Why Don't We Give Romney a Break for High School Pranks

(From Wikipedia)

Reading the Washington Post piece on Mitt Romney and his days at Cranbrook, I felt like I was reading the past mistakes of a high school kid. Yes, it's a cruel, cruel thing what Romney did to John Lauber and it should make Romney feel embarrassed, as it made everyone else involved feel according to WaPo. There was also the "Atta girl" comments Romney shouted when Gary Hummel, a closeted gay student, would speak up in class at Cranbrook. Both unsavory things to do, for sure, but in the context of an all-boys private high school in 1960s, unfortunately not all that surprising.

Romney certainly made mistakes in high school - as we all did. But the upside of mistakes is that it is sometimes the best way to learn. Look at Barack Obama. He did cocaine in his younger days and came out to say that it was one of the greatest moral failures in his life. It was a mistake that he made, has been able to recognize and move on from.

So it is with Romney. He made a mistake and he owned up to it—wait, what? He claimed to not remember it and offered a conditional apology? So he didn't actually apologize for the incident, but for all of his "hijinks" and only if he "hurt anyone by virtue of that"? That doesn't really sound like an apology.

That's okay though, because even if Romney picked on people he thought might be gay, at least he fights for equal rights for all Americans - gay or straight - today. What? He doesn't? He wants gay couples to not enjoy the same rights to marriage as straight couples? And tries to justify it by using history, claiming that his homophobic religion has nothing to do with his decision? That doesn't sound very believable.

So even from all of the talk of how prestigious Cranbrook is and how hard he studied, it seems as if Mitt Romney learned little from his time there.

Obama Comes Out in Support of Same Sex Marriage

Obama announcing his support of marriage equality
(jasonlefkowitz.net)

The optimist in me wants to commend Obama for such a brave stance in the fight for marriage equality. But anyone who knows me and/or follows politics knows that there is not much optimism left when it comes to anything a presidential administration does. So the cynic in me wins. And the cynic in me thinks, what took so damn long?

Obama's stance is hardly courageous or brave. He is a liberal Democrat (at least he is seen as one) and most liberal Democrats support marriage equality. The trend of American support for gay marriage has been an upward one, and new polling shows moderates and independents, a key demographic that the next president needs to win in November, support it in greater numbers than the rest of the population.

If Obama is alienating anyone, it is the homophobic liberal, which is a rare breed. If someone believes strongly enough that gays should be not allowed to marry and would not vote for a candidate because of that, chances are they weren't voting for the black guy with the immigrant father who's rumored to be a Muslim born in Kenya come November anyway.

Additionally, let's not forget that Obama has not had some sudden change of heart. He was pressured politically to do this because his vice president was not stuck in some evolutionary process when it comes to civil rights. If Biden doesn't speak his mind on Meet the Press this weekend, chances are Obama stays silent.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And we can't forget about that 1996 survey Obama took as a candidate for state senator in Illinois, in which he stated, "“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." Since then he came out against gay marriage and said that he was evolving on it. The theory of evolution, unlike Obama, is progressive and not a circular process. When one holds a policy position, switches it, and then switches back we call that flip-flopping, not evolution (otherwise Mitt Romney is the gold standard of evolution.)

And finally, there is the annoying habit of Obama to say one thing and not follow through. An eloquent poet by the name of DMX once said, "Talk is cheap..." He's right. Obama's been disappointing for progressives and a presser coming out in favor of gay marriage a day late and a dollar short does little to shore that up. In fact, it could prove just how political—as opposed to principled—Obama has become.

So what will come of Obama's vocal support of marriage equality? Probably nothing, considering Obama supports the ability of states to decide their own marriage laws and 30 states have voted for bans, with zero voting for marriage equality. Even if Obama had promised marriage equality, all you have to do is take a gander at Executive Order 13492 to understand how bankable that would be. So while words are one thing, I'd like to see some action from the administration.

