Legalize It

I've only written about marriage equality a couple of times, but as things have hit a fevered pitch around Trenton, I've been thinking a lot about it. I listened to the testimony given by both sides for hours yesterday. The more I hear, the more I keep going back to my classic conservative roots, which Barry Goldwater explained the best:

The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being.

The Conservative movement Goldwater helped start certainly has fallen very far from the tree when it comes to respecting the dignity of the individual human being. I have yet to see an argument from opponents that does not fall into the category of debasing the individuals I know who happen to be gay.

The more these new conservatives use the language of segregation, the stronger a supporter of equality I've become. A good example of what put me over the top was this misleading video from the Family Research Council, claiming equality means people are losing their right to be intolerant. That's simply not true, people will still have the right to be and teach their kids intolerance. It disturbs me that this has been deemed an effective message, but the FRC would not use it if they did not already know they'd make some money off of it.

Then there's the religious argument. I firmly believe in the First Amendment's protections to practice as denominations see fit. Catholics' right to not marry gays is no different than their right not to recognize divorce, even though divorce is legal. It also should in no way impede Episcopalians' right to allow equality. The law specifically protects the rights of each to practice as they see fit. It's a non-argument.

Fifteen years ago, Goldwater had a very quotable comment specifically to this issue:

"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay," Goldwater asserts. "You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."

Classic conservatives, including President Reagan understood this when push came to shove. Those that make their profit off of these anti-equality campaigns will continue perverting what true conservatism is as long as there's a buck to be made. Anyone that's claiming to be a conservative by arguing against anything but all men and women being treated equal is anything but a true conservative.

It's time our legislature man and woman up and protect the rights of the individual, and the rights of religious institutions to practice as they see fit.

Garrett vs. Goldwater

Former Senator and Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater is often cited as the Godfather of the modern conservative movement. Our own Representative Scott Garrett will often invoke Goldwater's name to lend some kind of credibility to his arguments, such as during his speech I compressed last month.

I've often questioned Garrett's commitment to being a fiscal conservative, one of Goldwater's hallmarks. Things like Garrett voting for budgets that added $2.2 trillion to the deficit in four years; or failing to swear off earmarks; or even making sure his earmarks are going to programs that exist; have really brought into question Garrett being a fiscal conservative.

Granted, special interest groups like the Garrett loving Club for Growth (aided by the media) have rebranded what being a fiscal conservative means in the public consciousness, but in the Goldwater model they're not even close to Conservative. The very fact Garrett is beholden to such a special interest group is in and of itself in sharp contrast to Goldwater.

With Garrett's sponsorship of a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage we're once again reminded that Garrett is no Conservative. I realize the amendment is little more than a campaign fundraising gimmick, but it's the simple fact that a true Conservative would never sign on to something like this.

Here is, in my opinion, the singular quote from Barry Goldwater that shows this point, from his seminal book The Conscience of the Conservative:

The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being. Today, therefore, he is at odds with dictators who rule by terror, and equally with those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play God with the human race.

With this view clearly articulated, it makes sense Goldwater had this to say to The Washington Post in 1994:

"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay," Goldwater asserts. "You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."

There is nothing about a Constitutional Amendment that debases the commitment two individuals have made to each other, recognized by some denominations and states, that is not discriminatory.

Garrett's group of co-sponsors are not the "gentle collectivists" either. No, they're more of the religious fundamentalist variety. Garrett demonstrates this with actions like his attendance at such things as the Kairos Journal Awards. Goldwater had his thoughts about guys like Garrett:

When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

Goldwater was true to this belief all his life, as evidenced during his acceptance speech in 1964:

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth.

This amendment is going to fail. Garrett and his cronies will attempt to use it to rally the base, distract voters, and raise some cash. This is another example in a long line of very consistent behavior from Garrett.

Garrett is who Garrett is, but time and again he proves the fact that Garrett is no Goldwater.

Garrett on Change

This was said on the House floor by Representative Scott Garrett last night:

Most of the candidates are speaking about change. Either side of the party is talking about change. But the fundamental question that the voter has to ask: Is the change that they are espousing and bringing about founded on any constitutional principles or are they simply giving us change for change's sake and change that does not have any constitutional powers or rights given to the Federal Government?

