IT'LL PASS, BUT EVENTUALLY COST A LOT AND LOSE IN COURT -- Citiscapes Metro Monthly Magazine, August 2004 "Politics" by Don Elkins It started in Hawaii or maybe Vermont and ended in Boston. It then made its way into Washington, D.C. and became a major issue in this year’s presidential campaign. One candidate wants to change the constitution because of it, the other says he opposes it personally, but prefers not to interfere. And, after all that, you still don’t find homosexual marriage or civil unions a topic of polite conversation in the best households in Northwest Arkansas. But you may hear more about an initiative to prevent what happened in Massachusetts on your ballot this November. Local and state Christian organizations took the lead in making sure that proposal got enough signatures to make it to the state government for certification for the fall election. On the roster of those groups – the Arkansas Faith and Ethics Council, which used to go by the name Christian Civic Foundation of Arkansas until 1999. Also helping the effort, the Arkansas Marriage Amendment Committee, and term-limited State Representative Cecile Bledsoe who publicly stated her support for the effort, which managed to churn up 200,000 signatures by the start of June. That move cemented the existence of what some have called a “political red herring” in the upcoming election, a move intended to direct voters’ attention away from more important things including the economy and jobs. Eric Reece heads up the Arkansas Equality Network, which opposes the amendment. Speaking with the Associated Press, Reece said, “This amendment is a wedge issue which is being used to reach out to social conservatives.  I would hope (presidential voters) would focus on the real issues such as war, terrorism and unemployment.” Members of the state Democratic Party may agree, but have gone on the record saying they oppose gay marriage. Senator Blanche Lincoln says her Christian faith puts her in opposition to it, but she still won’t support a federal move to put a ban on the marriages into the U.S. Constitution. Senator Mark Pryor says he opposes gay marriage, but thinks regulation should be left to the states. That’s where the problem starts. Arkansas already has a law banning same-sex unions. However, the proposed amendment would elevate that law to a constitutional level, and strengthen the prohibition. Regardless, if each of the states have a different way to handle same-sex marriages, and fail to recognize nuptials performed in, say, Boston, legal trouble could start – in Arkansas, if someone decided to bring suit against the state for discrimination or on constitutional grounds. The amendment has supporters including Governor Mike Huckabee, who gave it his endorsement on-air during his July 6th call-in radio show. Talking with the Associated Press, the Governor said he thinks the amendment would prevent strong and determined activists from “rewriting social history.” Mr. Huckabee also said he believes there is room in society for homosexuals, even though he has biblically based reservations on the matter. So, to find out more about what motivates amendment supporters, if you don’t happen to spend much time in local Baptist Churches -- organized Baptists have largely spent quite a bit of time trying to get the measure on the ballot – visiting the internet might help flesh out the issue some. One of the most eye-opening websites comes courtesy of the Arkansas Ethics Council, and can be found at http://www.aefc.org. Browsing the site, one can even find a list of talking points for those who come into contact with amendment opponents. Covered therein --answers to questions including “what’s wrong with letting same sex couples legally marry?” (Homosexual relationships are harmful and a circular argument about how those relationships are not a marriage – with little logical follow up on either point.) and “isn’t prohibiting homosexual marriage just as discriminatory as prohibiting interracial marriage, like some states used to do?” (the site calls that an invalid argument, and says miscegenation laws served to preserve a social order of racial segregation, while failing to say anything about the possibility the current social order values segregation by sexual preference.) You’ll also notice another tidbit while you visit these sites. When it comes to social issues, people like to play games with words. If you wonder what that’s all about, just take a close look at the abortion issue. Each side in the debate calls itself one thing and opponents another (pro-life or anti-choice vs. pro-choice and pro-abortion) and single words or phrases carry a world of political meaning. In your daily newspaper, you may have noticed mainstream reports refer to the issue at hand as “gay marriage.” When you visit news outlets run by those who oppose that concept, you’ll run into quite a few annoying quotation marks, as in gay “marriage” – as if they haven’t found a better word to describe the topic at hand, and have had to concede that word just to continue a conversation. True, and worth some discussion. Worthy even more are the assertions by the Arkansas Ethics Council on the nature of homosexuality – “…the popular myth that a homosexual orientation is fixed at birth and unchangeable…” – when no one in the world of science seems to know much about sexual orientation, or whether any scientific view on it carries more validity than another, and also the assertion homosexuals often have heterosexual relationships they will ruin by leaving behind spouses and children. Masters and Johnson might disagree with the first assertion, as well as the second, and the website uses next to zero statistical data or facts to back up its wide ranging and highly opinionated social judgments. To make matters worse, the Council website ranges into some real nasty accusations, including arguments homosexuals have more mental problems than most people, and also experience high rates of sexually transmitted diseases. So, the site seems to imply gay people suffer from VD and are crazy. But proof and citations attesting to that don’t appear online. If talking points like those provided by the AEC serve as the strongest ground for supporting an amendment to the state constitution, organizers most likely have more trouble ahead out-of-state in the U.S. Supreme Court. Nationally, a procedural move has killed the proposed federal version of the amendment in the Senate, and amending the U.S. constitution can be very difficult and very unlikely in this case. Remember, the last time we amended the constitution to deny or curtain rights? Yep – the 18th amendment - prohibition in the 1920s. So, agree with it or not, vote for it or not, the state could still find itself open to legal problems because of gay marriage.  

