Tuesday, January 01, 2013
TPA's Texans of the Year are the Tar Sands Blockaders
The Texas Progressive Alliance, a consortium of Lone
Star-based liberal weblogs, has selected the protesters of the Tar Sands Blockade as Texans of the Year for 2012.
The award has been given annually to the person, or persons or organization, who had the most significance influence -- for good or ill -- on the advancement of progressive interests and causes over the past twelve months.
"As with previous winners (like Fort Worth city council member Joel Burns in 2010, the Harris County Democratic Party's coordinated campaign in 2008, and Carolyn Boyle of Texas Parent PAC in 2006), the Tar Sands Blockaders represent what progressive Texans strive for: correcting injustices through direct action. Sometimes that takes place at the ballot box, sometimes in the courtroom, and once in a while it happens in the streets. In 2012, it happened in a handful of pine trees in East Texas," said Vince Leibowitz, president of the TPA.
The Tar Sands Blockade began when TransCanada, the company constructing the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline, began seizing property from East Texans via eminent domain to connect the pipeline, which will transport tar sands oil from Canada to refineries in Houston and Port Arthur. Despite the fact that the pipeline hasn't yet been approved by the US Department of State,TransCanada and other operators have been busily cutting down swaths of forest, appropriating the land along the route as necessary, and when challenged by the small group of people protesting, responded with threatening measures and occasionally brute force.
When petitioning, lobbying, and public hearings failed to slow the construction of the pipeline, concerned citizens took to non-violent protests, risking arrest in order to demonstrate the will and demands of Texans concerned about the environment, about the nation's continuing dependence on dirty fuels, and the collaboration of government officials with the corporate interests. A group of protestors climbed into a stand constructed in a grove of pine trees and halted construction for weeks.
The movement began in June of 2012 with the formation of the Tar Sands Blockade, and the first lawsuit was filed in July.
As construction began in August, protestors began putting themselves on the line. Seven protestors were arrested in Livingston, Texas just before the Labor Day holiday. Even as a judge allowed TransCanada to seize a swath of farmland in Paris, Texas, more protestors chained themselves to construction equipment in rural Hopkins County.
The New York Times and the Washington Post picked up the story in October.
Along with the property owner, actress and activist Daryl Hannah was arrested as the two women physically blocked a piece of heavy equipment and its operator from clearing land for the pipeline. Even as the number of arrests climbed past thirty, the protests grew. A few days before the November election, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein was arrested at the construction site in Winnsboro. In Cherokee County, sheriff's deputies pepper-sprayed protesters. All of this occurred while the legal battle went back and forth -- in December, a judge granted, then vacated, his temporary restraining order on pipeline construction.
And the efforts to stop the pipeline continue today, even as its construction proceeds apace. On November 29, Bob Lindsey and prominent environmental activist Diane Wilson were arrested by Harris County sheriff's deputies outside Valero's refinery in the Manchester neighborhood of Houston, where the pipeline will terminate. They chained themselves to tanker trucks outside the gates, were promptly taken into custody, and continue a hunger strike to this day that adds the humiliating and disgusting conditions of Harris County's jail to the list of outrages.
With training and mobilization of additional protests and protestors scheduled for early January, 2013, there will be more to report on this action.
The Texas Progressive Alliance salutes those who have sacrificed so much of themselves to underscore the seriousness of America's fossil fuel addiction, and how the system of corporate and political corruption has come to manifest itself in the controversy surrounding the Keystone XL pipeline.
Runners-up for this year's Texan of the Year included the following...
-- The emerging scandal of the Texas cancer research organization, CPRIT;
-- The spectacular failure of Governor Rick Perry's presidential campaign;
-- Attorney General Greg Abbott's woeful losing record in court in his many lawsuits related to the federal government, including redistricting, voter ID, Obamacare, etc.;
-- Senator Wendy Davis of Fort Worth, who defied conventional wisdom and was re-elected to the Texas Senate despite the best efforts of Republicans to deny her;
-- The expansion of the Texas Congressional delegation to 36 as a result of the 2010 census and apportionment of extra seats based on population growth in the Lone Star State. New Texans in Washington DC include former Democratic state representatives Pete Gallego and Marc Veazey, but also -- and unfortunately -- ultraconservatives Randy Weber and Steve Stockman.
