Box Turtle Bulletin

Polls are looking good

There is more than a month to go and polls on marriage seem to overestimate support. However, the latest round of polls should give us tentative encouragement.

Maine: (Morning Sentinel)

The referendum proposal to legalize same-sex marriage in Maine leads 57 percent to 36 percent in the poll, with 7 percent saying they are undecided.

The 21-percentage point lead is almost identical to the findings of the June poll. It is a larger lead than was measured by three other recent polls, although the differences are within the polls’ margins of error.

Maryland: (Baltimore Sun)

Five weeks before the election, a measure to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland has seen a surge of support and is now favored by likely voters, 49 percent to 39 percent, a new Baltimore Sun poll has found.
…
A high black turnout was a prospect once viewed with trepidation by proponents of same-sex marriage. In March, an OpinionWorks poll found less than a third of African-Americans supported the measure.

Since then, however, there’s been a dramatic shift in the attitudes of black voters, according to the new Sun poll. It found more than half of likely black voters favor legalizing same-sex marriage, compared with a quarter who are opposed.

Minnesota:

The latest is about a week old but it is a virtual tie with 49% favoring the ban and 47% opposed.

Washington: (Washington United)

According to the KING 5/Survey USA poll of 524 Likely Voters from Sept. 7 through Sept. 9, 56% of those surveyed would vote to approve Referendum 74 while 38% would vote to reject. The poll has a margin of error of 4.3%.

Because biblical marriage is jumping a broom or something

From time to time you come across a group so misinformed that you wonder if it’s a spoof. Today I ran across Jump the Broom for Marriage, and anti-gay group. This is their “about” description:

Jumping the Broom: The First African American Civil Right

Conceivably, the first civil right African-Americans obtained in this country was their right to marry. After being brutally forced to a country without their consent to serve as slaves, they were strategically separated from their homeland, homes, families and family traditions. Viewed as property, they possessed no legal rights. Their names were even taken from them. Yet, these resilient people had something that no man or demon in hell could take away, their faith! A simple act of jumping the broom symbolizes the first civil right. Today, the gay community is saying Marriage Equality is a Civil Right.

Jumping the broom, during the slavery of Africans in America, was an act with no legal consequence. Being denied even the basic human dignity of family, having those whom considered themselves superior restrict any civil protection, this was a sign to the couple and those around them that they were committing to each other – to the extent they were allowed. There is no parallel in today’s society, but some echoes can be heard in same-sex commitment ceremonies in those parts of the country in which gay couples are seen as inferior and granted no civil protections.

And as for the faith of African-Americans, only someone lacking the most basic knowledge in history would be unaware that the faith that West Africans brought with them across the ocean was largely replaced by the faith of their oppressors.

Jump the Broom for Marriage are a confused mess. Their motto is “Marriage: True to Our God, True to Our Native Land” and they are shooting for the goal of “preserving the biblical values and covenant rights of marriage between one man and one woman in all communities throughout Maryland through education, mobilization, advocacy and public policy that promote our spiritual values and heritage.”

But, and I may be cynical, I suspect that very little time went into planning the strategy page and more attention was paid to the “donate here” page. After all, when I read that I could sponsor lunch on election day for ten people for the tiny price of $465 or ten lawn signs for $30 each, I had a suspicion that just maybe this particular group was less dedicated to the mission than they were to the money.

Northern Ireland votes no to equality

BBC

Assembly members have rejected a proposal that same-sex couples should have the right to marry.

The motion was proposed by the Green Party and Sinn Fein.

The DUP had tabled a petition of concern ensuring that the motion would have to command a cross-community majority to succeed.

While 45 assembly members voted to back the move, only three in favour were unionists – UUP MLAs Michael Copeland, Danny Kinahan and Basil McCrea.

Northern Ireland’s assembly has 108 members.

McDonald drops out

Sen. Roy McDonald has decided not to run as a third party candidate to retain his seat. Kathy Marchione, the NOM-supported Republican who beat him in the primary, will face off against Democrat Robin Andrews.

Gay marriage supporters of both parties had been backing McDonald (in appreciation for his pro-marriage vote). But now Andrews, who is a lesbian, is the only candidate who believes in equality under the law and it is hoped that McDonald’s supporters will see her as the better candidate.

