*The Domino Theory In The Democratic Struggle For Gay Marriage Rights- New Hampshire Falls

Click On Title To Link To Boston Globe Article On The Recent Legislative Action In New Hampshire That Has Sanctioned Gay Marriage Rights.

Mini-commentary

I have already made the germane points about this issue elsewhere on this site overt the past couple of months as things have gone quickly. Kudos for New Hampshire as the fifth New England state to ratify, one way or another, gay marriage rights. This once rather stolid, conservative state has dramatically shifted from the days when the late, unlamented Willaim Loeb, publisher of the conservative "Manchester Union Leader" held sway over that body politic. Nevertheless I would feel a whole lot better about the fate of this struggle if places like Alabama or....California got on board. Forward.

*Honor Doctor Tiller- Defend Abortion Providers And Abortion Clinics!

Click On Title To Link To March 21 2009 Commentary On The Late Heroic Abortion Provider Kansas Doctor George Tiller.

Commentary

markin said...

This following message in quotes (along with some other comments) was left on a March 21, 2009 commentary on the legal defense of Doctor Tiller on this blog after I posted the information there about the murder of Doctor George Tiller on May 31, 2009.

“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "*Defend Dr. George Tiller!- Free Abortion on Deman...":

Barack Obama should seek punishment against the murderer of Tiller.”

Markin responds: More appropriately, for leftist militants and other progressives, is not the question of whether Barack Obama should seek punishment against the murderer of Doctor Tiller but that we should be actively propagandizing and agitating for the defense of abortion providers and abortion clinics by working class organizations and other interested progressive organizations. Starting right now! No more Doctor Tillers! Defend Abortion Providers! Defend Abortion Clinics!

*Honor The Memory Of Kansas Abortion Provider Doctor George Tiller- Free Abortion On Demand! Defend Abortion Providers And Clinics!

Click On Title To Link To Associated Press Article On The Murder Of Kansas Abortion Provider, Dr. George Tiller. Despite many personal trials and tribulations he provided this service to Kansas women in need in the face of many legal, political and social threats. All honor to his memory. And the best way to do so is to fight, and fight hard, for the right to free abortion on demand. Forward!

******

Below is a repost of an article from the Partisan Defense Committee concerning the most recent legal harassment of the late Doctor Tiller. Honor his memory.

Guest Commentary

March Is Women's History Month

This entry is passed on from the Partisan Defense Committee. At a time when everyone is "keeping it on the low" about President Barack Obama's retro position on abortion noted in the article Doctor Tiller, a real hero of the women's rights movement (when it counts) needs serious defense.

Free Abortion on Demand!

Defend Dr. George Tiller!

After decades of intimidation and terror, courageous abortion provider Dr. George Tiller goes on trial March 16, threatened with 19 years in prison. One of the few remaining physicians providing “late-term” abortions in the U.S., Dr. Tiller and the staff of his Wichita Women’s Health Care Services have repeatedly been targeted by anti-abortion fanatics. Tiller’s clinic was bombed in 1986, and in 1993 he survived being shot several times in an assassination attempt. Tiller faces 19 misdemeanor counts of violating the state’s law requiring two doctors, without financial or legal ties to each other, to sign off on abortions done late in pregnancy (in Kansas, the arbitrary calculus of “late-term” is set at 22 weeks). Prosecutors claim that Tiller had a financial relationship with the doctor who provided a second opinion. These bogus charges are being used to railroad a courageous doctor who puts medical science and concern for his patients above his own well-being. The labor movement and all defenders of women’s rights must stand in defense of Dr. Tiller and demand: Stop the witchhunt against George Tiller! Drop the charges!