The award has been given annually to the person, or persons or organization, who had the most significance influence -- for good or ill -- on the advancement of progressive interests and causes over the past twelve months.
"As with previous winners (like Fort Worth city council member Joel Burns in 2010, the Harris County Democratic Party's coordinated campaign in 2008, and Carolyn Boyle of Texas Parent PAC in 2006), the Tar Sands Blockaders represent what progressive Texans strive for: correcting injustices through direct action. Sometimes that takes place at the ballot box, sometimes in the courtroom, and once in a while it happens in the streets. In 2012, it happened in a handful of pine trees in East Texas," said Vince Leibowitz, president of the TPA.
The Tar Sands Blockade began when TransCanada, the company constructing the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline, began seizing property from East Texans via eminent domain to connect the pipeline, which will transport tar sands oil from Canada to refineries in Houston and Port Arthur. Despite the fact that the pipeline hasn't yet been approved by the US Department of State,TransCanada and other operators have been busily cutting down swaths of forest, appropriating the land along the route as necessary, and when challenged by the small group of people protesting, responded with threatening measures and occasionally brute force.
When petitioning, lobbying, and public hearings failed to slow the construction of the pipeline, concerned citizens took to non-violent protests, risking arrest in order to demonstrate the will and demands of Texans concerned about the environment, about the nation's continuing dependence on dirty fuels, and the collaboration of government officials with the corporate interests. A group of protestors climbed into a stand constructed in a grove of pine trees and halted construction for weeks.
The movement began in June of 2012 with the formation of the Tar Sands Blockade, and the first lawsuit was filed in July.
As construction began in August, protestors began putting themselves on the line. Seven protestors were arrested in Livingston, Texas just before the Labor Day holiday. Even as a judge allowed TransCanada to seize a swath of farmland in Paris, Texas, more protestors chained themselves to construction equipment in rural Hopkins County.
The New York Times and the Washington Post picked up the story in October.
Along with the property owner, actress and activist Daryl Hannah was arrested as the two women physically blocked a piece of heavy equipment and its operator from clearing land for the pipeline. Even as the number of arrests climbed past thirty, the protests grew. A few days before the November election, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein was arrested at the construction site in Winnsboro. In Cherokee County, sheriff's deputies pepper-sprayed protesters. All of this occurred while the legal battle went back and forth -- in December, a judge granted, then vacated, his temporary restraining order on pipeline construction.
And the efforts to stop the pipeline continue today, even as its construction proceeds apace. On November 29, Bob Lindsey and prominent environmental activist Diane Wilson were arrested by Harris County sheriff's deputies outside Valero's refinery in the Manchester neighborhood of Houston, where the pipeline will terminate. They chained themselves to tanker trucks outside the gates, were promptly taken into custody, and continue a hunger strike to this day that adds the humiliating and disgusting conditions of Harris County's jail to the list of outrages.
With training and mobilization of additional protests and protestors scheduled for early January, 2013, there will be more to report on this action.
The Texas Progressive Alliance salutes those who have sacrificed so much of themselves to underscore the seriousness of America's fossil fuel addiction, and how the system of corporate and political corruption has come to manifest itself in the controversy surrounding the Keystone XL pipeline.
Runners-up for this year's Texan of the Year included the following...
