Ed Kilgore went on a bit of a rant this morning after reading Timothy Carney’s piece in the Washington Examiner. Specifically, Kilgore was very impatient with the idea that conservatives are trying to sue for peace in the Culture War and should therefore be treated more honorably.
All this weepy talk of being attacked while trying to surrender also misses the even more obvious point that conservatives are hardly impotent politically; they do sorta control Congress and a majority of states.
So no, there’s no real “surrender” going on here, and Lord knows conservatives aren’t withdrawing from political combat; otherwise Carney would have punctuated his long whine by quitting his job. What they are doing is better understood as a strategic retreat: unable to outlaw or (increasingly) even to stigmatize gay behavior as a matter of law, they’re working to protect private discrimination. It’s what a big part of their constituency expects of them, and it’s the obvious next front—not some sort of Appomattox—in the culture wars.
Carney’s piece is just latest in an emerging genre which can basically be described as a plea not to be defined as bigots and relegated to the same ash heap of history where segregationists currently reside. They are not bad people; they are just following their religious teaching and consciences. We ought to be able to respect them even if we ultimately defeat them on the political battlefield.
What they say they want is no longer victory, which they reluctantly acknowledge is no longer possible. They say that they are willing to accept their defeat with a degree of dignity, but they ought to at least be able to continue to follow their own sense of right or wrong without being insulted, marginalized or, especially, dragged into court to explain themselves.
It’s this sense that they’re being defined out of respectable society and classified as thought criminals that leads them to complain that they are now the ones being discriminated against. So, when we compare the Indiana religious freedom bill to the Jim Crow laws, we’re really playing right into their worst anxieties.
So, we have to listen to them whine and plead to be treated with a modicum of respect. And that’s precisely what Kilgore is in no mood to grant them.
In fact, Kilgore goes right for the most sensitive spot, retelling the history of the Jim Crows wars and ensuing battles over desegregation. But there’s a reason that Kilgore does this, and it’s because the battle is so far from over.
So why all the phony claims that cultural conservatism is folding its tent as a political force? There are a lot of reasons, but the most basic is probably this: if and when the Cultural Right fully gains power via a Republican Party that still is entirely in its thrall, the idea that it has come back from the brink of extinction gives its leaders greater flexibility about how and where to execute the counter-revolution, and its followers the satisfaction of a divinely ordained vindication—and then sweet vengeance.
It’s been noted in a variety of places over the last few days that there is a mighty disconnect between the way Indiana Governor Mike Pence has been compelled to back down and the support he’s received from all the Republican candidates for the presidency. If a battle has been lost in Indiana, it is still being waged with full vigor among those who hope to win the hearts, minds, and financial contributions of the Republican Party’s base.
What this ought to mean is that the Republican Party is headed for a magnificent reckoning with the voters in November 2016.
But that is not assured.
“What this ought to mean is that the Republican Party is headed for a magnificent reckoning with the voters in November 2016.
But that is not assured. “
Oh yeah it is. 3 cycles. ’16, ’18 and ’20
Without a black, Kenyan Socialist Nazi Marxist at the head of the ticket, all those sheeple who love Carly Fiona to death are satisfied.
Remember this? http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2015/3/28/1229/02649
Without a black symbol at the top of the bill, all the “purple” states (WI, OH, IA, CO, NH) become bluer. Maybe not the blue of the ’60s, but bluer as the hardcore racists go back to whatever rock they came out from under.
The Reddish states (VA, NV, FLORIDA) become less red.
The R’s are toast nationally. Without Obama at the top to drive the anti-Obama coattails, PA, WI, MI, OH and TN have a chance in 2020 to get legislatures that will not create strange animals to prevent Democrats from being elected.
When (if) that happens, the R’s will be dead on arrival in the House.
Oh, FSM, I hope I’m right.
Without a black symbol at the top of the bill, all the “purple” states (WI, OH, IA, CO, NH) become bluer. Maybe not the blue of the ’60s, but bluer as the hardcore racists go back to whatever rock they came out from under.
Not yet they don’t. Especially if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. Make no mistake. The right would try to portray Jim Webb as a Commie symp if he was the nominee. It would be hard to work up the hate for others that they have for the Obamas or Clintons.
I don’t think so, Phil.
You are right that the RW titularly hates Hillary, but not with the grinding, soul deep contempt of the hate for Obama. In fact, I know of several white trash women who secretly LOVE Hillary for sticking it to Bill trashing men. They can’t admit it, of course, but its there … make no mistake.
WV is turning blue as we speak.
Do you got the numbers on this?
