Quick Note(s): Same-Sex Marriage By the Numbers -- 19, 10, 21 and the Final 1

1. Wisconsin
Between June 2013 and May 2014, thirteen states have seen their bans on same-sex marriage overturned by federal courts.  On Friday, Wisconsin became the 14th state to join that club when U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that the state's 2006 ban on such unions was unconstitutional. 

The state argued that, traditionally, marriage has been recognized to be "the union of an opposite-sex couple."  Judge Crabb noted that "tradition" is not a legal argument.  She reminded them that nearly 100 years ago it was traditional that women be denied the right to vote.  

"Like moral disapproval, tradition alone proves nothing more than a state's desire to prohibit particular conduct."

She also pointed out that, according to biblical text and for much of human history, traditional marriage was accepted as being between one man and multiple women, "which presumably is not a tradition that defendants...would like to continue."

In anticipation of the Judge's ruling, clerks in Milwaukee and Madison brought in extra staff in anticipation of some busy days ahead, though it is still not clear at this time whether same-sex couples will be permitted to begin marrying immediately.  

Governor Scott Walker (R) indicated the state will appeal Judge Crabb's decision.

There are now 27 states where same-sex marriage is legal.  That number includes states where either voters or legislatures have passed laws recognizing same-sex marriage and also states where federal judges have overturned same-sex marriage bans, whether under appeal or not.

We're more than half-way there!

2.  North Dakota
Late Friday afternoon, North Dakota became the last state to test the same-sex marriage waters when seven couples--some old, some young, some seeking recognition of out-of-state marriages--filed a case challenging that state's ban on same-sex unions.

Where we stand today:

• Same-sex marriage is legal in 19 states + D.C.: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
• Federal judges have declared laws against same-sex marriage unconstitutional and those decisions are now under appeal in 10 states: Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin.
• Challenges against same-sex marriage bans have been filed, but no ruling has been issued in 21 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming.

These cases are going to begin landing in the Supreme Court's lap soon.  I look forward to celebrating the announcement that same-sex partners are free to marry anywhere in the United States of America.

D-Day, June 6, 1944

Seventy years ago today, the United States and England, joined by many of the Western Allies, began the Normandy Invasion.. D-Day, June 6, 1944, was the first day of the massive amphibious attack on the coast of France, then under German occupation.  On that day, thousands of ships, tanks, planes and troops crossed the English Channel, coming to shore on the coast of Normandy.

June 6, 1944 - Omaha Beach

Company E, 16th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division

"Whenever the world makes you cynical, whenever you doubt that courage and goodness is possible, stop and think of these men." 

(President Barack Obama on June 6, 2014, 

the 70th Anniversary of D-Day)

June 6, 1944, Omaha Beach

And the Republican Bizarre Opinion Machine Goes Into Overdrive

Yesterday I wrote about the freeing of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl and how there is no clear right or wrong answer to how it was accomplished or even how he became a prisoner of the Taliban:  Bowe Bergdahl Is a Free Man. Now What Do We Do?

Today, Republicans are falling all over each other to talk about it.

what eye thynk:   If the Republican response to his imprisonment and subsequent release were a mixed bag yesterday, they are just plain bizarre today.

1.  Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) wants us to believe that the President decided to arrange a prisoner exchange and release of Sgt. Bergdahl only after the VA healthcare mess became front page news. 

Mr. Perry talking to Sean Hannity on Fox News:  "Here's the bigger concern for me, and I really would like for somebody to take a look at this and answer it--was this done to take the VA off the front page of the newspapers?  An absolute debacle that we've seen this administration not taking care of the men and women of our military, and this kind of happened all of a sudden it seems like."

This exchange didn't happen overnight. It was in the works long before the VA problems became public--something anyone with a modicum of common sense would realize.  Swaps like this aren't arranged between coffee breaks on a slow Monday.

2.  Yesterday I predicted that the GOP would find a way to connect Bergdahl and Benghazi.   U.S. Representative Buck McKeon (R-California), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, almost beat me to the punch.  He is already planning on holding hearings connecting the two issues.  

"It really is kind of ironic, because this is kind of playing out much like Benghazi where they kind of do or don't do something, and uh, and then kind of come up with a story afterward of why they did or didn't do something. This is really mind-boggling."

What boggles my mind is that this is what passes for intelligent discourse in the GOP.

3.   And then we have U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter (R-California), whose comments, while not especially well thought out, are at least original.  He came out swinging, not at the President, but at Secretary of State John Kerry.  Mr. Kerry undoubtedly was a hands-on participant in the Bergdahl release negotiations, but his participation wasn't the focus of Mr. Hunter's ire.  Instead, he decided to attack John Kerry's patriotism--the same John Kerry who earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts during his service in the Vietnam conflict.