-- The emerging scandal of the Texas cancer research organization, CPRIT;
-- The spectacular failure of Governor Rick Perry's presidential campaign;
-- Attorney General Greg Abbott's woeful losing record in court in his many lawsuits related to the federal government, including redistricting, voter ID, Obamacare, etc.;
-- Senator Wendy Davis of Fort Worth, who defied conventional wisdom and was re-elected to the Texas Senate despite the best efforts of Republicans to deny her;
-- The expansion of the Texas Congressional delegation to 36 as a result of the 2010 census and apportionment of extra seats based on population growth in the Lone Star State. New Texans in Washington DC include former Democratic state representatives Pete Gallego and Marc Veazey, but also -- and unfortunately -- ultraconservatives Randy Weber and Steve Stockman.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Last of the 2012 Wrangles
The Texas Progressive Alliance wishes everyone a safe, happy, and prosperous New Year as it brings you this week's roundup.
The filing deadline has passed for the special election in SD06, and Off the Kuff discusses the eight candidates that have filed to run in that race.
Texas' budget decisions have always been made with what is best for corporations, big business, and the wealthy at the top of the list. WCNews at Eye on Williamson says it's time we had a budget in Texas that puts the people of Texas first.
BossKitty at TruthHugger is relieved that this years is over: Good Riddance 2012.
The race to replace the late Sen. Mario Gallegos in the Texas Senate will have eight contestants. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs prognosticates.
Neil at Texas Liberal wrote about the silly Merry Christmas bill proposed by Texas state Rep. Dwayne Bohac. If Christmas and Jesus need a boost even here in Texas, then is it really Dwayne Bohac who will be coming to the rescue?
The filing deadline has passed for the special election in SD06, and Off the Kuff discusses the eight candidates that have filed to run in that race.
Texas' budget decisions have always been made with what is best for corporations, big business, and the wealthy at the top of the list. WCNews at Eye on Williamson says it's time we had a budget in Texas that puts the people of Texas first.
BossKitty at TruthHugger is relieved that this years is over: Good Riddance 2012.
The race to replace the late Sen. Mario Gallegos in the Texas Senate will have eight contestants. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs prognosticates.
Neil at Texas Liberal wrote about the silly Merry Christmas bill proposed by Texas state Rep. Dwayne Bohac. If Christmas and Jesus need a boost even here in Texas, then is it really Dwayne Bohac who will be coming to the rescue?
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Friday, December 28, 2012
Eight for SD-6
Four Democrats, two Republicans, one Green, and one 'I'm not telling'.
Sylvia Garcia, Carol Alvarado, Joaquin Martinez, and real estate broker Susan Delgado (who ran third in the '08 general election as a Libertarian against Mario Gallegos) are the Ds. RW Bray and Dorothy Olmos are the Rs. Maria Selva is the G, and Rudy Reyes left the party affiliation space blank on his application.
As Charles has already pointed out, Selva has the wrong election date on her site*. Olmos needs to update her webpage for this contest (it shows her campaign for SBOE in the last cycle).
I would continue to handicap this contest with Garcia and Bray most likely to make a runoff. Garcia, for her aggressive out-of-the-gate effort and a million-dollar campaign budget; Bray for having been on SD-6 voters' ballot seven weeks ago and earning 29% in the process. That's not meant to discount the campaign of Alvarado, who has a puncher's chance against Garcia in this scrum for the second round. With 71% of Gallegos' re-election vote divided unequally among four, Bray challenged with a conservative Latina option for those so inclined, and Selva and Reyes (apparently) making an appeal to independents, the open primary will be difficult to predict.
Like all specials, this one will be about the ground game. Whoever can mobilize their supporters to turn out in 30 days will move on to February, where the Democrat is likely to prevail.
Previously...
Alvarado declares for SD-6
Sylvia Garcia jumps in
No Noriega(s) for SD-6 *with updates
Governor finally calls SD-6 special election
Update: Charles thinks there will be a runoff between Alvarado and Garcia. I don't necessarily disagree with his premise as I interpret it -- that conservatives don't have much reason to turn out in the first round -- but I think some of RW Bray's support in November could have come from African-American Dems crossing over to vote for one of their own. A case can be made that twenty-nine percent of a protest vote against a deceased candidate is a good thing... or a bad thing. The bottom line is that SD-6 is solidly Democratic, and they'll either send a slightly conservative one (Garcia) or a more liberal one (Alvarado) to the Senate. If both make the runoff, it's going to get brutal.
