Search This Blog

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Letter on plutocrats and theocrats are not victims of liberals or gay marriage

VIDEO: Jan. 27, 2014 (Bloomberg) -- Full episode of "Bloomberg West." Guests include Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers' Tom Perkins, who says he regrets some of the words he used in his letter to the Wall Street Journal complaining that the rich are victims of a war on the rich by liberals. (Source: Emily Chang, Bloomberg West TV show segment, "Tom Perkins Exclusive: B-West (1/27)" Jan. 27, 2014 (41 minutes) ) See related stories by Peter Delevett, "Tom Perkins apologizes for Holocaust comments, but it's hardly his first controversy," San Jose Mercury-News, posted Jan. 27, 2014 and , "A Plutocrat's Nazi Rant, Tom Perkin's odd defense of the rich distracts from the income equality debate we need," BusinessWeek, Feb. 3-9, 2014, p.10. Also see previous posts Plutocrat claims to be victim of war on the rich (2/5/14) and Oregon gay marriage advocates focus on the family while religious groups play the victim role (2/9/14)

I was inspired to write a letter to the editor (see a text copy below) based on by my two previous blog posts concerning unprincipled Republicans assuming the victim role:

In an ironic reversal of roles from 2004, when gay marriage was outlawed, defenders of marriage equality this year are going on the offensive and trying to restore equality with a constitutional amendment and a related political message planning to "focus on the family," whereas their theocratic opponents are claiming it will make them a victim unless voters pass another constitutional amendment to defend their established "religious freedom" not to perform gay marriage religious ceremonies.

A similar claim of being a victim was recently made publically by the near billionaire Tom Perkins, a longtime Hewlett-Packard employee and board member I've worked with, who accused liberals of waging a war against the rich and being ungrateful for the jobs plutocrats like him create.

Perkins claims to be a Republican, but his attitude is contrary to principled Republicans (e.g. HP cofounder Dave Packard) who criticize liberals of "whining about being a victim instead of taking personal responsibility."

Principled conservatives agree nobody is made a victim by treating all families equally under the law and it is unprincipled of anybody rich and powerful as Tom Perkins to claim he is a victim.

(Quoted from Thomas Kraemer, "Mailbag: Claim was unprincipled," Sunday Corvallis Gazette-Times Albany Democrat-Herald, Sunday Feb. 23, 2014, p. A6)

An editorial by Steve Lundeberg, "Your letter, your opinion, but be readily verifiable," combined edition of Sunday Albany Democrat-Herald and Corvallis Gazette-Times, Sunday, Feb. 16, 2014, online at gazettetimes.com posted Feb. 15, 2014 prompted me to add the following sources notes to the letter I submitted because the story had not yet fully broken when I sent it:

Andrew Sullivan made a conservative case for gay marriage over a decade ago and the Log Cabin Republican group started by the OSU Professor W. Dorr Legg also looked at gay marriage as a conservative issue over a half-century ago:

See my previous posts for more on OSU and W. Dorr Legg's gay marriage publications:

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Oregon gay marriage advocates focus on the family while religious groups play the victim role

UPDATE Feb. 23, 2014 see previous post Letter on plutocrats and theocrats are not victims of liberals or gay marriage (2/23/14)

I just read an excellent analysis of two proposed Oregon Constitutional amendments by Paul Schindler, "Why Oregon Is 2014's Marriage Crucible," Gay City News (a New York City gay newspaper), posted Feb. 5, 2014. This opinion piece is significant because historically East Coast activists have viewed Minnesota and Colorado as being "out west" and West Coast gay activists, In Washington State, Oregon and California, have felt totally ignored by those who they call the "back East" elites.

In 2004, as part of a national effort by Christian Republicans to bring voters to the polls and reelect President George W. Bush, a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage was placed on the Oregon ballot and passed with 57 percent of the votes. The vote totals for each county showed that same sex marriage was supported only in the few counties with large cities, while gay marriage was opposed by voters in nearly all of the rural counties.

Schindler's analysis of the Oregon ballot measures, combined with my decades of experience watching Oregon politics, made me think of the amazing reversal of roles between 2004 and the proposed ballot measure political strategies in 2014.