Why I Won't Be Donating to Salvation Army This Year, or Any Year for That Matter

Salvation Army logo (Wikipedia)

Most folks who know me know that I am not a very fashion-forward individual; I recently traded my baggy jeans, t-shirts and sweatshirt look for a slightly less-baggy jeans, polo/button-down and sweater style. This left me with a lot of clothes that I no longer wanted and I rounded them all up and looked to donate them.

The first charity most people think of in a situation like this is the Salvation Army, and I was no different. However, being a conscientious donor, I wanted to make sure that my unwanted clothing would be going to a charity whose ideology closely matched mine. Boy, was I disappointed.

I consider myself center-left when it comes to politics (I can hear my entire family laughing right now as they compare me to some pinko commie). So when I saw the following quote on abortion I was taken aback:

The Salvation Army deplores society's ready acceptance of abortion, which reflects insufficient concern for vulnerable persons, including the unborn. (Psalms 82:3-4)

But hey, abortion is one of those things that is very divisive (as the Salvation Army's use of "deplore" indicates) and later in the position statement the SA says that even if someone had obtained an abortion they're not going to shun them and treat them like some pariah. So maybe I could look past this. Maybe.

Then I see a section labeled "Homosexuality." Not gay marriage, not equal rights for gays, but simply the state of being a homosexual. Now while I may be able to look past someone's anti-choice views, I simply will not yield when it comes to equal rights for all persons–gay or straight.

The second paragraph in the mission statement starts out benignly enough:

Sexual attraction to the same sex is a matter of profound complexity. Whatever the causes may be, attempts to deny its reality or to marginalize those of a same-sex orientation have not been helpful. The Salvation Army does not consider same-sex orientation blameworthy in itself. Homosexual conduct, like heterosexual conduct, requires individual responsibility and must be guided by the light of scriptural teaching.

Wow, I thought, a relatively enlightened view from an organization clearly so guided by religious doctrine. But then the next paragraph hit me:

Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Salvation Army believes, therefore, that Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life. There is no scriptural support for same-sex unions as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage.

So, according to the Salvation Army, it's quite alright to be gay, but you can't actually physically express it or marry. I don't know what's worse: a group vehemently opposed to homosexuality or a group that tries to toe a middle line while trying to claim some non-existent moral high ground.

The next position statement is titled "Human Equality," which already is starting off on a hypocritical foot. In it, the Salvation Army states:

All Salvation Army social welfare services are provided on a non-discriminatory basis; such services shall be equally available to all persons on the basis of need and capacity to benefit from the service.

Yet in 2001 the organization lobbied the Bush Administration for an exemption from anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation. Their anti-gay stance was enough for me to avoid their incessant bell-ringers; their two-faced hypocrisy pushed me to write this post.

So what can you, as a person who embraces liberty and equality, do? One, obviously, is to avoid the Salvation Army at all costs. Don't shop at their stores, don't give to their charities. Tell your friends and family to do the same.

Secondly, seek out a more equality-friendly charity. I've found that Goodwill has no religious affiliation and are well represented in the New York/New Jersey area. If there's no Goodwill near you, here is a list of either non-religious charities or charities that cater to certain non-religious issues.

If the convenience of simply dropping your change is a game-breaker, just keep your change and deposit it into a Coinstar machine. When done you can choose to donate to a non-profit like the Red Cross or UNICEF.

In other words, the Salvation Army is not the only charity out there. There are plenty of organizations unwilling to discriminate who are more deserving of your donations. Make sure your charity reaches all needy persons equally, regardless of immutable characteristics like sexuality.

Former Bush Aide Comes Out, Earth Still Spins on Axis

Perusing the news this morning I was trying to think of something that I cared even less about than the recent "coming out" of former George W. Bush aide Ken Mehlman. I searched and searched for something I thought was more insignificant to no avail. Many say that Mehlman's involvement in Bush's re-election campaign in 2004 (involvement is a soft word for it, he ran the re-election campaign) shows that he is a hypocrite.