*Now corrected.
Update II (Monday 12/31): Stace has Joaquin Martinez' snapshot of the ballot positions.
Sylvia Garcia, Carol Alvarado, Joaquin Martinez, and real estate broker Susan Delgado (who ran third in the '08 general election as a Libertarian against Mario Gallegos) are the Ds. RW Bray and Dorothy Olmos are the Rs. Maria Selva is the G, and Rudy Reyes left the party affiliation space blank on his application.
As Charles has already pointed out, Selva has the wrong election date on her site*. Olmos needs to update her webpage for this contest (it shows her campaign for SBOE in the last cycle).
I would continue to handicap this contest with Garcia and Bray most likely to make a runoff. Garcia, for her aggressive out-of-the-gate effort and a million-dollar campaign budget; Bray for having been on SD-6 voters' ballot seven weeks ago and earning 29% in the process. That's not meant to discount the campaign of Alvarado, who has a puncher's chance against Garcia in this scrum for the second round. With 71% of Gallegos' re-election vote divided unequally among four, Bray challenged with a conservative Latina option for those so inclined, and Selva and Reyes (apparently) making an appeal to independents, the open primary will be difficult to predict.
Like all specials, this one will be about the ground game. Whoever can mobilize their supporters to turn out in 30 days will move on to February, where the Democrat is likely to prevail.
Previously...
Alvarado declares for SD-6
Sylvia Garcia jumps in
No Noriega(s) for SD-6 *with updates
Governor finally calls SD-6 special election
Update: Charles thinks there will be a runoff between Alvarado and Garcia. I don't necessarily disagree with his premise as I interpret it -- that conservatives don't have much reason to turn out in the first round -- but I think some of RW Bray's support in November could have come from African-American Dems crossing over to vote for one of their own. A case can be made that twenty-nine percent of a protest vote against a deceased candidate is a good thing... or a bad thing. The bottom line is that SD-6 is solidly Democratic, and they'll either send a slightly conservative one (Garcia) or a more liberal one (Alvarado) to the Senate. If both make the runoff, it's going to get brutal.
*Now corrected.
Update II (Monday 12/31): Stace has Joaquin Martinez' snapshot of the ballot positions.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Salon's media hack list
They get a few wrong -- like the Atlantic, MSNBC, and Andy Borowitz -- but generally this assembly is definitive of why you should stop watching, reading, and listening. Here, let's check #4, the Sunday Talking Heads...
Maybe the DC police will bust Gregory for possession of a high-capacity magazine. The frying pan/fire progression means we'd probably get Luke Russert, however.
Press the Meat is only on in my house if Rachel Maddow makes the panel, which is too rarely. I only watch Facepalm the Nation because it comes on after CBS Sunday Morning, the only thing worth watching on Sunday mornings. This Weak with George Snuffleluffagus is simply hideous. I usually go back to Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris-Perry if I need to have some chattering in the background. MSNBC's breakfast television frequently has some intelligent conversation happening.
Number One on Salon's list is Politicko. That's dead solid perfect. Now you may be asking yourself, "what about Fox"? Well, Fox no longer qualifies as media.
I considered putting off my 2013 New Year's resolutions until 2014 (because I kinda feel like being an asshole for another year) but I am most certainly going to watch less of all the above, starting yesterday.
Every Sunday morning, the big four broadcast networks all air their FCC-mandated “public affairs” programming, which consists of a host (a white guy) interviewing the same dozen lawmakers, journalists and pundits in a rotating order. The lawmakers are usually not the most powerful members of Congress — often they’re somewhat marginal figures in terms of influence, in fact — and the pundits and journalists all generally share the same, or very similar, worldviews. The only people I actually know who watch these things do so out of professional obligation.
But people watch these shows. Millions of people. More people watch “Meet the Press” than “The Daily Show.” Most of those people are quite old, but it’s still the case that a significant portion of the American people are learning the contours of the great public debates of our time from David Gregory interviewing Lindsey Graham.