Oregon's supporters of gay marriage were put on the defensive by the 2004 ballot measure to ban gay marriage, which was sponsored by national Christian Republican political groups.

In reaction, the gay marriage equality advocates political message focused on the list of rights of marriage that same-sex couples would be denied, which would make them the victims of this constitutional ban. In response, gay marriage opponents were able to successfully recast this list of marriage rights that were being denied to gay couples as being "special rights" voters' should not give to anyone out of fairness.

In an ironic reversal of roles this year, supporters of marriage equality are on the offensive by sponsoring their own ballot measure in 2014, under the banner of "Oregon United for Marriage," to repeal the 2004 State Constitutional Amendment with a political campaign message focusing on the family and commitments, whereas Opponents of gay marriage are on the defensive by sponsoring another Constitutional amendment, under the banner of "Friends of Religious Freedom," which claims to be defending their existing constitutional rights to freedom of religion from being "threatened "by allowing gay marriages.

This new political strategy of the Christian Republican right of claiming to be the victims of liberals waging a war on the religious or the rich was noted in my previous post Plutocrat claims to be victim of war on the rich (2/5/14)

Another shift in political strategy I observed between 2004 and 2014 is that mainstream Democrats, including two U.S. Presidents, are no longer trying to dodge the gay marriage issue by calling for "separate, but equal" civil unions, probably because of the realization that a similarly fallacious argument was historically used by Southern Democrats to justify racial segregation and laws against miscegenation.

On a loosely related note, see the student newspaper opinion piece by Cassie Ruud, "Gay marriage ban should be lifted before vote," dailybarometer.com posted Jan. 29, 2014 and the regular column by OSU instructor Dr. Kathy Greaves, "Nontraditional anal sex trumps heteronormative preconceived notions," dailybarometer.com posted Jan. 28, 3014. She is carrying in the tradition of previous OSU professors who sought to bring reason and logic to the study of sex. (See previous post OSU sex molester education 1953 (9/12/08))

Finally, I would like to credit some of the source material for this blog to William Edward Billy Glover, who graduated in 1950, went to Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, and then later worked with the homophile movement cofounder and former Oregon State University Professor W. Dorr Legg. (See "Billy Glover" tangentgroup.org accessed Feb. 9, 2014) and Billy Glover blog billyhic.blogspot.com) In the small world department, while Billy Glover was attending LSU, my mother would often walk me the tiger in a cage displayed on campus, which was the Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Tigers football mascot.

See my previous posts

Still alive, but still snowed in

Thomas Kraemer's Japanese Garden snow day Feb. 8, 2014

PHOTO: After three days of snow, on Feb. 8, 2014 my Japanese garden is buried in snow, which is unusual for Corvallis, Oregon where it typically rains in the winter.

Yardstick showing snow depth on Feb. 8, 2014

PHOTO: a yard stick shows the depth of snow, estimated at more than 14 inches, which fell outside my Corvallis, Oregon home during the three days prior to Feb. 8, 2014.

When I was growing up in Minnesota, I went to school for 12 years straight without having a single day cancelled due to snow because the town officials would figuratively strap a snowplow on the front of every school bus to ensure that kids would have no excuse for missing school. Older Minnesotans would wax on about having to snow ski over miles of frozen tundra when they were kids.

Therefore, I always scoffed at my acquaintances in Oregon for closing school at the drop of one flake of snow, however, after moving here, I got a new respect for why they appeared to be so weak. I learned firsthand how the weather in the Oregon Willamette Valley is mild due to warm ocean air in the winter that typically brings in one rain storm after another moderated by the coastal mountain range, even though my home in Oregon is closer to the North Pole than my home was in Minnesota. As a result, when the rare snow event occurs, it can come down in the form of sheet ice at the triple-point where liquid water, freezing fog and ice can coexist with snow. I learned the hard way that even with chains and studded tires on your car, something I never was required to use in the worst of Minnesota snow storms, driving in an Oregon's rain/snow showers can be hazardous to your health and car! So to my friends back east, please don't scoff at me until you've experience it!

I am just grateful to still have electricity and running water (a large area of Corvallis went without power last night) and I was fortunate to see the weather predictions so I had time to get plenty of food and water to tide me through possibly a week of being house bound.

