In Black Swan, Natalie Portman, a pristine and proper ballerina, must figure out how to go beyond her ability to dance the white swan in "Swan Lake." She must find the passion, a darker side if you will, to convincingly portray the seductress that is the black swan. Of course, as she takes this leap, Portman's character is drawn deeper and deeper into a hallucinatory psychosis, unable to distinguish between reality and delusion.
In the film, Portman must become the Black Swan to play it, there is no middle ground where she can inhabit the character, but not the character's life - which causes her to lose all the self-control and discipline she has gained on stage as well as off. Which would seem to work the same way as conservatism, at least with regard to social policy - as right wingers fear in their fevered and misfiring synapses that we'll all become black swans just like they would (and often still do), without authoritarian rigidity dictating every aspect of our personal lives.
In other words, much like in the film, in the conservative worldview there can also be no middle ground. Either we all become Pat Robertson - you know, before the newfound love of the pot plant - or you know where things are headed. To quote the great Dr. Venkman from Ghostbusters, "human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria!"
This same dance has played out with policies relating to birth control, divorce, religion in schools and a variety of other issues. But most recently, it reared its Rovian head to spit venom on legislation that would make gay Americans equal to the rest of us under law and started a brawl among conservatives that is worthy of Camille and Kelsey Grammar.
The first of their two most recent Swan Lake moment happened during the vote in the recent lame-duck Congress to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. The Family Research Council, recently rewarded for all their hard work at being bigots with the designation of "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Centre, pulled some statistics out of a part of their body they're afraid to acknowledge to claim that "homosexual assault" would skyrocket if we let openly gay service members into our armed forces.
These happy - or gay if you will - protectors of our purity worried aloud about the "sleeping" and/or "intoxicated" victims of what would seem to be gay sexual Terminators not simply satisfied with converting foxholes into Liberace revivals, but forcing themselves on anyone and everyone within stone's throw of their tiaras.
While this is obviously good news in itself, it also begs the question, since there are similar trends with respect to civil rights and women's rights, but we're still dominated by rightwing nonsense political discourse and can't get much of anything done despite having a significant Democratic trifecta, (a) What the fuck does it mean anyway? and (b) Why doesn't it mean more?
If you want to find the professional right in need of drug testing, look no farther than the pages of the New York Times. It's been a busy week, I guess, and so I just didn't notice that Ross Douthat had trotted out one of his more palpably insane pieces, but this one really is a gem. He starts out admitting that all the old arguments against gay marriage are losers, and so he opts for something completely different: Instead of arguing that marriage between one man and one woman is natural, he argues the exact opposite: It's so unnatural that it requires all the protection it can get, or something utterly invaluable will be lost.
Here he goes dismissing all the failed arguments against gay marriage (anyone remember him doing this before?):
Here are some commonplace arguments against gay marriage: Marriage is an ancient institution that has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman, and we meddle with that definition at our peril. Lifelong heterosexual monogamy is natural; gay relationships are not. The nuclear family is the universal, time-tested path to forming families and raising children.
These have been losing arguments for decades now....
These arguments have lost because they're wrong. What we think of as "traditional marriage" is not universal. The default family arrangement in many cultures, modern as well as ancient, has been polygamy, not monogamy. The default mode of child-rearing is often communal, rather than two parents nurturing their biological children.
Nor is lifelong heterosexual monogamy obviously natural in the way that most Americans understand the term....
Then comes his 180 from all the previous lines of argument against gay marriage that Douthat now admits are sheer rubbish:
So what are gay marriage's opponents really defending, if not some universal, biologically inevitable institution? It's a particular vision of marriage, rooted in a particular tradition, that establishes a particular sexual ideal.
This ideal holds up the commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two sexually different human beings - a commitment that involves the mutual surrender, arguably, of their reproductive self-interest - as a uniquely admirable kind of relationship. It holds up the domestic life that can be created only by such unions, in which children grow up in intimate contact with both of their biological parents, as a uniquely admirable approach to child-rearing. And recognizing the difficulty of achieving these goals, it surrounds wedlock with a distinctive set of rituals, sanctions and taboos.
The point of this ideal is not that other relationships have no value, or that only nuclear families can rear children successfully. Rather, it's that lifelong heterosexual monogamy at its best can offer something distinctive and remarkable - a microcosm of civilization, and an organic connection between human generations - that makes it worthy of distinctive recognition and support.