Maybe the DC police will bust Gregory for possession of a high-capacity magazine. The frying pan/fire progression means we'd probably get Luke Russert, however.
Press the Meat is only on in my house if Rachel Maddow makes the panel, which is too rarely. I only watch Facepalm the Nation because it comes on after CBS Sunday Morning, the only thing worth watching on Sunday mornings. This Weak with George Snuffleluffagus is simply hideous. I usually go back to Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris-Perry if I need to have some chattering in the background. MSNBC's breakfast television frequently has some intelligent conversation happening.
Number One on Salon's list is Politicko. That's dead solid perfect. Now you may be asking yourself, "what about Fox"? Well, Fox no longer qualifies as media.
I considered putting off my 2013 New Year's resolutions until 2014 (because I kinda feel like being an asshole for another year) but I am most certainly going to watch less of all the above, starting yesterday.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
A slow boat to nowhere
If you haven't read this New York Magazine report of the National Review's post-election cruise, it's worth every bit of your time. Here's a few excerpts to whet your tastebuds.
Just when I thought I had gotten all the schadenfreude out of my system... they pull me back in.
Read the whole thing. They don't get it (and they're still mad about it), and they're not ever going to get it.
The whole thing was white, and broken, that much was clear. A week after the presidential election, when the dreams of Republicans were dashed with President Barack Obama’s victory over Mitt Romney, we were snorkeling in the blue waters of the Caribbean. In the distance was a shipwreck. “You could make out the pieces of it,” said Ralph Reed, the right-wing political operator who had bolstered the Evangelical Christian vote for Romney. “It was deep and murky.”
[...]
The cruise, featuring the star columnists of William Buckley’s 57-year-old conservative biweekly, had been planned long in advance, and everybody had believed it would be a victory party. An e-mail from the magazine’s publisher arrived a few days before we embarked: “Do not despair or fret. At least not next week.”
Onboard the Nieuw Amsterdam, no one could follow his advice. “Who sent Obama here to destroy America?” a fiftysomething woman asked me one evening over dinner, as if it were a perfectly reasonable question.
Just when I thought I had gotten all the schadenfreude out of my system... they pull me back in.
After drinks, we moved to the Manhattan Dining Room, an elegant two-story restaurant at the ship’s stern, where we would meet each evening, tabled with a different assortment of cruisers, sometimes hosted by writers and pundits from the National Review. Kevin Hassett, a former economic adviser to Mitt Romney, hosted my table of eight that night, arriving in a bright-green golf shirt and rimless glasses. He announced that this would be a “family” conversation in which he was the moderator.
[...]
Hassett, with an oddly cheerful, Oh-What-My-Country-Has-Done-Now mien, predicted economic doom under Obama, the most likely scenario being another Great Depression, which would make 2008 look like a joyride.
That prompted a tall, extremely tanned blonde named Kay, from Old Greenwich, Connecticut, to ask Hassett, the co-author of the 1999 book Dow 36,000, “So what do we do with our money?”
He recommended investing in real estate in another country, maybe in Central America somewhere. A woman to Kay’s right wrinkled her nose: How about a Western country? “Okay, if Europe is what you want, go to Poland,” he said optimistically. “Go to Krakow, buy a house for $50,000, and it’s going to be like Paris in a few years.”
As we drained the Pinot Noir, Hassett gave his audience the insider’s view of the Romney campaign, describing how its election-monitoring software crashed on November 6 and Obama was probably behind it, “because those guys are so evil.”
The table grumbled in assent.
“The thing we have to understand is, these are people who don’t have any morals,” said Hassett. “They’ll do anything. I’m one of their No. 1 targets. I mean, they really want me bad.”
“Well, you’re safe on this ship!” said Bobbie boldly.
Then Hassett pivoted to the liberal media. “I actually think that Goebbels was more critical of Hitler than the New York Times is of Obama,” said Hassett, tucking into a piece of strudel. “I was in the middle of the fight against the propaganda, and I have stories like you wouldn’t believe. These people are so evil. They’re basically Fascists. It’s unbelievable.”