Some related news stories:

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

New York Law School Prof. Arthur S. Leonard starts gay marriage chronology with Jack Baker case

Recent selfie by Jack Baker and Michael McConnell shown by Oprah Winfrey Oct. 27, 2013

PHOTO: A recent selfie photo of Jack Baker and Michael McConnell, who brought the first gay marriage case to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972, were shown by Oprah Winfrey as she expressed her amazement over how "brave" they had to be in the 1970's to fight for the right to gay marriage equality. see previous posts Oprah impressed by Jack Baker's gay marriage activism in 1970s (10/28/13), Gay marriage discussion in 1953 vs. 1963 and today (12/16/13) and Utah judge cites 1972 Baker gay marriage case (12/21/13)

Arthur S. Leonard, a professor at New York Law School since 1982, edits the monthly newsletter Lesbian/Gay Law Notes, and who is co-author of Sexuality Law (Carolina Academic Press), has become an internationally recognized expert on gay marriage law. He recently wrote the blog post Arthur S. Leonard, "The Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage -- A Chronology of Landmark Developments," artleonardobservations.com posted February 5th, 2014:

Yesterday I conducted a faculty workshop at New York Law School on the current status of the struggle for marriage equality in the U.S. To prepare for the workshop and to provide a useful handout for the participants, I spent a few hours putting together a chronology of landmark developments, beginning with the Supreme Court's statement in 1972 in Baker v. Nelson that a constitutional claim for same-sex marriage did not present a "substantial federal question," and concluding (for now) with a list of the marriage equality cases now pending in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Along the way, the chronology notes the years in which particular states became marriage equality jurisdictions, and most of the litigation landmarks as well. I am copying the chronology here for the convenience of readers of my blog who are interested in the subject. Just bear in mind that it is current as of today, February 5, 2014. The status of marriage equality is a moving target. I hope to keep this chronology up to date as new developments happen.

CHRONOLOGY of the Marriage Equality struggle in the United States Art Leonard (February 2014)

1972 - U.S. Supreme Court dismisses appeal in Baker v. Nelson, holding that denial of marriage to a same sex couple does not raise a "substantial federal question"

1986 - U.S. Supreme Court holds in Bowers v. Hardwick that a claim that gay sex comes within the protection of liberty under the due process clause is "facetious"

1993 - Hawaii Supreme Court holds in Baehr v. Lewin that state's ban on same-sex marriage may violate Equal Rights Amendment of the Hawaii Constitution and remands for trial

1996 - U.S. Supreme Court holds in Romer v. Evans that a state constitutional amendment adopted to deny equal protection of the laws to gay people violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as having no rational justification

1996 - Federal government reacts to Hawaii marriage case by adopting Defense of Marriage Act, which provides that no state is required to give full faith and credit to same-sex marriages performed in other states and that the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages for any purpose

1996 - Hawaii Circuit Court in Honolulu rules in Baehr v. Miike that same-sex couples are entitled to marry under the Hawaii Constitution, being the first trial court anywhere in the world to hold that same-sex couples have a right to marry; decision stayed pending appeal; case mooted by enactment of state constitutional amendment withdrawing jurisdiction from the state courts over the issue of same-sex marriage

1999 - Vermont Supreme Court holds in Baker v. State that denial of the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples violates the Vermont Constitution's Equal Benefits Clause, but leaves remedy up to the legislature; Texas Supreme Court holds in Littleton v. Prange that the marriage of a post-operative transsexual woman to a man was void ab initio as a same-sex marriage

2000 - Vermont adopts the nation's first Civil Union Law, providing a legal status for same-sex couples that includes almost all the state law rights accorded to married couples

2003 - U.S. Supreme Court holds in Lawrence v. Texas that gay sex comes within the protection of liberty under the Due Process Clause, expressly overruling Bowers v. Hardwick. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court holds in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples violates the Massachusetts constitution, delaying implementation for six months

2004 - Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, responding to a question from the state Senate, holds in Opinions of the Justices to the Senate that Vermont-style civil unions will not satisfy the requirements of the Massachusetts Constitution. May 17: First same-sex marriages performed in the United States in Massachusetts

2004 - Responding to Massachusetts marriage ruling, President George W. Bush calls in State of the Union Message for efforts to protect "the sanctity of marriage" against "activist judges," prompting San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to direct County Clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. California Supreme Court voids resulting marriages, but same-sex marriage lawsuits are filed in numerous jurisdictions, including California, in reaction to these events.

