vote

After Michael Steele’s failed attempt to give the GOP a “hip hop” makeover, many Republicans hoped newly-elected Congressman Allen West could boost the Party’s outreach to African American voters. Today, West expressed his concerns about DC residents’ lack of representation, as Washingtonians don’t have a voting member of Congress. In one of the first votes of the session, the Republican majority stripped the DC delegate’s ability to vote in House Committees, a move West supported.

While West floated the idea of “an exclusionary zone” where “District residents do not pay federal taxes” since they don’t have a voting member of Congress, he went on to say that the African American-majority city and black voters across the country may only have themselves to blame for their political marginalization since black voters consistently support Democrats:

West, who was one of two African-American Republicans elected to the House last year, said he hopes to make the GOP more appealing to black voters.

"We need to open up the conversation because blacks cannot expect to have power in this country when they vote 90 percent Democratic," he said.

"You cannot put all of your trust in one political party. I know that blacks will not change overnight or become Republicans in large numbers overnight, but we have to have the conversation about this."

Last year, Randall Terry went on a rampage against other anti-choice groups, accusing them of not fighting hard enough to stop the confirmation of Elena Kagan.

And the primary focus of his ire was a fundraising letter sent out by Priests for Life and Father Frank Pavone, which Terry claimed was a perfect example of "why we are losing this fight" to stop abortion:

1) He tells people that to be REALLY pro-life, they just have to send Priests for Life money. This falsely trains people to think that they can discharge their duty to God with money; that they are champions for the babies who are being murdered because they write a check. This is not true. It is a false paradigm.

2) He tells the reader that "Priests for Life is the Voice of the Pro-life Movement." This is a falsehood on two counts. First, they have not been heard in the key fights against Kagan, Sotomayor, Health care, etc., because of their tax exempt status. In real, political terms, they barely give a peep. Second, YOU CAN NEVER GIVE UP YOUR VOICE. You have a duty to lift YOUR VOICE. When someone tells you they can be your voice in this life and death struggle, they are misleading you. You have to go to the abortion mills; you have to go to lobby your elected officials. You cannot have a hired gun do it.

3) He tells the readers "we are winning!" This is also a falsehood. The pro-life movement is not winning, it is losing, and it is losing badly. 50 million babies are dead, with no end in sight. We cannot even filibuster Kagan, perhaps the most evil judge to ever take the bench! Is this what "winning" looks like?!

In Terry's view, Pavone and Priests for Life were claiming victory while doing nothing to stop abortion in order to raise money and were therefore guilty of "living off the blood of babies:" 

But the essence is this: some LEADERS and MANY CHARLATANS in the pro-life movement are like PRO-LIFE VAMPIRES, living off the blood of babies. The very fact that they DO NOT FIGHT KAGAN is the proof of their hypocrisy and duplicity. And their silence is driven by MONEY; the "tax exempt status."

They are useless; they are collaborators with the baby killers themselves. (I DO NOT perceive Fr. Pavone to be fully in that camp, but he is flirting with the wrong people, and it comes out loud and clear in his letter. His organization has clearly put money ahead of the babies in certain fights; I beg your prayers for him and his organization.)

So, using the words of the Priests for Life letter that just went out, and using the useless, godless letter sent out by Americans United for Life - and signed by other pathetic groups - I am drawing a line in the sand, for the sake of the babies.

So it is interesting, not that Terry is planning on running for president so that he can exploit an election loophole and run graphic anti-choice ads on television, that Pavone is heaping praise upon the idea and vowing that he will vote for Terry:

On the heels of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell late last year, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall declared that he was going to introduce legislation that would ban gays and lesbians from serving in the Virginia National Guard.

Now Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has weighed in, saying that the state can do so ... provided that it is willing to fund the militia entirely on its own:

Virginia would have to establish and fully fund its own independent militia if it wanted to ban gays from its National Guard force, Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli says ...Cuccinelli said he could not give a detailed answer to the question until federal regulations repealing the policy are issued. But regardless of how those regulations are written, he said, Congress pays most the Guard's costs and can yank funding for noncompliance with federal policy.

...

Cuccinelli said in his opinion that the nation's state militias evolved over the years into a "dual enlistment system" in which National Guard members "are both members of the organized militia and a reserve component of the armed forces of the United States."

A key aspect of the system, he said, is that the federal government provides virtually all of the funding. The dual enlistment system and the spending power of Congress "has meant in practice that Congress set the standards and policy for state Guard units," Cuccinelli wrote.

Marshall, for his part, isn't buying Cuccinelli's claim and is accusing him of "making this up for political cover" for Republicans who don't want to be forced to vote on Marshall's anti-gay bill.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said that his Republican Study Committee, the ultraconservative group that counts a majority of the GOP caucus as its members, told The Hill that he supports congressional action to reverse Washington DC’s marriage equality law. “I think RSC will push for it, and I’m certainly strongly for it,” the Ohio Republican said, “I don’t know if we’ve made a decision if I’ll do it or let another member do it, but I’m 100 percent for it.” Jordan voted against every major piece of gay-rights legislation and recently announced his boycott of CPAC over the conference’s inclusion of GOProud.

