This is a live stream of the debate, which started at noon:

If you're interested in educating yourself about the conflict in the Middle East, you might want to check out the documentary film series on the Israeli occupation of Palestine that Black Sheep Books is sponsoring this month.

In 1977, the award-winning journalist and filmmaker, John Pilger, made a documentary film called Palestine Is Still the Issue.  It told the story of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 and the conquest of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967.  25 years later, he returned to the Occupied Territories to ask why Palestinians are still living under a brutal, settler-colonial occupation. In this second film with the same title, Pilger interviews Israelis and Palestinians, documents the humiliation and dangers of life under military occupation, and explores why “the fate and struggle of the Palestinians are not just critical to the overdue recognition of their basic human rights, but also central to whether the region, and the wider world, are plunged into war.”

The movie is showing on August 17, 2010 – 7:00pm – 9:00pm at Black Sheep Books, 5 State Street in Montpelier. Follow the link for their information and the rest of the film series.

With Two Federal Courts on Opposite Coasts Declaring That the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 Both Violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Foes of Marriage for Gay and Lesbian Couples Fall Into Siege Mentality as a Final Ruling by the Supreme Court Is Now All But Inevitable

It’s now a virtual certainty that the Supreme Court will have the final say on whether gay and lesbian couples have the same freedom to marry under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that interracial and interfaith couples have. With federal courts in Massachusetts and California having ruled, respectively, that the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 and California’s voter-approved Proposition 8 both violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal-protection clause, some opponents of extending marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples already are reacting with outbursts of paranoid hysteria. (Photo courtesy U.S. Supreme Court Web site)

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EDT Wednesday, August 11, 2010)

(Updated 11:00 a.m. EDT Friday, August 13, 2010)

* * *

NOTE TO READERS:This week’s column — my first since returning from a two-week vacation — is being published a day later than usual, due to unexpected travel delays that resulted in my returning home too late for my Monday-night deadline. I apologize for the delay. Next week’s column will appear as usual on Tuesday, August 16.

By SKEETER SANDERS

Time appears to be running out for opponents of marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.

Within the space of a month, two federal courts — one in Massachusetts, the other in California — have ruled that laws that prohibit same-gender couples from marrying or deny federal recognition to such marriages are unconstitutional under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In San Francisco, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled last Wednesday that Proposition 8, a voter-approved measure that bars gay and lesbian couples from marrying, “fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license” and, in fact, “does nothing more than enshrine in the  California constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”

Judge Walker’s ruling came just weeks after another U.S. District Court judge in Boston struck down the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. Judge Joseph Tauro ruled May 8 that DOMA, as the law is commonly known, unconstitutionally denies federal spousal benefits to married gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts — where same-gender marriage has been legal since 2004 — in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and intrudes upon the state’s exclusive authority over marriage under the Tenth Amendment.

With a final decision by the U.S. Supreme Court now all but inevitable — and which potentially could produce at least a 5-4 majority to uphold the lower court rulings — some foes of same-gender marriage already are reacting with paroxysms of paranoid hysteria, with a niece of civil rights icon Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. going so far as calling such marriages “genocide.”

ANTI-GAY PARANOIA ON FULL DISPLAY AT RALLY IN ATLANTA

Speaking at a sparsely-attended rally in Atlanta called by the right-wing National Organization for Marriage, Alveda King denounced same-gender marriage. “I don’t know about you, but I’m not ready to be extinct, and none of us  wants to be,” she said. “So we don’t want genocide! We don’t want to  destroy the sacred institution of marriage!”

King insisted that “It is statistically proven that the strongest institution that  guarantees procreation and continuity of the generations is marriage  between one man and one woman” — ignoring the fact that advances in medical technology have made it possible since the late 1970s for gay and lesbian couples to procreate through in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination.

Alveda King’s opposition stands in stark contrast to that of her late aunt, Coretta Scott King, who spoke out in 2004 in support of same-gender marriage and against a proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban it.

“Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union,” she told USA Today. “A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.”

