DOWNLOADS: (185)

PLAYS: (1346)

Embed

If you've got HBO and did not get a chance to watch their documentary, The Loving Story this week, it reairs in May. In the wake of the two hearings by the Supreme Court on gay marriage, the film serves as a stark reminder for how we're likely to be viewed by future generations for the rhetoric and animosity we're seeing to same-sex couples being allowed to be married today.

Here's more on the documentary from Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones: "The Loving Story": How an Interracial Couple Changed a Nation:

The most striking thing about Mildred and Richard Loving is that they never wanted to be known. They didn't want to change history or face down racism. They just wanted to come home to Virginia to be near their families. The Lovings weren't radicals. They were just two people in love—one of them a taciturn white guy described by one of their lawyers as a "redneck," the other a sweet, soft-spoken young woman of black and American Indian ancestry.

When the The Loving Story makes its national debut on HBO on Valentine's Day, it will be the first time many Americans have met this couple. They are the namesake of the landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that struck down the anti-miscegenation laws still on the books in 16 states some 13 years after school segregation was deemed unconstitutional. These laws constituted one of the last formal vestiges of the Jim Crow era, and this film shows for the first time what it took to bring them down.

Even as they changed America, the Lovings were never a household name. After getting married in Washington, DC, in June 1958, they simply returned to their home in Central Point, Virginia. Mildred was unaware, she said, of her state's "Racial Integrity Act," a 1924 law forbidding interracial marriage—although she later added that she thought her husband knew about it but didn't figure they'd be persecuted.

Just over a month after the Lovings' homecoming, police raided their place at 2 a.m., arrested the couple, and threw them in jail. Leon Bazile, a judge for the Caroline County Circuit Court, convicted them on felony charges. "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay, and red, and he placed them on separate continents," the judge wrote. "The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." Read on...

Mediaite had something interesting posted on the same topic, which is a quiz to see if readers can tell the difference between actual anti-interracial and anti-gay marriage quotes. As they noted:

Whether it’s condemning homosexuality as “unnatural” and “immoral,” or comparing gay relationships to “armed robbery” and “marrying your dog,” or simply “thumping the Bible” as the primary means to argument, many of the opponents of same-sex marriage sound an awful lot like those who so vocally opposed miscegenation, the marriage between races.

DOWNLOADS: (205)

PLAYS: (1385)

Embed

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart had a field day with the opponents of gay marriage at this week's Supreme Court hearings on the Defense of Marriage Act, starting with Paul Clement, the lawyer hired by House Republicans, who was called out by Justice Elena Kagan when he attempted to make the claim that the law wasn't based on bigotry.

After playing some of the back and forth between Clement and Kagan, Stewart gave the audience a reminder of just what the House Republicans sounded like back in 1996, before playing the audio of Kagan reading from the actual House report which said "Congress decided to reflect and honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality." As Stewart noted, "with moral arguments no longer available to opponents of same-sex marriage, what's left for the conservatives to argue?"

Cue the idiocy of Justice Scalia, who made this ridiculous claim:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Cooper, let me — let me give you one — one concrete thing. I don’t know why you don’t mention some concrete things. If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must — you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s – there’s considerable disagreement among — among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a — in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some States do not — do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.

As Stewart rightfully noted in the segment, no, there's not.

And then there was Justica Alito's equally ridiculous remark that the issue of gay marriage is "newer than cellphones or the Internet."

STEWART: No, we want you to step in and render a decision based on whether it's right, fair and just under the Constitution, having nothing to do with its "newness" and what you think might happen. Which by the way, what do you think might happen? That they'll discover letting two ladies get married is going to rip open a hole in the ozone layer? And I've got news for you. Gay marriage will definitely cause less national harm than cell phones or the Internet.

But here's the thing that we're pretty sure you don't have to do. You don't have to beta test rights. Black people have only been here fifty years. I mean, let's see how the Netherlands does with them before we lift some barriers.

Stewart did have one hope that the justices might be moved by one thing though, and that's the "mother f**king injustice" of Edith Windsor, the plaintiff in the case, being forced to pay estate taxes and their concern "about the heartbreak, that is double taxation."

DOWNLOADS: (249)

PLAYS: (2923)

Embed

With the Supreme Court weighing in on the issue of gay marriage this week and such sorry pronouncements like the one we heard from Justice Samuel Alito where he called the issue "newer than cell phones or the Internet," The Daily Show's Jon Stewart took his viewers though some of the "evolving" views we've seen from our politicians over the recent weeks.

Sen. Rob Portman has finally decided to make his support for gay marriage known now that his son has come out, along with an ever increasing number of Democratic Senators whose views have 'evolved" on the matter as well, but we've still got the likes of Senators Saxby Chambliss, Marco Rubio and Fox's great hype hope for the Republican party, Dr. Ben Carson to contend with among others.

Stewart was especially harsh in his response to Carson, who said this to Sean Hannity on Fox this week:

CARSON: Marriage is between a man and a woman. [...] No group — be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in beastiality, it doesn't matter what they are...

