By Artur Davis, on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 10:00 AM ET
It would not surprise me if there were six votes on the Supreme Court for getting and keeping the federal government out of the business of recognizing marriages. That would mean that when federal benefits and tax treatment turn on what is or isn’t a valid domestic union, that Washington has to defer to the state where a couple resides, and that state’s definition of what constitutes matrimony. It would also mean that the Court refused to put the evolving conversation over same sex marriage beyond the reach of actual voters and state legislatures.
That mixed bag, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act but declining to recognize that same sex marriages are a fundamental national right, would be roughly consistent with how the Roberts Court has navigated politically charged battles: upholding the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate under Congress’ taxing power instead of the more sweeping commerce clause; wiping out the most punitive provisions of Arizona’s immigration law but rebuking the Obama Administration for trying to thwart local law enforcement from sorting out whether criminal suspects even have a legal right to be in the country. To be sure, the high court can look suspiciously like politicians searching for a compromise, but their approach has virtues conservatives relish: appropriate skepticism about Washington’s tendencies to grow by swallowing major chunks of state authority, and deference to a public that still prefers the ballot box and the legislative chamber as the deciding grounds for disputes.
The more unpredictable question is how the left, which has been so ascendant on gay marriage, would react to being invited into a state by state contest that, based on the reactions to last week’s arguments, it is hoping to avoid. I will venture two predictions: first, liberals have probably passed through the easiest part of the fight. To date, their strategy has been one of stigmatizing opposition to gay marriage, and guaranteeing a social and professional price in establishment circles to any contrary point of view. It is a course that has built a narrative in the media and run up a string of victories in heavily Democratic states where social conservatives are suspect. National Republicans, who depend on that same media for oxygen and who have to raise cash in New York, Chicago, and Washington boardrooms as much as Democrats do, have been thrown on the defensive.
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: The Next Round on Gay Marriage
In his column this week for The Huffington Post, The RP applauds Kentucky’s Lt. Governor Jerry Abramson and Auditor Adam Edelen for their brave announcements this week in support of marriage equality:
Edelen & Abramson
As I proudly watched public sentiment dramatically shift on the subject over the past few years, I still didn’t expect any active statewide politicians in my old (conservative) Kentucky home to join me. After all, a recently released 2012 poll showed that support for marriage equality among Kentucky voters dramatically trailed the national average — at an embarrassing 33% approval clip.
Worse, in the recently-concluded session of the Kentucky General Assembly, a vast majority of Democratic and Republican legislators joined together to override Governor Steve Beshear’s brave veto of legislation — posed misleadingly as a “religious freedom bill” — that could undermine ordinances in Lexington and Louisville that protect the LGBT community from job and housing discrimination. If politicians couldn’t stand for simple fairness, how could they be brave enough to support marriage equality?
However, with nearly the entire U.S. Senate Democratic majority lining up to legalize same-sex marriage, one liberal Kentucky columnist — LEO Weekly‘s Joe Sonka — decided to put the state’s five Democratic statewide elected constitutional officers to the test, asking each of them their position on the issue. Sonka’s tweets revealed his skepticism about their responses: He guessed two would say “no,” two wouldn’t respond, and one would offer gibberish.
But then the unexpected happened. First Lt. Governor Jerry Abramson, the former uber-popular “Mayor-for-Life” of Louisville announced his support:
“I don’t believe government should judge which adults can and which cannot make a loving, life-long commitment to each other. That’s why both Madeline and I support marriage equality for all adults.”
And then, within a few hours, Auditor Adam Edelen — who at 38 is one of the Democrats’ bright young stars — declared his support, arguing:
“I believe equal protection of the law and equality of opportunity are central to the American experiment and they ought to apply to every American.”
I know both Abramson and Edelen well, and understand that their announcements came from their sincere support of the true American value of equality for all. But I also can attest that both are very savvy politicians, who wouldn’t stake out a position that could result in their imminent political demise. They understand that in the 2o15 gubernatorial race — which both men are considering — support for marriage equality will no longer be a disqualifier in the general election, and could indeed be a pre-requisite for winning a Democratic primary.
And if you too support marriage equality, I urge you to thank Jerry Abramson and Adam Edelen for their statements. We are always bad-mouthing politicians that disappoint us. So, why not thank true leaders when they make a selfless, brave announcement? And if they accrue some political mileage out of their actions, it will encourage others to follow their lead and join the marriage equality bandwagon.
Click here to sign a petition thanking Kentucky Lt. Governor Jerry Abramson, and click here to sign a petition thanking Kentucky Auditor Adam Edelen.