McDonald gets Cuomo endorsement

New York has an unusual primary process by which the same candidate can run for more than one party. The result is that one person could win the Democratic Party nomination, but their Democratic opponent could still be on the November ballot as the Working Families Party. Or the Republican Party nominee could face his challenger again running as the nominee from the Conservative Party.

Sen. Roy McDonald was targeted by the National Organization for Marriage due to his vote for equality. And after absentee ballots came in, he lost the Republican Party nomination by around 100 votes. But he was elected the nominee for the Independence Party and, if he chooses to stay in the race, he will be on the November ballot along with Republican nominee Kathy Marchione and Democratic nominee Robin Andrews.

Today McDonald’s decision received a significant nudge. (WSJ)

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Wednesday pledged his “full endorsement” for a Republican state senator whose vote to legalize gay marriage is seen as a factor in his apparent GOP primary loss.
…
In a letter to McDonald released to reporters, Cuomo, a Democrat, said it would be “an honor to stand with you.”

If McDonald drops out of the race, gay support will go to Andrews, a lesbian who supports our community’s goals. It is also likely that a chunk of Wall Street Republican money would go towards ensuring that Marchione loses (several Wall Street Republicans put forward significant support for the marriage bill).

However, if he stays in, the organized gay support will rally around McDonald to keep NOM from holding his loss over the heads of other potential supporters. Other factors to consider are that the primary draws the “party faithful” which tend to me much more conservative than the significantly higher Republican turnout at the general election and that Andrews is a relative unknown.

Good news for future Illinois equality

The good people of Illinois have been enjoying the benefits of civil unions for over a year now. And they are appreciative for the hard work and careful deliberation that got them there. But no one ever believed that “almost kinda equal” was the end goal and so the hard work continues.

And here’s some good news that holds promise for the future. In a three way race between, full equality, civil unions, and “but the Pope said”, marriage is pulling ahead: (the Southern)

The poll by Southern Illinois University’s Simon Public Policy Institute found that 44 percent of voters support legalizing gay marriage. That’s up 10 points from two years ago.

Nearly one-third of voters said they back civil unions for gay couples.

Only 20 percent oppose any legal recognition of same-sex couples.

Who would you vote for?

There’s a choice – well, a non-choice really – in the 60’th House seat in Illinois.

Candidate A

A opposes same sex marriage. The members of her church disapprove of “that lifestyle”.

“We do not allow those types of behaviors in our church at all. Not that you can’t come there, but if you do you’re not going to be blatant. What you do at home needs to stay at home.”

When asked to explain what types of behaviors she meant, A said: “Two men kissing, two women kissing.” And, besides, why do gay people need marriage?

“I’m still not clear on why they feel the need for marriage when you’ve got civil unions,” she said. “One of the answers I was told is that civil unions didn’t give them enough. How much more do you want?”

A did not vote for civil unions either, answering “present” instead.

Candidate B

B opposes same sex marriage. He thinks marriage is for pro-creation and notes that while gay couples can adopt they cannot have biological children together.

“I have a very big problem with the use of the word ‘marriage.'” he said. “I’ve been married 40 years. That word actually means something.”

B is worried about how the family has “dissolved” in our society and said “the gay marriage issue fits right into that.” As for civil unions or expanded rights, he is less bothered by that.

“I don’t have the right to tell people who they should love or how they should love, but I do believe that the word marriage should not be incorporated in there.”

I know we are not one-issue voters. But if they take positions on our lives, that has to be a major factor.

And just as a matter of intellectual curiosity, I wonder if either of these candidates appears worse than the other – and why. After you decide, go see whether the party affiliation confirms, changes or in any way impacts your gut impression. (And let’s pretend you can’t choose a third party, write in, or sit this one out or else your grocery clerk will pack your ice-cream in the same bag as your fresh warm deli-roasted chicken).

Tasmania votes on marriage today

The Tasmanian House approved a marriage bill last month, 13 votes to 11. The Senate has been debating the bill since yesterday and it is expected to reach a vote today. If it passes, Tasmania will be the first Australian state with marriage equality. However, questions still remain about its legality as marriage has traditionally been a federal issue.

