The Dish

Margaret Talbot asks readers to compare the blogging coming from the Courage Campaign to the tweets from the Alliance Defense Fund. Her summary of the task before historian George Chauncey:

Chauncey has to support the argument that gays are politically weak and that public opinion is not in favor of marriage—comparative political powerlessness is one of the criteria that qualifies a group as a “suspect class” and triggers strict scrutiny of laws singling them out. But at the same time, he must at least acknowledge some of the obvious evidence to the contrary. (Today, he was asked if it was true that Nancy Pelosi was an ally for gay Americans.)

FireDogLake is also live-blogging the trial. The defense is citing Brokeback Mountain and Will & Grace as proof gays are no longer discriminated against.

That is what Kos is saying:

[GOP candidate Scott Brown's] moneybomb on Monday was the first real moneybomb conservative activists have ever pulled off (the Paulites are libertarians). This has definite parallels to OH-02 in 2006, when we raised big money for Paul Hackett. While we narrowly lost that race (like Brown hopefully does), it was a big step ahead for us as a movement, teaching us how to effectively rally around a movement candidate. Well, Brown is the conservative movement’s Hackett.

Weigel agrees.

A reader writes:

As a therapist working in a drug and alcohol treatment program at an HIV/AIDS clinic, I can assure you this menace is anything but conquered.  We continue to see a steady stream of newly diagnosed HIV patients, for whom at least 75% state meth as their primary drug of choice.  From their late teens to those well into their 60s, homeless or professional, on the d.l. or out and proud – tina is an equal opportunity scourge.  I caution you to not assume the apparent successes in combating this menace in the gay meccas that you cite represent the truth for the rest of the country.  There is yet much work to do.

I do not doubt it. But the numbers seem way down from the recent past. Another reader writes:

I hate to say this, but the gay community is far from the first, or most dramatic, meth turnaround gone unnoticed. In 2005, Montana ranked number 5 in meth use, with 50% of its incarceration due to meth. Three years later, after an innovative ad campaign and the Montana Meth Project, Montana is now 39th in the nation when it comes to meth use, and rates of usage is down 63% in teens and 72% in adults. Yet, this has gone unnoticed by all with the exception of those in the state. The right, the left, the media, all could care less about a red state confronting its drug problem head on and nipping it in the bud. Its not just the gay community, its all communities, and it just isn't a story that people feel the need to report. Congratulations, but consider the gays Christopher Columbus to Montana's Leif Ericson.

US President Barack Obama makes a statement on the Haitian earthquake at the White House in Washington, DC, January 13, 2010. President Obama said US search and rescue teams are racing to Haiti and will arrive later Wednesday and overnight following the devastating earthquake. By Jim Watson/AFP/Getty.

Day 2 was history day in the Prop 8 trial. David Link found the great George Chauncey's testimony compelling. To prove the longtime animus against gay people, another historian noted that you cannot find a reference in the press of gay or homosexual people before the 1960s. Try putting "gay" or "homosexual" into Google or any search engine and there's nothing before the 60s. Except there is:

Try using these [terms]: “deviant;” “degenerate;” “pervert.” That is the way homosexuality was both understood and reported (when it was reported at all) in days gone by. Those are the words, and the preconceptions, that would have been dominant, if not exclusive in the minds of the single demographic we can most reliably count on to vote against us today – seniors. Those who grew up in the 1930s and 40s and 50s would have, first, avoided any possible discussion of such an unpleasant and impolite subject as homosexuality… 
It is no surprise that so many older voters simply cannot stomach a vote for our equality; the surprise is how many have been able to get past that uniform view of our supposed depravity. That residue of our inescapable immorality shaped their entire consciousness about us.

Timothy Kincaid brushes up on the work of David Blankenhorn.

Blankenhorn will be a major witness – Kincaid calls him the "primary witness" – for the defense. Blankenhorn has "supported federal recognition of civil unions provided that religious objection was protected":

Unlike many die-hard anti-gay activists, he does not argue that children are endangered by having same-sex parents. Indeed, if so then why would he argue for federal recognition of same-sex relationships? So all he can argue is that there is tremendous importance in the word “marriage” but not necessarily in the structure.

In other words, Blankenhorn does not see a benefit to refusing to recognize same-sex relationships. This leaves him in the position of arguing the distinctions between all the rights, and the name. His only consistent argument must be that same-sex couples should have rights but social disadvantage, a second-class recognition, a lesser status.

Another Harry Reid gaffe. To Bush. In the Oval Office.

Massie defends drink against a Scottish study:

[T]he hundreds of millions of pounds [the study] says are lost through "pain" and "grief" is nowhere balanced by the equally arbitrary figures once could concoct for all the (life-long!) joy and contentment alcohol brings. To say nothing of its positive impact on the birth-rate. (Happy, boozy pregnancies almost certainly outnumber booze-related premature deaths. This must be worth billions in the pro-drink column. These are the workers of the future!) Factor in the social cohesion – to use a favourite piece of government-speak – provided by public houses and the happiness-inducing impact of a dram at home and it seems to me that the ruinous impact of drink has, unsurprisingly, been vastly over-stated.

I prefer Homer's classic wisdom: "Beer: the cause of and solution to all of life's problems."

A reader writes:

I disagree with your view that the MSM is not questioning Halperin and Heilemann on their ground rules for their interview with Harry Reid. I watched Chris Matthews press them on the issue for five minutes straight last night.  Chris seemed exasperated by their refusal to say anything.

Relevant portion starts at the 6:40 mark. The journalists sound just like politicians.

I understand why the theocon right doesn't want its patently shallow arguments broadcast around the world. But the Supreme Court seems to have decided this  (PDF) on a technicality:

We are asked to stay the broadcast of a federal trial. We resolve that question without expressing any view on whether such trials should be broadcast. We instead determine that the broadcast in this case should be stayed because it appears the courts below did not follow the appropriate procedures set forth in federal law before changing their rules to allow such broadcasting. Courts enforce the requirement of procedural regularity on oth- ers, and must follow those requirements themselves.

Sam Stein reported yesterday:

Congressional negotiators and White House officials are moving forward with plans to add the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell to the upcoming defense authorization bill, Democratic sources tell the Huffington Post.

Barney Frank doesn't think it matters whether it is included in the bill or not: 

"People should not be worried about whether it’s done in committee or not. That is a procedural detail that will have no effect on the final outcome." Frank noted that a floor vote on repeal would take place either way — whether or not the Armed Services Committees vote to incorporate an end to the policy in their FY 2011 Defense bill.

“If the committee puts it in, there will be a vote to knock it down. If the committee doesn’t put it in, there will be a vote to add it. In both cases, I am confident that we will have the votes on the floor to pass it,” he said of a vote in the House. “In fact, my recommendation would be if there’s any difficulty, not to waste efforts trying to get it in committee, but to add it as an amendment on the floor.”