I mean, I keep hearing stuff about the huge well of untapped support Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton can get from women voters, but I’m just not seeing it. It’s not reflected in the current polling with her high unfavorables and it’s not reflected with a gender-gap among conservatives and right-leaning moderates.
Short of some actual, you know, polls it feels more like projection than anything. Remember, the Democratic Party already has the support of moderate and single (white, of course) women, so we have to run up our numbers big with that demographic if we’re not going to make a play for right-of-center women.
I’m not reall talking about women voters. I’m speaking of a specific demographic that has been untouchable by the Obama-led Democrats for 8 years. Nobody has numbers for or against this.
It is the Bradley Effect applied to poor, white, country (as opposed to just southern) women. These women are just as opposed to Gay Marriage, InterRacial Marriage and Black people in general as their husbands, fathers and brothers … except for Hillary.
My sister is one of them (she’s the one whose next marriage will be in Arkansas because [I shit you not] she’s never been married in Arkansas before). These are the women who never stopped listening to the Dixie Chicks. They are not high enough on the food chain to be steel magnolias, but they have iron in their souls.
Whether or not I’m right is yet to be seen. But my personal experience, my conversations with family and their friends in OK, MO, AR, TN (my friends in MA wouldn’t know a chitlin if it jumped up bit them in the ass) indicate that Cruz, Perry, Huckabee, Pence, Gingrich and the others who think they have a hold on these women because of the culture wars … there is a real shock coming.
Alabama is not going to vote for Hillary because of this but the vote will be closer than you think. But think of Florida. Blue Florida is the I5 Corridor. Red Florida is the Panhandle. Chop up the vote in the Panhandle and Florida goes blue. Won’t take much either.
link
Hmmph. Gotta say that Carney’s piece is infuriating in its selectiveness. He references abortion and contraception along with gay marriage as issues which liberals are unwilling to accept partial and prompt victories.
In doing so he eludes the fact that 90% of the laws which have been passed by Federal, State and local governments in recent years have severely restricted access to these family planning services for women. Motherfucker even references the Hyde Amendment without bringing into the factual discussion that Hyde’s scope has been broadened in Federal law, not reduced. Contraception access has also been attacked by the conservative movement in all three branches of government; Carney’s wish to pretend that his movement is entirely on the defensive there is very offensive.
Carney really disrespects women, apparently, and wants to LIE about what is being done to them nationwide right now. Thus he earns my motherfucker moniker.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politics/arkansas-religious-freedom-anti-lgbt-bill/index.html
Arkansas governor will NOT sign Bill
The People’s Republic of Bentonville has spoken.
Boo Man —-> The GOP Has Cried “Wolf” Once Too Often In This Case. Like A Prior “Comment” — The GOP Is Truly Finished As A “NATIONAL” Party, i.e., A “Presidential” Party. Their Outlandish Ideas Have Consigned Them To The Outside Looking In And With The Die-Off Of The Angry Old White Guy What Is Left Of That Hulk Of A Political Artifact?
The Christian hating Gays are about to blow up the PAC money machine. The business wing of the GOP is not getting what they paid for. Why does a business in Indianapolis continue to give money to Club for Growth or even the local Chamber? The legislature in Indiana is not going to pass any fix for Pence….he is on his own.
Has any corporate media outlet pointed out the people that Pence invited for the bill-signing? H/T to our very own Brendan:
http://twitter.com/brendancalling/status/582928188528963585
Once again we are in a “tell the truth and the Republicans think it’s hell” moment.
A legal right to discriminate among members of the public in commercial activities or public services is patently contradictory to the notion of equal protection of the law. So is a preferential right by cleargy or religious to be listened to.
The plea for mercy is self-contradictory.
Witness the breadth of the legislation. It is not just same sex couples that are the targets but anyone about which someone can feign to religious scruples. Racism and gender discrimination too re-enter through the religious freedom trap door in this legislation. It is teed up for the conservative justices to completely undo the Warren Court’s historic rulings on discrimination. And that is blatantly clear in the hemming and hawing and dancing that “respectable” Republicans are doing over it.
Mike Pence is clueless, but Pat McCrory (whose home city has a large gay population) is dancing and Asa Hutchison (who has the Walmart Corp. thinking about its gay customer base and Target’s experience and expressing concern to the governor) has shuttled the bill back to the legislature and some editorial ping-pong until the heat goes away.
It’s time to ask which religious are on board with this kind of discrimination. We know that the very serious people of South Bend who gave us Clarence Thomas were big supporters of this bill. Is this a reflection of the Vatican’s position? Catholics have gotten a big pass on creating this political mess as a result of the focus being on the “evangelicals”, an amorphous alliance of entrepreneurial “ministries” instead of a specific creedal denomination. Time to point out the Catholic base of the Republican party as part of the problem here. Lots of Fox News flunkies in that subset. Even includes cross-dresser Giuliani. And also the Catholic hierarchy closely associated with the Republican base and “moral issues”.