I suppose Garrett doesn't believe that the consent of the people is the basis of the legitimate authority of government, as Alexander Hamilton articulated in Federalist 22. The Founders firmly believed this, which is part or the reason they included "to petition the government for a redress of grievances" in the First Amendment.

Redress is defined as "the setting right of what is wrong." Most of America understands we're headed in the wrong direction. Yet when we ask our representatives like Garrett to deal with it, we get form letters with misleading rhetoric. We also see votes out of touch with what we want on matters large and small. Then of course Garrett delivers the mother of all insults to us as constituents: vote flipping at the behest of special interests.

Change. Yeah, we want it. And if representatives like Garrett refuse to budge and work with us as his constituents, elections become the ultimate form of redress. And that is grounded in the Constitution.

The Boss and Media Consolidation

I saw a post over at Blue Jersey about how the latest Bruce Springsteen album, Magic, isn't being played by Clear Channel owned radio stations. I'm one of the many people Clear Channel drove away from regular radio listening due to their poor programing. I tend to listen to streaming music stations on-line or CDs I buy, so I hadn't really noticed. However, when the Number 1 album in the country is not getting any radio play it is a little disturbing.

The folks over at Fox News say it's because Clear Channel has said that Springsteen is too old. The folks at Blue Jersey, and other spots, think it's a repeat of the Dixie Chicks getting blackballed by Clear Channel and other stations after they were critical of the President.

Either reason raises serious questions about media consolidation, and the impact it is and can have in our nation. With the company taking their 1,184 radio stations private, this power to dictate culture and news is now in even fewer hands.

Clear Channel deciding someone is too old to be played, and therefore not allowing them to be heard manipulates the press in a way the Forefathers never imagined. However, because they've done it before, the smart money would be to bet it's politics.

Unlike when the Dixie Chicks exercised their free speech, the nation knows we were lied into war. The actions of the administration and those who mindlessly follow their rhetoric have worn out their welcome. There is no backlash about what Bruce is saying because the vast majority of Americans now know it's the truth.

Now it seems, in an effort to stop a message contradicting the mindless rantings of their Rush "Phony Soldiers" Limbaugh poster child, Clear Channel has quietly banned Bruce. I'm one of the thousands who got up to see The Boss play the Today Show (hence the pics). As I said to a friend, he came out swinging (about a minute in):

As a bonus, The Boss also played one of my favorites with "My Hometown." It was especially moving, and unlikely to be a coincidence, because this was while the Jena 6 were making daily headlines. If you look in the bottom right corner at minute 2:46 you can see my head and eyes. I was singing along, I promise.

Harriet Miers, Going to Jail?

As she said she would, Harriet Miers skipped the House hearing she was supposed to attend regarding the firing of US District Attorneys. Now, the committee has cleared the way for Contempt of Congress charges to be filed. An earlier AP report I read cited the fact that the US District Attorney in DC would have to prosecute such charges, and it would be unlikely Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez would authorize such a prosecution as he is the one being investigated.

However, in an article written by John W. Dean two months ago about the contempt that Gonzalez and the Administration have for Congress, he pointed out another avenue they could take:

Congress has two routes to travel, once it holds any person in contempt. It can proceed by the statutory route, which requires the Department of Justice to handle the prosecution. But since the Attorney General could block that route, the Congress would have good reason to use its inherent powers and procedures, instead.

Thus, Congress could --taking a page from Gonzales's playbook -- send fifteen plainclothes Capitol Hill police officers to arrest the Attorney General and take him into custody. Either the House or Senate, alone, would have the power to hold him until the end of the 110th Congress. In truth, a majority of either chamber of Congress has more power than a president, the Department of Justice, and federal courts to take summary actions against those who refuse to honor its processes.

Of course, this is not likely to happen. Congress has the power to do so if it so chooses. But because most of those in Washington with experience do not think like Gonzales, they will exhibit respect for interbranch customs instead of simply jailing the Attorney General.

Will this latest play by the President push those holding restraint and maintaining institutional respect past the tipping point? It should be interesting to see how this all plays out; but considering they've already taken the first steps to start the contempt proceedings it seems Congress's patience with the President has worn out.

