Dunman: "Civic ignorance has reached a sort of pandemic level in our country in recent years."

When there's nothing real about popular culture, popular culture isn't real. I continue to maintain that a purely materialist, consumer-driven society produces dolts, and speedier communications merely produces them more rapidly than before.

Meanwhile, Joe Dunman is a civic institution 'round these parts.

Anyone out there still read?

Commentary: Civic ignorance puts our own rights at dire risk, by Joe Dunman (Insider Louisville)

... Beyond exploring the gritty, technical details of search and seizure, religious establishment, and strict judicial scrutiny, the main purpose of my course is to defeat civic ignorance. I want my students to understand how things are supposed to work in American government. How the rights of individuals should receive deference, respect, and protection from the power structures we have created.

Unfortunately, civic ignorance has reached a sort of pandemic level in our country in recent years. Nobody seems to know how anything is supposed to work. And this problem is not confined to the steaming garbage dump of online news comments sections. It has infected many of our elected leaders, as well.

It really is best served cold.

A youthful friend of mine apparently has learned one of those important life lessons about free speech. It reminds me of what I was told while living under my parents' roof, to the effect that free speech would begin only after I moved out.

It  isn't always possible to have free speech in the workplace, either. Your employer has a say in it, whether you like it or not.

Then there's the situation when a respected elder wags his or her finger and lets it be known that you've stepped over a line. It might be a teaching moment, administered with grace and compassion, but not THIS time; you're a sassy young pup, and you ruffled feathers. Older folks have a propensity toward humorlessness.

Rinse and repeat.

You need to be made an example, and they'll delight in seeing you grovel, just because they can ... and even (especially when) when they've been there themselves and are oh-so-vulnerable to reminders of the same.

Which I'd dearly love to apply with a circular, rubbing motion, but will not. In the end, it has nothing to do with me, though I appreciate the story. The way this week has gone, I needed the gut laugh.

My friend, I understand. You won't always be powerless, and some day, when you have the opportunity to return the favor, for the sake of all that's holy and humorous in the world, I hope you do.

Good and hard.

"Beware, yuletide oupistidophobes. I’m watching": The 2010 column and subsequent reaction.

It is my aim to keep rewinds and reruns to a minimum, but I can't resist revisiting this topic on an annual basis. 

Once upon a time, I used my newspaper column's bully pulpit, now defunct thanks to humorless Alabama pensioners and their registered local agents, to mischievously bait prevailing intolerance in the community. The column reprinted in its entirety below (how many re- words can I use in one posting?) appeared on December 23, 2010, and predictably, those intimately resembling the subjects of my column immediately descended upon me, not unlike piranhas on a stray Boston butt, resulting in this wrap-up on December 29, 2010:

"Beer Money" fan mail pours in ... that's nice ... is it time for a beer yet? 

... Takes a lot of nerve to put it in print that you don't believe in God. I'm not surprised. Goes along with all your anger ... To the Tribune: I agree with the commenter who asked that you stop publishing Baylor's columns. He doesn't write anything to help the people. This article doesn't make any more sense than anything else he writes. I don't read this and only checked this one out because someone sent me a link. It's just filling space. Make it your New Year's resolution to get rid of it.

On the same day, I was overjoyed to learn that Vicki Ann Denschack was savaging me at Freedom to Screech.

I stopped reading at "We was told," but she don't like me very much, do she?

First, we forget that you actually pay Roger Baylor to write this tripe. "BAYLOR: Beware, yuletide oupistophober. I'm watching." Noneless, it is when good men sit back and do nothing that people like him get this kind of opportunity ...

... So what we want our readers to do is this. Here's a link to the story. If you're tired of reading crap like this, write to the Tribune to let them know that you want Roger Baylor's columns to stop running. They are giving him free space to write destructive nonsense that is unhelpful.

In nine years writing a blog, I've never laughed harder at the oft-observed phenomenon wherein the rebuttals to your position from enraged opponents merely serve as further proof of your position's basic veracity. So, here it is again.

I can only hope that Erika and Amy are reading.

---

Beware, yuletide oupistidophobes. I’m watching.

Phobias are among the most fundamental of psychological phenomena, and I feel for anyone who suffers from them.

I have a few phobias, including a mild fear of heights (acrophobia), and a bit of taphephobia, the fear of being buried alive, as in a grave. These lurk in the murky background of my subconscious, bubbling to the surface every so often to wreak discomfort.

As an atheist, I’m sometimes accused of hagiophobia, a fear of holy things, but the naysayers are the ones with the problem: They’re suffering from phronemophobia, a fear of thinking. Granted, unbelievers aren’t preferred dinner guests this time of year, so how is a fear of atheists and atheism described? One source suggests atheophobia as truest to the Greek origins of the idea, while another offers oupistidophobia, literally “no-faith-phobia.”

I mention oupistidophobia because Christmas truly never fails to inspire intemperate attacks on atheists and atheism. The closer we get to the biggest day on the Christian festival calendar, the more phobic frothing about an insidious, irreligious conspiracy of militant atheists, who although insignificant in numbers, remains intent on attacking the faith of vulnerable, pious Christians – themselves comprising more than three-quarters of America’s population.

My favorite recurring seasonal set piece is when Christians, easily the beneficiaries of the most pervasive and relentless propaganda machine in the history of mankind, express outrage whenever miniscule dollops of free thinking manage to elude the leaden grip of the mandated American theocracy, and suddenly pose an Ebola-like threat to the hegemony of Christianity’s indigenous edifice.

