote to lighten your day.

I was working out in the gym this morning. Two male Norwich cadets came in as well, the first African American, the second Caucasian. I over heard some muttering about needing to do circuit training that they weren’t happy about.

The second cadet: “This is gay.”

The first: “Man, you shouldn’t say that. That’s not OK.” Some more followed that I couldn’t hear beyond the word “friend.” The second cadet gave some very low key acknowledgement and moved on.

Another step in the journey of a thousand, but a good one.

I am a civil person.  I do not, as a rule, engage in name calling.  I try to see multiple sides to an argument and I avoid obscenity.

But sometimes I read things like this:

According to KWTV News, 18-year-old Melissa McKenzie said she was kicked out of Del City High School in Del City, Okla., at the beginning of the semester when the principal found out she was living with her girlfriend instead of her family. The principal then told her if she returned to her family’s home, she would be welcomed back to school.

The upshot of this story is that students are being discouraged from graduating because they are lesbian.  I normally focus here on Vermont, and this is in Oklahoma, but it’s important to understand that this sort of backwater, ignorant, hateful nonsense can happen anywhere and needs to be called out, not just in our own backyard.

I have no wisdom to impart here.  I have nothing to say which makes this better.  I am disgusted, appalled and seriously would like to see the principal who’s involved in this story (which is not the first time he has done this) get fired.

No.  Not just fired.

Kicked.

Kicked in the shins.

Kicked in the shins over and over again by a team of angry lesbian soccer players.

I wish I had something better to say about this, other than “I’m glad I live in Vermont.”

(and for Leftfield and Rama)

“isn’t it true mr./ms. blogger

that you have occasionally made

the crude joke that could be

construed as not only homophobic

and racist and sexist but also

radically out of step with those

of us who stand for true democracy

and correct thought and feeling good?”

“well, mr. front-pager, I…”

“comment yes or no please”

” mr. front-pager, I was merely pointing out…”

“I’m waiting for a yes or no reply”

“I can’t see anything homophobic

or racist or sexist in my posts

nor do I see anything wrong

with making jokes about people in power

or people who willingly come to the defense

of those people in power because…”

“that is not a yes or a no

so I will interpret your response

as an attack upon all we are trying

to do here in creating a progressive

and enlightened community of blog

I am hitting the delete button”

“but mr. front-pager, I…(deleted)

(But the ‘Anyone But Dubie’ poster-babe, that’s not sexist.  Hmmmm…Or, to coin a phrase:  “Have you no sense of decency, sir?  At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”)

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

(Kafka Lives!)

Iowa Voters Tossed Out Three Justices of the State Supreme Court Solely Because They Declared Unconstitutional a State Law That Barred Gay and Lesbian Couples From Marrying; Vote Sends a Clear Message That  Anti-Gay Bias Trumps Gays’ Constitutional Rights — and Sets a Dangerous Precedent for Protecting the the Rights of Other Minorities

A VICTORY FOR HOMOPHOBIA — Three justices of the Iowa Supreme Court who struck down as unconstitutional a state law that barred gay and lesbian couples form marrying were tossed out of office on November 2 solely because of that decision. Never mind the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court declared in its 1996 Romer v. Evans decision that no state can deliberately exclude gays and lesbians from the constitutional rights and freedoms enjoyed by everyone else. The vote sets a dangerous precedent that state judges can be tossed out of office by the whims of a fickle electorate for protecting the constitutional rights of all minorities, not just gays and lesbians. (Image courtesy KCBS-TV, Los Angeles)

(Posted 5:30 a.m. EST Tuesday, November 16, 2010)

By SKEETER SANDERS

Here we go again.

In yet another state, the voters sent a clear and unmistakable message on November 2: That gay and lesbian couples have no constitutional right to marry — regardless of what the courts say to the contrary.

That message came loud and clear when voters in Iowa ousted three justices of the state Supreme Court who participated in Varnum v. Brien, the court’s unanimous 2009 ruling that struck down as unconstitutional a state law that barred gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Associate Justices David Baker and Michael Streit were all denied reconfirmation with roughly 54 percent voters saying “no” and 46 percent saying “yes.”

Under Iowa law, the governor appoints justices to the state Supreme Court, with the assistance of a judicial selection committee. Each justice, however, is subject to a retention election five years after his or her appointment.

Under normal circumstances, a Supreme Court justice does not remain on the bench if he or she is accepting bribes or has become incompetent or is simply not doing his or her job. But the circumstances in which Justices Ternus, Baker and Steit were ousted were anything but normal.

JUSTICES WERE DUTY-BOUND TO UPHOLD RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY IOWA CONSTITUTION

The justices, acting on an appeal of a lower court decision, ruled unanimously on April 3, 2009 that the state law defining marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman violated the equal-protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

Article I, Section 6 of the Iowa Constitution states quite explicitly that “All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the [Iowa] General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

The court also rejected civil unions, declaring that “A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our Constitution.”