Voting Rights vs. Garrett & Bush

On Saturday I had a chance to watch Democracy Works on PBS, hosted by Steve Adubato. The show was regarding returning ethics to Trenton, and I appreciated the insights Assemblyman Kevin O'Toole and others shared. One of the points by the panel was that we as citizens need to work harder to stay informed and participate so that we get the kind of Representation we want. Truth be told, only 34% of New Jersey voters showed up on election day in 2003, the last election comparable to this year's contest. With property taxes and corruption being the number 1 & 2 things people talk about in New Jersey politics, only 34% of folks voted. Put another way, only 18% of New Jersey's voters are deciding for the rest of us.

Voter turnout, for most politicians is a frustration. When I spoke at the Meet the Candidates forum at Sussex County Technical School, "participate" was a common refrain. One candidate used the example that of all people in the room, the number of people turning out would mean the three folks sitting in the front row were making all of the decisions. True public servants want the feedback because they want to do a good job. However, not all public servants fall into this category.

I've covered Representative Scott Garrett's disdain for upholding the voting rights of naturalized citizens; last year Garrett also voted for a voter ID bill based on several State laws that court ruling after court ruling after court ruling finds disenfranchises voters in the poll tax tradition, and is therefore unconstitutional. Garrett's votes are, at best, deplorable in that he does not passionately believe in the right so many have died and fought to protect.

Garrett's votes to institutionalize disenfranchisement go hand in hand with the efforts of the Bush administration's use of the Justice Department to meet the same end. This was buried in the Record on Friday, but it deserves a read.

Former department lawyers, public records and other documents show that since Bush took office, political appointees in the Civil Rights Division have:

-Approved Georgia and Arizona laws that tightened voter ID requirements. A Federal judge tossed out the Georgia law as an unconstitutional infringement on
the rights of poor voters, and a federal appeals court signaled its objections to the Arizona law on similar grounds last fall, but that litigation was delayed by the U.S. Supreme Court until after the election.

-Issued advisory opinions that overstated a 2002 federal election law by asserting that it required states to disqualify new voting registrants if their identification didn't match that in computer databases, prompting at least three states to reject tens of thousands of applicants mistakenly.

-Done little to enforce a provision of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act that requires state public assistance agencies to register voters. The inaction has contributed to a 50 percent decline in annual registrations at those agencies, to 1 million from 2 million.

-Sued at least six states on grounds that they had too many people on their voter rolls. Some eligible voters were removed in the resulting purges.

In late 2001, Ashcroft also hired three Republican political operatives to work in a secretive new unit in the division's Voting Rights Section. Rich said the unit, headed by unsuccessful Republican congressional candidate Mark Metcalf of Kentucky, bird-dogged the progress of the administration's Help America Vote Act and reviewed voting legislation in the states.

So when Garrett ran for Congress, saying he was a friend of Bush, he wasn't kidding. Folks who don't believe in and actively seek to undermine the fundamental principal of voting have no place at any level of government, let alone in the White House or Congress. If more of us take an active role as citizens, we'd be able to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place.

Collins Fights Back

A few days ago I saw an attack ad, produced by Americans United for Change, against Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine. The attack ad has been viewed over 21,000 times, the comments under it are passionate on both sides of the war, but the most important thing about this ad is that it is a classic example of smear. Collins is one of the most vocal critics of the President's surge plan, and she's decided to hit back with her own ad pointing that out. It has only been viewed a little over 3,600 times, so I'm re-posting it here hoping a few folks will watch it:



Here is the part of Senator Collins speech that they clipped (italics), and what they left out (bolded):

Just this last weekend, the State of Maine lost another soldier in combat in Iraq. The American people deserve to know where each and every one of us stands on the President’s strategy, on whether to cut off funding, on the important issues related to this very pressing issue. There are legitimate arguments on both sides. There are those who agree with my position that a surge of 21,500 troops would be a mistake. There are those who believe that the surge is the right course to follow. I respect the views of Senators on both sides of the aisle and, indeed, this is not a partisan issue. But surely—surely this is an issue that deserves our full debate in the best traditions of this historic body. Surely—surely our constituents deserve to know where we stand.

The vote that they cite in the ad was the pork stuffed emergency appropriations bill. Most of the Republican Senators and Representatives who are opposed to the President's management of the war and our indefinite involvement voted against the bill, including all three Republicans whose speeches I highlighted earlier. Instead of working with these Republican allies to craft a bi-partisan bill, the Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate bribed some of their own caucus with pork to get them to vote for the resolution, which then lost most of the Republicans.