A couple years ago, the Freedom From Religion Foundation erected a sign on the capitol grounds in Washington state:

“At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

(As an aside, the wording is largely superfluous past “prevail.” A theist believes in something, and bears the burden of proof, while those absent such belief cannot logically be expected to explain why something does NOT exist.)

Assuming one accepts the desirability of an open, pluralistic society beyond the bare fundamentals required to freely make piles of money for buying Chinese plastic trinkets, what’s so bad about equal time for opposing viewpoints?

The lawn in question abuts a building constructed by adherents of a non-religious political system that purports to represent all the residents of a secular state, not just the believers.

Alas, simplicity seldom is a part of this discussion. Just this past weekend, a local contributor to the Tribune bemoaned the current state of “Christless Christmas,” closing with a typical dose of seasonal alarmism:

“I feel strongly that we have lost much in our move to a Christless Christmas. It shows in our disregard for the value of human life. It shows in our fractured family relationships. It shows in our reluctance to form close ties with our neighbors as our grandparents did. Back then it was accepted, and rightly so, that this was a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values. Our laws are based on the Ten Commandments after all. No one was (and still are not) forced to attend church or worship anywhere. People were, and are, free to be of any or no religion. Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists were as free to practice their religions as Christians were theirs."

Really?

To me, this implies that if only Americans of differing creeds would grow up and cede the inevitability of Christian “truth”, choosing to play-act in public by embracing a beige uniformity that never once existed in reality … and if these non-Christians, including atheists, would meekly worship (or mock religion, or use peyote) without publicly challenging the purely Christian nature of the Republic … then this apologetic acknowledgement of Christianity’s pre-eminence would enabled the constantly threatened Christian majority to grudgingly tolerate, as opposed to respect, otherwise errant theological convictions … and voila!

All our societal ills would magically disappear, just like that.

I repeat: Really?

It’s always the same historically inaccurate ruse: In spite of those inconvenient Constitutional quirks, the United States must be touted with flexed muscles as an overtly “Christian nation,” with requisite displays of piety for outward show, especially at Christmas, and yet, even as they stare malevolently at a winter solstice sign in Olympia, Washington, Christians also quickly remind us that Christmas “exists in our hearts,” a place utterly impervious to the alleged wickedness of the outside world, where faith cannot ever be dislodged.

If that’s true, what’s the point of appearances, anyway?

The mere presence of other viewpoints hardly stands to bring Christianity to its knees. I've never understood why those of religious orientation (another one of those “chosen” lifestyles, eh?) are so insecure when it comes to considerations of alternative worldviews.

Maybe it’s Satan, the same imaginary force for “evil” once held responsible for heretical notions of cell structure, gravity and interplanetary exploration, as well as other scientific findings that caused the heads of so many learned fellow Christians to roll down bloody cobblestoned streets, their death warrants signed by you know who.

Oupistidophobia or not, it seldom matters to me until religion crosses the line, and given the global history of persecution and mayhem administered from a religious perspective, I'll say just this: There's a much greater chance of an atheist being harmed by religion than the other way around.

Just remember the Inquisition as you fill your stockings this holiday season.

Guest column: "The Health Department's Pussy Riot."

A guest column, by Brandon W. Smith.

Last month, HBO aired the stirring documentary Pussy Riot: A Punk Prayer about the ordeal of three women from the Russian punk group, Pussy Riot. In 2012, the women were sentenced to two years in prison labor camps for donning colorful balaclava masks and crashing a Russian Orthodox service in Moscow's rebuilt Christ the Savior Cathedral. The chaotic 40-second performance contained a strong anti-Putin message, asking the Virgin [Mary] to drive him away and referring to the unhealthy union between the Orthodox Church and Putin's regime as "God shit." Needless to say, this shocked the faithful in attendance and infuriated government officials.

This was not the first time Pussy Riot had staged radical, impromptu performances ("Putin has Pissed Himself" in Red Square, for instance), but this time they went too far. The police rounded up three members and arrested them for "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred," a charge that carries up to a 7 year sentence under Russian law. At what could be fairly described as a show trial, the young women remained defiant of the authorities but respectful of the faithful, apologizing to them and denying any motivation of religious hatred.

The judge handed down a "lenient" sentence of two years in a prison labor camp for what, in the United States, we would characterize as Constitutionally-protected free speech and expression. In Indiana, the disruption of a church service could be construed as misdemeanor disorderly conduct, but most would dismiss the intrusion as overzealous youthful rebellion. The First Amendment would have protected the content of the performance.

On "appeal," one of the women was able to hire a private lawyer and had her sentence suspended (she had been detained at the Cathedral before she could sing or dance), but the other two members, Maria Alyokhima and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, remain imprisoned, repeatedly denied parole despite having young children at home. Amnesty International has designated the women as prisoners of conscience, and international interest in the fate of Alyokhima and Tolokonnikova remains high.

In this country, we cherish our freedom of speech and expression. With some narrow exceptions, we are free to use the pen, the guitar, the paintbrush to challenge society and the powers-that-be without fear of government retribution. When Rolling Stone magazine published the provocative image of Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsaernav on its August cover, for example, reprisals were limited to counter-images, denunciation by the offended, and some loss of business for the magazine; government persecution was never on the table. This is how we handle unpopular speech in the United States, and we are better for it.

