That Not So Fresh Feeling (Again)

Sorry, Gov. Pence. But nothing says the GOP is the party of old, outdated ideas like defending your controversial anti-gay law with the argument that, it’s the same as a 1993 federal law signed by then-President Bill Clinton.

That was over 20 years ago, you disingenuous nitwit. Twenty years ago was not a good time for gay people. We had Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. We had Republicans holding up the nomination of the first openly gay U.S. Ambassador (to Luxembourg, of all places!) for two years because of his sexual orientation. Clinton had to bypass the Senate to get this guy in his post.

Matthew Shepard was beaten to death and left to die on a Laramie, Wyoming fence in 1998, for God’s sakes.

So when I hear this “religious freedom” bill’s defenders say the opposition is being hysterical because this is no different from legislation passed more than 20 years ago, I just want to say thank you. Thank you for proving our point. Thank you for admitting, for all the world to see, that you do not have a new idea, that the real conservative agenda is rolling back the clock 20 years and voiding all the progress that’s been made. Thanks for making it all so clear, so those of us who believe in putting this country in “Drive” not “Reverse” have something tangible to point to. There you go. If you want to move forward, vote D. You want to move backwards, go R. We finally have our bumper sticker moment.

You aren’t the party of the future when the best you can do is tell everyone all of your ideas are staler than a 20-year-old loaf of bread.


Filed under GLBT

13 responses to “That Not So Fresh Feeling (Again)

  1. Moira MacGaothin

    And it’s not the same. This is the only law that allows private citizens to use this argument against the actions of other private citizens. The others all protect bigots and religio-fascists from government actions, not personal ones. This will not stand up to legal scrutiny, if it ever gets that far. Let’s hope that the state suffers terribly until this is repealed. Sorry, Hoosiers. Whether you agree with this or not, you elected him. So you suffer the consequences.

  2. CB

    From a friend of mine, a professor of constitutional law: “Indiana, so far as I know, does not have procedures such as initiatives and referenda, so the only way to deal with this statute would be to put together a test case and send it through the courts. The right wing is not concerned with how its pet ideas look to judges; they just don’t care. But we should care, and the best and (so far as I can tell) only way to get this statute struck down is to launch a test case, but it must be a well-considered test case, not just a contrivance.”

    I simply cannot imagine how this would stand up to serious judicial examination, but there you have. Indiana may just have to wait until one of its residents uses it to do something that sends it on its merry way through the courts. Until then, the state will continue to die the death of a thousand cuts, as corporations in-state and out- do their economic best to make Gov. No-Sense wish he’d vetoed it in the first place, which, of course, he didn’t.

    • If the law is unconstitutional on its face does it really need to be adjudicated or do parties just ask the lower federal courts to have a look at it?

      • I think it needs to be adjudicated, doesn’t it?

      • CB

        I think that’s what he meant by initiatives and referenda. Indiana doesn’t have that, so it has to go through the courts, and be declared unconstitutional, which it is.

        Today, the mayor of Hammond, IN, sent out a memo from his office, asking the governor to step aside, for the good of the state. The Republican mayor of Indianapolis, which has its own anti-discrimination statute, has stated that their law will remain in effect, regardless of the status of the state law.

        Weirdly enough, it may be that having this situation implode so forcefully in Indiana is actually helping the situation in Georgia, where a similar bill has been proposed. A republican amended the bill to specifically prohibit discrimination; said amendment passed. Josh McKoon, who sponsored the bill, has said publicly that this provision will gut the original bill’s intent, and that right there tells you everything you need to know about HIS intentions. I’ve read today, but have not seen it reported in a credible source, that the GA legislature is walking back its support for the bill. I fervently hope that that is the case.

      • Interesting, thanks for that update about GA.

      • CB

        Just an fyi. The RFR bill in Georgia did not make it through Sine Die. So, we’re — ha ha — free for now, until next year. If McKoon brings it up again, I hope his elders and betters have the guts to remind him that both Coca Cola AND Delta were against it. Business climate, and all that.

      • This crop of GOPers don’t give a damn about businesses. See Pence, Mike.

  3. GregH

    I love living in beautiful Tennessee and I love the red white and blue as much as the next guy, but shit like this happening over and over makes me seriously think about emigrating to New Zealand.

  4. Wandering only a little OT — and bringing in the election that will always be my #1 topic — am I the only person disgusted with the weakness of the nominee presumptiv’s responses to both the Indiana and Arkansas situations.

    I understand the argument that, until the law was actually signed, Democrats, even the n.p., had tgo be silent and not to push Pence into a corner where he had to sign the bill. There was still the hope he would veto it.

    But he signed it on April 24th. Finally on the 27th, three days after the discussion was everywhere, not just in the gay press but on every newssite, we get a tweet from our supposed leader. 144 characters — and how did she describe the law. That it was “sad that it was passed and signed.

    Then in Arkansas — once her home state, once where she was First Lady — passes a similar bill and she ‘urges’ the governor to veto it. (Even his own son used stronger terms.) And again, it gets another ‘brilliant’ 144-characters — when it deserved a 144 paragraph speech, bristling with outrage and anger, putting Republicans on the def3ensive, forcing them to defend yet another of their indefensible positions.

    Tweets? TWEETS! And ones that said almost literally the least that could be said without actually equivocating on the bill. Tsk, tsk, tsk, you baaad Republicans, you should really not have done something that naughty.

    I smell the familiar stench of ‘triangulation’ — the technique the Clintons practically invented. After all, where do the gays have to go but with us, they certainly won’t vote Republican, so lets see how many of the ‘mild’ homophobes we can keep from offending.

    Maybe I would be more ‘understanding’ if she had an unblemished record on SSM. But when she was given the opportunity to explain away her support for DOMA, for ‘traditional marriage’ in 2008, and even during her term as SoS, she denied that these were political statements. Instead, she insisted that they were accurate statement of her views at the time, which only changed — conveniently — in 2013.

    Either these were simply lies (see ‘triangulation’ above) or, if true, they call into question such a late ‘conversion’ long after the rest of the party was supporting SSM.

    And one last thing. Corporations were making decisions costing themselves real, substantial money. Mayors and Governors were using the power of their offices to ban compensated travel to Indiana.

    Hillary gave us two tweets.