It's selfish of the Democrats who demanded the pork. I can hear them saying "Well, of course I support the troops in the field. But my District supports them more with a sugar beet subsidy." How ridiculous is that? It is also very weak of the Democratic leadership to cave to it. I had hoped the Democrats were going to act differently than the Republicans over the last few years, especially when it came to stuffing pork and earmarks into spending bills, but obviously it's more politics as usual.

Sen. Collins's very vocal criticism of the management of the war has been paired with her attempt to get a bi-partisan approach to bringing the President in line. She also stood up to the President when it came to enacting the 9/11 Commission recommendations, acting as an original co-sponsor of the Senate bill and voting for it, something our own Representative Scott Garrett didn't do. Collins was also part of the Gang of 14 that prevented the authoritarian Republican leadership from eliminating the filibuster in the last Senate.

I haven't studied her record completely, but what I do know about Collins I tend to like. She's hardly as partisan as Representative Garrett, has refused to cower in the face of the President, and tries to find the middle ground more often than not. As partisan as Washington continues to be, often Sen. Collins seems like the voice of sanity. She should be praised instead of being attacked with misleading information.

Unfortunately, this is where single issue and overtly partisan politics have taken us. I'm glad to see Collins fight back (they do need to make the ad shorter), just as I would be to see a Democrat fight back when they're being smeared. If we're really going to start moving forward as a nation again, we as voters need to demand more than the 30 second attack ad.

Garrett vs. Education in a Nutshell

This is from Representative Scott Garrett's speech from his Constitutional Caucus last night:

Contrary to common modern misconceptions, there is no constitutional right guaranteeing each citizen an education.

While it's true that under House Ethics Rules you cannot rebroadcast floor speeches, there's nothing in the rules about quoting the Congressional Record or reprinting it. This may prove to be one of the most damaging quotes Garrett's ever given, and he should get pounded on it in 2008.

Technically, he's correct that it's not spelled out in the Constitution, and whether or not education is deemed by the people to be covered under the "general welfare" part of Article I, Section 8 is fair game for debate (I'd place a bet on where I think most people stand). However, kind of like Garrett's vote against the 9/11 Commission Recommendations, technicalities won't matter. That just sounds awful.

Defending the Defenseless

With it's recent ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court took a major step forward in defending the defenseless. By striking down a number of eligibility restrictions that served as barriers for the developmentally disabled and their families to receive care, our fair state will take a major step forward to providing for those most in need of help. The question now becomes one of money, priorities and morals.

Ranging from high to extremely low functioning folks, I got to see first hand the ranging demands on both caregivers and families while serving at a non-profit housing provider in Michigan. I also learned the harsh reality it is somewhat easy to raise donations for children with developmental disabilities; however funds for adults are harder to come by. Government funding is often the only way to provide services to those in need.

In his effort to curb entitlement (mandatory) spending, particularly Medicaid, developmentally disabled adults and even children are squarely in the cross hairs of President Bush and his fellow "compassionate conservatives" like our own Representative Scott Garrett. Medicaid is a lifeline to roughly 9.9 million people with disabilities and their families, which accounts for 16.5% of Medicaid recipients. The most recent budget proposed by the President and supported by Garrett would cut $28 billion from Medicaid over the next ten years. Here's some of the ways they plan to do it, courtesy of The Arc:

Optional Formulary and Pharmacy Changes: Would adjust pharmacy reimbursement policies and would permit states to operate “closed formularies” that permit states to deny coverage for drugs, even when medically necessary. Under current law, states can restrict access to certain drugs as long as individuals can get
exceptions through prior authorization.

New Limits on IDEA-Related Services: Would phase out Medicaid reimbursement for some services, including some transportation and certain administrative costs related to Medicaid services (e.g. physical, speech, and occupational therapies) provided to special education students;

New Restrictions on Rehabilitation Services: Would define allowable services that can be reimbursed as rehabilitation services (to restrict reimbursement to medical services only). In particular, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) wants to narrow the option to finance medical services only. This approach – which will be incorporated in new regulations later this year – may jeopardize such “habilitative” services as social skills training, employment-related rehabilitation, and some transportation services.