It is time that there is a “come to Jesus moment” regarding religion, politics, race, and sexuality in the United States and how it is the very religious institutions that are betraying their stated principles in a moralistic frenzy to cover their racial bigotry that is the historical root of even this very controversy.
Call them the apostate church of the 11th commandment: Thou shalt not prevent my people from discriminating.
And then stop turning the First Amendment statement of religious freedom on its head with claims of Christian nationhood.
These specious arguments remind me so much of those that I endured from churchgoers during the Civil Rights movement.
From Charlie Foolishness Knows No Party — In which Governor Steve Beshear helps us learn that certain foolishness knows no party.
No same-sex marriage for heteros in KY because … ???
As with most arguments put forward by conservative white males, this is not made in good faith. Surrender in the “culture war”? Seriously, the whole war? A war that includes abortion rights, which conservatives have utterly won across most of the nation? Or just the gay marriage front—which is now before Roberts Repubs, who apparently will decide the whole thing on a nationwide basis this June.
I wouldn’t bet on that outcome, it will all depend on what super-legislator and conservative-Catholic Anthony Kennedy decides should be our national policy. “Conservatives” have been happily fighting on the gay marriage front for a decade and they would be crazy to “sue for peace” just as the battle for the whole enchilada is being waged in the Supreme “Court”, controlled by their conservative activists. No reason to give up!
The latest Indiana “religious freedom” gambit is also not remotely evidence of “suing for peace”. Indiana, like most states and the federal civil rights act, does not include gay people as a protected class. Some cities have passed their own municipal civil rights acts in which gay people ARE included so as to be protected from discrimination in public accommodations and employment, etc within city jurisdiction—and I believe the great Blue city of IND, Indianapolis, had passed one of these.
After Hobby Lobby (the decision of Roberts Repubs that said corporate CEOs have a right to impose their [phony] religious beliefs upon their employees via employee benefit availability), the rightwing legislation manufacturing machine came up with a new template state law to gut these municipal civil rights acts by adding this new “religious objection” crapola, and by adding corporations as a new “citizen” whose “religious rights” also can’t be infringed.
So the effect of this new Ind statute is to let bigots, small businesses and CEOs (speaking for large corporations) get around lib’rul municipal codes and permit conservative city dwellers to discriminate against gays, just like other Indianans are permitted to do (the idea that the conservative-controlled Indiana legislature is going to add gay people as a protected class to the state’s civil rights act as a way to “fix” this latest law is of course comic).
In other words, Misunderstood Mike’s new Indiana law shows the American “conservative” movement is still fully on attack against lib’rul attempts to protect gay citizens. This is not “suing for peace”, it’s a wholly new offensive using the bullshit reasoning of Hobby Lobby as the latest peg for expanding (and protecting) discrimination against gays. The idea that the American Taliban is “actually” looking to lay down its arms on ANY culture war front is something so stupid it’s hard to see anyone who could possibly believe it, certainly no “conservative” does.
Finally, Jeebus never said anything about gay marriage (or gay people). To the extent that the (Old Testament) bible addresses the issue in Leviticus (which passage Paul then parrots), it can be interpreted to be about homosexual conduct as a whole. So if American Talibaners are to be permitted to discriminate on the basis of their supposed “religious beliefs”, there is no reason to think they will limit their feelings of “offense” to just some specific aspects of servicing a gay marriage transaction—they will be entitled to discriminate against anyone for anything merely because they suspect the person is gay.
Or just the gay marriage front—which is now before Roberts Repubs, who apparently will decide the whole thing on a nationwide basis this June.
I wouldn’t bet on that outcome, it will all depend on what super-legislator and conservative-Catholic Anthony Kennedy decides should be our national policy. …
My guess is that Roberts will be the more important swing vote on this one. As there isn’t a large corporate interest/lobby opposed to same-sex marriage and big monied interests in support of it, my second guess is that he goes with the liberal wing and if so, would prefer to drag Kennedy with him and have him write the majority opinion (as he did in Lawrence v. Texas). Then again, Papa Francis opposes same-sex marriage. Roberts seems to be cool with being known as a corporatist, Republican justice, but seems less reluctant to cement his legacy as a RCC flunky.
I dunno, M2, all of Roberts’ Repubs are conservative Catholic males, and it appears Roberts was a convert, so he retains the convert’s zeal. In any event, he was a dissenter in the latest (5-4) gay rights case, Windsor, and he certainly follows the Church’s line in all abortion rights cases, including the preposterous Hobby Lobby, which was the first case limiting rights to contraception.