BACK NOW, FOR REAL OK -- what can I say?  I got burned out.  Yeah, I took a week or so off TV, re-racked my radio showa couple of times, and took a couple of weeks off my newspaper column.  I needed it.  Hell,I understand people couldn't even reach my by e-mail.  Not the best way to run things, butsometimes, a person just has to take a breather and regain perspective.  Salt Lake City andthe Wasatch front were interesting.  I can't believe how much the area has "built-up" in justa few short years.  Salt Lake City is huge -- a real metro area now, complete with light railand more traffic than most of us are comfortable with.  So, that said, I have returned, and still have a few things to wrap up before warming back up here.  A couple of things you can expect?First, new radio material this weekend.  You can also expect more updates here, and something new --a project by a friend of mine from Chicago called "Equal Time TV" -- right now, he has oneepisode airing on public access TV in Chicago.  I'll try to get local CAT TV in Fayettevilleto air this in the very near future, and I'll work on streaming it from this site.Also, I know the "live stream" is a pain, but the software is a bit buggy (or my machine is) andI've had a hard time keeping it running for more than two days in a row, but am working to]fix the problem.  So, on with the politics, shall we?

THE ECONOMY AND SEN. KERRY Senator Kerry has received some unexpected help from Wall Street when it comes to his view of job growth in the U.S.  Mr. Kerry says most of the jobs created are low-level "Wal-Mart" stylepieces of employment legerdemain.  Here's a brief excerpt from Bloomberg online.

The assertions seem straightforward: While the economy spawned 1.3 million jobs this year, the most for any six-month period since December 1999 through May 2000, Kerry said the new slots pay an average of $9,000 a year less than the 2.6 million that have been lost since the start of the 2001 recession. ``Don't tell the people getting those second-rate jobs'' this year ``that we can't do better,'' Kerry told audiences during a July 2-4 bus trip in the Midwest. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, defending Bush in a speech July 15, said officials ``see the economic tide rising and know that it will expand opportunity for every American.''

The article makes the point that Kerry's view of the economy has started to "resonate" on Wall Street.  That same idea could also "resonate" in industrial areasincluding Pennsylvania and Ohio, big states that have supported the president in the past. No matter what you think of the politics, Senator Kerry has a firm grip on the economic situation, to wit, the party in powerright now has everything to gain from spinning the economic numbers in a positive fashion.  However, it's not sure thing middle-class voters will agreewith that spin.

IN AND OUT

I'm in and out again this week, and I'll return to cranking all this up again when I return from my little early-summer sojourn out where they have real mountains. Again, beg your estimable pardon, but it's been a hellish July so far.

DUGGARS DO TV

So, I'm coming home from tee-vee land the other night, and I flip on my tube to watch some of the late night talk shows. Lo and behold, I run smack dab into the 15-child strong family of Jim Bob Duggar doing an interview on ABC. I watched, and it finally dawned on me that questioner (at least one of them) was "Super-Dave" Osborne (again, sp?) Ah! The Jimmy Kimmel suck-fest! I'm not a Duggar cheerleader at all, but the jokes about the kids really scraped bottom, and Duggar looked a little uncomfortable at times during the whole thing. The only truly funny moment was when Jim Bob tried to bring up the name of State Senator Jim Holt, but got cut off pretty quick. I'm not sure if he managed to campaign for his ultra-conservative friend, but if he did, he was probably preaching in enemy territory judging from the nature of the comedy at his expense.

NOLAN LOSES AT ANOTHER KIND OF "COURT"

Judge William Wilson, Jr., finally put a lid on the Nolan case. In his ruling, the judge said he didn't think the case was about money, instead he thought it was about Nolan's wounded pride. Wilson also went on to say Richardson may have actually had a good reason to make the allegations in the lawsuit, but added that lawyer Walker failed to prove the case.

Afterward, Phil Kaplan (who always stressed in court that the case was about 9-million dollars and nothing else) recanted and said he believed what the judge said about Richardson's pride. He even went so far as to praise Richardson's accomplishments as a coach. Whispers have it that Frank Broyles also rejoiced, telling close associates he'd known the school would win if everyone just told the truth (does that rumor spin you in any way?)

As for Nolan, he has about two weeks to make a decision on whether to file an appeal. The judge dismissed the case "with prejudice" which means Nolan will have no other recourse -- can't refile it, so on and so forth, only go for the appeal.

HASSOUN HOAX?

I haven't posted it, but my last column in the NWA Times was about a phone call I got from my mother, who lives out west in the Rockies. She knows the family of USMC Cpl. Wasseff ali Hassoun and wanted me to tell her if insurgents had cut the Cpl.'s head off. Indeed, they had not. Mom spent some effort telling me about the Hassoun family, which lives in West Valley City, Utah (or thereabouts.) She described them as "peace-loving" and basic salt-of-the-earth people. She works with them, and told me the media had camped out on the Hassoun front lawn -- something that prompted a call to the local constabulary. However, now, the media wants to know why Hassoun kept his scalp and turned up healthy and happy at the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. During a news conference today, Asst. Depty. Defense Sec. Joe Darita (sp?) spent a lot of time dishing out "no comments" to reporters. A couple of websites have raised the question about whether the entire thing was staged, which I would imagine will make things that much harder for the Hassoun family of SLC.

BACK TO WORK

OK -- I survived last week, and I survived this weekend. I went to see Fahrenheit 911 Saturday night, then proceeded to buy and set up a pool for my kids. Barbecued some meat and lit off fireworks Sunday night, back to the grind today.

Again, my apologies for last week, but the "both ends of the clock" schedule took it out of me, and I haven't as much as opened this morning's edition of the New York Times.

Later today, I'll post my latest editorials from the paper, and do some ranting about a couple of things (yes, including the movie -- which I thought was a fantastic piece of film-making -- a lot of people will never look at GW Bush the same way again -- and yes, there were some "over the top" things in the movie like the narrow-sighted interview with John Conyers, but I'll get into that later.)