The attack on Dr. Tiller is part of a drive, by legal and extralegal means, to intimidate abortion providers and ultimately do away with women’s right to abortion. According to papers filed by Tiller’s lawyers, the district attorney obtained under false pretenses a court order directing a Wichita hotel to turn over registration records containing patients’ names. Under the pretext of investigating “child rape,” these records were then matched with medical records that Tiller was required to submit to the state, in order to discover the names of Tiller’s patients. D.A. Phill Kline, who launched the legal crusade against Tiller, was so frenzied in his campaign against abortion clinics that the state Supreme Court in December chastised him for showing “little, if any, respect” for “the rule of law” (Topeka Capital-Journal, 6 December 2008).

Nevertheless, on February 25 the judge in the criminal case against Tiller denied a defense motion to throw out prosecution evidence and refused to dismiss the case. Noting that the charges against Tiller had been filed by Kline’s successor as attorney general, a “pro-choice” Democrat, the judge ludicrously concluded that Kline’s actions “could not have tainted the investigation and prosecution of this case” (AP, 25 February).

The law being used to go after Tiller is just one of a slew of measures which have made abortion virtually inaccessible to a large number of women in this country. This is especially true for the young, working-class and poor, who already have limited access to decent health care, childcare, affordable housing or even enough food to feed their families. Today, 36 states prohibit abortions after a specified point in pregnancy. Fully 34 states require one or both parents of young women under 18 to be notified and/or consent to an abortion. And 87 percent of U.S. counties—97 percent in nonmetropolitan areas—do not have an abortion provider.

Abortion is a politically explosive issue because it raises the question of the equality of women. This simple medical procedure provides women with some control over whether or not to have children. For this reason it is viewed as a threat to the institution of the family, which is a crucial prop for the system of capitalist exploitation. In order for safe and legal abortion to become a reality for working-class, minority and immigrant women, we call for free abortion on demand as part of free quality health care for all.

The increasing curtailment of the right to abortion reflects the policies of both the Democratic and Republican parties. As we wrote in “Drop the Charges Against Dr. George Tiller!” (WV No. 924, 7 November 2008):

“The reactionary demagogy of the Republicans is longstanding and obvious enough. But the fact is that there has been little ‘choice’ for poor women since Democrat Jimmy Carter (who now has become an international ‘human rights’ icon) signed into law in 1977 the Hyde Amendment eliminating Medicaid coverage for abortions. During Democrat Clinton’s eight years in office, welfare for mothers was axed, safe access to abortion was effectively gutted across much of the country, as the number of abortion providers plummeted 14 percent between 1992 and 1996, and a huge number of restrictive laws were passed.”

President Barack Obama provoked a hysterical uproar among anti-abortion bigots when he nominated as Health and Human Services Secretary Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius, a “pro-choice” Democrat who sponsored an April 2007 event at the governor’s residence with Tiller and his clinic’s staff. Yet during the election campaign, Obama told the Christian magazine Relevant that he opposed mental health exceptions for “late-term” abortion bans because “I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother” (AP, 4 July 2008). In office, Obama stripped from his economic stimulus package a proposal to allow states to expand Medicaid coverage of contraception and other family planning services. Obama’s proposed 2010 budget has been hailed by liberals for setting aside $634 billion for health care, but the reality is that about half that sum would come from spending cuts in programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

The attacks on abortion rights are part of a campaign of social reaction aimed at regimenting the entire population—not just women, but black people, immigrants, gays and the working class as a whole. While the anti-abortion bigots call themselves “pro-life,” they enthusiastically support the racist death penalty. The U.S. has one of the highest rates of infant mortality in the industrialized world.

The fight for abortion rights, decent living conditions and free quality health care mandates that we build a revolutionary workers party. The working class has the social power necessary to mobilize in defense of not only women, but all the oppressed. But to exercise that power it is necessary to wage a political struggle against the labor bureaucracy that keeps working people tied to the Democratic Party. The elimination of the right to abortion would redound against all working people. As we have often underlined, democratic rights either go forward together or fall back separately. The working class is uniquely situated to bring capitalist rule to an end. For women’s liberation through socialist revolution!

