Hello, Liberal Drinkers! Come join us this evening, after 6:30pm at the Flying Saucer, for another round of Drinking Liberally!

In case you've been off the grid a bit, there's been some GREAT news in national politics: yesterday, President Obama gave an interview in which he came out in favor of marriage equality. He is the first sitting President to make such a statement in defense of equal rights for all Americans, and to quote VP Biden, that's a BFD. For an idea of how big a deal it really is, check out this gif party: http://whenobamaendorsed.tumblr.com/

It's helpful to take a look at the timeline here, I think. Last week a story hit the national stage regarding Romney's foreign policy advisor, Richard Grenell, was fired from the campaign after he began to attract attention from anti-gay conservatives because Grenell is openly homosexual. (http://goo.gl/IxNCn). So we have yet another episode in which Romney refuses to demonstrate leadership, instead rolling over for the basest of the GOP Base.

Then on Sunday, Biden gave an interview in which he was asked about his position on marriage equality. He unequivocally stated his position that love is love, and that he supports the right of LGBT couples to marry. This statement prompted a clarification from the White House that the Administration's official policy had not changed.

The next day, the Secretary of Education also voiced support for marriage equality. Then came Tuesday, with the vote in North Carolina on Amendment 1, which not only enshrines inequality in the state's constitution by declaring that homosexual couples may not marry in that state, but it also strips gay couples from any partner benefits for public employees. Thus NC became the 30th state to pass such a law by popular vote, which is in itself interesting: national polls now consistently show a majority approve of marriage equality, yet states keep passing these laws. Maybe it has something to do with the methods used: national groups like the National Organization for Marriage write model legislation denying rights, their puppets in the state legislatures duly introduce said legislation, then the national anti-gay groups organize money bombs into the state stoking fears of what Teh Gays will do to children, and the churches provide more money and foot soldiers. Basically, the exact opposite of democracy.

So now comes Wednesday, and the president gives his interview, explaining how he has come to understand that all Americans, regardless of orientation, deserve equal rights. This is just the latest in a long list of Obama's actions to improve America's deplorable history on the subject of LGBT equality; for a full list, see http://goo.gl/mo94Q.

A reporter next asks Romney about his position, and he says this (http://goo.gl/sDuMe):

""My view is that marriage itself is between a man and a woman," the presumptive Republican presidential nominee told reporters. He said he believes that states should be able to make decisions about whether to offer certain legal rights to same-sex couples.

"This is a very tender and sensitive topic, as are many social issues, but I have the same view that I've had since — since running for office," Romney said. He first ran for political office in 1994, when he challenged Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and was elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002."

Now, it wouldn't be a quote from Mitt Romney if you didn't have to ask whether it's entirely true. Unsurprisingly, it's not true at all: during his campaign for Senate in 1994, he vowed to seek "full equality" for gays and lesbians. (http://goo.gl/8WKBf) "in a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans of Massachusetts...he argued that he was more supportive of gay rights than his Democratic opponent at the time, Senator Edward M. Kennedy." By 2003, of course, he'd reversed position yet again: "When in 2003 the Massachusetts courts legalized same-sex marriage in the state, Mr. Romney, then governor, complained that the state had become “San Francisco East.” And, speaking with a sense of alarm about gay couples, he warned a conservative audience that “some are actually having children born to them.”"

Some are actually having children born to them. That's what the latest set of arguments comes down to, which...you know, I really can't express how despicable that is, how anti-family, anti-love, and anti-life.

Thankfully, we can focus instead on the way this Administration has used Romney's weak and offensive position on the issue of equality, taking the opportunity to run the story for nearly a week, and reaffirm a dedication to ensure that all Americans have the same right to marry their partners. It's a happy day. For proof, check out that first link again.

See you tonight!
-amie

Hello, Liberal Drinkers! Come join us this evening, after 6:30pm at the Flying Saucer, for another round of Drinking Liberally!

We have much to celebrate! First of all, the legislative session is finally, blessedly, over. Things always get hectic there at the end, so I'm happy to report that the Don't Say Gay bill is officially DEAD. (http://goo.gl/n4m97) And although the anti-Vanderbilt bill did get passed through both houses, Gov. Haslam finally found his veto pen and struck it down.

A bit more on the Vanderbilt issue: Vanderbilt officially recognizes hundreds of student groups, allowing them to use the university's name, and funding them. It came to light last year that a religious fraternity had expelled several gay students. Vanderbilt reviewed its long-standing nondiscrimination policy that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, and affirmed that ALL student groups had to comply with the policy if they wanted official status.

Well, the religious right promptly went bananas. The policy means that student groups have to accept everyone who wants to join, and any member can run for leadership. Predictably, it began with talk of Muslims "infiltrating" Christian groups, and somehow getting themselves elected leader. It devolved from there into actual news organizations reporting that the nondiscrimination policy -now generally called All Comers- means that student groups have to accept non-believers as leaders. Which is a complete lie. Anyone can RUN for leadership. No believer has to vote for them. No one ever argued that Christians don't have the right to choose who they want for leadership. But hey, once you've started the ball rolling on some ugly religious talk, it's hard to stop.

So yes, some student groups decided they'd rather leave campus than stop discriminating on the basis of religion. They're still free to discriminate, of course, just not using Vanderbilt's name, and Vanderbilt's money.