In school, we learn the history of presidents and wars and hopefully something about the history of our fundamental civil liberties. Most political history, however, is recorded in the everyday interactions between citizens and local bureaucracies. These interactions include places like the license branch, county clerk's office, traffic court, and in the case of New Albanian Brewing Company's Roger A. Baylor, the Floyd County Health Department.

Most local readers will be familiar with the squabble over whether alcohol vendors need temporary food server permits to pour at off-site events, which has been reported in the local paper and widely publicized by Mr. Baylor on his blog and social media activity. The striking thing about this tiff is not the legal challenge to the Department's expansion of its permit requirements; rather, it is the demonstration of why abstract principles like free speech and the rule of law are critically important in our lived reality.

The beer-pouring dispute has shined a spotlight onto the inner workings of the Floyd County Health Department, a usually anonymous branch of government concerned, in part, with keeping us safe from food-borne illness. This is an important, thankless job to be sure. What has become painfully obvious, however, is that the Department leadership is quite upset at the audacity of Mr. Baylor not only to competently challenge its actions but to do so in his usual style of intelligent, biting satire. This included such gems as the "Occupy the Health Department" posters and "Under Protest" permits displayed at the Bicentennial concert events and his regular blog and social media posts. At his administrative hearing to challenge the permits, which is supposed to be a neutral forum, the Department leadership went so far as to call these protests "somewhat juvenile."

Rather than being "juvenile," Mr. Baylor has used his creative talents to effectively raise awareness about a government bureaucracy arguably overstepping its power. He also marshaled the law, public pressure, and the Indiana Public Access Counselor to ensure his right to a full and fair hearing of his permit protest. Should he lose at the board level, he has meaningful redress before higher administrative boards and courts of law. Should he ultimately lose, he can seek to change the laws and regulations with which he disagrees.

If only officials at all levels of government were so effectively reminded of their duties and the limits on their power. In the end, the Department must defer to Mr. Baylor's Constitutional rights by proceeding in a neutral manner and offering him a full and fair opportunity to be heard. It may not retaliate against him. It may not seek criminal action or civil penalties for being satirized. In fact, much to the Department's annoyance, this is not Putin's Russia, and it must grin and bear its own Pussy Riot, because the rule of law remains, and the public is on notice.

The Health Department, of course, is not Putin, and Mr. Baylor is not Alyokhima or Tolokonnikova. These two events, however, illustrate that the way in which fundamental rights are practiced in everyday life matters to the health and well-being of a free society. On a societal level, we owe a healthy dose of respect to those who challenge us with expressive activity, even if we consider such activity “juvenile,” because they force us to grapple with the rights we hold dear and provide scrutiny that improves our government.

Indiana constitutional same-sex marriage ban 3: With second round beginning, time for Rep. Clere to be specific about human rights.

Part One
Part Two
Part Three

In 2010, Rep. Ed Clere famously refused to sign the GOP pledge to support a Constitutional same-sex marriage ban, citing the state of the economy and other potential distractions, but refraining from indicating a personal viewpoint.

In 2011, Clere even more famously did not join every last one of his GOP colleagues, and instead voted against the amendment, again citing extraneous reasons, but revealing nothing about his stance when it comes to the broader, fundamental discussion about civil rights and human freedoms.

Now it's 2013, and another legislative round is about to begin. By virtue of his lonely position, whatever its conceptual origin, Clere now has become the go-to Republican darling for bored journalists seeking the rogue, the dissident ... the rebel breaking ranks.

Trouble is, he's no more of a rebel than any stray Kardashian, persisting in finding bountiful reasons for opposing the constitutional same-sex marriage ban so long as the essential point is not addressed.

I keep looking for it, though. Couldn't find it here ...

UPDATE: Turner urges Indiana House to vote on gay marriage amendment, by Eric Bradner (Evansville Courier & Press)

INDIANAPOLIS — An influential Republican says the Indiana House should vote this year on a constitutional same-sex marriage ban, but the chamber's leaders are not yet saying how they'll handle the issue.

Rep. Eric Turner of Cicero, the Republican who has repeatedly introduced the measure and served as its chief advocate in the House, said he is filing it again during this year's four-month session and wants to see it get a vote ...

... Rep. Ed Clere of New Albany, the only Republican who opposed the same-sex marriage ban when the House voted for the first time on it in 2011, said the court's decision is one reason lawmakers should wait.

Another, he said, is the opposition of businesses such as Columbus, Ind.-based engine maker Cummins, Inc. that say such a ban would hurt their efforts to recruit top talent.

Clere said some of his colleagues are increasingly wary of moving forward with it.

"That's been going on for two years, since the first vote, and it's picked up a lot recently. I've been hearing from a lot of folks," he said. "I think there are other legislators besides me who have additional concerns."

 ... or here.

Support for Indiana gay marriage ban may be wavering, by Maureen Hayden (Goshen News/CNHI)

 ... Only one Republican in the GOP-controlled General Assembly voted no on the measure during that 2011 vote: State Rep. Ed Clere of New Albany.

Clere, who continues to oppose the measure for a long list of reasons, said he won’t be the only Republican to vote against it the next time. “Clearly, a shift has occurred,” he said.

Clere said he’s been approached by state lawmakers who voted for the constitutional ban in 2011 but are now wavering in their support.

Indiana constitutional same-sex marriage ban 2: "Rep. Ed Clere, gay marriage and various rights to life."

Part One
Part Two
Part Three

The following was published on October 27, 2010. Ed Clere (Republican) was running for re-election to his District 72 seat against Democrat challenger Shane Gibson, a race Clere won.