STEWART: Yeah, let me just stop you right there. It's not, you know, whether you're having sex with another consenting adult, or a horse, or a doughnut, it's all the same. Actually, that's not fair. As Dr. Carson explained, his problem isn't with gays.

CARSON: It’s not something that’s against gays. It’s against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of the pillars of society.

STEWART: Oh. You think we shouldn't mess with anything that's considered a fundamental pillar of society. Ideal for an editorial cartoon. Alright, here we go.... slavery, segregation and Jim Crow.

I'd say Carson just threw whatever political aspirations he might have had on a national level down the toilet with that interview if they weren't there already.

DOWNLOADS: (133)

PLAYS: (937)

Embed

It seems David Brooks wasn't the only conservative op-ed writer on the airways fearmongering over those activist judges on the Supreme Court supposedly imposing their will on the American people. On ABC's This Week, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan told host George Stephanopoulos that we should be leaving the matter of gay marriage to the states.

Conservative Pundit Says Country Shouldn’t Move Too Fast In Granting Equal Marriage Rights To Gays:

Noonan said on ABC’s This Week that Americans “don’t take it well” when the Supreme Court makes decisions that affect the entire country — such as declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional or repealing the Defense of Marriage Act — and said one of the “great sins” of Roe v. Wade was that it took power away from the states: [...]

Noonan’s reference to Ruth Bader Ginsburg came from a speech the Supreme Court justice gave at Columbia Law school last year, in which she said Roe v. Wade went “too far, too fast.” But Noonan’s appeal to let the issue take time to “settle itself out” ignores the fact that activists have been fighting for marriage equality for nearly 40 years. And her insinuation that Americans won’t like it if the Court declares a ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional ignores that support for marriage equality is at an all time high: a Washington Post-ABC News poll found 58 percent of Americans support gay marriage rights, up from 37 percent in 2003. That 58 percent includes 81 percent of youth, which lends credibility to Noonan’s insight that opposition to marriage equality is dying out.

As I said in the post on Brooks, they all love these "blacked robed masters" when it comes to decisions like Citizens United, but not so much for civil rights. Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (124)

PLAYS: (580)

Embed

I'm not sure how much more "polarized" the debate over gay marriage could possibly be than it is already, but that was the concern expressed by New York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks on this Sunday's Meet the Press when asked if it matters that so many states have laws in place either restricting or banning gay marriage.

I wonder if Brooks thinks that interracial marriage ought to be put back up for a vote because that debate was "polarizing" for the country as well? Conservatives always seem to be terribly concerned about judicial "overreach" when it comes to civil rights or the rights of ordinary citizens, but don't have a problem when they "overreach" and give corporations and the wealthy the right to buy our elections. That's just fine.

GREGORY: David Brooks, the country is divided and there are forty one states that either ban it or treat gay marriage as something different than traditional marriage. Does that matter?

BROOKS: Yeah, but I think the trend, I'm with Hilary, the trend is pretty amazing. Listen, we've had five thousand years in western civilization, has there ever been a society that's given complete equality to gays and lesbians until ours and currently western Europe? No. This is a big, historic moment and the movement I think is just overwhelming and gradual and almost irreversible. Now why is it happening? One, because a lot of brave gay and lesbian people had the courage to come out and people got to see them. Second, because it became about marriage. It became about order. It became about having committed, long term relationships, which people conservative and liberal believe in.

And so those two things have moved, I think, the debate, tectonically. To me the only fear now is the court. If the court overreaches and tries to impose a solution from the top and that sort of freezes and polarizes the debate.

DOWNLOADS: (294)

PLAYS: (3997)

Embed

I have to agree with former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm here and that's if Republican governors across the country think they can run on taking away medical coverage for the people who live in their states, good luck with that.

We've already seen the threats out of the likes of Bobby Jindal with more joining him this week. Even if these governors don't have one iota of care for the poor and those who don't have much of a voice in our society, they're going to be hearing from hospitals and others in the medical community and not just constituents who are fed up with their nonsense.

Here's more from Current's site on Granholm's commentary: Granholm: Health care issue is real and personal, not abstract and political :

The health care debate isn’t about political theory or semantics, it’s about people’s lives. Jennifer Granholm says voters will see through the rhetoric and defy Republicans who push for taking away people’s coverage, who fight against the freedom people should have to live without fear of sickness and crippling debt. Granholm says, “Republican leaders, you want your campaign slogans to be: “Vote for me and I’ll take your child’s health insurance away… Good luck with that.”

DOWNLOADS: (132)

PLAYS: (687)

Embed

I'm not sure what "liberals" Washington Post columnist Charles Lane was talking about on this week's Fox News Sunday when he said this, but I've got a few words for his assumptions about how "liberals" are going to have to act if Supreme Court Justice John Roberts overturns part of the Voting Rights Act or affirmative action and that's "I don't think so pal."