Here's why I don't completely buy the hypocrite argument (I can be swayed on this one). To begin with, it's politics; nearly everybody is a hypocrite. His job was to get Bush elected, which he did. If that means having Bush condemn gay marriage, then so be it. Who knows, Mehlman may have possibly argued with W. over the issue. Unless someone is their own employer, very rarely do employees agree with every thing that their boss/company does. Mehlman could have seen other facets of Bush's agenda as more important than gay marriage. Or he could be a total hypocrite, I simply don't know.

California's Proposition 8 Overturned

As I expected, California's Proposition 8 was shot down in a California federal court yesterday because it violated the Equal Protection clause laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment. To be frank, it is simply unconscionable to allow one group to marry (straight folk) and deny that same legal right to another group (gay folk.) I often compare the legal arguments against gay marriage to the legal arguments against interracial marriage: both have no legs to stand on in today's society (or any society, for that matter.)

Ruben Diaz Sr. Says Stance Against Gay Marriage Nothing Personal; Logic Would Dictate Otherwise

Today the Gray Lady is running a front-page (digital-wise, at least) profile of Ruben Diaz Sr. and his stance against gay marriage. Diaz uses the classic, "But I have [insert group you are prejudiced against here] friends! I can't be bigoted!" defense. It didn't work for Justin Barrett, and it's not too convincing with Diaz, either. Simple logic points to the fallacy of Diaz's argument that his stance against gay marriage is nothing personal.

Let's take a look at the outrage that occurred when a justice of the peace in Louisiana would not marry an interracial couple. The justice, Keith Bardwell, ended up resigning after being excoriated in the media. But what Bardwell did is the law of the land in the majority of American states when it comes to another type of marriage. Two men or two women cannot marry because of their (unchosen) sexual orientation. Yet when justices of the peace or other civil servants refuse to marry two people of the same gender they are following the law, not shamed into resigning from a post they never should have held in the first place.

So let me float this scenario by you: I'm a relatively well-known figure in New York and I say that while I don't hate interracial couples, they just should not be allowed to marry. Don't get me wrong, I hang out with interracial couples, I even have family members involved in interracial relationships, but to say that they could get married would force me to "turn my whole value system upside down." Again, it's nothing personal, I just think that they should be barred the right to marry because it's in the Bible (Deuteronomy 7:1-4). If I were to say that as a well-known figure in New York I would be run out on a rail, rightfully so.

But replace "interracial couples" with "homosexuals" and you have Ruben Diaz's argument. So why is it wrong to discriminate against interracial couples, but not homosexual couples? And to go even further, why does voicing your opinion against one get you a prominent, not unsympathetic write-up in the New York Times and the other makes you a relic of America's errant segregationist and racist past? To say that intruding on others' lives in order to bar them from making a very personal decision (one that many people look forward to in life) is not personal is inherently contradictory and irreconcilable, kind of like saying allowing gays to marry would somehow injure American society. Peace.

Photo - Ruben Diaz Sr. (New York Times)

Election Day Hangover 2009

It's amazing what $90 million can get you these days. One of those things is the mayoralty of New York, though you'd have to fork over a little more (or a little less, perhaps) for a mandate and/or the respect of your constituency. As predicted, Michael Bloomberg defeated Democratic challenger Bill Thompson, but what was surprising was the slim margin separating the two men (51%-46%). So what does that mean for third term Bloomberg?

Some may have you believe that Bloomberg has lost some political capital because of the slim victory, but let's look at the guy for a second. He's not going to pussyfoot around just because he didn't dominate the election. This is a man who abolished term limits, which had been affirmed twice in the 1990s, just so he could stay on for an egotistical third year. Bloomberg is not exactly tactful; it may be harder to get things done because liberals can point to this election, but in reality Bloomberg tends to get what he wants (exhibit A: a third term in a two-term limit city).

Another good question being floated around: what if Anthony Weiner had run? Well we may have a Democratic mayor right now instead of an independent(ly wealthy) one. We can sit here and play the what if game all night, but suffice it to say how appropriate it would be for someone named Weiner to step up and show that the Democratic party actually has some balls.