By Jonathan Miller, on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 8:30 AM ET
An historic week for equality in my old (conservative) Kentucky home…
Despite the fact that a recently released 2012 poll showed that support for marriage equality among Kentucky voters dramatically trailed the national average at an embarrassing 33% approval clip (although, I imagine that has ticked higher in the intervening few months), leading statewide elected officials are courageously coming forward to endorse marriage equality.
Early yesterday LEO Weekly magazine’s Joe Sonka broke the news that Kentucky’s Lt. Governor, Jerry Abramson, became the first active statewide official to endorse marriage equality.
Within a few hours, state Auditor Adam Edelen bravely took the plunge as well. Edelen declared his support for marriage equality because:
“I believe equal protection of the law and equality of opportunity are central to the American experiment and they ought to apply to every American.”
(And let’s give Joe Sonka some mad props for his simple, but groundbreaking questioning. Tweet at the dirty liberal columnist: @JoeSonka)
But most of all, please join me in expressing our support and gratitude to Auditor Adam Edelen for his courageous public statement by signing on to this petition below:
Thanks Auditor Edelen for Supporting Marriage Equality!
I may be a card-carrying knee-jerk liberal, but I do my best to understand opposing points of view. (Maybe it was all my years as a high school & college debater, where you had to argue convincingly on both sides of any question.) I may not like their reasoning, but I can see why gun enthusiasts worry about any new laws, or why people who view life beginning at conception would try to ban abortion – They have something at stake. However, I have yet to see a single way in which allowing same-sex marriage does anything at all to heterosexual marriage. Divorce rates are down in Massachusetts, kids still play hockey in Canada, and the “it’s not natural” argument has been thoroughly debunked, not just by psychologists but by the volume of evidence about animal homosexuality being perfectly natural. Bonobos do it, birds & bees do it, and probably educated fleas do it. (Apparently there are even bisexual flowers and trees!)
The most recent arguments against marriage equality have gotten even more ludicrous. First there was Sue Everhart, the Georgia Chairwoman of the GOP, who claimed that same-sex marriage would encourage fraudulent marriage claims in order to get federal benefits, but neglected to explain why people don’t do that already with straight marriage. Then Ben Carson, the neurosurgeon & new darling of the right, stuck his foot even further in his mouth by using a weird series of fruit analogies (??) to explain that just because he linked gay marriage, pedophilia and bestiality in an argument against gay marriage, he didn’t really mean it. But Dr. Carson is just the most recent marriage equality opponent to bring animals into the discussion. Rick Santorum used the ‘slippery slope’ argument almost 10 years ago, Bill O’Reilly once famously claimed people would want to marry their pet turtles, and recently Texas Representative Louie Gohmert digressed from his opposition to limiting ammunition magazine sizes to opine that we needed some limits or people would start marrying animals. As Jon Stewart ranted last week, “What’s with all the animal f-&#*%ing?”
Even Bill O’Reilly has seen the writing on the wall, and recently drew fire from his fellow conservatives by correctly stating that most of the objections to marriage equality involved bible-thumping rather than rational thinking. And as more and more conservatives have children who come out to them, I think we’ll see more conscience-driven switching. Of course, as a humorist, I’m still hoping for one of the more staunch opponents to be caught tickling his interns or playing footsie in an airport men’s room, but in the meantime, might I suggest that anyone who is still against marriage equality start using an argument that doesn’t involve nature or animals. And while they’re trying to come up with one (good luck!), here’s a musical look at the whole animals argument:
By John Y. Brown III, on Tue Apr 9, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET
You can call me Al. Or at least an Al lover. Al Jarreau, that is.
In high school I tried to get into the heavy metal music that was popular at the time. I tried and failed.
That more I caved to peer pressure and tried to pretend I liked the dense, loud, manic lyrics belted out by AC/DC and Black Sabbath, the more drawn I became to what, I suppose, could be called its opposite: the melodious and soulful harmonizings of a little known singer (at the time) named Al Jarreau.
I remember having more Al Jarreau cassettes in my car than any other musician in 1979. But I would never play them when a friend was in the car. But when I was alone, it was Al and me.
My first great love affair with music was with this man’s remarkable voice.
By Jonathan Miller, on Tue Apr 9, 2013 at 9:00 AM ET
In this morning’s LEO Weekly magazine, Joe Sonka breaks the news that Kentucky’s Lt. Governor, Jerry Abramson, has become the first active statewide official to endorse marriage equality.
“I don’t believe government should judge which adults can and which cannot make a loving, life-long commitment to each other. That’s why both Madeline and I support marriage equality for all adults.”