From this point forward, the Clere Channel Network has pointed to Clere's stance opposing the constitutional same-sex marriage ban as proof of pragmatic, technocratic and centrist instincts, even as his record indicated a steady adherence to the GOP's far-right bottom line.

Clere's "opposition" to the constitutional same-sex marriage ban, first as it pertained to a GOP pledge of fidelity (below), and later when the initial roll was called in 2011, consistently has been delineated by the representative and his cadre using an ever-expanding series of extraneous reasons, none of which address the moral and ethical parameters of the same-sex marriage issue itself. Meanwhile, eschewing technocratic aloofness, Clere has actively embraced another sticky ethical/moral issue by eagerly seeking to appease anti-abortion crusaders.

For this reason, I've taken it upon myself, in the absence of a newspaper that gives a damn, to ask the obvious question:

Why one and not the other?

---

REWIND: Rep. Ed Clere, gay marriage and various rights to life.

More than once during the past two years, it has been suggested by State Representative Ed Clere's (R-72) supporters that I might gauge the veracity of his political self-description (as a non-ideological public servant for all his constituents, not merely the ruling party) at least in part by his ongoing, principled refusal to sign a pledge of support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

I am perfectly willing to do so, with a necessary caveat.

As next week’s election draws near, much has been written and gossiped about Rep. Clere’s and the author’s seeming inability to “agree to disagree” on political matters. Much of what has been said is incorrect or conveniently omits facts, but that’s the way it sometimes goes in a small town. It also is both sad and fully emblematic of the willfully spiteful times in which we’re living.

Recognizing this, I have edited and re-edited this essay so as to phrase it in as non-confrontational a way as possible, given my predilection for polemics, and while at the same time not ducking issues that are very important to me – whether I’m a constituent, taxpayer, citizen, voter or any other label one cares to affix.

I’ve asked myself this question: If I had no prior personal experience with Rep. Clere, no back story, and no history … if I did not know him at all, except as a name in the newspaper … would I still write this essay the same way? The answer being “yes,” it is then safe to proceed.

Accordingly, whither Rep. Clere’s refusal to sign a pledge of support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

Given the famously virulent theocratic fascism practiced by numerous of his House GOP contemporaries, Rep. Clere’s stance surely has made political life slightly difficult (in his relations with them), and his refusal is commendable (for his constituents) insofar as the considerable surface demerits of a demeaning and divisive pledge are concerned.

Good for him, but only as far as it goes, and there’s the rub, because it needs to go further.

Pending clarification and elaboration, mere refusal to sign the pledge doesn’t necessarily indicate support for the notion of marriage irrespective of sexual orientation as a human right, which I, and many others, support. After reading Rep. Clere’s explanation of his pledge position, as recently proffered in the Courier-Journal’s campaign capsule, it seems legitimate to examine this under-reported aspect of the campaign a bit more closely.

If one is to judge solely by Rep. Clere’s comments about the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment as presented in this article, his position appears to consciously sidestep the concise issue of record: Gay marriage as a pillar of fundamental civil rights in a modern, enlightened civil society.

Instead, Rep. Clere seems unwilling to address the larger issues of fundamental civil rights that preface the very subject of gay marriage. He offers a stolid, utilitarian explanation for his refusal to sign the pledge: There must be legislative prioritization, and the truly important matters up for discussion rightly usurp those secondary topics that might “distract” legislators.

Speaking only for myself, I must emphatically disagree. Human rights never should be considered secondary. Not now, not ever.

I find it difficult to abide such triage when it comes to basic rights and freedoms. I find it hard to accept that the civil rights and human dignity of real, living, breathing people must be postponed indefinitely while we confuse property tax rates with freedom. I’m willing to concede that there are arguments to be made for and against gay marriage rights, but I cannot endorse deferring the discussion. Not now, not ever.

What’s more, amid the prevailing claim that legislative imperatives about the economy trump social concerns, the rights of which I speak surely are something that money cannot buy – not now, not ever.

I believe that without constant vigilance in regard to civil rights and personal freedoms, the whole historic American experiment is reduced to a form of base capitalist greed supposedly blessed by one or the other unverifiable God.

And so, shall we patiently wait just a bit longer for human rights to be magnanimously bestowed by one’s undistracted betters?

I’m sorry, but no. A cursory review of American history reveals just how scandalously long these cynical waiting periods can last, and the lengths to which injustice can endure, when the struggle is deemed insufficiently “focused” by the leadership class, and when it doesn’t suit the fashion tastes and comfort levels of a privileged society, precisely the one not afflicted on a constant, grinding, daily basis by dehumanizing discrimination.

Mythology aside, this is America’s most shameful legacy, and indeed, when it comes to distraction, institutionalized discrimination often has been, and remains, buttressed by the sort of intolerant Christian religion widely practiced in the Hoosier state, which is why the rigorous separation of church doctrine from the secular state is the single best solution to the problem.

And yet, unfortunately, I digress. All apologies.

In fairness, Indiana Republicans keen to avoid considerations of civil rights and personal freedoms in this context have a sizeable legion of allies across the aisle in the form of Indiana Democrats, who generally aren't Democrats, and who are fond of introducing themselves with the self-emasculating disclaimer, “But I’m conservative, too.” Indiana Democrats have not distinguished themselves to any appreciable extent on this issue.

