Mr. Gregory had mentioned many topics at the top of the show, but you got the hint from the guest list that there were only going to be a few subjects which would receive focus - the Supreme Court's decisions on DOMA and the Voting Rights Act, then abortion rights, framed around what is happening in Texas right now.
The question that comes to mind for us is if Republicans can live within the two respective Libertarian and Religious skins simultaneously. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) puts these two governing influences at odds with one another. The conservatives on today's program were driven more by religion in their respective views on the SCOTUS ruling.
Congressman Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) is going to lead an effort for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between, as conservatives like to say, one man and one woman. Along with former Senator Jim DeMint, he made the argument that children are better off being raised in a home that have a man and a woman as their parents. There isn't definitely research to prove or disprove that and arguments were made on both sides, but for the purposes of what we're saying we can take that out of the equation.
Mr. Hueslskamp explained that the traditional definition of marriage is essentially what civilization is based on, and his frame of reference is a religious one. David Gregory outright called it a 'faith based' view, with the implication that it infringes on the separation of church and state in our Constitution, and he wouldn't be wrong. In his pre-recorded interview with Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, he listened to the minority leader make that point - equal treatment under the law, otherwise it is discrimination. (Lately, it seems that Mr. Gregory has been doing less moderating on the program, making his views evident as well as the guests. It's an important note because Meet The Press has always had a moderator, not a host. He would suggest that he square it up a bit more.)
But using the religious frame of reference to make the argument about gay marriage rights does run at odds with Libertarianism - equal rights and personal freedoms for everyone regardless of your social choices. On today's program, those views were espoused more by Democrats, and among the many citations of Justice Kennedy's opinion, it is about equal dignity.
With that said Ralph Reed felt compelled to respond to an implicit charge that if you are against gay marriage, you're intolerant. His objection to that equation is understandable and we would agree with the objection based on the respect that one would have for the beliefs of someone else and the right to have them. As you know from us in this column, we're big into the separation of church and state idea, ultimately state trumps church... every time.
But does the striking down of DOMA create the inevitability that all states will eventually legalize gay marriage? Ralph Reed doesn't seem to think so, and nor do we, at least any time in the near future, and that's because it will be thrown to the states to decide. As we know, gerrymandered districts in many states are constructed to favor Republican majorities and those majorities, despite whatever public opinion is, are not going to move away from the definition of traditional marriage.
Speaking of gerrymandered districts and Mr. Reed, he said that since the Civil Rights Act of 1965, even request for redistricting in his home state of Georgia had been rejected and that the Voting Rights Act is a very personal issue for him, and in pointing this out he seemed to be saying that these denials were themselves discriminatory. If that is the case, it's a hollow argument because those DOJ rejections have come under Democratic and Republican Administrations alike.
The panel talked about an antiquated formula for determining which states fall under the fourth provision of the Voting Rights Act - the map. The map should be the entire country, and that's how Congress should 'redraw' it putting everyone on equal footing so that if, in fact, it is antiquated now no one will feel singled out. The problem is that it is not the 'ghosts' as Michael Eric Dyson stated, but what is actually still going on, citing voter ID laws in South Carolina and redistricting in Texas. Because SCOTUS declared that provision no longer valid, in these state legislatures lead by Republicans are moving quickly to make changes, it is transparent that these changes are designed to disenfranchise voters, particularly minorities.
And as we're seeing, redistricting will play a part in what's happening in Texas' abortion rights battle, in which because of the filibuster from State Senator Wendy Davis, Governor Rick Perry is calling a special session. On the program, Ms. Davis conceded that because of this called special session, Republicans in the Texas legislature may win the fight to pass very restrictive abortion regulations, despite her efforts. We would agree with Ms. Davis that these laws not only restrict abortion but cut off essential healthcare to women. It's the continual disregard for women's opinions and health in these conservatively-driven abortion bills, most crafted by men only, that offends us the most. We don't have to look far to confirm this notion. Mr. DeMint was being completely disingenuous when he said that women would have the 'opportunity' to have an ultrasound when considering an abortion, and we're glad that Rachel Maddow pointed out that invasive ultrasounds are being mandated. Scarier yet was when Ms. Maddow asked Mr. Reed if ultrasounds should be mandated, he responded by saying it should be left up to the states to litigate. It illustrated a basic disregard for a woman's right to make decisions about her own health. To cement the Texas legislature getting their way, redistricting in the state to favor Republican victories, will result in Ms. Davis most probably losing her seat, in effect ending future opposition to like bills.
To mitigate the continuing polarization of this country, we would need to redraw the Congressional District maps for the country. It's a pipe dream that would never happen because that would be
politicians potentially redistricting themselves out of office if they
didn't take more moderate positions. They should be made square - or at least squarer and fairer, just like SCOTUS did with striking down DOMA.
Roundtable: MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow; chairman of the Faith and Freedom
Coalition, Ralph Reed; author and professor at Georgetown University,
Michael Eric Dyson; President of the Heritage Foundation, Fmr. Sen. Jim
DeMint; and NBC’s Pete Williams.
No comments:
Post a Comment