The Dish

“About a week ago I went to my in-laws house for dinner after work and was greeted with a petition. A petition to try and put the FMA into reality.
I told my mother-in-law that I could not sign their petition. She promptly says, “Oh, you’re one of those.” I don’t know if she meant a gay-backer or someone who doesn’t hold their wacky Christian views. I responded with “I cannot sign a petition that puts something discriminatory into the Constitution.”
She proceeded to tell me that whether I sign it or not it is going to pass. (Clearly I don’t think she pays attention to the news, but just the rhetoric of a few.) I said, “Well at least I’ll take pride in knowing that I had nothing to do with a horrible policy.”
Now I personally am indifferent if homosexuals or heterosexuals marry. I am married myself, but what one couple does is their choice and it won’t affect me either way. I have gay friends, I have worked with gays & lesbians, I have gone out with gays & lesbians, and funny… I’ve never felt like their life-style was being forced on me. Go figure, regular people…
I love my in-laws and they are truly good Christians. They help people, take care of people, all the things most Sunday-Christians DON’T DO, they do it 24×7. They are firm in their beliefs and it bothers the hell out of me that they can hold a discriminating view point. They don’t watch “Will and Grace” and turn up their nose to anything homosexual in nature, yet feel free to make gay jokes.
It really bothers me that people who live their lives in accordance with the teachings God and Jesus can’t see the flaw in what FMA means. These people also need to remember that when it comes to this great United States of America that our founding fathers, who were mostly Christian, did not want this country to become a religious nation, that is why they came here.
This may be a ‘nation of Christians,’ but not a ‘Christian Nation.’ Very different.” – More feedback on the Letters Page.

Long ago, I argued that the Federal Marriage Amendment could become a wedge issue – for the Democrats. It unites the Dems in defense of civil rights and the constitution and has already worsened the splits among Republicans between the Santorum theocrats and the old-school conservatives. I’ve also long pointed out that the amendment as introduced would clearly make civil unions and domestic partnerships unconstitutional – and that is indeed one of the reasons the Allard version might not even get a simple majority. It’s not over yet, but the signs are ominous for the religious right:

Republicans apparently were taken by surprise when Democrats, sensing a huge victory, offered to lift their own objections and proceed to direct consideration of the measure. As many as a dozen Republicans, various aides and lobbyists said, might bolt from their party on the issue. Many Republicans have long been wary of federal intrusion on what has always been a state domain, believing an amendment would violate their basic principle of keeping the federal government out of state matters. Many also have expressed concern that the current wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment also would ban civil unions and domestic partnerships that are considered legal alternatives to marriage.

Could Bush have destroyed the relationship between gays and the GOP, and wrecked what reputation he has left as a uniter rather than divider for … nothing?

“I have been slow to recognize the bigger issues that are just killing this market in part because I wanted to believe that the current President Bush is smarter than he sounds or looks. I wanted to believe that he could articulate correctly why we went to war in some foreign land where a thousand guys have died and billions have been spent. But he hasn’t. He had terrible intelligence and bad homework, stuff I fire people for regularly and always have.
What we see now in the market is a gradual realization that Bush will be forced out in November and a new man will be president, a man who may not be better for the stock market but one who arguably may not be worse if simply because a gridlocked government is better than the drunken spending and the no-vision team we have in now.” – Jim Cramer, market analyst and investor, of CNBC’s Kudlow and Cramer, in his pay-only column on his website. I wonder if Jim would consider making this column available for free.

I take on his radio address on the Federal Marriage Amendment.

THE VACCINE DREAM: Having studied this subject for over a decade, I cannot say I’m surprised that a vaccine for a super-sophisticated, constantly evolving retro-virus is still elusive. Better to focus on treatment – making it simpler, more powerful and cheaper.

Yet another sickening anti-Semitic attack in France, and the usual blathering from Chirac about it. When Chirac actually criticizes his favorite Arab states for fomenting anti-Semitism, then I’ll take him seriously. Meanwhile, we get the following veiled threat from Deutsche Welle:

Since the territories before the Six Day War in 1967 weren’t part of a sovereign state, one couldn’t speak of an “occupation,” therefore the Geneva Convention wasn’t applicable, the argument went. But out of “generosity,” Israel said it was prepared to follow parts of the convention. But after the ruling in The Hague, the days of such selective generosity should be over. Now, it’s official: Israel is an occupying force, and does have to abide by international law if it doesn’t wish to be treated as a pariah.

How about finding a way to defend itself from terror? Or do murdered Jews no longer concern the Germans?

BUY HITCH A DRINK: I’m not sure this is the best idea, but who am I to object? Instead of paying our favorite writers, why not reward them with Johnny Walker Red?

DEATH BY HAIR-DRYER: No, this is not a new device invented by drag queens to torture Trent Lott, it’s apparently an al Qaeda dream:

Rabei Osman Sayed Ahmed] boasts that while the Americans possess nuclear weapons, he has seen “something in the form of a hair dryer” that causes “the most horrible death possible” by suffocation.