Read the whole thing. They don't get it (and they're still mad about it), and they're not ever going to get it.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Monday, December 24, 2012
T'was-the-day-before Wrangle
... and all through the blogosphere, not a creature was stirring. So here's the roundup from the best of the Texas Progressive Alliance from last week.
Off the Kuff discusses where the redistricting and voter ID lawsuits stand with the Supreme Court.
BossKitty at TruthHugger enjoyed a fiery sunrise on Apocalypse Morning. But the Sunday morning talk shows laid the cat's ears back in anger; she has a few NRA Whack-A-Mole Questions.
WCNews at Eye on Williamson says that Rick Perry and the wingnuts' latest privatization scheme to be exposed is just the latest instance of the scam that's always been there for everyone to see.
The legal and moral justification for homophobia, as expressed by Father and Son Scalia, is relayed by PDiddie at Brains and Eggs.
CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wants you to know that the odious Aaron Peña is an official sellout and Rick Perry is no longer universally loved by the Tea Party.
With Republican Tim Scott of South Carolina set to become the fifth Black post-reconstruction U.S. Senator, Neil at Texas Liberal posted photos and links about Mr. Scott and the four who came before him.
Off the Kuff discusses where the redistricting and voter ID lawsuits stand with the Supreme Court.
BossKitty at TruthHugger enjoyed a fiery sunrise on Apocalypse Morning. But the Sunday morning talk shows laid the cat's ears back in anger; she has a few NRA Whack-A-Mole Questions.
WCNews at Eye on Williamson says that Rick Perry and the wingnuts' latest privatization scheme to be exposed is just the latest instance of the scam that's always been there for everyone to see.
The legal and moral justification for homophobia, as expressed by Father and Son Scalia, is relayed by PDiddie at Brains and Eggs.
CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wants you to know that the odious Aaron Peña is an official sellout and Rick Perry is no longer universally loved by the Tea Party.
With Republican Tim Scott of South Carolina set to become the fifth Black post-reconstruction U.S. Senator, Neil at Texas Liberal posted photos and links about Mr. Scott and the four who came before him.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
The legal and moral justification for homophobia
As related to us by the Scalias, Antonin and his son Paul. First, the father...
More on this exchange.
And now the son.
You need to go on over there, or you can click this link. Once you have taken in as much of that as you can stomach, continue here.
And then finish at the original with this.
So by my reading, homosexuality -- according to the Scalias -- is an 'urge', i.e. a choice; since it is a sin against God's law it is also a sin against man's; and no serious thinker can disagree with that. (It is worth noting that no less serious a thinker than Gore Vidal advanced a similar premise, albeit without the moral judgment.)
These religious interpretations, followed by constructing premises based upon the foundation of conservative Christian values -- dogma, in other words -- is what leads to less serious thinkers saying things like "Life is God's gift to women, and so by extension is a fertilized egg as byproduct of rape or incest."
When science is dismissed in favor of faith, the rationale for any argument collapses. But the comforting fallback for those less serious thinking folks is always some version of 'what does the Bible say'. This makes as much sense to me as watching one television news network, one which only reinforces your prevailing point of view, never engaging one in critical thinking, never prompting a question as to whether the thoughts involved might be misguided.
The very definition and practice of ignorance (and a few other things).
Now that the Supreme Court will be weighing in on the issue of same-sex marriage, the Justices’ biases on the basic principles of sexual orientation are under scrutiny — none perhaps moreso than Justice Antonin Scalia. Recently, he defended his comparison between homosexuality and murder, arguing simply that either can be morally condemned. He obtusely couldn’t understand why the gay Princeton student who asked the question wasn’t convinced by his response.
More on this exchange.
The quotations from Scalia opinions that so dismayed Princeton freshman Duncan Hosie all referred to homosexual conduct. For example, in a 1996 case the majority of the court held that voters in Colorado had exhibited “animus” toward gays by making it impossible for the state or municipalities to pass laws protecting them from discrimination. Scalia responded: “I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible — murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals — and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct." In his dissent Scalia did refer to “homosexuals” (he assiduously avoided the word “gay” except in quoted material), but he used that term interchangeably with “those who engage in homosexual conduct.”