Mazel Tov to a real mensch, and a true leader for Kentucky.
Please join me in expressing our support and gratitude to Lt. Gov. Abramson for his courageous public statement by signing on to this petition below:
Thanks Lt. Gov. Abramson for Supporting Marriage Equality
By Nancy Slotnick, on Tue Apr 9, 2013 at 8:30 AM ET
I am pretty strong. I have been known to be impressive to my neighbor on the treadmill next to me and to the occasional trainer at Equinox. However, I suck at Pilates. My core is my kryptonite. My husband does Pilates religiously and I keep hoping that the osmosis will kick in, but no such luck. I keep striving nonetheless, because they say that core strength is what matters. And I find that to be true when it comes to the spirit as well.
Think about standing, with your core engaged, as someone tries to push you over. You feel the push but you can stay steady. If your core is not engaged, you might just fall right to the pavement- ouch. Now apply that metaphor (did you get yet that this is a metaphor?) to dating. You meet someone and have a few dates, only to be flat-out rejected. If you are strong in your spiritual core, you will jump right back onto the dating bandwagon and turn your Cablight on. If your soul’s six pack is only a two pack, then you may just seclude yourself with a box of Entenman’s and resolve never to date again. Pilates for your soul is what you need.
A client of mine coined the phrase of being “in the vortex.” I love that concept. It refers to that feeling when you’re aligned with the universe, everything is going your way and you can create any outcome you want. I felt that way when I met my husband. I’ve felt it at many points in my life. But what’s hard is to bring yourself back to that feeling when you’re off your game. When you wake up in the morning in a funk, on the “wrong side of the bed,” how do you get back into the vortex? Pilates for your soul.
This involves affirmations. And I know your thinking Stuart Smalley right now and you are getting skeptical. (That is if you are old enough to remember when SNL was really funny.) But affirmations do work. And the power of positive thinking can be very powerful. I have helped a lot of people find love and sometimes it just comes down to believing love is out there and remaining unwavering. Strong at your core. Pilates for your soul.
If you meet someone and you are all excited and you start to tell your friends and your mom and they start making you doubt yourself, do not waver. Strong at your core. Pilates for your soul. Don’t even tell people your dating stories (unless you’ve hired a professional like me.) People have the best of intentions but they will always have their own agenda, whether it’s conscious or otherwise. They will try to throw you off your game- they can’t help it- it’s a natural principle. So you have to be strong at your core. Have a picture of how your story ends and stick to it no matter what. Practice your pilates so that no one can throw you off your game. Do your spiritual crunches, in other words, your affirmations. Spend a few hours per week just thinking about what your life will be like when you have the relationship that you’ve always wanted. Picture every detail and then start searching. It won’t take long.
And if you start to falter, just channel Stuart and you can’t go wrong:
“I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like me.”
Read the rest of… Nancy Slotnick: Pilates for Your Soul
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Apr 5, 2013 at 3:00 PM ET
“Someone in Heaven this yesterday said, “Cut, print, that’s a wrap!”
And gave a thumbs up.
RIP Roger Ebert
===
I never met Roger Ebert. But I felt like I knew him. How many critics can you say that about?
Roger Ebert was the most human of critics in my lifetime. My first years as an avid fan of Siskel & Ebert, I favored the more academic and cerebral Siskel.
But as I matured, I found myself leaning toward Roger Ebert. And the last two decades I looked to Roger Ebert if I ever wanted to understand the meaning of a film. Or decide if I should go to a film based on the quality of that film. Or, and this is most important, if I wanted to know what a film had to teach about life.
I don’t think there will ever be a film critic who will teach us more about life through the medium of film. That is because there will never be another critic who loved film as much as Roger Ebert. And who loved life equally as much as the art he critiqued.
Most critics love their art but too often hide behind it instead of embracing life. Roger Ebert was one critic who rose above his peers and helped to create an art form of covering an art form—and managed to marry a love of the art he covered with a gift for communicating the mechanics and mystery and magic of film. As one human to another.
We lost a great friend today that most of us never met. The one who also happened to be our greatest film critic.
Roger Ebert, is somewhere today, I suspect, critiquing the production choices of Heaven.
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Apr 5, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET
Idea for a movie:
An renowned divorce attorney who is a single, over-the -top, alpha-male, who has been very outspoken against gay marriage, begrudgingly takes his first gay divorce client.
Over the ensuing months, he falls in love with his client and starts a relationship, even though doing so violates the ethics code.
In the final scene, he has to choose between getting disbarred or his romantic relationship with his client.