The justices made it clear they were duty-bound by their oath of office to uphold the Iowa Constitution — and the rights of individuals that it guarantees. “Our responsibility . . . is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time.”

APPEAL TO U.S. COURTS DEEMED ‘TOO RISKY’ IN FACE OF FEDERAL LAWSUITS AGAINST PROP. 8, DOMA  

Yet despite the clear and unmistakable language of the Iowa Constitution’s equal-protection clause, opponents of same-gender marriage adamantly refused to accept the court’s decision — and vowed an all-out campaign to reimpose the ban.

An appeal to the federal courts was not in the cards, since the justices based their ruling on the Iowa Constitution and — in the absence of a direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution — the federal courts lacked the jurisdiction to intervene.

An appeal also carried with it a high risk of losing, as California’s voter-approved Proposition 8 — which amended the California Constitution to ban same-gender marriage — is presently under challenge in federal court on the grounds that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

There are also at least four lawsuits now pending in the federal courts — two of them filed just last week — challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which denies federal recognition of same-gender marriages that are legal in six states and the District of Columbia and bars federal spousal benefits to legally married gay and lesbian couples.  

RIGHT-WING ANTI-GAY GROUPS FROM OUTSIDE IOWA TARGET JUSTICES  

Instead of filing an appeal, opponents of same-gender marriage launched a drive to oust the justices solely because of their ruling in the Varnum case, rallying voters to lash out against an interpretation of the state Constitution that was deeply unpopular with conservatives.

In the process, Iowa Constitution itself — that the justices were duty-bound to uphold — came under attack.

The right-wing National Organization for Marriage and other anti-gay groups from outside the state launched a multi-million-dollar campaign to oust Chief Justice Ternus and Associate Justices Baker and Streit, whose five-year terms were up for retention votes.

The campaign quickly became a cause celebre for the Religious Right, whose utter contempt toward the idea of two men or two women who love each other getting married is so strong that they’ve taken a Constitution-be-damned attitude in an all-out jihad to make marriage the exclusive province of opposite-gender couples.

Not only did they target the justices for ouster, they also campaigned hard to get conservative, anti-gay Republicans elected to the Iowa Legislature, with the ultimate goal of amending the Iowa Constitution to restrict marriage to opposite-gender couples. In the end, the Republicans took control of the Iowa House, but the Democrats kept control of the Iowa Senate, making passage of a marriage amendment to the state constitution — a very cumbersome and difficult process to begin with — highly unlikely.

OUSTER VOTE SETS DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR PROTECTING RIGHTS OF ALL  MINORITIES

While the removal of the three Iowa Supreme Court justices over their ruling in the Varnum case cannot, on its own, overturn the decision, it nonetheless sets a dangerous precedent for the protection of the constitutional rights of not only gays, but of all minorities at the state level. Imagine if there had been retention votes to oust the judges a generation ago had they declared that a ban on interracial marriages was unconstitutional — as the California Supreme Court did in Perez v. Sharp nearly 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court did so in 1967.  

Unlike federal judges, who are appointed for life and can be removed only by impeachment by Congress for clear malfeasance and/or crimes, state judges are subject to retention votes by the electorate and county and municipal judges are directly elected to the bench. This raises the specter of undue political influence that can run directly counter to judges’ sworn duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of their home state.

The Iowa retention vote also raises the specter of state judges across the country being targeted for ouster for daring to uphold the constitutional rights of anyone — let alone gays and lesbians. It sends an unmistakable message to any judges who might be inclined to rule in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution, but inconsistent with the vagaries of popular opinion.

This is unacceptable and dangerous. The U.S. Supreme Court declared in its 1996 Romer v. Evans decision thatno state can deliberately deny to its gay and lesbian residents the constitutional and civil rights enjoyed by everyone else, solely because they are gay.

In that case, the high court struck down an amendment to the Colorado constitution that would have prevented the Legislature or any city, town or county in the state from passing legislation to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination. “The amendment imposes a special disability upon [gay and lesbian] persons alone,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court. “Homosexuals are forbidden [under the amendment] the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint. . .This the state cannot do.”

DO GAYS HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRY? RECENT COURT PRECEDENTS STRONGLY SUGGEST YES

While the question of whether gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry under the Fourteenth Amendment is one that has yet to be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court, past rulings by the nation’s highest tribunal strongly suggest — and this column strongly asserts — that they do.

The freedom of two single, mature adults who deeply love one another to marry is a freedom that the U.S. Supreme Court declared more than four decades ago is guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, when the justices, in Loving v. Virginia, unanimously struck down laws in 16 states — all of them in the South — that barred interracial couples from marrying.

Writing for the court, then-Chief Justice Earl Warren declared, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry — or not marry — a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state.”