LANE: What he has done in his brilliant opinion is to sacrifice a pawn, called the individual mandate and put the entire Great Society in check. And he has done that by getting two liberal justices to agree with him in a seven to two ruling that there are serious limitations on the federal government's ability to use its spending power to get the states to cooperate in welfare and education programs, which is really how everything works, or a lot of things work including education, Medicaid, etc.

And he has done that and gotten liberals to applaud him for it, so that now, next term when Voting Rights Act Section 5 and affirmative action in colleges come up before the court as they're going to and he votes with the other four conservatives to strike them down, all those liberals who might otherwise complain will now have to acknowledge that this fair-minded statesman, John Roberts, was involved in that decision.

This is a man of great brilliance and all those conservatives who are griping about this ruling need to give it a second thought.

Here's what most liberals still think of John Roberts, no matter how he ruled on this insurance friendly, Republican health care law he just upheld: 10 Ways John Roberts Is Still A Conservative’s Best Friend.

And calling someone ruling to keep "the Great Society in check" "brilliant" has to be one of the most crass things I've heard come out of anyone's mouth in a while now.

DOWNLOADS: (81)

PLAYS: (295)

Embed

We're hearing a lot of tough talk from Republicans as we did from LA Gov. Bobby Jindal on this Sunday's Meet the Press about how they're not going to cooperate at all in enacting provisions in the Affordable Care Act now that the Supreme Court has ruled on its Constitutionality.

Howard Dean did a nice job of pointing out that states are going to get the insurance exchanges whether they're willing to cooperate or not because the federal government will set them up if governors like Jindal refuse to, as he was promising here. He also explained how it didn't make any sense economically for them to refuse the money in the Medicaid expansion.

Once you have hospitals and businesses and voters getting upset with the politicians for saying they're going to refuse that money and they start hearing from them after a lot of this national dust up is over, we'll see what Jindal actually does. This is the same guy who was calling the stimulus plan a failure and then did this: Jindal takes credit for stimulus, presents constituents with jumbo-sized stimulus check.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (100)

PLAYS: (328)

Embed

We all knew the talking heads over at Fox weren't going to react well after the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. On this Thursday evening's On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Caribou Barbie was given lots of fact-free air time to lie freely about the decision and what's supposedly in the health care law.

As Think Progress noted: Taxes Are The New Death Panels: Exposing The Latest Lie About Obamacare:

Republicans are responding to the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the individual mandate by constructing a new “death panels”-like lie. The law, they argue, imposes a burdensome tax on millions of middle class families who will have to pay a penalty for not purchasing health care coverage by 2014. The line originates in the majority’s decision, which found that Congress has the authority to require individuals to buy coverage under its taxing power, but it doesn’t mean what the Republicans are suggesting. The truth is that the penalty for not buying insurance — $695 or 2.5 percent of household income — is well in line with other policies that are designed to encourage and promote a particular kind of economic behavior.

Someone needs to remind Van Susteren of those pesky facts, since she allowed Palin to get away with telling that same lie during this interview. We also had more tentherism talk and lies and fearmongering, which our friends over at News Hounds summed up nicely here: Sarah Palin Lectures President Obama On The Constitutionality Of Health Care Reform:

Less than 10 days after Fox News presented Sarah Palin to attack President Obama's understanding of the 10th Amendment with regard to immigration policy, she was back on the “fair and balanced” network to lecture him about it with regard to health care reform. While she was at it, she offered her insights into economics and taxes, too. And host Greta Van Susteren – who really is a lawyer – helped further the pretense that Palin was a legitimate expert every step of the way.

The basis for the whole discussion on last night's On The Record, arose from a Palin tweet earlier in the day. Referring to the Supreme Court ruling that the individual mandate in Obama’s health care reform legislation was a tax and therefore Constitutional, Palin tweeted, “Obama lied to the American people. Again. He said it wasn’t a tax. Obama lies; freedom dies.” It’s pretty much the same old, same old Palin. But to Van Susteren, that was grounds for probing her deeper thoughts.

Van Susteren asked, “That’s about 140 characters or less as to how you feel about this decision today. Now tell me, given more chance to amplify it, your view of what happened today.”

Palin said she tended to agree with the term “treachery” to describe Chief Justice Roberts' swing vote. But she said she was optimistic because health care reform is now in the hands of the people and that Congress can repeal it. “I want to see that done in July,” she said.

There’s zero chance of that happening but somehow Van Susteren didn’t want to point that out to the "we report, you decide' network's viewers. Instead, she asked her newly minted expert if Justice Roberts was correct in saying the mandate is a tax. And Van Susteren asked the question in a form designed to elicit an attack on President Obama.

More there so go read the rest. Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (490)

PLAYS: (5512)

Embed

This Friday during his New Rules segment, Real Time host Bill Maher went through the list of potential running mates for Mitt Romney and finally ended up suggesting... the Real Time host himself, Bill Maher. As Maher noted, they disagree on almost every issue, but so what? Romney's already disagreed with himself on every issue as well with his flip flopping.