Even though the Republican Study Committee claims to be committed to “a limited and Constitutional role for the federal government” and reducing “government regulations [and the] size of government,” anti-gay attacks apparently take priority over its dedication to federalism and small-government.

The DC Council voted overwhelmingly in favor of marriage equality in 2009, and marriage rights for gays and lesbians went into effect in early 2010. National and local Religious Right groups, led by Bishop Harry Jackson, just last week lost a lawsuit challenging the law.

Bishop Jackson has unsuccessfully demanded a popular referendum to decide the fate of marriage equality in the District, saying that the issue should be left up to DC voters rather than their elected representatives in the Council and going so far as writing to Congress to demand a popular vote on the issue. In Congress, however, DC’s Delegate does not have the right to vote on legislation and was stripped by Republicans of her limited voting powers.

Clearly, given his aggressive stance in support of DC’s voters’ ability to have a say in the matter, Bishop Jackson will come out strongly against Congressman Jordan’s proposal any minute now…

The battle over marriage equality in Iowa is heating up as Republicans in the State House are moving forward with plans to ban gay marriage and civil unions, an attempt to reverse a unanimous 2009 State Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality. To amend the constitution, “an amendment would require approval by state lawmakers during two legislative sessions, and then approval by voters at the ballot box.” Encouraged by major Republican gains in the midterm elections and the removal of three pro-equality Justices through retention votes, Iowa Republicans have emphasized restrictions on gay-rights and reproductive-rights in their legislative agenda, and Religious Right leader Bob Vander Plaats is pressing for the removal of the entire Supreme Court.

Vander Plaats’s new organization, The Family Leader, recently blasted pro-equality faith leaders in an alert message that questions their faith, stating: “167 ‘religious’ leaders signed a letter delivered to the Iowa Legislature saying that people of faith support homosexual ‘marriage.’ Don’t stay silent while others speak for you and misrepresnt [sic] God.” The group calls on pastors to sign an alternative petition which describes “homosexual behavior” as “immoral and sinful” and “harmful both to the individuals who choose to participate in it and the society that chooses to accept it.”

The mobilization of pastors by The Family Leader comes at a time when, according to the Des Moines Register, Republican leaders are trying to prohibit not only gay marriage but also other forms of legal rights for gay couples such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. The Register reports:

House Republicans will introduce legislation this week to begin the process to amend the Iowa Constitution to ban not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions and domestic partnerships.

That prospect raised alarm with civil rights advocates, who said it would legalize discrimination.

Republicans, who took control of the House in the Nov. 2 elections, had pledged to pass a measure this legislative session that would eventually allow Iowans a vote on same-sex marriage. But the resolution they've prepared is more sweeping than that, a move intended to help place finality on the issue of the legality of same-sex unions, said Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull, who is the lead sponsor of House Joint Resolution 6.

"I think the biggest issue is that if that (a same-sex marriage ban) is carried forward, and then Iowa does civil unions and recognizes that as a substitute status, then, from what I've seen in other states," people would come to consider same-sex civil unions as equal to marriage, Alons said.

As of late Wednesday, no Democrats had signed on as co-sponsors of the bill. Fifty-six of the 60 House Republicans are listed as co-sponsors. The measure is expected to easily pass the House, but Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has vowed to block consideration of a same-sex marriage amendment in that chamber.

The resolution says: "Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state."

Des Moines attorney James Benzoni said such an amendment would run counter to the intent of Iowa laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

"The problem you're going to have is that it allows prejudice," Benzoni said. "It's going to open the door now for discrimination, for bullying, for treating people as second-class citizens."

The wording raised questions about whether private companies and governments in Iowa could still extend benefits to domestic partners. State government, for example, provides domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples.

…

Those who agree with the Iowa Supreme Court ruling have noted that same-sex couples have in previous years been shut out from hospital visitation and inheritance rights. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has listed more than 1,100 benefits the government provides to married couples.

The Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr. of Des Moines, president of the NAACP State Conference for Iowa and Nebraska, has helped lead protests against same-sex marriage. He said Wednesday he agrees with the attempt to also keep domestic partnership or civil unions from gaining legal status.

Ratliff said he believes same-sex marriage further erodes the family, similar to the way that two-income families have eroded traditional nuclear families.

"I think there is an immediate consequence to gay marriage because people let their guard down in relation to what the word of God says," Ratliff said.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge to Washington, DC's marriage equality law, much to the dismay of the Religious Right.

