It seems the gravitational pull of a Republican primary base is too strong to keep Liz Cheney from wavering on important issues.
As reported by the Daily Caller, a new release on the Cheney campaign site for her effort to unseat Mike Enzi and run for US Senate in Wyoming has clarified (read: changed) her position on gay marriage. Before announcing her campaign, Cheney had, like her father, expressed support for gay marriage, with the qualification that it should be decided by the states rather than “imposed” nationally. Fine. But now that she faces the rabid horde of the GOP base in a deep, deep red state in a primary election, she has changed that position. She now says:
Last night I attended my first Congressional town hall, for my representative, Pete Olson, Republican from TX-22, covering suburbs and exurbs south of Houston. I’ve seen videos of town hall drama from 2010 on, but I don’t think I expected such a clown show in my own backyard.
When I arrived there was a school bus outside the auditorium building where the event was being held, with a couple dozen school age children and adults, mostly wearing matching tshirts. I assumed they were on a school field trip to experience first hand how our civic institutions work. You’ll find out later how wrong I was.
We’ve all heard the jokes about how often President Obama and his surrogates promote his administration’s “laser-like focus” on jobs and the economy. Now comes word that the White House will have a closed-door meeting next month with advocates to address issues facing the bisexual community.
While I am an opponent of the President on most issues, I can fully get behind this one. A single meeting in the executive office building costs almost nothing, doesn’t grow government, doesn’t tax anyone, doesn’t reduce anyone’s freedom, but raises the profile of a very important and critically misunderstood issue.
Earlier this year, the world was stunned when Pope Benedict resigned his office, the first time it had happened in over 600 years, forcing a new pope to be elected. While there was plenty of analysis at the time about the implications for the church and the world, there was almost no inquiry about implications for the underlying belief structure. Having a divinely-selected, infallible pope resign and his runner-up from the last time be elected to replace him is bad enough, but today we learn that Benedict resigned because he says God told him to. What?
The assumption at the time was that he stepped down over corruption allegations within the Vatican, which would logically undermine the infallibility argument of the papacy. But if his resignation was divinely-inspired, following only 8 years after his divinely-inspired election, shouldn’t that undermine the infallibility argument of the deity doing the inspiring?
Yesterday I tweeted a Slate piece about the Obama rodeo clown, saying it “should be the last piece written” on the subject, since it so succinctly captured my thoughts on the subject at the time. When I tweeted it, I though to myself, wouldn’t it be funny if I ended up blogging about the subject after I said that? And thus, here we are.
This morning I had a revelation. Of course it’s not racist to wear a mask of the President, even if he happens to be black. It’s not even racist for a rodeo clown to do so in the course of his act. Presidents get made fun of all the time, by writers, actors, musicians, artists, and comedians. However, when you find out the full context of who was in the audience and how it was viewed, it’s hard to deny that the stunt was wholly inappropriate.
In the wake of electoral and Supreme Court defeats, some social conservatives are retreating from their crusade against the freedom to marry to the safer ground of religious liberty. In theory, this is both a smart and fortunate move. Same-sex marriage bans have both legal and political problems, the combination of which will make the position completely untenable within a few short years. In practice, however, claims of “religious liberty” very frequently aren’t. They instead cloak their existing bigotry in this claim, effectively asking for the freedom to illegitimately discriminate.