*Hard Times In Babylon- The California Supreme Court Gay Marriage Decision

Click Title To Link To California Supreme Court Gay Marriage Decision Article

Commentary

The result of the California Supreme Court's decision on the validity of Proposition 8 banning gay marriage in California is in. Not good, for sure. Moreover, as I pointed out in a recent commentary, until states like California get it right then while the tide is turning for the better on this important democratic question it will continue to be a rather "New Englandish" kind of right (No, I haven't forgotten Iowa). I have reposted that commentary because it really makes the key points that I want to make on this issue.

************************

*Another Small Victory For Gay Marriage Rights-Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage With Veto Override

Here are a few paragraphs from the Associated Press report of April 7, 2009 on the Vermont legislative actions that legalized gay marriage in that state.

******

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

The House recorded a dramatic 100-49 vote, the minimum needed, to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto. Its vote followed a much easier override vote in the Senate, which rebuffed the Republican governor with a vote of 23-5.

Vermont was the first state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples and joins Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa in giving gays the right to marry. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

Tuesday morning's legislative action came less than a day after Douglas issued a veto message saying the bill would not improve the lot of gay and lesbian couples because it still would not provide them rights under federal and other states' laws....

*****

Commentary

Full Marriage (And Divorce) Rights For Gays And Lesbians In Every State!

As I noted just last week in this space (see “A Small Victory For Gay Marriage Rights- The Iowa Case”, dated April 4, 2009) I have, more often than I would like, noted that on some key democratic questions, here the question of equal access to the marriage bureau for gays and lesbians, we get help from some unlikely sources. As always though, we will take our small but important victories anyway we can get them. In that case it was the Iowa Supreme Court doing yeomen’s work on this issue. Here, in the Vermont case, it is the state legislature that has provided the impetus.

That is indeed unusual as most legislative action has been going in the opposite direction. This has allegedly reflected the social opinions and political desires of the so-called ”silent majority” of heterosexual marrieds who are assumed to feel threatened by opening the marriage bureaus to gays and lesbians, including those here in Massachusetts. Here, unsuccessful attempts were made to override the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s landmark decision by calling a constitutional convention as the prologue to initiative action like California’s successful efforts to put the issue before the voters. The Vermont decision may not have the same political impact as the Iowa decision as it may seem to be seen as reflecting some exotic New England quirk but the legislative action should nevertheless not be underrated for its value as precedent. In short, a good talking point for further actions as the struggle heads to other states.

As I also mentioned in that Iowa commentary in discussing this issue the core location of the struggle for the democratic right for gays and lesbians to have access to the marriage bureaus now appears to be in the states. The highest courts of three states (Massachusetts and Connecticut, along with this recent Iowa case) and a now overturned fourth, California, have held that such restrictive marriage regulations are unconstitutional in their unequal application and do not serve any rational governmental purpose. Although this represents a small minority (and here is where the initiative defeat in California in November 2008 really slowed down the momentum) there is something of a “snowball” effect to these kinds of judicial decisions as other state supreme courts now have some precedents to hang their hands on. But as I said then that is for later. For now though, another small victory goes into the books. As always our slogan remains- Full democratic rights for gays and lesbians, for the full rights of marriage (and divorce) to all. Everywhere.

*Another Small Victory For Gay Marriage Rights-Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage With Veto Override

Click On Title To Link To Article On Califronia Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ruling.

*Another Small Victory For Gay Marriage Rights-Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage With Veto Override

Here are a few paragraphs from the Associated Press report of April 7, 2009 on the Vermont legislative actions that legalized gay marriage in that state.

******

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

The House recorded a dramatic 100-49 vote, the minimum needed, to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto. Its vote followed a much easier override vote in the Senate, which rebuffed the Republican governor with a vote of 23-5.