One of the primary goals of any provider of services to the special needs community is to make the lives of those they serve as independent as possible. This varies depending on the individual and their needs, but the cuts outlined above increase the barriers to achieving independence. Transportation, job skills and social skills are integral components of many treatment programs for higher functioning special needs individuals. Eliminating access to certain medications, such as anti-psychotic drugs, can mean the difference between a semi-independent life and being relegated to full-time institutionalization.

It is immoral that Bush and Garrett, among others, see cutting programming to the developmentally disabled as sound fiscal policy. However, if forced to engage the amoral individual, it is also important to point out this is bad fiscal policy. Every family shouldering the burden of these cuts becomes less productive in the workplace, if not having to completely be taken out of the workforce to care for their child or adult child.

Individuals who could live independently or semi-independently with the appropriate training and medical supervision, very well could become wards of the state when their parents die. With the nation's highest autism rate and over 19,000 developmentally disabled adults living with parents over 60 in New Jersey, this should be of very real concern for those watching property taxes. I could go on, but you probably get the point.

We must not continue to balance the budget on the backs of the defenseless simply because they don't have lobbyists. The Constitution empowers Congress to levy taxes to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." While traditional Republicans and Democrats can argue until they're blue in the face over how far that goes, they must unite to stop the conservatives without conscience who are attacking the lifelines of those who can't fight back.

Civil Unions now available in NJ

For those who didn't know, yesterday was the first day Civil Unions can be performed and are recognized in our fair state for same sex couples. For social fundamentalists, this goes too far. For others, as one lesbian friend of mine put it, "we're still talking about sitting at the back of the bus." One of my married friends is fond of saying "if they want to be as miserable as the rest of us, let them." For me, it's kind of a Ferris Bueller moment, it still doesn't change the fact I don't have a girlfriend.

While not necessarily in agreement as to what to call civil unions/marriage, it would seem the majority of Democrats and Independents, as well as a healthy number of moderate and true conservative Republicans in New Jersey support the idea of providing equal rights to same-sex couples under the law, as afforded to citizens by the 14th amendment. This leaves the social fundamentalist Republicans, such as Representative Scott Garrett, leading the way against granting any rights to same-sex couples. Back in August of 2004, Garrett went on Crossfire with James Carville and Robert Novack as the co-hosts. Carville and Garrett had the following exchange:

CARVILLE: Congressman, do you have the Kerry-Cheney position that we should not have this constitutional amendment on gay marriage or do you have the Bush-Falwell position that we should? Which one is your position, Kerry Cheney or the Bush-Falwell?
GARRETT: No, I have the Bush-American people on this.
CARVILLE: The Bush-Falwell. So you're with the Bush-Falwell
GARRETT: The Bush-American people.
CARVILLE: I got you. OK.

Garrett's stance ignores the 58% of NEW JERSEY voters opposed to such a move. Last year, the Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman was introduced, with Garrett as an original co-sponsor.

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

The voters of Michigan passed a similarly worded ban amending their state constitution a few years ago, and after a recent court ruling by elected judges, public universities and state and local governments are now banned from providing health insurance to gay couples. This ruling is being appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which is also an elected body. Some have argued this might cause a backlash against those pushing for the amendment, because they advertised that this would not impact the health care benefits or life insurance policies offered to public employees (at least 375 people and their families).

That "legal incidents" part of Garrett's amendment is where equal protection is thrown out the window. No health or life insurance, hospital visitation rights or inheritance benefits just to name a few. On his website, Garrett echoes other social fundamentalists saying defending the Sanctity of Marriage is his number one family priority. In fact, marriage is so sacred in his eyes, Garrett cites tax-credits as a reason to get married, kind of like picking a Limited Liability Corporation over a sole-proprietorship.

Before our State Court's decision I wondered openly about how this debate would look if we stripped the word married from the tax code. If every married couple, domestic partnership, civil union, etc. fell into an orientation neutral category, and the definition of marriage was left to individual churches to decide, would we even be having this argument? I still think this may be the best way to grant committed couples equal protection under the law. When/if I meet another woman I'd like to spend the rest of my life with, I would hope to get married. After the church service, I've got to believe we'd be secure enough in our relationship it wouldn't matter to us what the government referred to us as on our 1040.