Roy McDonald (Republican Four) appears to have lost primary

The National Organization for Marriage finally has a non-made-up-totally-bogus reason to celebrate. It appears that Roy McDonald has fallen victim to their attempts to punish those Republican New York State Senators who voted for equality. (Times Union)

Marchione was up by 110 votes when counting began Monday in two counties of the 43rd State Senate District. McDonald gained 23 votes in Saratoga County, but was offset by a 26-vote pickup for Marchione in Columbia County, according to election officials in Saratoga and Columbia counties. Elections officials in Rensselaer and Washington counties tallied their absentee ballots last week.
…
All things considered, McDonald trailed by 113 votes with 50 ballots set aside.

This is very sad news and probably will hurt us on some level with close legislative votes in which we need some Republican support. But on some level, this is an inspiring story.

Sometimes victory comes in unexpected ways. Sometimes someone goes against the odds, does the right thing… and loses anyway. But there is nobility in doing the right thing because it’s the right thing, and sometimes in the loss comes a different victory, the victory of example. Of honor. Of respect. Sometimes this year’s loss gives birth to next year’s greater success.

I don’t know if this is one of those times. Maybe politicians will see McDonald as an example of why you always put the safe bet first, of why you use polls rather than conscience, of why you should kowtow to right-wing extremists. Maybe they will see this as evidence that ill will and malice are tools more effective than integrity, of how you win by following instead of leading.

But maybe (and I know I’m often too optimistic), maybe this off-the-cuff, unprepared but totally honest answer that Sen. Roy McDonald gave to the press at the time of the vote will live on to encourage others:

You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn’t black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing.

You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, fuck it, I don’t care what you think. I’m trying to do the right thing.

I’m tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I’m trying to do the right thing, and that’s where I’m going with this.

Saland (one of the Republican Four) wins primary

Steve Saland, one of four Republicans in the New York Senate to vote for marriage, has won his primary. On election day the results were too close to call, but now that the absentee ballots have been counted it is clear. (Poughkeepsie Journal)

After the remaining absentee and affidavit ballots were counted today at the Dutchess County Board of Elections Saland received 286 and Di Carlo 217, said Fran Knapp, Democratic election commissioner.

This gives Saland a grand total of 5,288 votes and Di Carlo 5,181 votes in Dutchess and Putnam counties — a 107 vote lead for Saland.

There are 34 ballots set aside for judicial review before the results become official.

Of the four, Sen. Alesi did not run for reelection, Sen. Grisante won his primary on election night, and Sen. McDonanald’s absentee ballot count has not been completed.

The real “religious freedom” argument

Anti-gays love to scream about “religious freedom” when they really are working for the opposite. But here is a portion of a letter to the editor of Detroit Lakes Online by Rev. Mark Kuether, pastor of the Congregational United Church of Christ:

I have come to this view through my faith, along with thousands of other Minnesotans who are voting NO because of their faith. I am opposed to this amendment because if passed it would mix religion and politics in our constitution. This amendment would tell clergy who they can and cannot marry in their congregations. Some churches and religious organizations want to recognize the relationships of committed gay and lesbian couples. Some don’t. It should be their choice. However, this amendment does the opposite. It tells religious leaders they are not allowed to marry same-sex couples. Many faiths want to decide for themselves. This amendment represents a one-size fits all government mandate on our state’s churches. The best thing is to allow religious leaders and churches to decide for themselves.

Australian legislature votes down equality

Australia’s House of Representatives (98 – 42) and Senate (41 – 26) have voted against allowing same-sex couples to marry, despite popular support for the change. Part of the vote disparity comes as a consequence of the political structure.

Here’s a brief explanation:

In the United States, there are (almost always) only two parties. Whichever party wins the most seats controls the legislative body. But other than voting on administrative leadership and structural control, a legislator is always free to vote their own way.

Party affiliations, rhetoric, and platforms are important indicators of likely votes, but ultimately the electorate selects individuals based on their qualifications and character. Candidates may agree with many, or even most of the positions of others in their party, but as there really are only two viable choices for affiliation at this time, there is little expectation that there will be total agreement with whichever party they are in.