And just a quick aside to the state of Maine: WTF? New England states have been the leaders in the fight against sexual orientation inequality and you go and pull this? I love how conservatives espouse minimal government intrusion (watch how quickly they'll cry about gun laws) but then approve the state-backed prohibition of marriage for an entire group of people. Marriage equality will happen one day, it may not be tomorrow, it may not be next year, but it will happen, and when it does history will not treat those who fought so hard against equal treatment for all that kindly. Peace.

Photo - Bloomberg wins third term (Times Online)

Welcome to the Party, South Carolina

Mark Sanford (NYTimes)

At 8:40 pm last night I received an excellent BBM message from a dear friend out on the left coast asking an excellent question: "My state is broke, yours is run by children. What's worse?" I told him that was a tough one, but it's nice to now know that New York and California are joined in embarrassment and shame by South Carolina, whose governor ran off to Argentina without telling anyone so that he could indulge in everything that Buenos Aires has to offer - including his mistress. That's right, Governor Mark Sanford traveled nearly 5,000 miles for a booty call.

Of course, this is not the first time that South Carolina's public officials have made the state proud. When the Sanford news broke and we found out why his wife "wasn't concerned" about him (which makes sense now), there was talk of who would run the state in his absence. Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer seized the opportunity for some exposure and possibly some boost in poll numbers by announcing to South Carolina that the governor's staff did not know where the governor was. Bauer and Sanford are not the best of friends (clearly) and Bauer is actually gunning for the governorship next year when Sanford is forced out due to term limits (though it seems at this point that he will not have the incumbent's support.)

Sanford also happens to be one of those Republicans who opposes gay marriage. Other than being on the wrong side of history, Sanford really lays his cards out on the table here. In a May 7, 2009 CBS column laying out a case as to how the GOP could save itself, Sanford says "First, get back to the principle of saying what you mean and meaning what you say." Sanford says that marriage is between a man and a woman, yet on Father's Day weekend he flies nearly 5,000 miles to have some secret rendezvous with a woman who was not his wife. Say one thing and try to influence legislation that would negatively affect millions of Americans, but don't follow your own words and treat marriage like a joke. Sanford wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

So I guess Sanford can join John Ensign down at the end of the bar reserved for Republican 2012 hypocrites boosting Romney's and Gingrich's chances for the Republican primary. I bet Sanford is wishing he did take that hike in Appalachia rather than see his other woman in Argentina. But, in his own words, he wanted "to do something more exotic."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama's Choice of Warren Calls for Look at Gay Rights in America

Since Barack Obama announced his choice of Reverend Rick Warren (the same man who hosted the Saddleback Forum early on in the campaign) to give the invocation at his inauguration in January I decided to take a look at gay rights in America. Many gays and people on the left cried foul, given Warren's conservative social views - specifically his anti-gay marriage stance (he was a staunch supporter of Prop 8 in California). While Warren certainly holds views that those on the left do not, his choice should not be that surprising to those who have followed Obama's stance on the issues. Obama never has been a proponent of gay marriage, so his choice of Warren should not be "shocking" to anyone. He supports civil unions for same-sex couples, but marriage itself is a thing he would like to leave up to religion and to the states. Obama is not in favor of banning same-sex marriage, but he certainly is not fighting for its practice. Obama does make good points on gay marriage - points I will be making in this post - but he will not go as far to say that gays have the same right as straights when it comes to matrimony.

Many people point to religion to say that gay marriage is wrong, immoral, or sinful. They point to things like Sodom and Gomorrah and the biblical laws that seemingly ban homosexuality. That's fine, but I bet these same people would decry against the backwardness of things like Islamic extremists enforcing harsh, out-of-date Sharia law in Middle Eastern communities and the treatment of women, etc. How is invoking a book older than the religion of Islam itself to deny a right to a group of people that much different than Islamic fundamentalists using Quranic/Hadith law to deny rights to a group of people? Has humanity not changed drastically since the days of the Bible? Do these same folks who invoke the Bible argue for the relationship between man and wife as laid out in Genesis 3:16 (that the husband will "rule over" the wife)? There are plenty of biblical laws that would make no sense in today's society; we cannot just pick and choose the ones we want to justify things we do not agree with.