The ludicrous nature of this argument--and its sheer bad faith being offered at this time--should be too obvious to need comment, or even emphasis. But Douthat just can't help himself, and thus proceeds to underscore the inherent absurdity here, in the very next lines:
Again, this is not how many cultures approach marriage. It's a particularly Western understanding, derived from Jewish and Christian beliefs about the order of creation, and supplemented by later ideas about romantic love, the rights of children, and the equality of the sexes.
Oh, yes, we have to protect romantic love & the equality sexes, even though BOTH were previously taken to be just as destructive to the unique institution of Western marriate as gay marriage is taken to be by Ross Douthat today. Since we still have people telling us how bad equality is, I won't bother documenting that. But regarding the threat of romantic love, I'm happy to refer you to Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage by historian Stephanie Coontz. The subtitle gives fair warning of what's to come, and Coontz shows that romantic love has been universally seen as disruptive or hostile to marriage and the social order--including here in Douthut's celebrated West. From Chapter One:
If you didn't see Freedom to Marry's introductory post this morning on their summer tour, you can read it here.-Adam
Earlier this week, Freedom to Marry teamed up with local and state equality groups to launch Summer for Marriage, a cross-country series of events about the importance of marriage to gay and lesbian couples. The tour also counters the anti-gay bus tour being sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). NOM is headed by Brian Brown who recently called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex couples from marrying.
The first stop on the equality tour was in Augusta, Maine. Marriage supporters were joined by Gov. John Baldacci who called the marriage movement "It was one of the most passionate, committed causes that I've been a part of, and proud to be a part of." Gov. Baldacci signed the marriage bill into law in 2009 that was overturned by votes in a ballot fight partially financed by NOM. Adam provided great on-the-ground coverage of the Maine ballot campaign here.
A coalition of groups led by Equality Maine is working together to win back marriage for gay and lesbian couples. The coalition held a press conference on Wednesday attended by rough 100 marriage supporters and featuring same-sex couples and elected officials who support marriage equality.
Pleased to announce Freedom to Marry will be blogging on OpenLeft for the next month from their tour across the country -Adam
Last month the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage (NOM), has announced it's "Summer for Marriage 2010 Tour" which will feature a series of "one man, one woman" rallies promoting the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from marriage. NOM was one of the forces behind the passage of Prop 8 which stripped away marriage from gay couples in California.
In NOM's call to discrimination, they declared "this is an urgent time for marriage," that "a strong marriage...makes a strong family," and that "groups of these strong families make strong neighborhoods" and "strong towns, cities, and states." We at Freedom to Marry, the campaign to win marriage for same-sex couples nationwide, couldn't agree more, that's why we are teaming up with local, state, and national equality groups on a series of pro-marriage events across the country in July and August.
We're honored to partner with OpenLeft to provide on-the-ground coverage of our tour over the next month or so. Also called "Summer for Marriage", the pro-equality tour will have events in 16 states and the District of Columbia. We'll have video, photos and all the action from the ground as we and committed same-sex couples from around the country confront the right-wing.
Today, the Proposition 8 trial in San Francisco Federal Court will hear its long-awaited closing arguments - as gay marriage advocates prepare to return to the ballot. And a new study conducted by the Haas Jr. Foundation looks at pre-election polling data from 33 states that passed anti-gay marriage initiatives. It concludes (a) we always do worse than what polls say, and (b) voters don't change their minds about this issue during campaigns. The lesson, of course, is that we must work harder to move hearts and minds - and that work can't be done in a short election season. Sadly, the implications of this study will strike many as discouraging - was all the money, time and energy we spent in California and Maine somehow a waste? It's true gay marriage is a sensitive topic that voters develop hard feelings about that can't be changed overnight. But the study did not focus on the small sliver of "persuadable" voters in each election who decide the outcome.
The FOX TV series Glee broke new ground this week, and it's not because they had a Lady Gaga episode. As any viewer who watches the show would know, that idea was just painfully predictable. No, the highlight of the episode (which can be viewed here) was when Kurt's father - played by Mike O'Malley - stood up to Finn for using the word "faggy." Watched by over 11 million viewers, you can't help choking up at the scene - and wish that every gay teen had a Dad like Burt Hummell. But for a show about a high school choir that is popular in the LGBT community, there is much more Glee can do to move hearts and minds. Kurt has a tough time growing up in Lima, Ohio - beaten up at school by the jocks, while coping with his own identity. It raises the question: why do we never meet Rachel's "two gay Dads," and wouldn't they be terrific role models for Kurt?