But in nations with multiple parties, especially when one party does not dominate, quite often no single party has a majority and parties negotiate for power. But in order for negotiations to be meaningful and for coalitions to remain intact, the parties need to be able to make deals, as parties. The leader has to be able to promise the votes from his block on matters of importance to another party in order to ensure that his party can get the promise of another party’s votes on their priorities. Elections in multi-party nations also are to a larger extent votes for a party rather than a person and legislators are expected to vote “the party line”.

To a lesser extent, block voting is practiced in the States as well. Parties will caucus and negotiate and there are party whips whose job it is to keep votes more or less in line with party principles and positions. Stray too far and your funding and support in your next election will dry up. But in the US, “bipartisan support” is considered a positive for a bill and were a party leader to announce that all members must vote in a particular way on a bill, there would be public outcry.

Of course, in multi-party nations there are issues that are not party priorities or that do not break along party lines. In those instances, a “conscience vote” is allowed, at the discretion of the party leader. If there is no risk of a coalition dissolving or if there is no presumption that the voters assumed the party had a position, then a legislator may be allowed to vote as they wish without repercussions from the party.

Australia is a bit complicated. It is in some ways nearly a two-party nation, but it functions as a multi-party state. The two power houses are Labor, a centre-left party, and The Coalition, a collection of centre-right parties that – while distinct parties in their own right – broker power as a unit and can be held to a party line by the Coalition leader. Currently these two political entities are nearly evenly balanced in both houses of parliament, giving the much smaller Greens party the power to determine who leads the Senate and a handful of independents who make that determination for the House of Representatives. Labor holds control of both houses and Julia Gillard, Labor leader in the House, is Prime Minister.

(The closest US comparison is the 2006 elections which resulted in 49 Republican and 49 Democratic Senators. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who identifies as “democratic socialist” (akin to European centre-left party ideology), is not officially affiliated with a party. And Joe Lieberman, who is registered as a Democrat and was the party’s 2000 Vice Presidential nominee, lost the Democratic Party nomination but was elected to continued representing his state by the 25-member Connecticut for Lieberman Party. Both caucused with and gave Senate control to the Democratic Party for the 110th Congress.)

My apologies to Australian readers if I bungled that too badly and feel free to correct any glaring errors. And now back to the marriage vote.

Where things get tricky is when a vote is a party line vote for some parties and a conscience vote for others. This was the case with Australia’s vote on marriage.

The Coalition legislators were held to a party line vote, but Prime Minister Gillard, being personally opposed to marriage equality, allowed a conscience vote in the House. This split the Labor vote and, when Labor opponents were added to united Coalition voting block, this gave the bill a lopsided loss. A similar scenario played out in the Senate.

Although there are three more marriage bills in the House and one more in the Senate, it is assumed that their fate is the same. However, as a significant portion of this year’s Labor opposition is based in election strategy (which is not the same as representing the electorate’s majority view) there is some hope that marriage will pass in 2013. I have no idea if that is political reality or wishful declaration.

And, finally, as politics is a wacky thing, here’s a little tidbit. The Coalition leader in the Senate House has a lesbian sister and expressed himself to be conflicted between promises made to his constituents and his personal feelings (he went with the promises). The Senate Labor leader, however, came up with a candidate for all-time-stupidest-political-comment-ever:

Senate President John Hogg told the chamber he had a deep-seated belief that marriage was between a man and woman.

“To decry my views is to seek to discriminate against me,” he said.

Meanwhile, the marriage battle has moved to the states.

Name me that child

In the global quest for equality, we regularly hear this (Sydney Morning Herald):

Senator Pratt’s West Australian Labor colleague Mark Bishop said very few of his constituents had raised the issue with him. He said he supported gay couples being allowed to form civil unions but did not support same sex marriage because he believed it impinged on the rights of children.

Nationals Senator Ron Boswell, also speaking against the bill, said all children had a right to both a mother and a father.

“Two mothers or two fathers cannot raise a child properly,” Senator Boswell said.

Though this time presented in Australia, it is the prime objection across the planet. But despite its ubiquity, it suffers from a fatal flaw: they never ever clarify the identity of the recipient of their sympathy and benefactor of their protection.

“Think of the children” is a poor excuse for denying rights in general. But usually there is at least a child to think of.