Catholic (and Fundamentalist) doctrine as American law is expanding, not contracting, and this is to be expected when the “conservative” movement demanded and obtained 5 conservative Catholic males on the Court. So “suing for peace” would be especially stupid at this point in the war, which is of course why “conservative” leaders are doing no such thing and why this argument is in such transparent bad faith.
Roberts, in my view, is the most committed conservative activist on the Court, and that’s saying something. Bushco’s screeners loved that Roberts was a dedicated corporatist stooge and lackey, of course, but his all-around “conservative” self-retardation was his real attraction. In that he apparently had no peer, a young “conservative” white male for all seasons!
I retain my view that the big marriage case will all depend on Monsignor Kennedy and whether he wants to give the marriage movement the Grand Slam and give all Christianists and conservative Catholics nationwide the sads. I have very severe doubts. When Kennedy comes out against the marriage movement, the chaos and despair will be indescribable, although we can say that for many of the cases Roberts Repubs vomit out….
Also, I don’t think the big marriage case has been briefed and argued yet, so it won’t be decided this year. Sorry!
As Roberts went to parochial schools assumed that he was a lifelong Catholic. Agree that the conservative Catholic majority on the SCOTUS is strong. You’re also correct to point out Kennedy’s position in the Windsor decision. That one taken with Lawrence would seem to indicate that Kennedy isn’t a raging homophobe like Scalia, Thomas and Alito. Roberts position in Windsor differed from the other dissenters and was in line with his other bias to uphold federal government powers. Normally when its exercised in a Republican or conservative direction. However, he did the same with the PPACA.
The legal questions in Lawrence and Windsor are quite different. With Lawrence falling into the body of personal privacy issues/rights guaranteed under the Constitution and therefore, states can’t legislatively take away such rights. Whereas Windsor held that federal legislation on marriage can’t trump states rights to recognize when a legal marriage exists. As Windsor married in Canada, reciprocity was also a factor.
If this court respected precedent, which it doesn’t, they’d look to Loving and rule that states cannot deny a marriage license to an adult same-sex couple anymore than it was Constitutional to deny a license to a mixed race couple. A more “conservative” (discriminatory) position would be not to interfere in the rights of states to define marriage wrt to same-sex couples. However, it’s reciprocity that trips up the states. For example, if state X bans same-sex marriage, but recognizes the legality of the marriage of a couple that married in state Y (and all states do that), then it’s the legal marriage license and not the sexual identity of the couple that’s controlling. While Windsor held that federal law (DOMA) can’t trump states rights to define marriage, absent reciprocity (in this situation, nation to nation), Windsor wasn’t legally married.
So, I’ve just talked myself into a narrow position that Kennedy could take that is consistent with Windsor, a precedent that the minority four are supposed to respect. Then he’d be left to consider if it’s an undue burden for same-sex couples to marry wherever same-sex marriage is legal. Considering how little weight that undue burden in seeking abortion services when states restrict such access carries with these clowns, wouldn’t expect that argument to be compelling.
However, such a narrow decision could easily give rise to another round of state-based homophobic legislation to get around it. Would be as if Loving held that a state can outlaw issuing marriage licenses to mixed race couples as long as they recognized the lawful marriages of mixed race couples. The federal interest is that marriage figures into income tax, social security, military benefit, etc. calculations. Would be an undue burden on the USG to sort out couples that aren’t considered married in their resident state but are considered married at the federal level (the consequence of Windsor)?
The opinion(s) on the four cases before the court will be very interesting. Thinking this through, now appreciate how difficult it will be for Kennedy to find for “church.” OTOH, he may be fine with a narrow ruling. That would put the ball in Roberts’ court (no pun intended) — go sweeping now or spend the next twenty years hearing challenges to state laws? If the latter, it will clarify that Roberts is a second-rate asshole.
It just seems to me that declaring in Windsor that it’s an irreducible state’s right to recognize when a marriage exists makes it hard for Kennedy to now just simply declare that a state doesn’t really have that right vis-a-vis same sex marriage. So to me it’s not incredible based on Windsor that he rules for the naysaying states, although conventional wisdom seems to be that Kennedy is in the bag for championing gay marriage.
Sorry about the Roberts’ religion error, everything I’ve (now) googled says he is a lifelong Catholic, so who knows why I loaded that “convert” error into my brain….mea culpa, haha.
Thomas is a convert.
But how does Kennedy get around “reciprocity?” Recall that Windsor was not legally married in NY or any other US state. I don’t think he can. What could the homophobic states do then? Only recognize the marriages of couples that obtained a license in their state? Would that interfere with settled interstate commerce law?