2005 - As final amendment goes into effect, California Domestic Partnership statute is broadened to provide almost all the rights of marriage to same-sex domestic partners. California legislature approves marriage equality law, which the governor vetoes.

2006 - Highest courts in New York and Washington State ruled against state constitutional same-sex marriage claims in Hernandez v. Robles (N.Y.) and Andersen v. King County (Wash.). Highest court in New Jersey rules in Lewis v. Harris that although same-sex couples do not have a constitutional right to marry under the state constitution, they are entitled to the rights and benefits of marriage under state law, leading the state to enact a Civil Union Act. 2007 - Highest court in Maryland rules against state constitutional same-sex marriage claim in Conaway v. Deane.

2008 - California Supreme Court rules in In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the California Constitution; opponents place initiative amendment on ballot to ban validity or recognition of same-sex marriages in California, which is enacted. Connecticut Supreme Court rules in Kerrigan v Comm'r of Public Health that same-sex couples have a state constitutional right to marry

2009 - California Supreme Court rules that Proposition 8 does not violate California Constitution, but that it did not overturn the constitutional requirement that same-sex couples receive from the state identical rights to married couples and that marriages performed prior to Prop 8 enactment were valid

2009 - Iowa Supreme Court rules in Varnum v. Brien that same-sex couples are entitled to marry under Iowa Constitution, in first such ruling to be unanimous. Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecticut enact statutes authorizing same-sex marriage. District of Columbia Council enacts marriage equality statute that is not vetoed by Congress.

2010 - U.S. District Court in California rules in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that Proposition 8 violated the 14th Amendment by denial of a fundamental right and failure to afford equal protection without a rational basis; ruling stayed pending appeal by the initiative proponents, as state declines to appeal. U.S. District Court in Massachusetts rules in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management that definitional section of DOMA violates the 5th Amendment.

2011 - New York enacts marriage equality law. Obama Administration abandons defense of definitional section of Defense of Marriage Act in pending challenges in New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts

2012 - Washington State and Maryland enact marriage equality laws that are upheld in referenda. Maine becomes first state to enact a marriage equality law through referendum. President Obama is first president to be elected on platform that includes support for marriage equality. 1st and 2nd Circuits hold that definitional section of Defense of Marriage Act violates 5th Amendment. U.S. District Courts in Nevada and Hawaii reject marriage equality claims in Sevcik v. Sandoval (Nev.) and Jackson v. Abercrombie (Hawaii), finding Baker v. Nelson binding.

2013 - U.S. Supreme Court rules in United States v. Windsor that marriage definition in Defense of Marriage Act violates 5th Amendment's requirement of "equal liberty" and in Hollingsworth v. Perry that initiative proponents did not have standing to appeal district court's ruling on Proposition 8

2013 - California state government responds to Hollingsworth v. Perry by resuming same-sex marriages; Obama Administration responds to United States v. Windsor by extending recognition to same-sex marriages for federal law purposes using the "place of celebration" rule except for a few rights and benefits that are expressly subject to the "place of domicile rule" under existing statutes or regulations

2013 - Rhode Island, Delaware, Minneso ta, Hawaii and Illinois enact marriage equality laws. New Mexico Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the state constitution.

2013 - Responding to widespread belief that United States v. Windsor signals Supreme Court's eventual receptiveness to marriage equality arguments, proponents of same-sex marriage file lawsuits in several dozen states raising 14th Amendment claims. New Jersey Supreme Court denies stay of Superior Court ruling in Garden State Equality v. Dow holding same-sex couples have state constitutional right to marry

2013 - U.S. District Court in Utah renders first post-Windsor ruling in Kitchen v. Herbert, holding that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the 14th Amendment, adopting much of the reasoning from district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger under due process and equal protection theories. Court opines that U.S. v. Windsor established some level of heightened scrutiny of sexual orientation equal protection claims, and rendered Baker v. Nelson a nullity. District Court and 10th Circuit deny state's petitions for a stay, and same-sex couples begin marrying in Utah.