Even the miscegenists who trotted out their dubious concern about “society being cruel to the poor little mulatto children”, had going for them that some children would be born directly as a result of legalizing mixed-race marriage. And, considering the social climate in which they plead their case, it was true that more mixed-race children would be born from allowing mixed race marriage than without (though their fears about the poor children didn’t really pan out).

But for all those who missed school on sex-ed day, children are not the natural bi-product of a same-sex marriage. There is no “honey guess what” conversation. The stork doesn’t have Mr. and Mr. Jones in its address book.

So I’m confused. In these “think of the children” objections, exactly what children am I supposed to be thinking of? What child, exactly, is being deprived of a mother and a father?

Same-sex couples get children in one of three ways; either they are raising a child when its parents (presumably an opposite sex couple) are not able to, they are jointly raising a child that one parent conceived in an opposite-sex relationship, or they are raising a child that they planned and took extraordinary measures to conceive.

Now on the face of it, there is no causal relationship between same-sex marriage and the first two scenarios. But that is not what anti-gays mean when they bring up this objection. Though they never articulate this, what they really mean is that the increase in acceptance for gay people (of which marriage is only the latest issue) will result in more children being raised by same-sex couples.

And that is true.

In countries in which gay people are executed or imprisoned, very few same-sex couple raise children. In countries in which there is some miserly measure of tolerance, confirmed bachelors or spinster librarians might set up house together “to share expenses”, but they seldom jointly parent children.

Social disapproval and reprisals against gay people would result in fewer children “being deprived of either a mother and a father” (as would banning divorce, revoking all spousal rights, and putting an end to military service or any other occupation that could result in death of a parent, and a number of other things that are not proposed). But that argument presumes that these are the two choices: either marriage equality or fierce reprisals against gay people.

But that is not the situation. No nations are trying to decide whether tis best to allow same-sex couples to marry or to throw them in jail. No legislators are pondering, “Hmmmm. I just can’t decide. Is it treacly songs and bridesmaids in peach taffeta for you, or off to the executioner’s block?”

But, to be fair, it could be that for each incremental degree to which gay people are afforded human dignity, there is an incremental increase in same-sex couples raising children. That’s probably the case. But with each scenario of added dignity, the children impacted are unique and that need to be evaluated in that context.

So, Senator Boswell, you need to be clear. What child are you talking about?

In the first of the above methods through which same-sex couples become parents, the children already have been deprived of a mother or a father. They have been deprived of both. So the choice is not between their parents and a gay couple, and very seldom is it between a straight couple and a gay couple. Considering the minuscule number of people lining up to raise other people’s children and the degree to which gay couples readily welcome children with limitations or difficulties, for this kid it is generally either gay parents or no parents at all.

So if it is this child of whom you speak, please explain how your assertion that that child’s “right to both a mother and a father” is to claimed. Unless you are proposing that the government foist this child upon some hapless heterosexual couple that doesn’t want it, it’s difficult to see how your principle comes into play. (And if that is your proposal, please do let the people know).

I don’t believe that children have a significant advantage in being raised by opposite sex parents. But that issue is irrelevant to the marriage question. If there is some assumption that for each child that would otherwise be raised by a same-sex couple, a happy healthy heterosexual family is waiting (an assumption that seems not to be shared by child welfare professionals, incidentally), then adoption law is the place where you resolve that matter.

If that is your belief, then you can see if you can get public support (and pass constitutional muster in your nation) and ban same-sex couples from adopting. But that has no bearing on whether or not they be allowed to marry.

And if you are going to allow them to adopt, surely for those children who have already been “deprived of a father or a mother” by being placed in a same-sex family it is not preferable or advantageous for those “deficient parent” to be disallowed such tools as could make better of a bad thing.

But perhaps you are speaking of the second method by which a child is raised by a same-sex couple. Perhaps it is either by divorce or separation that one partner acquired a child which they brought into the relationship.

But generally the child’s non-custodial parent is still in the picture (though they might have abdicated their role in the child’s life, or perhaps the died, or maybe they were captured and hauled away by space aliens). And I’m not sure what the solution might be nor how marriage law would complicate matters.

At the present, in most countries in which there is not strong bias against gay people, the courts will assign custody to the parent that is in the best interest of the child. And, I suppose, the laws could be changed such that the best interest of the child is disregarded and sexual orientation be the singular criterion (as some would like), but that would result in the child being raised by a less competent parent and still would not fulfill that child’s “right to both a mother and a father”.