And what of the notion of "sexual orientation"? Scalia did acknowledge in his Colorado opinion that such a thing might exist. For example, he wrote that it was permissible for states to criminalize homosexual conduct (as it was in 1996) "surely it is rational to deny special favor and protection to those with a self avowed tendency or desire to engage in the conduct. In the next sentence he suggests that "'homosexual-orientation' is an acceptable stand-in for homosexual conduct."
And now the son.
Insights into Scalia’s understanding of homosexuality (or lack thereof) can perhaps be found through his son, Rev. Paul Scalia, a Catholic priest in Arlington, Virginia. The younger Scalia has worked with the Church’s Courage ministry, which promotes “chastity” for gay Catholics using principles from ex-gay therapy. He has also spoken openly on the topic, and though he’s proven quite capable of reiterating the Church’s anti-gay teachings, a 2005 article reveals just how distorted the family’s view on homosexuality may be.
You need to go on over there, or you can click this link. Once you have taken in as much of that as you can stomach, continue here.
Contrast the Scalias’ approach to this passage in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the 2003 case of Lawrence vs. Texas, which overturned a Texas law against same-sex sodomy. Kennedy wrote: “The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.” Some gay activists blanched at Kennedy’s use of the term “homosexual lifestyle,” but applauded his larger point: that what was at issue was the lives of gays and lesbians, not isolated sexual acts.
Scalia dissented in that case, too, arguing that Texas’ sodomy law “seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are 'immoral and unacceptable' — the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity."
The conventional interpretation of Scalia’s opinions in gay-rights cases is that he doesn’t like gays; but maybe the more accurate gloss is that he doesn’t believe they exist -- except when they are engaging in (or thinking about) "immoral and unacceptable" sexual acts.
And then finish at the original with this.
For the Scalias, moral condemnation of homosexuality is just assumed, and the consequences of that judgment are par for the course. The consequences of family rejection for LGBT youth have been thoroughly documented, but for these men, rejecting “homosexual inclination” takes priority. Rev. Scalia relies on genetic uncertainty to conclude that homosexuality is not a “fixed, inborn orientation,” even though science does not doubt that is exactly how sexual orientation presents, regardless of its causes. He seeks to reject people for something that is wholly part of who they are and how they will lead their lives, ignoring that such an approach unquestioningly deprives them of life’s most basic sources of happiness and support: a loving partner and the opportunity to raise a family.
The phenomenon of “coming out” only exists because a culture that shuns homosexuality has demanded gay invisibility. The concept of “gay pride” came about not as flamboyant flaunting, but to counter the expectation of “gay shame.” These unique aspects to gay identities reflect the consequences of condemnation, not an impetus for them. Moral condemnation is not inherent; in the court of law, it must be justified beyond tradition and religious belief. Unfortunately, it seems Justice Scalia is not interested in such intellectual justice.
So by my reading, homosexuality -- according to the Scalias -- is an 'urge', i.e. a choice; since it is a sin against God's law it is also a sin against man's; and no serious thinker can disagree with that. (It is worth noting that no less serious a thinker than Gore Vidal advanced a similar premise, albeit without the moral judgment.)
These religious interpretations, followed by constructing premises based upon the foundation of conservative Christian values -- dogma, in other words -- is what leads to less serious thinkers saying things like "Life is God's gift to women, and so by extension is a fertilized egg as byproduct of rape or incest."
When science is dismissed in favor of faith, the rationale for any argument collapses. But the comforting fallback for those less serious thinking folks is always some version of 'what does the Bible say'. This makes as much sense to me as watching one television news network, one which only reinforces your prevailing point of view, never engaging one in critical thinking, never prompting a question as to whether the thoughts involved might be misguided.
The very definition and practice of ignorance (and a few other things).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)