Others point to the societal ills that will abound if we allow gays to marry. To begin with, they say that the "sanctity" of marriage will be destroyed, the whole concept will become meaningless. Seriously? How does allowing two people of the same sex to marry ruin any part of marriage? I would say folks like Newt Gingrich, Vito Fossella, Larry Craig, Tim Mahoney, David Vitter, Eliot Spitzer (the list goes on and on) ruin the sanctity of marriage. Why is it legal to cheat on your wife, but not for two gays to get married? The other hypocrisy of gays ruining marriage is the divorce rate in this country. We often hear that 50% of American marriages end in divorce. From what I can glean, this is a misleading statement, but the divorce rate in this country seems to be somewhere between 30-40%. Now I may be old-fashioned, but I thought that marriage was a "death do us part" deal, not a "til I decided you changed or did not become as successful as I thought or just get sick of you" thing. The logic behind allowing people to leave a marriage being okay but allowing other people to enter a marriage being wrong is mind-boggling. So again I pose this question: Why is it legal to break a martial promise/bond/covenant/whatever you want to call it, but not for two gays to get married?

It seems that America as a whole has a problem with homosexuality. This is a country that had sodomy laws up until 2003 when the Supreme Court struck down such legislation as unconstitutional. If you are openly gay, you are not allowed to serve this country in its armed forces. There is no federal legislation outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation, which leaves that matter up to the states. This means that in any state that does not have anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation, it is legal to not hire someone or purposely discriminate against someone based solely on their sexual orientation. And, as a good friend of mine pointed out to me recently, the United States refused to back or sign a United Nations resolution decriminalizing homosexuality. The only other nations to not sign the resolution were Russia, China, the Catholic Church, and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. In the context of human rights, not exactly the best company to be in.

So back to the original point about Obama and Warren - why is it that surprising? Obama touted the fact that he could work across the aisle, and Warren is pretty socially conservative (something Obama is not). They both agree that gays should not expressly be allowed to marry, but beyond that they have little agreements. Barack Obama, in my opinion, did not do anything that outrageous - he chose a reverend who is quite influential and will help him bridge the gap between social conservatives and his future administration. This is Obama making good on a promise to work with a diverse group of people. Not everyone is going to agree with everything he does, but, as long as he is not overtly hypocritical, moronic, or plunges this country into unnecessary wars, that's just politics.

Photos - Obama and Warren (Washington Post), Larry Craig, a symbol of hypocritical homophobia (Wikipedia)

The Saddleback Civil Forum

John McCain, Rick Warren, and Barack Obama
at the Saddleback Civil Forum (The Economist)

My first reaction to watching the Saddleback Civil Forum was, "Wow, these questions are amazing and the one-on-one setting makes it impossible for the candidates to squirm out of a question non-chalantly." My second was, "The questions are amazing." Rarely will the mainstream media figureheads (I'm looking at you, Stephanopoulos) put on such a fair and well-planned debate. I had my doubts due to the whole Evangelical thing, but Rick Warren was affable and kept the pace of the questions going very well. I would like to see more of these types of forums in the future.

All was not perfect, however (nothing in life is.)  I thought Obama did very well and while McCain was much friendlier and more at ease than he usually is, both candidates said things that were worrisome. Let's begin with Obama.

Obama handled one of the first questions very well: the question regarding what is your biggest moral failure. He was open and honest about his rebelliousness as a teen and young man (specifically mentioning drug use and drinking, etc.). I thought Obama's best answer came after being asked about abortion. Saying that he believes in a woman's right to choose, he expanded on the issue by saying that being pro-choice does not mean that one is pro-abortion. He said that he would like to see the number of abortions in this country decrease. I wish he had expanded and gone into how to decrease abortions (real sex education, not abstinence education, etc.), but he was in front of a mostly Evangelical crowd.