But if you thought that was going to be the end of the challenge, think again, as the National Organization for Marriage today announced that it will continue to fight it and expects the new GOP majority in the House to help them:

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States denied an appeal by marriage defenders to the DC City Council’s implementation of same-sex marriage.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) pledged to continue to push for the right of District residents to vote on marriage as the union of a man and a woman:

“While we are disappointed that the US Supreme Court did not decide to take the case challenging the denial of the civil rights of District residents to vote on the definition of marriage, we are by no means done pressing this issue. With a pro-marriage majority in the new Congress we will explore a number of avenues to force the District to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to voters. As the four Court of Appeal justices who dissented in this case made clear, the District of Columbia owes it to the voters to allow them to decide the critical issue of marriage which has existed since before there was a District of Columbia. In order to curry favor with the same-sex marriage special interest group, members of the City Council have turned their backs on their own constituents. It is ironic that these same council members champion the right of District votes to be heard in national elections but then deny those same residents the right to vote on the definition of marriage. We will press our belief with Congress that the constitution of the District requires that voters be allowed to decide this important issue.”

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch legal challenge to marriage equality in the District of Columbia and exposed as hypocritical posturing the claims by Bishop Harry Jackson and his Religious Right allies to be representing the interests of DC voters.

Yesterday, it was announced that Jim Garlow, chairman of Newt Gingrich's Renewing American Leadership, would be participating in a protest against the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the Mt. Soledad Cross was unconstitutional:

Said Dr. Jim Garlow, Senior Pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, and Chairman of Renewing American Leadership located in Washington DC, "These revisionist judges consistently confuse the historic recognition of the role that the Christian faith -- embraced by 90% of our citizens -- and Christian symbols have played and continue to play in our national life with the 'establishment' of religion. Not one truly informed person driving by the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial has ever assumed that they are required to embrace Christianity as an 'established,' government sponsored religion."

I am not sure exactly what steps Garlow is going to advocate for remedying this outrage at the protest, but Rick Tyler, his colleague at ReAL, is already claiming the ruling is an attempt to impose a "a secular-socialist agenda on the United States" and therefore the Ninth Circuit Court needs to be, quite literally, eliminated: 

[T]hose whose policies are unable to win at the ballot box are seeking to build a stronghold of government power in the courts, without needing to garner a single vote. Just as it did in 1803, the Executive and Legislative branches could take action today and ”reorganize” the Ninth Circuit Court right out of existence! Not only is there precedent for such an action, we wouldn’t need to be nearly as radical as Jefferson – we wouldn’t have to eliminate half of the federal bench, just the Ninth Circuit! It’s time for this country to ask: “If they’re so out of touch with the First Amendment, why are we continuing to employ them as judges?”

It’s time to think out of the box, and we can succeed. Just this past year, we notched a huge victory in Iowa against the three judges that superseded the will of the people by imposing their own agenda upon the Constitution. Christians have a warrior in Bob Vander Plaats, who led the fight that resulted in sending three judges home after they grossly overreached their constitutional role in redefining marriage. We must show other judges who have forgotten the constitutional constraints that there are consequences for their actions.

Make your voice heard. Watch your email for our ReAL Action Alert. We’re going to tell the Ninth Circuit that their services are no longer required.

In his inaugural address last week, Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee declared his support for marriage equality in the state.

In response, the National Organization for Marriage's state affiliate has decided to launch a $100,000 ad campaign against him, claiming that Chafee is an "accidental governor" who has no mandate to "impose" marriage equality on the state:

“Lincoln Chafee got just 36% of the vote in the recent election, and fewer popular votes than the Cool Moose Party’s candidate for Lieutenant Governor,” said Christopher Plante, Executive Director of NOM-RI. “Our message is that getting 36% of the vote is no mandate to redefine the institution of marriage for all of Rhode Island society.”

Chafee signaled in his inaugural address last week that imposing same-sex marriage in Rhode Island is a top priority, and called on the legislature to move quickly to enact it. He opposes giving Rhode Islanders the right to vote on marriage, even though public opinion polls show that 80% of voters want the right to decide this issue themselves.

“80% of Rhode Islanders want the chance to vote on marriage, just as voters in 31 other states have done,” the ad states. It calls on Rhode Islanders to call Chafee’s office, and that of House Speaker Fox and Senate President Paiva-Weed to express their views.

“In some ways, Lincoln Chafee is an accidental governor for Rhode Island, elected in the most unusual of circumstances,” Plante said. “Yet he expects legislators to follow him off the cliff in pursuit of same-sex marriage. This is what happened in neighboring New Hampshire and before that in Maine. In both those states, politicians who followed their so-called leaders have been replaced with pro-marriage legislators and same-sex marriage has been repealed, or is on its way to being repealed. In Iowa, three judges who voted to impose same-sex marriage were summarily thrown out of office by voters. If legislators in Rhode Island wish to redefine marriage, they should put this issue on the ballot where the people themselves can decide if they wish to abandon one of the most fundamental institutions of society.”