Also from the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit (paprogressivesummit.com), I'd like to bring you a few videos form a panel simply entitled 'Marriage Equality'. On this panel, the speakers discussed the benefits, issues, and consequences or allowing homosexual couples marriage rights equal to those of heterosexual ones. The panelists and approached the topic from a variety of angles. Some spoke about the legal issues equality, both in the PA state legislature and in the constitution, others talked about the religious aspects, especially from the Christian and Jewish traditions, and others talked about the moral and human rights aspect of the debate.
The clips below go into many of the arguments against marriage equality and gay marriage and why most of them struggle for validity. The first video, PA state senator Daylin Leach, who sponsored a bill in the PA state legislature in support on marriage equality, goes into many of the arguments against gay marriage that he has heard while debating the bill. As he says, no one has debated him twice, because no one has presented him an argument with any validity. The second video looks at many of the religious issues brought up by the marriage equality debate. Many think that religion has no part of the legal debate over gay marriage and often when religion is invoked, it is done so incorrectly. Finally, the last clip discusses why marriage equality supporters should want legalized gay marriage and not civil unions. Civil unions seem like an acceptable compromise, but really they are impractical and still discriminatory.
It's tempting to look at the recent gay marriage defeats in Maine and California, and say at least we're on the "right side of history." The opposition is running on borrowed time, as young people increasingly support marriage equality. But the trend is not moving fast enough, and it's clear that gay marriage supporters have been losing the "swing vote" in every election. Same-sex couples have largely won the battle for civil unions, but there's something about "marriage" that makes moderates uneasy - and it's time that we speak directly to their concerns. Third Way, a Washington DC based think tank, conducted a poll of 600 Maine voters right after Question One passed in November - which holds important conclusions we should build upon. As we look at repealing Prop 8 in California, going straight to those voters so we can win and finally move on to other battles is key. None of us want to wait until the old generation dies out, and nor should we have to.
This week in a San Francisco Federal District Court, a legal odd couple will be on display. Attorney David Boies, who represented Al Gore before the U.S. Supreme Court in the infamous 2000 case ofBush v. Gore, and conservative attorney Ted Olson, who represented George W. Bush, are joining forces to overturn California's Proposition 8. It will be their contention that the initiative passed by voters in 2008 banning same-sex marriage in the Golden State violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, and discriminates on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.
Regardless of which side prevails, experts agree the case is likely to be appealed all the way to the highest court in the land.
I hate losing elections, but what I REALLY hate is losing after a high turnout. Losing because our base didn't vote is depressing, but at least it tells us what we need to do to win next time - and progressives can take heart in the fact that "the people" are truly on their side, if only they showed up. Last night, Maine's Question 1 passed 53-47 - despite a much higher turnout than expected (we matched last year's Obama level at the University of Maine in Orono, winning the campus 81-19.) The "No on 1" campaign also had a far greater field presence than the opposition, and superior financial resources. It reminds me of 2004, when Bush won despite the progressive base voting in record numbers. When California's Proposition 8 passed last year, everyone could tell that our side ran an awful campaign. It was painful, but gave us many lessons to learn - lessons that the "No on 1" campaign in Maine took to heart, and performed beautifully. That's why this loss is so much worse than Prop 8. I don't know what we could have done differently, and am too sleep-deprived to think it all through.
BANGOR - "Welcome to the real Maine," said Regional Field Organizer Gabi Bérubé as I arrived yesterday at the "No on 1" office in Brewer, just across the Penobscot River from Bangor. That's what Mainers up here call their part of the state, and it's where I am spending the rest of my time on the campaign. I asked to go to Bangor because I wanted to help our field effort in more challenging places, after "No on 8" spent too much time last year preaching to the choir. The Bangor office covers everything north and east of here - in other words, two-thirds of the state's land mass. Replicating Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy, "No on 1" believes we have gay marriage supporters everywhere - and it's our challenge to organize them. But we're also targeting the University of Maine in Orono, whose 11,000 students make it the largest college in the state. Mobilizing young people on campus - and turning out identified supporters in rural areas - will prevent us from getting creamed in northern Maine, which will help us win statewide.
Welcome to Jesse, who is managing the No On 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign.-Adam
Thanks for the opportunity to post at OpenLeft and thanks to everyone who contributed to send Adam Bink to Maine to help us fight the right wing effort to repeal our state's new marriage equality law.