Gay and lesbian couples, in the opinion of this column, effectively earned to right to marry when the Supreme Court, in Lawrence v. Texas, fully decriminalized same-gender sexual relations in 2003 by striking down the last remaining anti-sodomy laws on the books in 13 states.

Although the court’s six-justice majority made it clear that its decision in the Lawrence did not directly address the issue of same-gender marriage, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, in a bitter dissenting opinion, wrote that the ruling cast into doubt the constitutionality of laws that outlaw same-gender marriage.

“If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct,” Scalia wrote, “what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘the liberty protected by the Constitution?’ Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.”

Between past precedents in Loving, Romer and Lawrence and the pending challenges in federal court to California’s anti-gay Proposition 8 and DOMA, it’s only a matter of time when the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final word on whether gay and lesbian couples have the same Fourteenth Amendment constitutional right to marry that interracial and interfaith couples have.

# # #

Copyright 2010, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.

Per today’s Brattleboro Reformer:

The pledge, written in 1892 by socialist writer and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy, partly to help heal sectional hatred still lingering from the Civil War decades earlier, is: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Except that’s not true.  It’s an accurate rendering of the pledge as it currently exists, but that’s not the pledge that Bellamy wrote.  Bellamy wrote:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

This is subtle, but that does not make it unimportant.  To imply that the pledge has existed with the phrase “under God” since 1892 frames it in terms of having more than a century’s worth of history as a religious document.  The phrase “under God” was added in 1954 after being actively promoted and lobbied for by religious organizations.  

It’s easy to make this sort of error in fact, which is why it’s so important that our media not make it– it creates a false reality which damages the fabric of our discourse and needs to be challenged when presented.

From WCAX:

current State Treasurer, Jeb Spaulding, will take over as Secretary of Administration. Lamoille County Senator Susan Bartlett will serve as a Special Assistant to the Governor. Bill Lofy, a political consultant and one-time staffer for former U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone, will serve as Shumlin’s Chief of Staff. Attorney and gay marriage activist Beth Robinson will serve as Counsel to the Governor. And Alex MacLean, Shumlin’s campaign manager, will serve as his Secretary of Civil and Military Affairs.

Bill Lofy as Chief of Staff is great news. Maclean at Civil and Military Affairs is, of course, a no-brainer, as its the job Vermont Governor’s always give their campaign person.

…but Spaulding? Secretary of Administration?? Whoa. Didn’t see that coming.

In the short term, it puts a conservative economic bent on the administration. Spaulding and Bartlett are both great numbers people (as good as anyone out there, really), but they are both far from the Keynesian side of things and tend to cleave further to the right in their perspectives on budgets, taxes, and governmental spending than many of their Democratic peers. In fact, Spaulding often serves as the token Democrat in Vermont Tiger’s symposiums.

But the obvious question, then, is what happens to the office of Treasurer? Well, according to the Constitution, Governor Shumlin will get to appoint a new one (Bartlett?) to serve until an election can be held (and it doesn’t seem to necessitate that the election has to be held any earlier than it would normally be held).

In Vermont, there is an issue that has little middle ground: the aging nuclear plant in Vernon, Vermont Yankee. Often people are either for its continuted operation, or against it. The Governor-Elect, Peter Shumlin, has stated time and time again that he is against it operating beyong 2012. This is an admirable position, given that Vermont Yankee has a serious leak for what seems like every month that 2010 has been a year. There is only one problem with this issue: Where are we going to get the 600-or-so megawatts (mw) that Entergy’s Vermont Yankee plant produces?

First off, let’s pretend that NIMBYs don’t exist (not that I have anything against them) and that we all have consensus on using existing wind and hydroelectric structures to avoid throwing windmills on Mount Mansfield or Camel’s Hump or a line of turbines from Quebec to Massachusetts. Work with me here, let’s play pretend.

Now that that’s settled, by 2013 we will likely be without a plant that generates 605mw of power, and according to this report from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), during summer peak hours Vermont uses around 1,127mw of power. So for the summer months (which are getting hotter lately, but that’s another topic), Vermont will have a deficit of power in the 500mw-600mw range. One concern I have is, can we make up that deficit with alternative energies instead of buying back into the larger New England energy market? It’s possible. Vermont, per capita pays 15.27 cents per kilowatthour, while our neighbors in New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York pay 16.11, 14.71, and 19.58, respectively. I wouldn’t consider New York as a reasonable example to where Vermont could go concerning costs, given that there are a lot of separate factors in New York that raise the price that Vermont just doesn’t have to deal with.