Some things Obama said worried me: To begin with, the fact that he said "Christ died for our sins." I understand that that is the fundamental concept of being a Christian, but just the phrase brings nightmarish memories back of church as a kid and the Sunday school teacher telling my brother that all of his Jewish friends were going to hell for not believing in Christ. If that is what Obama truly believes, I have no problem with that as long as he does not try to push it on people who do not believe it (which is the majority of the world). I trust Obama will not try to turn America into a "Christian nation" or say that God wants him to be president. To each his own.

Barack Obama and Rick Warren (Monsters and Critics)

Another problem with Obama's answers was his gay marriage stance. He is for civil unions, but not for gay marriages. This is confounding, as one is political and the other is religious or spiritual. Under the 1st Amendment (Freedom of Religion), people have the right to establish and practice whichever religion they want to. If that religion says that gays can marry, and Obama is for the political aspect of a civil union, then why should gay marriage be outlawed? Who is anyone to judge a religion's view on who can or cannot be wed before a supreme being? In Christianity I thought God was the final judge on everything, not a politician. If a church wants to perform a gay marriage (and it is their right not to) and civil unions are legal, then why do we not call it gay marriage? It's splitting hairs.

On to McCain. One thing McCain did very well was be more approachable to the average viewer. He was not as stiff and cold as he has been in the past. I also give him kudos for answering the moral failure question in an honest manner (I did not think he was going to mention the failure of his first marriage.)  I would have liked a little more honesty (the fact that he cheated on his first wife, then married his mistress, Cindy McCain), but it's baby steps.

On the flip-flop question McCain was horrible. "Drill now" is a pathetic mantra to have. No matter how many times people are confronted with the facts, McCain still uses this tired campaign schtick. Experts have said that it will take MORE THAN A DECADE to get the oil out of the ground and there may not even be enough of it to significantly change oil prices. That means if McCain is elected twice in a row WE WILL NOT SEE ANY OIL FROM OFFSHORE DRILLING DURING HIS PRESIDENCY.

John McCain and Rick Warren (New York Times)

McCain also said that Ronald Reagan was a great president and that he won the Cold War without firing a shot. This could not be further from the truth. Anyone with an iota of knowledge about the Soviet-Afghan War or the Nicaraguan Contras (to name two campaigns that Reagan was elbow-deep in) knows that this statement (which McCain uttered twice) is offensively incorrect. We helped build Bin Laden's Tora Bora cave system, we sold the Taliban and the Mujahideen Stinger missiles and other weapons (which would later be used against our own soldiers after 9/11). It is scary to think that McCain would even think about saying this on national television and expect people to believe it.

McCain also showed his short-sightedness when it comes to what problems our country faces. He stated that radical Islamic extremism is the "transcendental issue of the 21st century." To begin with, anyone who has read a history book knows that we'll get a new enemy in 10-20 years. In the 1930s and the 1940s it was the fascists, in the 1950s-1980s it was the Communists. In the 1990s it was anti-government nuts in rural America. Now it is the radical Islamic extremists. Who knows who it will be next. Additionally, Islamic extremists are not the only problem for this country. I would say the energy crisis, the broken prison and justice systems, a tattered immigration policy, 8 years of flouting the Constitution, the meth epidemic, etc. are all issues that should be as high if not higher than radical Islamic extremism (don't forget that the largest terrorist attack in America before 9/11 was perpetrated by two American-bred white guys). But "Let's fix the prison system" is not exactly as strong a rallying cry as "I'll follow Osama to the gates of hell if I have to." Good luck with that one.

Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA (New York Times)

I have other issues with both candidates, but simply do not have the time to go over all of them. Maybe later. All in all, I thought that the Saddleback Civil Forum went very well and I would love to see more debates set up in that style. It was good to see the candidates answer tough questions that they rarely like to talk about (moral failure, abortion, etc.). Some of the answers were very good, others were very scary, but it certainly helped inform me as to where the candidates stand exactly on issues, and I hope it helped other people as well.