The NOM rally drew only about 35 participants, who were outnumbered by more than 300 counter-demonstrators, who voiced their approval of Walker’s decision.

RIGHT-WING PUNDITS GO BERSERK, ATTACK JUDGE WALKER

Predictably, right-wing pundits went berserk, attacking Judge Walker for alleged “judicial activism” and “judicial tyranny,” in the words of the Heritage Foundation’s Chuck Donovan. Donovan called the ruling “an affront to the millions of California voters who approved Proposition 8 in 2008 after months of vigorous public debate.”

Robert Knight, a senior writer and correspondent for the right-wing Coral Ridge Ministries, went farther: He accused Judge Walker of having “embraced the false premise that homosexuality is morally irrelevant or even something to be promoted through public policy” and denounced his ruling on Prop. 8 as a display of “contempt for the rule of law” and even part of “the criminalization of not only Christianity but of the foundational values of civilization itself.”

Meanwhile Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas) sought unsuccessfully to push for a resolution in the House during its one-day session on Monday condemning Judge Walker’s ruling. He attacked Walker personally, pointing out the fact that Walker is gay. “For one openly homosexual judge to toss aside seven million voters (and  45 state laws on marriage if this case advances) is the height of  government arrogance.” he said. “And it’s certainly not good public policy. A  society without accountability or moral boundaries is a society that  will not long survive.”

But Judge Walker is no liberal. A conservative jurist who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, Walker’s  nomination was stalled for two years by Senate Democrats who objected to his membership in an  all-male private club and to his having been the attorney representing the International Olympic Committee and the U.S. Olympic Committee in  its 1982 copyright-infringement lawsuit against the organizers of the first Gay Games in San  Francisco, originally dubbed the “Gay Olympics.”

Two dozen House Democrats, led by now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California), whose district includes San Francisco, opposed Walker’s nomination because of his alleged “insensitivity” to gays while representing the IOC and USOC. Walker was renominated in 1989 by President George H.W. Bush and elevated to Chief Judge of the U.S District Court for Northern California in 2004 by President George W. Bush.

IT’S THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, STUPID!

Of course, Donovan, Knight, Smith and other right-wingers conveniently ignore the fact that those seven million  Californians who voted for Prop. 8 did so in direct defiance of the  Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which states quite explicitly that “No state shall  make or enforce any law which shall abridge the  privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any  state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due  process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal  protection of the laws.

As former Solicitor General Ted Olson, the conservative half of the legal team that brought suit against Prop. 8, said in an August 8 interview on “Fox News Sunday,” the U.S. Supreme Court has fourteen times since 1888 — most famously with its landmark 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision that struck down laws that banned interracial marriages — “articulated that the right to marriage is a fundamental right. We’re not talking about a new right here.”

When reminded by host Chris Wallace that seven million Californians voted in favor of Prop. 8, Olson shot back that six million Californians voted in the 1960s “to change their constitution to say that you could  discriminate on the basis of race in the sale of your home. The United  States Supreme Court struck that down” as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“We do not put the Bill of Rights to a vote,” he said.

Olson noted that the high court has repeatedly defined marriage “as the most fundamental relationship we  have in this country,” one that cannot be denied to certain individuals because of their race, nationality, religion or creed. Nor, Olson argued, should it be denied to certain individuals because of their gender.

HOW WILL THE SUPREME COURT RULE?

While both sides in the same-gender marriage fight now concede that the issue will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, no one can predict how long it will take before the justices will finally take up the case. Nor can anyone predict which case the justices will take up first: The Prop. 8 case, known officially as Perry v. Schwarzenegger, or the Massachusetts case against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, known officially as Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Although both U.S. District Court judges — Walker in San Francisco and Tauro in Boston — invoked the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal-protection clause, the Massachusetts case differs substantially from the California case in that whereas Prop. 8 barred gay and lesbian couples in California from marrying, DOMA denied federal spousal benefits to already-married gay and lesbian couples in the Bay State, where same-gender marriage has been legal for six years.