To be honest, the Dems have been cowering knaves, too, and such is the faux, damning “bounty” of alikeness that we reap by having a grand total of two major parties to comprise a dysfunctional political system – and no real choice at all offered by either.

Straight up: It is not my aim to unduly attack or smear Rep. Clere, because as I’m endeavoring to make clear, the looming specter of a discriminatory gay marriage amendment clearly discredits both parties, and exposes persistent educational inadequacies and pitiful superstition among the general populace.

I will observe, however, that Rep. Clere, who seeks always to present himself as a technocrat and non-partisan policy wonk, is openly willing to take a clearer stand on another controversial social issue, one frequently and lamentably purloined by the type of wild-eyed ideologues that he surely is not: Witness his recent “Right to Life” snail mailing.

In the mailer, perhaps the first such political missive financed by Rep. Clere’s campaign itself, as opposed to the steady stream of mercenary slimings from monied interests elsewhere (and, regrettably, coming from both “sides), we learn that he intends to speak for the unborn, and accordingly, has been endorsed by Indiana Right to Life.

It would seem, then, that gay marriage rights are subservient to the economy, but a public commitment to what plainly is an anti-abortion stance is not subservient to the economy.

As such, it is my sincere hope that somewhere down the line, after various legislative prioritizing is finished (if ever), Rep. Clere forthrightly and succinctly states his position on the legal right of women to have an abortion. Rep. Clere is sworn to uphold the law, and I have absolutely no qualms that he will, except that upholding an existing law is hardly the same thing as refraining from support for efforts to change it.

When, as in the case of Rep. Clere’s rationale for not signing the gay marriage pledge, he displays a preference for touting seeming compromise, but to the convenient exclusion of the crux of the issue at hand, then I’m compelled to ask aloud those questions that might have otherwise remained silent.

I’ll reiterate: Civil rights and personal freedoms do not have the slightest thing to do with money, taxes, the state of the economy, what’s showing at the multiplex, or one’s personal religious beliefs.

Human rights and individual dignities are not negotiable conditions to be expediently deferred until we’re all wealthier, happier, saved, or recovered from our raging prejudicial demons thanks to pyschotherapy.

Rather, civil rights and personal freedoms must be established and maintained before all the rest, simply because they preface all the rest.

It's possible that Rep. Clere might actually agree with me on this point. If so, it is my earnest hope that he supports a woman’s right to choose, and permits his view on gay marriage to evolve from the safety of the breach he currently occupies to a place more pro-active in nature. I fully support trashing the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, and I am for enacting the right of gays to marry, secularly, without the interference of organized religion ... and politics.

Here’s the link to Weidenbener’s C-J piece, and the relevant passage.

... If Republicans win the House, lawmakers likely will face another vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. When the GOP controlled the House and Senate in 2005, the proposal passed.

But a constitutional amendment must pass two separately elected legislatures to be put on the ballot for ratification. When Democrats took control of the House, Speaker Pat Bauer of South Bend said it was unnecessary because Indiana already had a law banning same-sex marriage and the issue never came to a vote of the full chamber.

The issue is not part of the House Republican agenda, but caucus leader Brian Bosma of Indianapolis said he wouldn't block a marriage amendment proposal if it was introduced.

Unlike many Republicans, Clere has not signed a pledge promising to vote for the constitutional amendment.

“I believe in marriage. I support marriage. I am married,” Clere said. “But we have a lot on our agenda and I think we have to make sure we keep the focus on protecting Hoosier families first and foremost by passing a responsible balanced budget and a lot of the other items on the caucus agenda.”

The marriage amendment could distract from that work, he said.

Indiana constitutional same-sex marriage ban 1: Tully right and eloquent in the IndyStar.

Part One
Part Two
Part Three

In its entirety, here is Matthew Tully's essay from the IndyStar. Next, we'll check back with State Representative Ed Clere to see what condition his condition is in.

---

General Assembly should drop proposed ban on same-sex marriage

This is the time of year, these early days before the General Assembly gets down to work, when reports come out almost daily about some misguided idea advanced by some misguided lawmaker in a misguided attempt to legislate his or her vision of Indiana.

In this and past years, the ideas have often been laughable: Arm college students! Fine people for singing the National Anthem poorly! Go after the Girl Scouts!

The worst of these bills don't usually make it very far. They land in the legislative garbage can, killed off by common sense. But some misguided ideas survive like weeds, regardless of the damage they threaten to inflict on the state, and no matter how bad or counterproductive or mean-spirited of a message they send.

This brings me to the drama over perhaps the worst piece of public policy the legislature has considered this century: a proposed amendment to the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Put bluntly, this amendment would put into the sacred state constitution a public endorsement of discrimination.

Now, same-sex couples are already prohibited by law from getting married in Indiana. And as wrong as that law is, slipping the measure into the more concrete constitution would be worse, and it would be contrary to the fundamental spirit behind the existence of constitutions in this country: to protect and guarantee freedom.

As questions surrounding the amendment fill the Statehouse, Republican leaders find themselves in a tricky spot. Although the measure, which must be passed by lawmakers twice before heading to voters, passed easily in 2011, there is a new reality in place. Public opinion on gay marriage has shifted quickly, leading to serious questions about the political wisdom of putting this proposed amendment on the ballot during the 2014 midterm elections.

The measure might still pass in Indiana -- I suspect it would in 2014, if not a few years later -- but the fight could spark increased turnout from young voters and others who often sit out non-presidential elections. Meanwhile, business groups are largely opposed, fearful it would hurt efforts to market Indiana to the visitors and bright minds it needs to continue to attract. Most voters, meanwhile, rank as their top concern the economy, and not who is marrying whom.