"As John Kerry threw his medals over the White House fence and turned his back on all of his Vietnam brothers and sisters, that's what Bergdahl did.  Bergdahl walked away from his men." He added that the Bergdahl exchange was "a botched foreign policy move."

While Mr. Hunter's comment pins the "deserter" appellation on Bowe Bergdahl, it is still unclear whether the Army considered him a deserter or not.  (Does the Army promote deserters?  He was a Private when he disappeared, a Sergeant when he was released.) 

Mr. Hunter takes a leap and bases his comparison on the fact that, after being honorably discharged from the military, Mr. Kerry protested the war in which he had served bravely.   Apparently, on Mr. Hunter's side of the political spectrum, publicly expressing an opinion equals desertion.  (Did I miss the small print that says the First Amendment does not apply to military veterans?)

**********

The Bowe Bergdahl release is fresh news and, as I said yesterday, there are no easy answers. 

In the partisan world that is modern American politics, we can expect the Republicans to squeeze as much negativity from the issue as possible; just don't expect their arguments to be particularly coherent or consistent with the positions they voiced just last week, at least not right away.  Give the GOP message gurus a day or two and they'll all be on the same page.  In the meantime, sit back and enjoy the Chimera.

Bowe Bergdahl is a Free Man. Now What Do We Do?

On May 31, 2014, after nearly five years of captivity in Afghanistan, Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl was released by the Taliban in exchange for five Guantanamo prisoners.  Republicans from all phases of life--politicians, failed politicians, ex-soldiers and assorted Fox News pundits have all had something to say about the issue.

1. Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) -- In 2012 he found the idea of prisoner exchange "bizarre."  Then just a few weeks ago he said "I would be inclined to support such a thing."  Now that the exchange has happened and Bergdahl is free, Senator McCain finds the swap "disturbing", "ill-founded" and "a mistake."  In the meantime, he seems to have forgotten that he won his freedom from a POW camp through a prisoner exchange with Vietnam.
2. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R- New Hampshire) -- Senator Ayotte delivered a Memorial Day speech just one week ago urging Americans to keep Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl in their "thoughts and prayers," adding, "I renew my call on the Defense Department to redouble its efforts to find Sergeant Bergdahl and return him safely to his family."  After the prisoner exchange, Ms. Ayotte changed her mind telling the New Hampshire Union Leader the exchange "endangers U.S. national security interests."
3. Sarah Palin (R) -- In 2009, the 1/2 term Alaska governor and failed Vice Presidential candidate said "Todd and I are praying for Private First Class Bowe Bergdahl, his family, and all his fellow soldiers who are putting their lives on the line to defend our freedom and and protect democracy abroad." After Mr. Bergdahl was released:  "You blew it, Mr. President...a soldier expressing horrid anti-American beliefs--even boldly putting then in writing...is not honorable service."
4. Oliver North (R) -- He helped the Reagan administration secretly sell arms during the Iran-Contra scandal then lied to Congress about it.  Now he is demanding that the media ask the President if there was "a ranson, a fiscal, financial, money transaction" between the White House and the Taliban as part of the prisoner swap.  "Was there a ransom paid?"
5. Fox News, in a blatantly hypocritical and unabashedly silly reaction to the prisoner exchange, decided to question Bowe Bergdahl's loyalty to the U.S. by focusing on his father's beard.  Bill O'Reilly - "You've got this father showing up looking like he's one of the Taliban."  Laura Ingraham - "He actually looks like the terrorists." Eric Bolling - "Anyone else a little skeptical about that father with the beard?" Note that these are the same people who called the like-bearded Duck Dynasty men "true American patriots."  

what eye thynk:  The prisoner exchange that resulted in the freeing of POW Bowe Bergdahl is a case where everyone is right...and wrong...or maybe both.

On one hand, as we close down the debacle of our ill-conceived interference in Afghanistan, could we, as a people, leave one American behind?   My knee-jerk reaction is "No."  But getting beyond a knee-jerk response gets complicated.  

There is some evidence that Mr. Bergdahl chose to walk off his army base of his own free will after becoming disenchanted with the American mission in that country, (a disenchantment that I share), thus leaving himself vulnerable to imprisonment by the Taliban. So, if he left by choice, do we leave him to find his way back on his own--a classic case of "you made your bed, now lie in it?" And do we know for sure that he did leave on his own; or is that just one side of the story?