He chooses the latter, and they marry the following May; and the former attorney opens a florist shop to make enough money for his partner to go to law school and become a great divorce attorney.
For heterosexual and gay couples.
And there is a really cool high speed chase scene reminiscent of the movie Bullet. Except it involves a floral delivery.
Just imagine this scene where everything hinges on a delivery. Of flowers. If not delivered timely, the entire arrangement (and it is a large one ) is free:
By Jonathan Miller, on Thu Apr 4, 2013 at 1:30 PM ET
My dad and I circa 1968
On this day in which we remember the tragic assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., we re-run this piece — in which the RP honored King, his father, and contributing RP Kathleen Kennedy Townsend’s father — that first appeared at The Recovering Politician on April 4, 2011.
Today — as on every April 4 — as the nation commemorates the anniversary of one of the worst days in our history; as some of us celebrate the anniversary of the greatest speech of the 20th Century; my mind is on my father. And my memory focuses on a winter day in the mid 1970s, sitting shotgun in his tiny, tinny, navy blue Pinto.
I can still remember my father’s smile that day.
He didn’t smile that often. His usual expression was somber, serious—squinting toward some imperceptible horizon. He was famously perpetually lost in thought: an all-consuming inner debate, an hourly wrestling match between intellect and emotion. When he did occasion a smile, it was almost always of the taut, pursed “Nice to see you” variety.
But on occasion, his lips would part wide, his green eyes would dance in an energetic mix of chutzpah and child-like glee. Usually, it was because of something my sister or I had said or done.
But this day, this was a smile of self-contented pride. Through the smoky haze of my breath floating in the cold, dense air, I could see my father beaming from the driver’s seat, pointing at the AM radio, whispering words of deep satisfaction with a slow and steady nod of his head and that unfamiliar wide-open smile: “That’s my line…Yep, I wrote that one too…They’re using all my best ones.”
He preempted my typically hyper-curious question-and-answer session with a way-out-of-character boast: The new mayor had asked him—my dad!—to help pen his first, inaugural address. And my hero had drafted all of the lines that the radio was replaying.
This was about the time when our father-son chats had drifted from the Reds and the Wildcats to politics and doing what was right. My dad was never going to run for office. Perhaps he knew that a liberal Jew couldn’t get elected dogcatcher in 1970s Kentucky. But I think it was more because he was less interested in the performance of politics than in its preparation. Just as Degas focused on his dancers before and after they went on stage—the stretching, the yawning, the meditation—my father loved to study, and better yet, help prepare, the ingredients of a masterful political oration: A fistful of prose; a pinch of poetry; a smidgen of hyperbole; a dollop of humor; a dash of grace. When properly mixed, such words could propel a campaign, lance an enemy, or best yet, inspire a public to wrest itself from apathetic lethargy and change the world.
Now, for the first time, I realized that my father was in the middle of the action. And I was so damn proud.
– – –
Click above to watch my eulogy for my father
My dad’s passion for words struck me most clearly when I prepared his eulogy. For the past two years of his illness, I’d finally become acquainted with the real Robert Miller, stripped down of the mythology, taken off my childhood pedestal. And I was able to love the real human being more genuinely than ever before. The eulogy would be my final payment in return for his decades of one-sided devotion: Using the craft he had lovingly and laboriously helped me develop, I would weave prose and poetry, the Bible and Shakespeare, anecdotes and memories, to honor my fallen hero. In his final weeks of consciousness, he turned down my offer to share the speech with him. I will never know whether that was due to his refusal to acknowledge the inevitable, or his final act of passing the torch: The student was now the author.
While the final draft reflected many varied influences, ranging from the Rabbis to the Boss (Springsteen), the words were my own. Except for one passage in which I quoted my father’s favorite memorial tribute: read by Senator Edward Kennedy at his brother, Robert’s funeral:
My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.
Read the rest of… My Father, RFK & the Greatest Speech of the 20th Century
The more unpredictable question is how the left, which has been so ascendant on gay marriage, would react to being invited into a state by state contest that, based on the reactions to last week’s arguments, it is hoping to avoid. I will venture two predictions: first, liberals have probably passed through the easiest part of the fight. To date, their strategy has been one of stigmatizing opposition to gay marriage, and guaranteeing a social and professional price in establishment circles to any contrary point of view. It is a course that has built a narrative in the media and run up a string of victories in heavily Democratic states where social conservatives are suspect. National Republicans, who depend on that same media for oxygen and who have to raise cash in New York, Chicago, and Washington boardrooms as much as Democrats do, have been thrown on the defensive. 