With that in mind, Indiana House Democrats this week urged the Republican majority to call a truce on social issues. The message is welcome, but let's not forget that Democrats at the Statehouse gave the gay marriage prohibition plenty of votes in past years. It's a lot easier to take a principled stand after the poll numbers shift.

But the political reality of this debate really shouldn't matter, because in a more perfect Indiana this would not be about cynical things such as poll numbers or electoral calculations.

What would it be about?

For many Hoosiers, it would be about learning to accept that not everyone is like the person you see in the mirror, and that this is a diverse state whose diversity is worth celebrating. It would be about understanding that lectures about liberty and small-government shouldn't be limited to issues of guns and taxes. It would be about a belief that everyone deserves to pursue his own happiness, and that constitutions should offer hope and not discrimination. It would be about learning from the discriminatory mistakes of history.

And it would be about something else -- something my Mom liked to talk about when I was growing up: minding your own business.

There are plenty of silly proposals offered at the Statehouse every year. This isn't one of them. This is a dangerous idea that lawmakers should assign to the trash can of history.

As briefly as possible.

Anniversaries provide writers with an invitation to compete with each other for profundity. I’ve taken the bait myself, and plead abject guilt wherever it is applicable. However, I will not indulge as we near the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, other than noting the occasion in this paragraph, and reprinting the Guardian link below.

Numerous other scribes far more talented will unleash their skills, and many already have. Some of them might even be worth reading. All I’ll say is that history is meaningless without the perspective of a longer view, and this standpoint of judgment will be impossible to fathom until long after we're dead. The Civil War began 150 years ago, and we've yet to reach conclusions on its legacy. This is the way of the world, whether we like it, or not.

9/11: A 'babble of idiots'? History has been the judge of that ... The Guardian's comment editor at the time of 9/11 on a savage response to those who foresaw the reality of a war on terror

I stopped reading at "We was told," but she don't like me very much, do she?

How sadly familiar the refrain: We're all for free speech and a free press, until we're against it. Then it HAS GOT TO GO, and he has got to go -- right now.

I'm reprinting this screed without permission, but seeing as freedom of speech hasn't yet been extended to Professor Erika's own comments section ... well, you know the drill. I added the actual link to the column in question, seeing as it was omitted in the original.

---

AN OPEN LETTER TO OUR READERS AND STEVE KOZAROVICH...

Tue Dec 28, 2010 21:01 from FREEDOM OF SPEECH by One voice (VoiceOfNA@aol.com)

Dear Executive Editor,

First, we support Freedom of the Press and Freedom Of Speech.

But...

First, we forget that you actually pay Roger Baylor to write this tripe. "BAYLOR: Beware, yuletide oupistophober. I'm watching." Noneless, it is when good men sit back and do nothing that people like him get this kind of opportunity.

Secondly, we was told by Kozarovich a long time ago that if enough people wrote in to say they don't like his column, they'd get rid of it!

So what we want our readers to do is this. Here's a link to the story. If you're tired of reading crap like this, write to the Tribune to let them know that you want Roger Baylor's columns to stop running. They are giving him free space to write destructive nonsense that is unhelpful.

Here's the link: http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x258587521/BAYLOR-Beware-yuletide-oupistidophobes-I-m-watching. Then decide if this is the garbage and crap you want to read in our local Tribune newspaper.

Third, He can have his blog, but it is truly a problem that the Tribune is PAYING Baylor to put crap in there like that.

We, believe in freedom of the press, and freedom of speech, but the paper chooses NOT to put in a lot of things that need to be in there. It's high time they choose not to include this.

It's really offensive and is NOT the kind of thing that ought to be included in a decent newspaper.

But to attack Christianity and Christmas is just too much.

At the very least, the Tribune needs to know they're paying for this crap.

If you agree with us, Contact: Tribune Publisher & Executive Editor Steve.Kozarovich@newsandtribune.com or contact him by phone: 812-206-2148 or drop him a note: 303 Scribner Drive, New Albany, IN 47150.

Tell him Roger Baylor has got to go...

On Rep. Ed Clere, gay marriage and various rights to life.

More than once during the past two years, it has been suggested by State Representative Ed Clere's (R-72) supporters that I might gauge the veracity of his political self-description (as a non-ideological public servant for all his constituents, not merely the ruling party) at least in part by his ongoing, principled refusal to sign a pledge of support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

I am perfectly willing to do so, with a necessary caveat.

As next week’s election draws near, much has been written and gossiped about Rep. Clere’s and the author’s seeming inability to “agree to disagree” on political matters. Much of what has been said is incorrect or conveniently omits facts, but that’s the way it sometimes goes in a small town. It also is both sad and fully emblematic of the willfully spiteful times in which we’re living.

Recognizing this, I have edited and re-edited this essay so as to phrase it in as non-confrontational a way as possible, given my predilection for polemics, and while at the same time not ducking issues that are very important to me – whether I’m a constituent, taxpayer, citizen, voter or any other label one cares to affix.

I’ve asked myself this question: If I had no prior personal experience with Rep. Clere, no back story, and no history … if I did not know him at all, except as a name in the newspaper … would I still write this essay the same way? The answer being “yes,” it is then safe to proceed.

