Lots of interesting happenings in gay rights over the last few weeks. The Prop 8 trial concluded testimony in California last week, with closing arguments and judgments to come later. Yesterday, a major hearing was held on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, pressing for a repeal of the policy. Conservatives, of course, are opposed. Bill Kristol had this to say:
There is no basic right to serve in the military. That’s why forms of discrimination we would ban in civilian life are permitted: Women have less opportunity to fight than men. The disabled are discriminated against, as are the short, the near-sighted, and the old.
Advocates of repeal will say sexual orientation is irrelevant to military performance in a way these attributes are not. But this is not clearly true given the peculiar characteristics of military service.
He doesn’t actually spell out what those peculiar characteristics are. He also quotes John McCain, who said:
This successful policy has been in effect for over 15 years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels. We have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our Armed Forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy.
We have the most qualified, the bravest and most capable military we‘ve ever had in our history, and so I think that the policy is working. And I understand the opposition to it, and I‘ve had these debates and discussions, but the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.
Huh.
Responding to Kristol, Glenn Greenwald had this to say, which is spot on:
In American culture, there has long been a group of men (typified by Kristol and [Michael] O’Hanlon) who equate toughness and masculinity with fighting wars, yet who also know that they lack the courage of their own convictions, and thus confine themselves to cheerleading for wars from afar and sending others off to fight but never fighting those wars themselves. It seems that individuals plagued by that affliction are eager to avoid having it rubbed in their faces that there are large numbers of homosexual warriors who possess the courage (the “testosterone-laden tough-guyness”) which the O’Hanlons and Kristols, deep down, know they lack.
Chris Matthews had a fellow named Peter Sprigg of the “Family Research Council” on his show to discuss DADT, and he said:
As Sprigg mounted an increasingly illogical defense of the policy based on discrimination, Matthews pressed him on the question: “Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?”
“I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided,” said Sprigg. “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.”
“So we should outlaw gay behavior?” asked Matthews again.
Hey you. You there in the Glenn Beck T-shirt headed off to the Tea Party Patriot rally.
Stop shouting for a moment, please, I want to explain to you why you’re so very angry. You should be angry. You’re getting screwed…Look, you can go back to yelling at me in a minute, but just read this first.
1. Get out your pay stub…
2. Notice that your net pay is lower than your gross pay. This is because some of your wages are withheld every pay period.
3. Notice that only some of this money that was withheld went to pay taxes. (I know, I know — yeearrrgh! me hates taxes! — but just try to stick with me for just a second here.)
4. Notice that some of the money that was withheld didn’t go to taxes, but to your health insurance company.
5. Now go get a pay stub from last year around this time, from January of 2009.
6. Notice that the amount of your pay withheld for taxes in your current paycheck is less than the amount that was withheld a year ago. That’s because of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan, which included more than $200 billion in tax cuts, including the one you’re holding right there in your hand, the tax cut that’s now staring you in the face. Republicans all voted against that tax cut…But taxes aren’t the really important thing here. The really important thing starts with the next point.
7. Notice that the amount of your pay withheld to pay for your health insurance is more than it was last year.
8. Notice that the amount of your pay withheld to pay for your health insurance is a lot more than it was last year.
I won’t ask you to dig up old paychecks from 2008 and 2007, but this has been going on for a long time. Every year, the amount of your paycheck withheld to pay for your health insurance goes up. A lot…That’s what I meant when I said you really should be angry. That’s what I meant when I said you’re getting screwed.
I’d add more, but I’ve nothing to add. Go read the whole thing.
Richard over at Honest Hypocrite tweeted this gem from Roger Ebert. Ebert had previously blogged on the rational reasons for universal health care, and used his platform to lay out the moral imperative for it, as well as respond to some commenters. A few good quotes:
Many of my readers opposed the Obama plan… here, in broad outline, are some of their most common statements, and my responses:
It is “socialized medicine.” Yes, it is. The entire society shares the cost. It does not replace private medicine. Just as in the UK and Canada, for example, we would remain free to choose our own insurance policies and private physicians. But it is the safety net for everyone… The word socialism, however, has lost its usefulness in this debate. It has been tainted, perhaps forever, by the malevolent Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who succeeded somehow in linking it with the godless Commies. America is the only nation in the free world in which “socialism” is generally thought of in negative terms.