Adam made an important point in his post, An Interconnected Movement. It's easy to silo issues and to view the Maine campaign solely as an LGBT campaign. But, it's more than that. It is about generating momentum for the progressive movement.
I am managing the No on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign in Maine, but I don't come from the world of LGBT activism. I'm a straight ally who believes strongly in equality for all. This is the fourth time I've run a state-wide campaign, including Kerry-Edwards in 2004 and the re-election of our Governor in 2006. Those were both very important, but I think this campaign has the most potential for national significance.
Maine was the first state to have its same-sex marriage law pass the legislature and it was a huge moment when Governor John Baldacci signed the bill into law. In Maine, we have a process called the "people's veto," which allows citizens to challenge legislative enactments through referendum. The anti-gay forces, funded by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), Focus on the Family, the Catholic Diocese of Portland and the Knights of Columbus formed a campaign to overturn the new law at the ballot box this November 3rd.
Our opponents hired Schubert Flint Public Affairs, the same firm that ran the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign in California last fall. They are running the same campaign they ran in California -- literally. This week, the Yes on 1 campaign began running an ad that was virtually identical to an ad from the Prop. 8 campaign. You can see both ads here. The one difference is that the Mainer, Charla Bansley, in their ad is actually a well-known anti-gay activist who is the local leader of Concerned Women of America. This summer, she delivered her anti-gay message at a teabagging event, which showed one more time, as Adam noted, "The conservative movement is very interconnected."
The same cast of characters is running the same campaign in Maine that succeeded in California. But, we're not letting them get away with it this time. We've got an aggressive paid media campaign underway - and we're rebutting their message of lies with paid and earned media. One of our state's more conservative newspapers called one of their ads "baseless."
More importantly, we've been developing a very strong field component. As most politicos know, referendum campaigns, especially those in off-year elections, are won or lost in the field. And, the people working on our campaign know how to get-out-the-vote. In Maine, no one does it better than the folks who are working with us.
In Maine, the No on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign has to win - and we need help.
We have to win in Maine not only to secure full equality for Maine's same-sex couples, but to help shut down the conservative agenda.
In addition to sending Adam to Maine, you can donate to our campaign via OpenLeft's very own ActBlue page. Help us make sure we have the resources to keep our ads on the air. In a small state like Maine, every little bit helps. I call it a "cheap-date" state.
Also, you can join Adam in Maine through our Volunteer Vacation Program, which begins the first week of October. People from all over the country are coming to Maine to be full-time volunteers on the ground in targeted towns for one week. We'll provide the housing for anyone who can get to Maine. Our friends over at Travel For Change are helping arrange travel and are more than willing to help you sponsor another volunteer if you can't make it yourself, including taking your donated airline miles.
At the No on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign, we've been very appreciative of the support from progressives around the country. This is about marriage equality in Maine, but it's about much more, too.
"Yes on 1" - the Maine campaign to repeal marriage equality - aired its first San Francisco produced ad this week, which was kind of a dud. It was like the first "Yes on 8" ad in California - minus the Gavin Newsom footage. Within 24 hours, the "No on 1" campaign aired a strong rebuttal - in contrast to the 12 days it took "No on 8" to respond. Rather than simply deny the "gay marriage in public schools" charge, the ad accused outsiders of harming kids - and that schools protect "all Maine families," allowing our side to stay on the offensive. With 53 days to go before the election, a new poll today shows Question 1 narrowly ahead by 48-46. Supporters of marriage equality should realize that every effort will make a difference - and that we now have an opportunity to finally defeat anti-gay bigotry at the ballot box.
In just 77 days, Maine voters can set the national agenda for marriage equality. The state legislature passed same-sex marriage earlier this year, but now the right has collected enough signatures to put a referendum ("Question One") on the November 2009 ballot - and has hired the same political consultants who successfully passed Proposition 8. Supporters of marriage equality, however, are determined not to repeat the same mistakes we made in California - and will run an inclusive field campaign with a pro-active and pre-emptive message that (with the right resources) can bring about victory. It does not cost a lot to win campaigns in Maine (only $3 million), and voter turnout is expected to only be about 500,000 people. In other words, the campaign is winnable - but has not yet received the national attention it deserves. While Californians are divided on whether to repeal Prop 8 in 2010 or 2012, they can set aside their differences by helping us win in Maine. If we prevail on November 3rd, it will be easier to take our rights back in California.
STATE BLOGS