I suppose that in a mixed-orientation divorce, it could be argued that the heterosexual parent has more potential to meet that child’s claim on a mother and a father, provided that step-parents count. But that is not at all related to the matter of whether the homosexual parent should be allowed to subsequently marry a person of the same sex.

If one prioritizes a child’s “right to both a mother and a father” over the best interest of the child, either allowing or preventing same-sex marriage will have no impact. That is a matter for family law courts, not a matter of allowing or disallowing same-sex marriage.

So, Senator Boswell, you must be speaking of the third entry method for children in a same-sex headed family.

You must be talking about those children who are brought into an existing same-sex families. Your concern must be about parents who went through a great deal of planning and considerable expense to bring this child into being.

Now we have nothing to suggest that these parents are any more or less likely to bring children into the world if they can marry. We do know that they take considerable steps to protect their children and to make sure that they have are not legally disadvantaged, to the extent possible. We know that such a decision is seldom hasty and never the result of a momentary passionate night of optimism.

But you may be correct: it is possible that marriage protections would encourage more same-sex couples to have children. The increased stability that comes from marriage’s legal rights and social support might be the determining factor in the decision of whether this couple will kids.

But it’s time to be specific, Senator. If the child about which you are concerned, the one who is being deprived of their right to a father and a mother, is the one brought into the world after careful planning and significant effort, say so. In fact, Senator, let’s not be vague and generic. Give me the name of a child that is in the scenario you are trying to prevent, one that is deprived of a mother and a father, and lets go talk to that child.

Because I want to be right there in the room with you when you look that kid in the face and tell her that she – and the society as a whole – would be better off if she had never been born.

Michigan marriage challenge update

April DeBoer of Hazel Park, left, and her partner, Jayne Rowse, stand with their children Nolan DeBoer-Rowse, 3, Ryanne DeBoer-Rowse, 2, and Jacob DeBoer-Rowse, 2, during a news conference Friday, Sept. 7, 2012. MANDI WRIGHT/Detroit Free Press

A lesbian couple, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, sued the state of Michigan over its adoption laws. Their lawyer explains: (Detroit Free Press)

One of their lawyers, Dana Nessel, pointed out that the state of Michigan certified DeBoer and Rowse to become foster parents together but won’t allow them to both adopt. Michigan law only allows singles or married couples to adopt.
…
“The state gave them children who had been abandoned and surrendered at birth to raise,” Nessel said. “And they are raising them with all the love, nurturing, care and affection that any parent would give to any child. But the state then rewards these women by telling them while they are good enough to foster as a couple, they aren’t good enough to adopt as a couple. We submit that this is pure and utter insanity.”

Yep. Insanity.

But the judge in the case surprised them by noting that they were fighting the wrong battle. Their issues would be over if they married and it’s really the marriage ban that is causing them to be subjected to discrimination.

Personally, I get that. I can see how a state could argue that if a couple was unwilling to make the legal commitments binding themselves together that they were not ideal to jointly adopt children. But it can’t then turn around and refuse to let the couple make such legal commitments.

So April and Jayne have updated their petition.

DeBoer and partner Jayne Rowse decided to take the battle they’re already fighting in U.S. District Court in Detroit one step further today. They amended their complaint in front of Judge Bernard A. Friedman that asks for the right to adopt as a same-sex couple, instead challenging Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, Attorney General Bill Schuette and Oakland County Clerk Bill Bullard Jr. to declare Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage and partnerships unconstitutional.

“This is totally not what we expected by any means,” Rowse said today, away from the podium during an announcement in the Penobscot Building. “We wanted to keep the kids’ rights at the forefront, the rights that any other child has.”

Dear narcissistic fromunda stain…

When Baltimore Raven Brendon Ayanbadejo came out in support of equality, it got Emmett Burns a little perturbed. So much so that he wrote to Ayambadejo’s employer to insist that he “inhibit such expressions”. This didn’t sit well with fellow equality supporter, Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe.

Kluwe responded. It’s required reading. Seriously, you MUST read this:

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland’s state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should “inhibit such expressions from your employees,” more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person’s right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindfucking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit…

Now go to Deadspin and read the rest.