Judge Tauro ruled that DOMA also violates the Tenth Amendment, “by forcing the Commonwealth [of Massachusetts] to engage in invidious discrimination against its own citizens in order to receive and retain federal funds in connection with two joint federal-state programs.”

IT’S UP TO JUSTICE KENNEDY WHICH WAY THE HIGH COURT WILL GO

No one expects the Supreme Court’s four conservatives — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts — to be sympathetic to the notion that gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry. Likewise, no one expects the court’s three liberals — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor — nor its newest justice, Elena Kagan, to favor denying full marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples, either.

That leaves it up the court’s ninth justice, moderate-conservative Anthony Kennedy, to be the pivotal fifth justice. And given the fact that Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in two previous cases that gays won (Romer v. Evans in 1996 and Lawrence v. Texas in 2003) as well as a separate opinion concurring with the majority in a third ruling in June seen as a victory for gays (Christian Legal Society v. Martinez), the odds are very good that if the justices agree to take up the Prop. 8 case, the court will split at least 5-4 in favor of affirming Judge Walker’s ruling.

Is it any wonder, then, that some opponents of same-gender marriage are plunging headlong into paranoia? They know that the votes aren’t there in Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-gender marriage — that’s already been tried in 2005 when the Republicans controlled Congress and it failed to garner anywhere near the two-thirds majorities in both houses required for passage.  

So as the battle over same-gender marriage heads inexorably toward the final showdown in the Supreme Court, expect even more extreme rhetoric from the far right, as their paranoid homophobia become more and more transparent.

# # #

Copyright 2010, Skeeter Sanders. all rights reserved.

Two more Democratic contenders go up with television ads (posted in the order they arrived in the email box):

“I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those [liberal naysayers] ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “I mean, it’s crazy.”

(White House unloads anger over criticism from ‘professional left’, The Hill, 08/10/10)

So off you guys go, Gibbs/Obama … join Peter “The ACORN attacking weasel Welch in spooning up to your racist, radical, reactionary right wing allies.

Oh, and Sanders … what’s your view on all this? You ready to dump all those folks who supported you too?

(Promoted for the usual reasons. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Last week, when we released our vision for Vermont’s economic future,  there was one element that received the most questions and feedback: our proposal for transforming the culture in Montpelier.
 
Because of Vermont’s, size, scale, and deep-rooted tradition of community, a culture of openness and transparency is a natural fit for our state. However, right now our state continues to rank among the worst in the nation in government transparency.

This not only reflects poorly for our state, but is detrimental to our future economic stability. Without an open and transparent government, Vermonters don’t know where their tax dollars are being spent, we are unable to discover opportunities for improving efficiency, and there is a lack of accountability in campaign finance.

In order to have a government that outlines clear goals and objectives for its workforce and promotes trust from its citizens, Vermont needs a new generation of leadership committed to changing the closed-door culture in Montpelier.

Today, during a presentation at the State House in Montpelier, I detailed my plan for making Vermont more transparent and changing the culture in Montpelier. Some of the points in this plan include:

• Providing clear access to government information: Vermonters should be able to access basic state data quickly through an easy to use, searchable online database.
• Building a culture of transparency internally: We can increase productivity and better engage our state workforce simply by encouraging a culture of transparency and clarity within the government through public goals and easy access to leaders.
• Setting an example with transparent leadership: A critical part of establishing a culture of transparency is to lead by example, and as Governor I would not only post my 9-5 schedule publicly for all Vermonters to see, but would also make sure all candidates submit personal financial disclosures.

From my time leading the AmeriCorps*VISTA program, I know that creating a culture of transparency has immediate tangible benefits on an organization. And while better transparency will help improve state operations, eliminate waste and increase the efficiency of government services, it has become clear that transparency is not a priority for any of the other candidates.

I encourage you to download the slide deck, read our announcement or watch a video of the presentation to learn more about my plan for creating more transparency in Vermont.

Hello GMD Fans,

My name is Kevin, and I’m the campaign manager for Dr Dan Freilich, who is running for the US Senate here in Vermont.