Vermont was the first state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples and joins Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa in giving gays the right to marry. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

Tuesday morning's legislative action came less than a day after Douglas issued a veto message saying the bill would not improve the lot of gay and lesbian couples because it still would not provide them rights under federal and other states' laws....

*****

Commentary

Full Marriage (And Divorce) Rights For Gays And Lesbians In Every State!

As I noted just last week in this space (see “A Small Victory For Gay Marriage Rights- The Iowa Case”, dated April 4, 2009) I have, more often than I would like, noted that on some key democratic questions, here the question of equal access to the marriage bureau for gays and lesbians, we get help from some unlikely sources. As always though, we will take our small but important victories anyway we can get them. In that case it was the Iowa Supreme Court doing yeomen’s work on this issue. Here, in the Vermont case, it is the state legislature that has provided the impetus.

That is indeed unusual as most legislative action has been going in the opposite direction. This has allegedly reflected the social opinions and political desires of the so-called ”silent majority” of heterosexual marrieds who are assumed to feel threatened by opening the marriage bureaus to gays and lesbians, including those here in Massachusetts. Here, unsuccessful attempts were made to override the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s landmark decision by calling a constitutional convention as the prologue to initiative action like California’s successful efforts to put the issue before the voters. The Vermont decision may not have the same political impact as the Iowa decision as it may seem to be seen as reflecting some exotic New England quirk but the legislative action should nevertheless not be underrated for its value as precedent. In short, a good talking point for further actions as the struggle heads to other states.

As I also mentioned in that Iowa commentary in discussing this issue the core location of the struggle for the democratic right for gays and lesbians to have access to the marriage bureaus now appears to be in the states. The highest courts of three states (Massachusetts and Connecticut, along with this recent Iowa case) and a now overturned fourth, California, have held that such restrictive marriage regulations are unconstitutional in their unequal application and do not serve any rational governmental purpose. Although this represents a small minority (and here is where the initiative defeat in California in November 2008 really slowed down the momentum) there is something of a “snowball” effect to these kinds of judicial decisions as other state supreme courts now have some precedents to hang their hands on. But as I said then that is for later. For now though, another small victory goes into the books. As always our slogan remains- Full democratic rights for gays and lesbians, for the full rights of marriage (and divorce) to all. Everywhere.

*Another Small Victory For Gay Marriage Rights- The Iowa Case

Click On Title To Link To July 2, 2009 "New York Review Of Books" Article Entitled "The Same-Sex Future" By David Cole That Gives An Update On This Struggle And A Capsule Of The Various Positions On The Issue.

Commentary

Full Marriage (And Divorce) Rights For Gays And Lesbians!

In this space I have, more often than I would like, noted that on some key democratic questions, here the question of equal access to the marriage bureau for gays and lesbians, we get help from some unlikely sources. As always though, we will take our small but important victories anyway we can get them. In this case it is the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous verdict in the gay marriage case before the justices of that court. The Iowa decision was unusual in that it was unanimous, unlike in the other successful cases in Massachusetts, Connecticut and California where the justices were closely divided (as were decisions in some other states like New York and Washington that went the other way). Moreover, it is very significant that this is a case decided in the heartland of America, the “mainstream”, and not on either of the two “assumed” to be more liberal coasts.

As I have mentioned before in discussing this issue the core location of the struggle for the democratic right for gays and lesbians to have access to the marriage bureaus now appears to be in the states. The highest courts of three states (Massachusetts and Connecticut, along with this recent Iowa case) and a now overturned fourth, California, have held that such restrictive marriage regulations are unconstitutional in their unequal application and do not serve any rational governmental purpose. Although this represents a small minority (and here is where the initiative defeat in California in November 2008 really slowed down the momentum) there is something of a “snowball” effect to these kinds of judicial decisions as other state supreme courts now have some precedents to hang their hands on.

But that is for later. For now though, another small victory goes into the books as it does not appear that the Iowa state legislature is up to overturning the court’s decision by either supporting an initiative petition or convening a constitutional convention. As always our slogan remains- Full democratic rights for gays and lesbians, for the full rights of marriage (and divorce) to all.