2013 - U.S. District Court in Ohio rules in Obergefell v. Wymyslo that Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages contracted in states under 14th Amendment, protecting the right of a married couple to "stay married" for purposes of determining marital status at time of death. State appeals to 6th Circuit.

2014 - U.S. Supreme Court stays order in Kitchen v. Herbert on January 6, pending appeal on the merits in the 10th Circuit, which schedules argument for April 10

2014 - U.S. District in Oklahoma rules in Bishop v. United States that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the 14th Amendment as a deprivation of equal protection without a rational basis. Court stays ruling pending appeal and 10th Circuit sets oral argument for April 17 2014 - 9th Circuit rules in SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott Laboratories that sexual orientation discrimination claims must be afforded heightened scrutiny under United States v. Windsor

2014 - Pending appeals in marriage equality litigation: 6th Circuit (Ohio), 9th Circuit (Nevada), 10th Circuit (Utah and Oklahoma, to be decided by the same 3-judge panel). Marriage equality litigation is pending in district courts in every federal circuit except the 1st and 2nd Circuits and the D.C. Circuit.

(Quoted from Arthur S. Leonard, "The Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage - A Chronology of Landmark Developments," artleonardobservations.com posted February 5th, 2014)

Plutocrat claims to be victim of war on the rich

VIDEO: Jan. 27, 2014 (Bloomberg) -- Full episode of "Bloomberg West." Guests include Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers' Tom Perkins, who says he regrets some of the words he used in his letter to the Wall Street Journal complaining that the rich are victims of a war on the rich by liberals. (Source: Emily Chang, Bloomberg West TV show segment, "Tom Perkins Exclusive: B-West (1/27)" Jan. 27, 2014 (41 minutes) )

See related stories by Peter Delevett, "Tom Perkins apologizes for Holocaust comments, but it's hardly his first controversy," San Jose Mercury-News, posted Jan. 27, 2014 and , "A Plutocrat's Nazi Rant, Tom Perkin's odd defense of the rich distracts from the income equality debate we need," BusinessWeek, Feb. 3-9, 2014, p.10

UPDATE Feb. 23, 2014 see previous post Letter on plutocrats and theocrats are not victims of liberals or gay marriage (2/23/14)

Tom Perkins, who was hired by Hewlett-Packard in 1957 and who later served on the HP Board of Directors, recently said that he publicly "regretted" the words he had used in a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, where he insinuated that the "ninety-nine percent" were waging a war against the wealthiest "one-percent" of Americans, instead of being grateful for the jobs created by the wealthy.

The negative reactions to Perkins (e.g. he offended Jews and he is being arrogant and out-of-touch) can't be fully summarized in a short blog post, but they are easy to find elsewhere. Also, easy to find is his background as a Silicon Valley Venture capitalist who has been involved in the start of many famous companies, which is discloses has made him nearly, but not quite a billionaire, unlike the many people he has helped to become billionaires by starting up their companies. In the TV interview, he brags about owning the penthouse in the most expensive condo skyscraper in San Francisco, above the floor of the condo owned by who he says is his good friend Charles Schwab, founder of the famous stock brokerage firm and bank.

Instead, I would like to add my observation that Tom Perkins, during his interview by Bloomberg TV, is claiming to be a victim of this "war on the rich.

As Perkins noted, he was an acolyte of HP founder Dave Packard, but Perkins seems to have forgotten the ethic of Dave Packard who was intolerant of managers who claimed to be victims of other peoples' bad behavior instead of taking personal responsibility.

Perkins new talking point is that the rich are the victims of the liberals, which is ironic because for years Republicans have been accusing Democrats of claiming to be victims for political gain. Coincidentally, a letters the editor in my local newspaper echoes similar sentiments to Tom Perkins, probably because this has become a popular meme in the right wing press. Sean S. Doyle, "Letter: Who among the 1 percent will give up wealth to help the rest?," gazettetimes.com posted January ?31, ?2014 and Jonathan A. Hayes, "Letter: Are conservatives the target of Obama's witch hunt?" gazettetimes.com February ?05, ?2014.