A quick dig:
One reader said that the only things the Constitution guarantees us are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” and Congress should enact no laws about anything else. Actually, it’s the Declaration of independence that mentions “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” but never mind. Some might believe universal health care would be of great assistance in enjoying life and the pursuit of happiness. It is a peculiarity that some of those happiest to cite the Constitution are the least interested in its Bill of Rights.
And the real zinger:
The nearest thing we have to a death panel in the United States is an insurance company claims adjuster.
Maine is the latest battleground for marriage equality, because of Question 1, a referendum to repeal a bill signed into law in May that legalized same-sex marriage. Recent polling seems to indicate that Mainers are on the side of equality. One Bangor newspaper editorial made what should be an obvious point:
It is hard to see how allowing more people to marry will weaken marriage. Instead, it seems the strong desire of gay and lesbian couples to be married, rather than declared domestic partners, shows the value and importance of marriage.
From the Coming Out marches on Sunday, courtesy Andrew Sullivan:
Brilliant. In fact, I think it’s time to enact a basic rule: if you’ve ever been divorced, then you are not allowed to say anything negative about gay marriage, and how it’s a “threat” to family values. Same goes if you’ve conceived a child out of wedlock or committed adultery. I’m not saying I should be allowed to judge someone if they’ve done any of those things; while I’ve never done them myself, I’m certainly no saint. I’m just saying that if you broke up a family, I’m not putting up with your hypocrisy.
Would you rather have government bureaucrats or big business bureaucrats making decisions about your healthcare insurance eligibility? I know which one Sophie’s Mom would prefer.
Just as our Blue Cross plan was set to start, we received a notice from them stating that they considered Sophie to have a pre-existing pulmonary problem (due to the amount of doctor’s visits for pneumonia), and that while they would cover her in general, they wouldn’t cover any pulmonary/respiratory issues until she had gone two years without needing medication or problems…
All of a sudden, Sophie was without coverage for pulmonary problems. This was absolutely terrifying. What if she got sick?! What if she needed to be hospitalized?! We spent the next couple of months researching every insurance company that we could, begging them to take Sophie. Nope, it wasn’t going to happen.
And then our biggest fear came true: Sophie got very, very sick. And I’m ashamed to say that although we knew that she was incredibly ill, we actually considered keeping her home from the doctor’s office, as we knew that this would be yet another strike against her getting insurance. Luckily we pulled our heads out of our asses and took her to the doctor anyway, and it’s good that we did, because Sophie was so critically ill that she was sent straight from the doctor’s office to ICU. She was so sick that we couldn’t even wait for an ambulance; they helped me throw our limp, blue daughter into our car, and I drove like hell to get her to the hospital next door.
Let me state that very clearly one more time: we almost didn’t take our baby girl, who was in severe respiratory distress, to the doctor because we knew that it would hurt her chances of getting insurance.
I’d love to see a few graphs like this over time to see how feelings have changed. Still, Ryan Sager points out:
Just how big is the gay marriage age gap? Between the under-30 crowd and the over-65 crowd: 35 percentage points.
Or, try this on for size, at the state level: If people over 65 in each state made the laws, 0 states would have gay marriage; if people under 30 made the laws, 38 states would have gay marriage.
My question is, why aren’t more politicians reacting this way? They keep trying to have civil conversations with people who are clearly there to disrupt debate, and they try to actually engage them. I used to think that the PR hit they’d take from having these people thrown out would be bad, but let’s face it the only people who would care are on Fox News, and they’re not going to support a “leftist” agenda anyway. In fact, a savvy politician like Barney Frank might make their heads explode.
Eek. I find this letter from the director of the Congressional Budget Office to be disappointing:
Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.
Read at least the first few pages for more detail. I’m frustrated because one my big arguing points on the subject of universal healthcare is that it would save money, long-term; it may not. Does that mean it’s not worth insuring the millions of un- and under-insured Americans? I don’t know.
With one statement about the “public option” from Obama, the entire health care reform discussion shifted totally away from the right wing crazies and Palin’s “death panels” In just three days with one statement about the “public option”, liberal Democrats who stood on the sidelines and barely jumped in to the death panel discussions, have finely stirred off their duffs to get into the fray and argument.
In just three days, the media has shifted its coverage away from the crazies and the lies and finally, some meaningful media attention to the real issues on the health care reform effort. In just three days, the whole debate on health care reform has turned around and hopefully, now the debate and discussions can be about the real issues and real health care reform can happen. Meanwhile, the ultra conservative right wing has been stymied. Obama is brilliant!