Accordingly, whither Rep. Clere’s refusal to sign a pledge of support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

Given the famously virulent theocratic fascism practiced by numerous of his House GOP contemporaries, Rep. Clere’s stance surely has made political life slightly difficult (in his relations with them), and his refusal is commendable (for his constituents) insofar as the considerable surface demerits of a demeaning and divisive pledge are concerned.

Good for him, but only as far as it goes, and there’s the rub, because it needs to go further.

Pending clarification and elaboration, mere refusal to sign the pledge doesn’t necessarily indicate support for the notion of marriage irrespective of sexual orientation as a human right, which I, and many others, support. After reading Rep. Clere’s explanation of his pledge position, as recently proffered in the Courier-Journal’s campaign capsule, it seems legitimate to examine this under-reported aspect of the campaign a bit more closely.

If one is to judge solely by Rep. Clere’s comments about the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment as presented in this article, his position appears to consciously sidestep the concise issue of record: Gay marriage as a pillar of fundamental civil rights in a modern, enlightened civil society.

Instead, Rep. Clere seems unwilling to address the larger issues of fundamental civil rights that preface the very subject of gay marriage. He offers a stolid, utilitarian explanation for his refusal to sign the pledge: There must be legislative prioritization, and the truly important matters up for discussion rightly usurp those secondary topics that might “distract” legislators.

Speaking only for myself, I must emphatically disagree. Human rights never should be considered secondary. Not now, not ever.

I find it difficult to abide such triage when it comes to basic rights and freedoms. I find it hard to accept that the civil rights and human dignity of real, living, breathing people must be postponed indefinitely while we confuse property tax rates with freedom. I’m willing to concede that there are arguments to be made for and against gay marriage rights, but I cannot endorse deferring the discussion. Not now, not ever.

What’s more, amid the prevailing claim that legislative imperatives about the economy trump social concerns, the rights of which I speak surely are something that money cannot buy – not now, not ever.

I believe that without constant vigilance in regard to civil rights and personal freedoms, the whole historic American experiment is reduced to a form of base capitalist greed supposedly blessed by one or the other unverifiable God.

And so, shall we patiently wait just a bit longer for human rights to be magnanimously bestowed by one’s undistracted betters?

I’m sorry, but no. A cursory review of American history reveals just how scandalously long these cynical waiting periods can last, and the lengths to which injustice can endure, when the struggle is deemed insufficiently “focused” by the leadership class, and when it doesn’t suit the fashion tastes and comfort levels of a privileged society, precisely the one not afflicted on a constant, grinding, daily basis by dehumanizing discrimination.

Mythology aside, this is America’s most shameful legacy, and indeed, when it comes to distraction, institutionalized discrimination often has been, and remains, buttressed by the sort of intolerant Christian religion widely practiced in the Hoosier state, which is why the rigorous separation of church doctrine from the secular state is the single best solution to the problem.

And yet, unfortunately, I digress. All apologies.

In fairness, Indiana Republicans keen to avoid considerations of civil rights and personal freedoms in this context have a sizeable legion of allies across the aisle in the form of Indiana Democrats, who generally aren't Democrats, and who are fond of introducing themselves with the self-emasculating disclaimer, “But I’m conservative, too.” Indiana Democrats have not distinguished themselves to any appreciable extent on this issue.

To be honest, the Dems have been cowering knaves, too, and such is the faux, damning “bounty” of alikeness that we reap by having a grand total of two major parties to comprise a dysfunctional political system – and no real choice at all offered by either.

Straight up: It is not my aim to unduly attack or smear Rep. Clere, because as I’m endeavoring to make clear, the looming specter of a discriminatory gay marriage amendment clearly discredits both parties, and exposes persistent educational inadequacies and pitiful superstition among the general populace.

I will observe, however, that Rep. Clere, who seeks always to present himself as a technocrat and non-partisan policy wonk, is openly willing to take a clearer stand on another controversial social issue, one frequently and lamentably purloined by the type of wild-eyed ideologues that he surely is not: Witness his recent “Right to Life” snail mailing.

In the mailer, perhaps the first such political missive financed by Rep. Clere’s campaign itself, as opposed to the steady stream of mercenary slimings from monied interests elsewhere (and, regrettably, coming from both “sides), we learn that he intends to speak for the unborn, and accordingly, has been endorsed by Indiana Right to Life.

It would seem, then, that gay marriage rights are subservient to the economy, but a public commitment to what plainly is an anti-abortion stance is not subservient to the economy.

As such, it is my sincere hope that somewhere down the line, after various legislative prioritizing is finished (if ever), Rep. Clere forthrightly and succinctly states his position on the legal right of women to have an abortion. Rep. Clere is sworn to uphold the law, and I have absolutely no qualms that he will, except that upholding an existing law is hardly the same thing as refraining from support for efforts to change it.

When, as in the case of Rep. Clere’s rationale for not signing the gay marriage pledge, he displays a preference for touting seeming compromise, but to the convenient exclusion of the crux of the issue at hand, then I’m compelled to ask aloud those questions that might have otherwise remained silent.

I’ll reiterate: Civil rights and personal freedoms do not have the slightest thing to do with money, taxes, the state of the economy, what’s showing at the multiplex, or one’s personal religious beliefs.

Human rights and individual dignities are not negotiable conditions to be expediently deferred until we’re all wealthier, happier, saved, or recovered from our raging prejudicial demons thanks to pyschotherapy.

Rather, civil rights and personal freedoms must be established and maintained before all the rest, simply because they preface all the rest.