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8 IN CALIFORNIA- THE GAY MARRIGE BAN AMENDMENT

Click On Title To Link To July 2, 2009 "New York Review Of Books" Article Entitled "The Same-Sex Future" By David Cole That Gives An Update On This Struggle And A Capsule Of The Various Positions On The Issue.

Commentary

IN CALIFORNIA VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8- THE GAY MARRIAGE BAN AMENDMENT-WITH BOTH HANDS!!!

Earlier this year the California Supreme Court held by a 4-3 vote that the prohibition against same sex marriage violated the California constitution. Needless to say, as has occurred in other locales like Massachusetts, the "social conservatives" there have attempted to overturn that decision by placing a proposition (Proposition 8) banning same sex marriages on the ballot for the November 4, 2008 elections.

Just as adamantly we oppose this measure. Vote NO with both hands on this one. Anyone even vaguely familiar with the politics of this space knows this is a "no-brainer" position that needs no further motivation as a simple measure in defense of democratic rights. Moreover, unless there is some supportable socialist candidate that I have not heard about on the California ballot (no, NOT Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party and certainly not the moribund Peace and Freedom Party) then this may be the only reason to go to the polls on that day. Do so.

Another Small 'Victory' In The Death Penalty Struggle

Commentary

Forgive me if I accuse the august justices of the United States Supreme Court (at least those who have been able to move beyond 1791 on a legal decision) for having severe cases of schizophrenia. Or, in any case, they should be subjected to analysis for that possibility. Several weeks ago the Court, by a 7-2 decision (including some of the majority in this child rape death penalty case commented on here), agreed that the current manner of administration of the lethal injection used by most states that have the death penalty on their books did not offend against the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the American Constitution. Moreover, there were so many opinions issued, as each justice tried to parse his or her way through that legal thicket, that I feared for the paper supply at the Court.

Now, on Wednesday June 25, 2008, the Court, by a 5-4 decision, has held that those states that permit the death penalty in cases of child rape without the murder of the victim cannot impose the death penalty for such actions. In the Justice Kennedy-authored opinion the majority found that, heinous as this crime may be, without more this is cruel and unusual punishment. (Kennedy also authored the majority opinion in the Guantanamo detainees federal courts access decision last week. His law clerks must be working overtime these days as he tries to atone for his many legal sins committed over the last several years.) This decision is in line with an attempt by a least a few members of the court to limit the scope of the death penalty without actually abolishing it. Other cases in recent years include forbidding the execution of mental incompetents and minors.

When I commented on the Guantanamo case I mentioned that such a decision is a victory, if a small one, for us. This child rape decision is a ‘victory’ in that same sense. Nobody feels anything but contempt for a child rapist. Nasty little factual aspects of cases like these cause one to gulp when we use the word ‘victory’ here. Nevertheless to the extent that we are unable today to eliminate the state’s ability to impose the death penalty- our ultimate goal- then anytime a legal decision reins in that capacity it is a victory. Not in the way that we would claim a victory if Mumia Abu Jamal, for example, was freed- a case of a wrongly convicted innocent man that we are conspicuously trying to fight and win and have put resources into- but I think you get the drift of my comment. Really though, the best way to insure a real victory for our side (and get rid of some of the underlying causes of these ugly child rape cases in the world), is not to depend on the good offices of Justice Kennedy or any other Justice to rein in the death penalty, but to create a workers party that fights for a workers government.

NO RELIGIOUS TESTS FOR OFFICE- FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

COMMENTARY

Every once in a while left wing propagandists, including this writer, are forced to comment on odd ball political or social questions that are not directly related to the fight for socialism. Nevertheless such questions must be addressed in the interest of preserving democratic rights, such as they are. I have often argued that socialists are, or should be, the best defenders of democratic rights, hanging in there long after many bourgeois democrats have thrown in the towel, especially on constitutional questions like abortion and searches and seizures.