Does anyone know what he’s referring to? And I don’t mean this.

OKRENT AND KELLER: Jeff Jarvis has some interesting things to say about how well the new NYT ombudsman is doing. I must say I thought his piece on the Tony Hendra affair was brilliantly nuanced and intelligent (full disclosure: I chatted with him about it but didn’t come up with the resolution he did). I also think he’s been doing a pretty good job – independent without being too snarky, and clear about how he reaches his judgments even if you disagree with him. Pity the NYT doesn’t seem to agree.

Some of you have asked me what I think about the campaign to out closeted staffers for Republican senators who may vote for the FMA. In a word, I think it’s wrong. The people perpetrating it are the usual suspects – people who are only truly happy when persecuting others. The viciousness of the campaign, the way it demonizes individuals whose own consciences are unknowable to any outsider, is a mark of authoritarianism and cruelty. You cannot force people to be honorable, let alone heroes. You cannot force people to have self-respect. I do believe, however, that those gay men and women who are supporting some Senators in this war against gay citizens are acting dishonorably. I can see compromises that are inevitable in politics – even on the issue of marriage. But the Constitutional Amendment seems to me to be in a class of its own. It’s an unprecedented attack on the citizenship of an entire minority of Americans. On a personal level, I try and persuade closeted gays working for the homophobic parts of the GOP – I know some who are even working for Ralph Reed, for goodness’s sake – to stand up against this, to quit if they are required to go along, and at the very least to come out to their bosses and make a case internally. But if they cannot do this, it is their loss. In the end, we will all have to live with our consciences. That’s hard enough to do with our own, let alone everyone else’s.

A KERRY WHOPPER: More African-Americans in jail than college? Not even close.

WAITING FOR MARSHALL: And waiting … And waiting …

QUOTE FOR THE DAY: “We come now to create our album of life. Throughout our individual and collective journeys, sometimes through pain and conflict, we’ve discovered the true meaning of family. As we accomplish ultimate togetherness, we become healers of ourselves and the countless who embrace us and our message. We have learned and we understand. Now we must share.” – the “Mission Statement” for heavy metal group Metallica’s new album, drafted by their “performance-enhancement coach.” (Taken from the latest GQ review of the new documentary, “Some Kind of Monster.”)

From Senator John Cornyn’s press secretary: “For what it’s worth, Sen. Cornyn did not, in his speech to the Heritage Foundation, use the ‘box turtles’ quote. The Post was given a copy of remarks ‘as prepared,’ but Sen. Cornyn did not like that passage, and did not use it. The Post, which did not attend the speech, reported the quote nonetheless. Sen. Cornyn said that he did not think that statement appropriate, that’s why he didn’t use it. I’ve advised the Post of this fact.”

“I’m growing a bit frustrated with the media, including you, running with this Kerry and Edwards being the first and fourth most liberal Senators. Everyone is citing the National Journal’s ratings but they are doing it sloppily. I have seen no recent article that cites anything but the 2003 ratings where Kerry missed 37 and Edwards missed 22 of 62 votes and both were setting themselves up for primary battles where their base was essential. Think what you may about missing votes and pandering a bit (seems suicide to not do both when going for the nomination), but my larger point is the media should be looking at this much more historically and in years when Edwards and Kerry actually showed up to do their jobs. I’ll do it for them. Following are rankings and liberal scores since 1999.

2003: Kerry – 1st (96.5) Edwards – 4th (94.5)
2002: Kerry – 9th (87.3) Edwards – 31st (63.0) Edwards made the centrist list.
2001: Kerry – 11th (87.7) Edwards – 35th (68.2) Edwards almost tied with Lieberman.
2000: Kerry – 20th (77) Edwards – 19th (80.8) Rankings past 20 are not available nor are composite scores for all Senators, so Kerry is 21st or higher.
1999: Kerry – 16th (80.8) Edwards – 31st (72.2)

Average: Kerry – 12th (85.9) Edwards – 24th (75.7)

Now this paints a different picture. Certainly Kerry is a stalwart liberal (although probably not or barely a top 10 liberal), but he does hail from and represent one of the most liberal states. But Edwards is definitely a moderate Democrat (if you define that as somewhere in the ideological middle of the Democratic platform).

Do I have a point?” Yep, I think this reader has a point. More points on the Letters Page.

Here’s an interesting site about box turtles: “Their trademark is a hinge on the front part of the plastron allowing the turtle to close up very tightly. This feature provides great protection from raccoons, foxes and other predators.” If only we gays had similar protections against predators in the Senate.

The Guardian urges readers not to buy Budwesier because … well …:

Surprising as it sounds, the American brewer of Budweiser, Anheuser-Busch, also owns the SeaWorld chain, home to several performing killer whales. A British group, Born Free, has no problem with beer, but believes that it is cruel to keep animals in captivity. The most prominent case is that of Corky the orca, currently living at SeaWorld San Diego.

There’s much more. Bacardi, for example, might be anti-Castro. Unforgivable.