It's possible that Rep. Clere might actually agree with me on this point. If so, it is my earnest hope that he supports a woman’s right to choose, and permits his view on gay marriage to evolve from the safety of the breach he currently occupies to a place more pro-active in nature. I fully support trashing the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, and I am for enacting the right of gays to marry, secularly, without the interference of organized religion ... and politics.

Here’s the link to Weidenbener’s C-J piece, and the relevant passage.

... If Republicans win the House, lawmakers likely will face another vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. When the GOP controlled the House and Senate in 2005, the proposal passed.

But a constitutional amendment must pass two separately elected legislatures to be put on the ballot for ratification. When Democrats took control of the House, Speaker Pat Bauer of South Bend said it was unnecessary because Indiana already had a law banning same-sex marriage and the issue never came to a vote of the full chamber.

The issue is not part of the House Republican agenda, but caucus leader Brian Bosma of Indianapolis said he wouldn't block a marriage amendment proposal if it was introduced.

Unlike many Republicans, Clere has not signed a pledge promising to vote for the constitutional amendment.

“I believe in marriage. I support marriage. I am married,” Clere said. “But we have a lot on our agenda and I think we have to make sure we keep the focus on protecting Hoosier families first and foremost by passing a responsible balanced budget and a lot of the other items on the caucus agenda.”

The marriage amendment could distract from that work, he said.

Clere to Tribune: Do as I say, not as I do.

I suppose we'll be told that one standard of free speech applies to Facebook, and another to print journalism.

Today in the Tribune, State Representative Ed Clere expresses unhappiness at being denied free speech.

Communication will continue, by Ed Clere, Local Columnist.

He writes, "As an advocate of free speech, I always prefer more speech, not less," and "I always appreciate constructive feedback."

I wonder what he thinks about tolling for the bridges project? Shall we ask him? But wait ... we did ask him, and such is his commitment to free speech that the questions were deleted, and the member list was purged. I didn't do it. This blog didn't do it. Progressives didn't do it.

All of this is so very senseless.

I am not the enemy, never was, and never intended to be. Then, why am I being treated like the enemy? If there is some need to put me in my place, can there be an explanation of why I'm a threat to established order? I'm not running for office, and have not endorsed a candidate; in fact, this blog probably expresses more reservations about local Democrats than Republicans, but although the Democrats usually don't pay very close attention to our recommendations, they don't censor us, either.

Is this a set piece? The Twilight Zone? What gives?

By the way, there'll be a column of mine appearing on Thursday. Care to guess the topic?

Tribune editorial: "Messer situation is mess for all."

Well, what do you think?

TRIBUNE EDITORIAL: Messer situation is mess for all; Public safety is no place for politics

We interrupt today’s celebration of our country’s independence to address a local situation that centers on one of our most vital democratic beliefs — free speech.

However, the complex words and actions surrounding New Albany policeman and elected city councilman Jack Messer is simply a mess and nothing to be patriotic about.

What is both litter and free speech, and also green all over?

From LEO's Fat Lip blog (June 3):

Constitutional right to litter?:

A Metro Council committee approved an anti-litter ordinance last night that would prohibit The Courier-Journal (and other offenders) from tossing advertising supplements on front lawns, driveways and sidewalks. The C-J claims this violates the First Amendment and is threatening to challenge the ordinance in court if approved by the entire council next week.

Now look carefully at the bag containing this hunk o' "free speech", as photographed yesterday on 13th Street in New Albany.

Somehow I doubt whether this means the free speech is bio-degradable.

ROCK and roll over, at least when it comes to s*x.

After the last ROCK publicity campaign in December, I decided it might be useful to keep closer tabs on the local gestation of attacks on civil liberties and the advocacy of theocratic fascism, so I signed up for the organization's newsletter. When I receive troop-rallying announcements like the one below, complete with naughty words like "sex" expunged, I'll reprint them here, along with my standard rejoinder.

Exactly which culture are they so intent on reclaiming?

----

Happy New Year from the ROCK family to yours!

Friends,

As I sit back in the midst of this busy season and the accelerated pace ROCK is maintaining, I wanted to take a brief moment to reflect on 2008. It has been absolutely incredible. Literally thousands have joined ROCK in Kentucky, Indiana and across our nation. The momentum and the feeling that something special is happening is palpable in our office and hopefully for you too.

This past year, we were involved in keeping s*x businesses from opening, in creating strong ordinances protecting families and communities, and working with citizens and public officials across the region. We worked to educate parents and children on internet safety and to raise awareness about the harms associated with p*rnography for our communities, families and children. We had the first ever ROCK Concert which exceeded expectations! ROCK has defended our nation's heritage and our founding principles and is working to bring our nation's motto, In God We Trust, to Kentucky roadways. And it is because of that same trust and faith that we know ROCK has been blessed with so many successes in 2008.

ROCK would not be able to stand up for all that is good, right and decent without you - our partners collectively standing with one voice to forever change where we live. Thank you so much.

Looking ahead to 2009, it is already stacking up to be another wonderfully hectic year with more projects, initiatives and events to protect our children, families and communities. We will soon be launching our new website, a new email format, text messaging and a new printed quarterly newsletter.

ROCK needs you and others more than ever! I look forward to working with you as we impact our region for the future of our children and grandchildren.

Bryan Wickens, President

Keith Olbermann's Prop 8 Special Comment: It's "About The Human Heart."

First viewed at the Huffington Post.