A good example from the not too distant past, which I am fond of citing because it seems so counter intuitive, was opposition to the impeachment of one William Jefferson Clinton, at one time President of the United States and now potentially the first First Ladies’ man. How, one might ask could professed socialists defend the rights of the Number One Imperialist –in Chief. Simple, Clinton was not being tried for any real crimes against working people but found himself framed by the right wing cabal for his personal sexual preferences and habits. That he was not very artful in defense of himself is beside the point. We say government out of the bedrooms (or wherever) whether White House or hovel. We do no favor political witch-hunts of the highborn or the low for their personal predilections. Interestingly, no one at the time proposed that Clinton be tried as a war criminal for his very real crimes in trying to bomb Serbia, under the guidance of one Wesley Clark, back to the Stone Age (and nearly succeeding). Enough said.

Now we are confronted with another strange situation in the case of one ex-Governor of Massachusetts and current Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney on the question of his Mormon religious affiliation and his capacity to be president of a secular state. Romney, on Thursday December 6, 2007 fled down to Houston, apparently forced to deal with the issue by his vanishing prospects in Iowa, and made a speech about his Mormon faith, or at least his fitness for office. This speech evoked in some quarters, at least formally, Jack Kennedy’s use in the 1960 presidential campaign of the same tool concerning his Roman Catholicism as a way to cut across anti-Catholic bigotry in a mainly Protestant country and to affirm his commitment to a democratic secular state. I pulled up that speech off the Internet and although Kennedy clearly evoked his religious affiliation many times in that speech he left it at that, a personal choice. He did not go on and on about his friendship with Jesus or enumerate the virtues of an increased role for religion in political life.

Romney’s play is another kettle of fish entirely. He WANTS to affirm that his Mormon beliefs rather than being rather esoteric are in line with mainstream Protestant fundamentalist tenets. In short, Jesus is his guide. Christ what hell, yes hell, have we come to when a major political party in a democratic secular state has for all intents and purposes a religious test for its nominee for president. A cursory glance at the history of 18th century England and its exclusion clauses, codified in statutes, for Catholics and dissenters demonstrates why our forbears rejected that notion. It is rather ironic that Romney evoked the name of Samuel Adams as an avatar of religious toleration during some ecumenical meeting in 1774. Hell, yes when you are getting ready to fight for a Republic, arms in hand, and need every gun willing to fight the King you are damn right religion is beside the point. Revolutions are like that. Trying to prove your mettle as a fundamentalist Christian in order to woo the yahoo vote in 2007 is hardly in the same category. Nevertheless on the democratic question- down with religious tests, formal or otherwise, for political office.

Now to get nasty. Isn’t it about time we started running these religious nuts back into their hideouts? I have profound differences with the political, social and economic organization of this country. However, as stated above, I stand for the defense of the democratic secular state against the yahoos when they try, friendly with Jesus or not, to bring religion foursquare into the ‘public square’. We have seen the effects of that for the last thirty or forty years and, hit me on the head if I am dreaming, but isn’t the current occupant of the White House on so kind of first name basis with his God. Enough. Look, this country is a prime example of an Enlightenment experiment, and tattered as it has become it is not a bad base to move on from. Those who, including Brother Romney, want a faith-based state- get back, way back. In the fight against religious obscurantism I will stand with science, frail as it sometimes is, any day. Defend the Enlightenment, and let’s move on.

*Hands Off Ward Churchill- A Guest Commentary

Click on the title to link to a "Workers Vanguard", newspaper of the Spartacist League/U.S, article on the subject mentioned in the headline.

*Full Citizen Rights For All Immigrants- A Guest Commentary

Click on the title to link to a "Workers Vanguard", newspaper of the Spartacist League/U.S, article on the subject mentioned in the headline.