Eventually, though, a couple of Tennessee's finest legislators decided they'd introduce a law that said public colleges and universities can't have this kind of nondiscrimination policy, and oh, there's one private university in Tennessee that can't do it either: Vanderbilt. Of course it passed. But the governor has finally realized that he really does have some power, and vetoed it.

All of which is to say, it's your typical mess with a heavily right-wing legislature. But thankfully, it's over until January.

See you tonight!
-amie

p.s. the other thing we'll be celebrating tonight: remember that cute kid who used to hang out with us at Drinking Liberally when we started the chapter and the Saucer allowed children? She turns 17 today. :D

Hi there, Liberal Drinkers! Come join us this evening, after 6:30 pm at the Flying Saucer, for another round of Drinking Liberally!

Well that's it, campers: we no longer have Newt Gingrich to kick around anymore. He's thrown in the towel, deep in debt and seriously in the doghouse with Callista's hair, I imagine. Sniffle.

In need of a moment of levity? Obama and Jimmy Fallon slow jam the news: http://goo.gl/jg8Wk. For comparison, keep in mind that the last guy's idea of a joke was searching the White House for those pesky weapons of mass destruction. I can't wait to see what Mittens thinks is funny; to this point he's had no discernible sense of humor.

It's going to be a long election season, I think.

See you tonight!
-amie

Hello, Liberal Drinkers! Come join us this evening, after 6:30 pm at the Flying Saucer, for another round of Drinking Liberally!

Not to get all Andy Rooney on you, but have you ever wondered why Mittens looks so...um...well, the guy looks like an automaton. Please to observe: this picture (http://goo.gl/grwVe) and this picture (http://goo.gl/v3qx4). It's a little unsettling.

As you know, we're deep in local election season. In August, Metro Nashville goes to the polls to elect, among other positions, school board members. We've just heard that DL-er John Haubenreich has thrown his hat in the ring for District 5; check out his pages if you'd like to learn more or get involved! (http://www.johnforschoolboard.com/, http://www.facebook.com/JohnForSchoolBoard)

Finally, you've probably heard that we're hosting the annual Living Liberally conference this year, August 24-26 (just before the GOP convention, which should be a hoot!). We'll have some evening activities planned for all DL-ers, so be on the lookout for announcements there. We're also issuing a call for anyone who'd like to lend a hand: could you help with carpooling attendees to and from the airport? And would you consider letting another chapter host crash at your place for a couple of nights? If you'd like to volunteer for either or both, just shoot me an email.

See you tonight!
-amie

p.s. sorry I called you "Loberal Drinkers" last week. It was a testament to your thoughtful discussions, I swear!

Hiya, Loberal Drinkers! Come join us this evening, after 6:30pm at the Flying Saucer, for another round of Drinking Liberally!

My day has gone all pear-shaped, so I'm going to skip the usual email stuff and give you the most excellent op-Ed by Mary Mancini, executive director of Tennessee Citizen Action!

----

April 12, 2012

Big business has hijacked TN government

By Mary Mancini

The first question asked whenever a bill is introduced at the state legislature is, “is it good for business?” But let’s be clear, by “business” legislators don’t mean the general store on Main Street. They mean large corporations backed by the 21st-century robber barons of Wall Street.

We’ve heard the rationale, especially during last year’s fight for Gov. Bill Haslam’s “Civil Justice Act of 2011,” which placed caps on damage awards in civil lawsuits. They said, “We have to cater to large corporations because they create jobs.” In fact, during the debate, we were promised 577 jobs per week. Yet here it is almost a year later, and where are these jobs? And why are Republicans crafting more public policy that continues to prioritize large corporations over middle-class and working families?

One new proposal would allow corporate defense attorneys to meet with and interview your doctor in secret (34 states prohibit this kind of secret, one-way communication). Another would make it impossible to hold corporations accountable for the negligent and harmful acts of their employees.

If corporations know they can violate doctor-patient privilege at will and can’t be held responsible for the catastrophic actions of their employees, then they will be less likely to enforce conscientious hiring policies, provide appropriate training and education, and promote a culture of safety. Is this looking out for the people of Tennessee?

But it’s not just our right to justice served that is being ignored by the Republican majority.

Tennessee families are working harder, getting paid less, and falling behind our parents’ generation, and yet Republicans want to dismantle campaign finance reforms by allowing corporations to make secret cash campaign contributions in the critical 10 days before an election.

Corporations have shipped jobs overseas, leaving breadwinners jobless and rural Tennessee communities decimated, and yet they want to penalize honest, hard-working Tennesseans who are simply trying to feed their families by drug-testing them if they receive benefits from the state. And to add insult to injury, requiring them to pay for the expensive test themselves.

Under the leadership of Republican Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, they have made defending the estate tax a major priority, citing a recent Forbes article that states that Tennessee is “not a good place to die.”

If Ramsey and the rest were working for all Tennesseans instead of corporate CEOs, they’d correct this and other misguided legislative priorities and start to address our concerns.

We elected our legislators to write rules that boost the well-being and productivity of hard-working Tennesseans and encourage businesses that innovate and take care of their workers. We did not send them to Nashville to increase corporate influence in our political process and allow mythic job creators to get away with egregious and destructive behavior.

The issue has never been the size of our government, but who our government works for. Someone should be watching out for us, and if not the governing body that we hired, then who?
----

Good stuff, right? Two snaps up to Mary!

Be sure to join us tonight: I foresee a number of awesome puns involving Santorum pulling out.

See you tonight!
-amie