And it gets even more complex.  The army never charged him with desertion or classified him as AWOL.  They even promoted him to sergeant while he was held by the Taliban.  So, did he desert or not?  If the answer is yes, then why was he promoted?  If the answer is no, then how can anyone object to using any means possible to get him returned to his country?  Was his service "honorable" or not? Do we need an "honorable-ness" scale to decide if an American is worth saving?  And whose values do we use to create the scale?  Conservatives?  Liberals?  Joe, the Plumber?

The question of the five Guantanamo prisoners who were exchanged for Mr. Bergdahl is an equally confusing conumdrum.  Yes, it is possible those five will step right into terrorist leadership roles.  And, yes, by virtue of their long incarceration by this country, their hatred of us and everything we stand for has only worsened. But, again, is that a reason to abandon an American citizen in a foreign country?  

Another argument that has been raised is that prisoner exchanges set a precedent and put other American soldiers at risk for capture.  I agree. But, again, there is no cut and dried, easy answer.  Should we have left one de facto prisoner behind today in order to prevent the possibility of additional prisoners tomorrow? 

Since the Taliban obviously were not going to put Mr. Bergdahl in a truck and drive him to the nearest U.S. base, pat him on the head and let him walk off into the sunset, the only other possibility would have been an all-out assault on their terrorist stronghold--if we could have identified its location--an operation that quite possibly would have caused the loss of additional American lives and would have angered the terrorists and the Afghanistan government, all without any guarantee of a positive outcome for Bowe Bergdahl.

I doubt anyone can honestly begrudge the Bergdahl family having their son returned to them.  The current uproar is over the method President Obama used: prisoner exchange.  Congress thinks they should have been consulted.  I don't know or understand the law on this; but I do question, given the non-productive nature of today's Congress, how many months it would have taken for them to come to a decision.  Did Bowe Bergdahl have that long to wait? 

And while we're on the subject of "waiting," this is a question I'd like the Republicans to answer:  How long do we intend to hold those men in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?  Until they all die of old-age?  President Obama has been trying to close Guantanamo since 2009.  He has been trying to get the prisoners moved to U.S. soil and tried in U.S. courts.  The Republican Party has done everything in its power to ensure that doesn't happen. So, if we can't move them, and we can't try them, and we can't exchange them, what does the GOP suggest we do with them?  

The more I write on this, the more questions I create for myself.  The only obvious conclusion is that there is no one simple answer; but I'm sure the GOP message gurus are feverishly working on one right now.  I imagine it will have something to do with Obamaghazi.

The 113th "Do-Nothing" Congress Is a Joke

what eye thynk: This cartoon is brought to you in honor of our 113th Congress, a well-paid, two-part legislative body which has done very little since it first convened on January 3, 2013 and pledges to do even less until the November 2014 election is over in order to avoid offending anyone--a tactic that is actually resulting in offending everyone due to the paucity of progress on just about any issue important to their constituency.

June 2 - Monday Quote

Some things never change...

monday quote:  Republicans...stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing.  They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights.  They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better.  They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools.  They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them.  They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.  They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."

(Harry S. Truman, 33rd President of the United States, 1884-1972.)

Quick Note: Harvey Milk Stamp Brings Out Conservative Pettiness

On May 22, the U.S. Postal Service released a new stamp.  It honors Harvey Milk, the openly gay San Francisco politician who was assassinated on November 27, 1978, one year after winning a seat on that city's Board of Supervisors.

Anti-gay groups are all in a dither over this attack on American morality.  The American Family Association went so far as to tell its members to "refuse to accept the Harvey Milk stamp if offered by your local post office," and to "refuse to accept mail at your home or business if it is postmarked with the Harvey Milk stamp.  Simply write 'Return to Sender' on the envelope and tell your postman you won't accept it."

Can we say "petty", boys and girls?  

I can't help but wonder what would happen if someone were to mail a contribution to the AFA, clearly indicate on the envelope that a check is enclosed, but use a Harvey Milk stamp for postage.  Which would win, avarice or principle?  

I am tempted to send them a $1.00 check in a signature-required envelope using Harvey Milk stamps so I can track their response.  Hmmm.  A project for next week!

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins used the stamp to attack the Obama administration, (never turn your back on an opportunity to attack the President!).  He somehow managed to link the stamp to the imprisonment of the Sudanese mother who is facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity.

Don't ask me to explain the connection, I don't get it either.

In a final case of adding insult to perceived injury, the Post Office has designated the Harvey Milk stamp a "forever" stamp, meaning it can be used as first-class postage indefinitely, so it will be available to annoy those (so-called Christian) purveyors of hate for quite some time. 

Sometimes it's the small things that make life worth living.