Yesterday, I looked at Steve Scalise's claim that the future of the GOP was in nominating 'real conservatives.'
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/03/steve-scalise-on-future-of-republican.html
As I pointed out, you wonder what Scalise thinks a real conservative is-was David Duke, who he used to be good buddies with back in Louisiana a real conservative? If so, then maybe he's wrong that the future of the GOP resides in nominating 'real conservatives.' Similarly, what would Scalise say about that anti gay law in Indiana that Mike Pence now had to back down on? Was Pence a real conservative with that law that would allow any business to refuse to serve gay couples if they claim that their objection is religiously based?
"Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) said Tuesday that he wanted to see legislation on his desk this week clarifying that the controversial religious freedom bill he signed into law did not allow businesses to deny service to anyone."
"Pence made the announcement at a widely televised press conference the same day that the Indianapolis Star ran a front-page editorial urging state lawmakers to change the legislation.
"After much reflection and in consultation with leadership of the General Assembly I've come to the conclusion that it would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses to deny services to anyone," Pence said at a press conference on Tuesday. "Let me say that again. I think it would be helpful and I'd like to see on my desk before the end of this week legislation that is added to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that makes it clear that this law does not deny services against anyone."
"Earlier in the week top Republicans in the state legislature said they would look to add a clarification to the law."
"We want to make it clear that Indiana's open for business. We want to make it clear that Hoosier hospitality is not a slogan, it's a way of life," Pence said.
"Pence repeatedly pointed to Democrats backing the federal Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. But Democrats, including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) earlier in the day, argue that the Indiana law is far more aggressive than the national law.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mike-pence-wants-clarification-law
What we seem to be learning here is that the tolerance in the country-and in the business community-for this kind of bigotry is considerably less than it used to be. Which, contrary to Scalise, is not good for conservatism as a large part of modern conservatism is bigotry-basically getting folks to vote their prejudices rather than their economic interests.
One other thought that occurs to me. Madonna-of all people-got criticized roundly for her recent comment that as a society we've gone further for gay rights than gender rights. Of course, in reality it's a waste of time to argue if the oppression of women vs. that of gays vs. that of say women is worse than that of the others.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/11/madonna-gay-rights-out-magazine_n_6847108.html
It seems to me that the question of who's oppression is really unanswerable as the nature of the oppression in each case is quite different.
Nevertheless, I want to push back a little on all those who seem to think that her claim that women have seen less progress than gays is absurd on its face. Clearly, our country has made huge starts in sensitivity to gay rights in a very short time.
It's amazing how far we've come when Bill Clinton supported DOMA-and he was progressive on gay rights; now we are glad to have gone past 'Don't ask, don't tell' but that was relatively a step forward at the time.
I would just say as a country we've made huge strides on gay rights and as for gay marriage, right now it seems that this will be universal soon-as more and more states accept it, it seems just a matter of time.
Comparatively, if anything we've gone backwards on some measures of women's rights: particularly abortion. We see red state after red state, cracking down on abortion, to the extent that it's more or less impossible for ordinary women without very deep pockets to get a legal abortion in the state.
While Texas was criticized for passing a law like this, there wasn't quite the level of outrage as over this anti gay law in Indiana. So evidently, sensitivity for women's rights is not as great-at least in this area. To be sure, you can argue gauging women's progress only based on abortion rights-and I wouldn't claim that we should.
Nevertheless, it's an interesting comparison. It's not just women's rights either that in some ways seem to be going backwards-how about voting rights and civil rights, where the SJC recently struck down party of the Voting Rights Act? How about all those voter Ids? So Madonna's claim wasn't necessarily absurd.
The answer is of course not to cut back on the advancements of gay rights but to question why women's rights as well as the right of Black folks to vote seems to be hitting on snag in some areas.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/03/steve-scalise-on-future-of-republican.html
As I pointed out, you wonder what Scalise thinks a real conservative is-was David Duke, who he used to be good buddies with back in Louisiana a real conservative? If so, then maybe he's wrong that the future of the GOP resides in nominating 'real conservatives.' Similarly, what would Scalise say about that anti gay law in Indiana that Mike Pence now had to back down on? Was Pence a real conservative with that law that would allow any business to refuse to serve gay couples if they claim that their objection is religiously based?
"Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) said Tuesday that he wanted to see legislation on his desk this week clarifying that the controversial religious freedom bill he signed into law did not allow businesses to deny service to anyone."
"Pence made the announcement at a widely televised press conference the same day that the Indianapolis Star ran a front-page editorial urging state lawmakers to change the legislation.
"After much reflection and in consultation with leadership of the General Assembly I've come to the conclusion that it would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses to deny services to anyone," Pence said at a press conference on Tuesday. "Let me say that again. I think it would be helpful and I'd like to see on my desk before the end of this week legislation that is added to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that makes it clear that this law does not deny services against anyone."
"Earlier in the week top Republicans in the state legislature said they would look to add a clarification to the law."
"We want to make it clear that Indiana's open for business. We want to make it clear that Hoosier hospitality is not a slogan, it's a way of life," Pence said.
"Pence repeatedly pointed to Democrats backing the federal Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. But Democrats, including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) earlier in the day, argue that the Indiana law is far more aggressive than the national law.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mike-pence-wants-clarification-law
What we seem to be learning here is that the tolerance in the country-and in the business community-for this kind of bigotry is considerably less than it used to be. Which, contrary to Scalise, is not good for conservatism as a large part of modern conservatism is bigotry-basically getting folks to vote their prejudices rather than their economic interests.
One other thought that occurs to me. Madonna-of all people-got criticized roundly for her recent comment that as a society we've gone further for gay rights than gender rights. Of course, in reality it's a waste of time to argue if the oppression of women vs. that of gays vs. that of say women is worse than that of the others.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/11/madonna-gay-rights-out-magazine_n_6847108.html
It seems to me that the question of who's oppression is really unanswerable as the nature of the oppression in each case is quite different.
Nevertheless, I want to push back a little on all those who seem to think that her claim that women have seen less progress than gays is absurd on its face. Clearly, our country has made huge starts in sensitivity to gay rights in a very short time.
It's amazing how far we've come when Bill Clinton supported DOMA-and he was progressive on gay rights; now we are glad to have gone past 'Don't ask, don't tell' but that was relatively a step forward at the time.
I would just say as a country we've made huge strides on gay rights and as for gay marriage, right now it seems that this will be universal soon-as more and more states accept it, it seems just a matter of time.
Comparatively, if anything we've gone backwards on some measures of women's rights: particularly abortion. We see red state after red state, cracking down on abortion, to the extent that it's more or less impossible for ordinary women without very deep pockets to get a legal abortion in the state.
While Texas was criticized for passing a law like this, there wasn't quite the level of outrage as over this anti gay law in Indiana. So evidently, sensitivity for women's rights is not as great-at least in this area. To be sure, you can argue gauging women's progress only based on abortion rights-and I wouldn't claim that we should.
Nevertheless, it's an interesting comparison. It's not just women's rights either that in some ways seem to be going backwards-how about voting rights and civil rights, where the SJC recently struck down party of the Voting Rights Act? How about all those voter Ids? So Madonna's claim wasn't necessarily absurd.
The answer is of course not to cut back on the advancements of gay rights but to question why women's rights as well as the right of Black folks to vote seems to be hitting on snag in some areas.
No comments:
Post a Comment