We want to thank all of you in advance for your kind words of support as well as your thoughtful critiques and have a unique opportunity for readers of GMD.

This Thursday at PegTV21 in Rutland we have an open spot for a “round table” discussion with Vermonters. We have decided to open this up to our harshest and most outspoken critics (such as GMD’s Odum and Ed) who have yet to sign on for this debate, rallying to rather claim we are not good Democrats and to dismiss us in their blogs.

I’m certain there are a few GMD readers interested in challenging Dr Freilich’s positions in person. We are limited to 5 people for this “debate”, and although we won’t edit or censor, we do ask that you remain professional in your questioning.

Interested? Please respond here or email me directly at Kevin@danielFreilich.com. The debate will be taped August 12 at 11am at the PegTV studio in Rutland.

It’s bad enough that the content of the articles can sometimes leave something to be desired…

Doug Racine has been trying out a new line lately.

…but the headlines are a bit of a problem as well.

I don’t mean to be a pain.  I am willing to let errors of grammar, syntax and spelling slide from time to time.  I know we make them here on our blog often enough.  We, however, are not a major media outlet. We are not paid professionals.  We do not have decades of service, nor do we have a reputation to maintain.

And when we do this…

…well we’ll correct it.

Admittedly, it is not quite as bad as this…

…but since that’s just sports, I find it hard to care.

Other headlines I’ve seen from the Herald:

Group sues to stop mosque near NYs ground zero

A-Rod rapsNo. 600 inYanks win

That, by the way, is just in the last week.

Maybe it’s just the online edition; I never see the actual paper version of this particular old media outlet.  But really, can’t we at least get the basic grammar of the headlines correct?  

Is that too much to ask?

 Green Mountain Prosperity a political action committee recently formed as an offshoot of Haley Barbour’s Republican Governor’s Association is funneling big money to Brian Dubie.  

It is reported Green Mount Prosperity raised nearly $160, 00 from donations of $100 or more with some of the money having been originally donated to the RGA.  

Some who made their checks out to the RGA have complained that they never intended to give money to this group for a Vermont election race.

The manner in which checks initially made out to the national RGA (and funneled to the new Green Mountain Prosperity PAC) should be listed remains unresolved according to reports.

Nowhere on its July 15 campaign finance filing with the secretary of state’s office does the PAC note that it is an offshoot of the RGA or that its purpose is to help Dubie. The office does have on a file a spreadsheet showing a registration of a "bank designation" in February of "Green Mountain Prosperity PAC (fka[sic] Republican Governors Association – Vermont PAC)."  

Dubie’s campaign denied any knowledge of Green Mountain Prosperity PAC, but welcomed the help.

Here in Vermont in 2004 the RGA was the subject of a superior court injunction forcing it to halt running campaign ads after their funding was thought to have violated the law by failing to register as a PAC and properly report its advertising expenditures.  

It’s worth noting that Dennise Casey, Jim Douglas’s longtime campaign staffer and Deputy Chief of Staff who left in 2009, now works at the RGA.

In the past Virginia gubernatorial race, which may be a model for the Dubie campaign, the RGA funded a last minute attack ad campaign against Bob McDonnell’s opponent.  

As the name on the button atop this site notes, the goal was 1000. 1000 Vermonters who want to see the Governorship return to Democratic hands, committing to help offset the financial impact of the contested primary by pledging to send the winner – whichever candidate it is – $100 on August 25th, the day after the primary.

Set up as a Facebook group, the membership has reached 287, plus another 5 who emailed or posted that they were in, but were not facebook members. That’s 292 for $29,200 from the Vermont netroots and social networking community so far.

1000 is a long way off, but at the very least, we can still push that number to 500, and supply a much-needed $50,000 infusion to refill the coffers. So, if you haven’t joined already, please click on the link and sign up, or indicate on this thread your interest. And if you’re on Facebook, help us unleash the power of social media by inviting your friends to join.

We have 2 weeks to go… help us get the word out!