The Maine Event

The latest ad for the marriage equality forces:

Of course, the simple existence of gay married couples is reality. And although there's no evidence at all that the curriculum would somehow be rigged to peddle ideology of any kind, I see no reason why kids should not learn at some point that homosexuality is a part of the world and history, whatever people's views are on the question. How can kids understand the world around them if they are not given the basic facts?

The Easy DADT Out

A reader writes:

I am a military lawyer, and my entire career has been spent working under DADT. My main problem with the policy (which I must continue to carry out – it being an order and legislation and all) is what it enables for young, gay servicemembers.

I worked as a military defense counsel for three years (2002-05), and I helped several (more than 5 less than 10) Soldiers use the DADT policy to separate from the service. It struck me each time that the Soldier wanted to leave the military before his time was up, and they used the policy as a expeditious means to an self-serving end. 

I never saw any evidence that my clients faced threats or intimidation because of their sexual orientation, and the supervisors of my clients (1) didn’t believe there were any problems with the person, their service, or their peers and (2) wanted the Soldiers to stay in the unit. I would do my best to encourage my clients to finish their commitments, but it never worked. (I never said I was a good lawyer.)

Take it from me that most people who join an armed service get to a point in their first couple of years where they would like to quit, and, under DADT, gay servicemembers have an ‘out’ (if you will pardon the pun).

I’m no Republican or conservative, but it seems to me that the conservative position would be to take away this extra and unnecessary ‘right.’

Passing On Darfur

Barron YoungSmith previews the administration's long-delayed Sudan Policy Review that Obama was supposed to deliver personally:

It will be announced by Hillary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and the U.S. envoy to Sudan, General Scott Gration. Obama does not plan to attend, most likely because the president's political handlers don't want to further associate him with a policy that has been an ongoing public-relations disaster. That's a shame, because it signals to the world and the government of Sudan that Obama himself is not particularly engaged on the issue, and it's a sad contrast to the deeply concerned speeches Obama gave in front of Save Darfur groups before he became president. (He even co-wrote an introduction to Not on Our Watch: The Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond, by Don Cheadle and John Prendergast.)

One hopes that in analyzing the trap of Afghanistan, the president has now tempered some of his idealism with reality. There is only so much America can do.

Polling Iran

Here's a helpful new survey from the WaPo. Americans overwhelmingly back direct negotiation – you know, what was dismissed as insane or naive by the neocons only a year ago. That goes for 78 percent of Republicans. The flipside is that a full third of Americans would favor a ground invasion of the country to stop Iran getting nukes, including 44 percent of "conservatives." After Iraq and Afghanistan, that's a staggering number to me.

The Feds And The Weed

Hunter Walker translates the news:

Barack Obama is telling the feds to stop, like, totally freaking out, man, and take it easy on medical marijuana. Two Justice Department officials told the Associated Press that the Obama Administration will be sending out a three-page memo on Monday instructing federal prosecutors, the FBI, and the DEA not to harsh the buzz of stoners who aren’t breaking state laws.  […] This new policy may be limited, but it certainly makes things much more mellow for pot clubs than they were under the Bush Administration when DEA agents regularly raided medical marijuana operations.

I really wish we could get past the stoner humor aspect of medical marijuana.

Look, no one enjoyed Pineapple Express as much as I did, but this is a serious issue. It’s about Obama’s conservative restoration of federalism; and it’s about finding ways to help sick people manage their illness and pain in the most effective way possible. Boomers remember their college years and that’s the prism through which they see this. But it’s about basic freedoms, states’ rights, and humane treatment of the ill. What’s so hilarious about that?

The biggest threat to the end of Prohibition, meanwhile, is not the feds but cities like Los Angeles that have liberalized too quickly and too irresponsibly. Oakland shows what can and should be done: carefully managed, punctiliously maintained, medically serious dispensaries that keep a very clean line between them and criminal dealers. It would be a total tragedy if this propitious moment were derailed by excess.

Confessions Of A Congressional Gay Spouse

Jared Polis, the first openly gay man elected to the House as a freshman, has a partner named Marlon Reis. Marlon writes:

To be a congressional spouse, one must be, above all else, flexible. So I was told when I arrived in D.C. 10 months ago. At the time of my introduction, I was something of a novelty among the spouses. At 28 years old, I was one of the youngest spouses in the U.S. Congress. Jared is the second-youngest congressman. Almost immediately, I was mistaken for a staff aide; then again, for a son designated to attend in place of a spouse. More times than I care to remember, I was told, "But you're so young!" Rarely has anyone seen me for what I actually am. I don my "Congressional Spouse" lapel pin proudly and hope each time not to be questioned, yet I still receive sideways glances and orders to produce an official ID. It is as if my story is too unbelievable to be true, that I am an interloper, someone in a place I do not belong.

Mousavi Speaks, Ctd

Here is a transcript. Enduring America's snap analysis:

Indeed, Mousavi does not see the primary role for himself (and presumably the Green movement) as part of the [National Unity] Plan. Instead, “National Unity” for him has a second meaning — it is a social movement, beyond political parties, encompassing and furthering the ideals of the Iranian nation and the Islamic Revolution. This “expression of national will”, despite all the obstacles put up by the Government, will be triumphant. All well and good, but that leaves a pretty big immediate question. Given that the Plan has now been submitted to the Supreme Leader for consideration and thus approval, does Mousavi accept it if all parties involved decide to proceed? Does he dare reject it? Or does he, as I suspect he will, stand aside from it with the declaration that “National Unity” transcends any political arrangements?

Reihan Defends Rove, Ctd

Reihan explains why he wrote that “Karl Rove never imagined that opposition to same-sex marriage would cement a permanent Republican majority. It was a distraction that I’m sure he found distasteful”: 

I think I was seriously, seriously misunderstood here. If I could write it again, I would definitely write it differently. Note that this isn’t a position that’s very flattering to Rove — it suggests that he was a hypocrite who was using this position to political advantage. And I certainly shouldn’t have said, “I’m sure,” as I don’t live inside Rove’s brain and I’ve never met the man. I was basing this, rather carelessly, on news reports concerning his warm relationship with a gay father-figure, and I thought, “Surely he can’t be a hateful goon in his personal relationships.”

More to the point, I think it really is true that Bush and Rove were, when they were setting out to win the presidency and remake the country, had in mind a domestic policy agenda focused on spreading asset ownership — Social Security reform, encouraging low-income families to buy homes, etc. It turns out that almost all of these ideas were actually pretty bad ideas, at least in the form that Bush and Rove had in mind. But that doesn’t change the fact that they cared about those issues far more than “social issues.” (The scare quotes are there because I think a lot of “economic issues” are in fact “social issues.”)

I cannot know Karl Rove’s conscience. Yes, he has no record of personal hostility toward or contempt for gay people, including openly gay people. But that makes his cynical use of homophobia all the more wretched. I’m sure he saw himself as a reformist visionary who had to stoop to fear-mongering to win power. But that’s how most people do evil; they think it’s a means of doing good.