So, much like a budget shortfall, there could be a 600mw energy deficit. Let’s look at the energy potential of solar, wind, and hydro:

For solar and wind, the potential is muted. but caps out before 100mw (I’m rushing this before work, so I’ll find the math again later with links). But with it solar and wind, there is more of a possibility that an individual could themself be an energy producer. That’s not to say that there aren’t projects out there today. There are scattered wind projects and impressive solar projects like Green Mountain Power’s “10,000 panels in 1,000 days”. These projects make me pretty hopeful that utility companies in Vermont know what’s up for Vermont’s future.

Hydroelectric power for Vermont is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. This PDF file lists 45 towns with dams that have a hydro potential. If used at an average capacity, Vermont could have up to 527mw replaced by hydroelectric dams in existence today. (The stat comes from this powerpoint that UVM hosts, I’ll admit that it’s not a strong piece of evidence.) Unfortunately, Vermont allowed the sale of several dams back in the mid-2000s to TransCanada, which is now fighting the estimated value of the dams.

So, are we going to buy into the larger New England market, or are we going to be the leader we know we can be in alternative energy?

I rushed this too much.

Once every year, on a Saturday in November, green activists gather at Vermont Technical College in Randolph to share their experiences, learn skills to make them more effective, and to celebrate little landmarks and big victories in the ongoing struggle to protect our natural environment.  Co-sponsors of the event include Toxics Actions Center,VPIRG, VNRC, DFA, True Majority and The Vermont League of Conservation Voters: a veritable cavalcade of  good-doers in the Green Mountain State and beyond.

Last year, the event hosted the first public forum of the Democratic gubernatorial primary campaign.  This year, with the 2010 election behind us, the results became something to celebrate for Vermont’s green lobby; but not without a sober look at the rest of the nation.  No one could put the significance of the recent election in better perspective for Vermonters than keynote speaker Pat Parenteau of the Vermont Law School who reminded the assembly of the extraordinary opportunity and responsibility Vermont has to lead by example as the one island of forward-thinking environmental activity in a rising sea of reactionary chaos.

Citing the statistical evidence of significant job creation in the wake of the Clean Air Act of 1970, Prof. Parenteau framed the arguments for a clean energy future with two simple questions:  

“How many jobs?  What’s the carbon?”

Parenteau reminded the audience how the U.S. has lost leadership to China in the development of clean air industries,  and how this translates to lost jobs.  As a nation, the only hope we have of correcting the downward trajectory of the American middle class is to recognize that simple reality and reclaim our environmental leadership.  

With a Democratic governor and majorities in both houses of the Legislature, Vermont has the unique opportunity to lead by example, and to further reinforce the economic advantage we already have over most other states, thanks to the valuable cooling effect of Act 250 during the development bubble.

If I am able to obtain a link to Prof. Parenteau’s remarkable address, I will most certainly add it to this post; but more about the event after the jump…

As a representative of the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth, I have attended these events in Randolph for perhaps five or six years running.  I remember the electricity  leading up to and following the 2008 election.  

The tone this year was different, cautionary despite the exhilaration.  Governor-elect Peter Shumlin sent a recorded speech which reiterated his commitment to the green initiatives he had endorsed throughout his campaign, to which the audience responded enthusiastically; but we all know better now what regional and national obstacles lie ahead.  In casual encounters throughout the day, activists visiting from Maine and New Hampshire expressed angst over the uncertain future their efforts now face at home.  These worries joined the usual complaints of unsympathetic local officials, conflicted administrators of public services, slow regulatory and enforcement initiatives, and simple lack of funds.

Then there were the little reminders that the green “highway” may have many detours.  Book-ending the exhibition hall were displays from two opposing views on bio-mass,  their proponents nervously eyeing one another across a sea of potential converts.  There were debates in other corners over whether or not there would ever be the possibility of truly “green” nuclear energy.  

While Tea Party activists enjoy the luxury of a simplistic flat world view that allows them to rest on their platitudes, environmental activists know that nothing in this complex and changing world is ever “simple.”  Like I used to say to my husband when he’d reply to a question with the seventies toss-off, “I’m easy:” simple isn’t easy.

Back when I started blogging I was hoping to do what Josh Marshall does: mostly take a lot of news and information that’s already out there, combine it with analysis and other information, some of which might come from my unique perspective, and see what meaning I can gather.

In those early years I was also amazed that Josh seemed to keep the same kind of hours that I keep, putting up great posts late at night.

Fortunately for the world, Josh is better at it than I am. He’s also done a tremendous amount of original reporting, and made and kept alive stories that never would have gone anywhere without him. Among the chief examples are his work on the long-running Duke Cunningham bribery scandal, Bush’s plans to kill off Social Security (including the umbrage the Bushies took when critics started using the term, privatization, that the Bushies had started out with), and the Bush administration’s purge of inconvenient U.S. Attorneys.

Talking Points Memo just celebrated its tenth anniversary in operation. I don’t know exactly when I started reading it, but it was almost immediately that I concluded that it was essential reading to understand politics and public life in the United States.

Congratulations, Josh, and thanks!