Ruth Institute Blog

What an analogy. The only reason why this small 2-4% of the population has this much clout is because of the wealth of the rich people. It is the rich snobs looking down on us everyday folks and trying to impose their views down our throats.
Look at his website. He admits it. He is trying to use the federal courts to overturn an election won fair and sqaure by the vote of us the people. Get this folks: These rich snobs want the federal court to do the two following things.
(1) Claim that is was unconstitutional for the people of California to amend their own Constitution.
(2) Infringe upon the 10th amendment rights of those people.

“Prop 8 itself was supported largely by small donors.”

Except when its donors were instructed by their Mormon Church executives to contribute. That’s not exactly a “grass roots” phenomenon.

Rich people with liberal ideals = out-of-touch elitist snobs.

Rich people with conservative ideals = true american.

Nice to see that broken down so neatly. At least Rob is honest about his beliefs and donations. As far as rich, beautiful people go, Warren Buffet has spoken out on how he believes his taxes, and those of the “rich, beautiful people” should be raised to help out the country.

And Rob Reiner directed The Princess Bride. Nothing short of beating his wife and killing puppies on live tv is going to make me think he’s a terrible person.

@Sean
Is it a grass roots phenomenon if HRC instructs its followers to contribute to the No on 8 campaign? Neither the Church nor the HRC has any power other than persuasion and request. There was no ecclesiastical penalty for not donating to Yes on 8 and no penalty for donating to No on 8.

I think your animus towards organized religion is showing.

I am a small d democrat. I even used to be a large D Democrat. I am as troubled by the outsized influence of the rich on the right as on the left. However, particularly given the Citizens United case, I accept that this is the way the game is played.

Given that thousands of small donors for Prop 8 had their addresses posted on the web (presumably to intimidate them from donating in the future or to invite harassment), I think it only fair that Rob’s massive donation be known. That said, he has a right to spend his money as he sees fit.

I believe Warren Buffet is right, and I believe in progressive taxation. Just wait until the rich decide to claim a right to equal taxation under the law (i.e. the same rates for all). Already people on the right argue, not entirely without justification, that the tax code is unequal, unjust, unfair, and immoral. See http://one-simple-idea.com/TaxComparison.htm
Just wait until the super rich fund a lawfare assault on progressive taxation. Remember the rich are a minority, and a principle constantly enunciated on this site is that the majority should never be allowed to vote on a right that a minority claims.

Chad Griffin (the president of AFER) is a personal friend. He is not a rich guy. We grew up in a pretty middle class situation in Southern Baptist Arkansas. Just because people think differently from you and have realized that equality for all makes sense doesn’t mean that they come from a different world than you do.

Maine is still telling NOM to stop breaking their election laws, and the Feds back that up. So what’s the beef with Rob Riener?

When will we see NOM’s donor lists?

Heidi, I’m getting tired of seeing this question here. Why don’t you go to NOM’s blog and ask them.

“I think your animus towards organized religion is showing.”

What you see, Leo, is my disgust at religion-fueled animosity. Religions and their members don’t get to impose their beliefs on others, at least that’s the way the country used to operate.

HRC is a political organization. Religions are now political organizations, but used to be religions. Soon enough, the tax exemptions will go away.

@Leo

I think it’s fine for Rob’s donation to be known, and he certainly doesn’t seem to be hiding it. I object to the Ruth Institutes heavy handed branding of him as an out-of-touch elitist because he’s rich. It’s petty, weak, and down-right insulting and doesn’t reflect well on it’s leaders. (Especially as I find it hard to believe it’s leaders and founders make around or less then the national average.)

I remember hearing about equal taxation back in 8th grade, it was i think a big thing for the libertarian party. I don’t think the rich can claim a minority status though, in that income is something they have control over, as opposed to ethnicity and sexual orientation, and being rich is not a religion (well, I’m sure some look at it that way)

@Sean
Your animus is showing again. Churches have no power to impose their views, except by the power of free speech and persuasion. People of faith don’t lose the right to vote just because they are people of faith. Religious leaders don’t forfeit the right to counsel their followers on moral issues just because moral issues are on the ballot. Nor should those hostile to religion be granted the sole right to define morality. The pro-SSM and San Francisco-based California Supreme Court specifically heard challenges to allowing Prop 8 being on the ballot and allowed the vote to proceed and upheld Prop 8 after it passed. More money was raised by the No on 8 campaign than by the Yes on 8 campaign, both from in-state and out-of-state sources, and Prop 8 still passed.

This is just part of a larger campaign to force people of faith out of the public square. The GLBT lawyer Barbara Findley cut right to chase a decade ago when she said “the legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a showdown between freedom of religion [and] sexual orientation.” Retaliation against the churches was and is to be expected. See http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31735 and http://www.aim.org/briefing/rights-at-war/ . The power to tax is the power to intimidate and destroy, and there are people who would be more than happy wield that power to both intimidate and destroy churches. The natural family and the churches are two power centers that a tyrannical state always seeks to destroy or compromise.

For most of the nation’s history, from the Revolutionary War on, churches were tax exempt despite playing a large role in public affairs, without having to fear the government censoring them. The law should be returned to that earlier status. At least that’s the way the country used to operate.

The HRC Foundation, which is tax exempt, seeks “to change the hearts and minds,” what you would style as “imposing their views” if they were a church.

You make the excellent point that being a minority can be a choice,
e.g. belonging to a particular religion. That should not deny them
minority status. One might even make the argument that the rich are oriented
to making money, perhaps as far back as they can remember, and that
being less rich would be a substantial change in their deeply felt identity. It could
be argued that acting on their orientation is a choice, but that is
so for sexual orientation as well.

I don’t think Dr. J. would object to Rob if we were not trying to
nullify the results of a referendum that the pro-SSM California Supreme Court
itself both refused to halt before the vote and upheld after the vote.
That is subversive of the democratic process and the rule of law. He
compounds the offense by trying to deny the citizens who voted any
voice in protecting the law they passed. If the SCOTUS throws out
Prop 8 (which I highly doubt) that is one thing. If Prop 8 is denied
representation in court, that is subversive of the legal system, which
relies on an adversarial process. So, yes, if a millionaire decides
to spend his fortune undermining democracy and the judicial process,
he is fair game for public criticism as far as I am concerned.
Indeed, if we didn’t criticize the weakening of democracy and the
judicial process, we would deserve the plutocracy that would
inevitably follow. I was critical of plutocracy even before Prop 8
came up. Why should I change my mind on plutocracy now? Would you
prefer a plutocracy to what Ralph Nader called a “deep democracy?”

I seriously doubt that Dr. J. is in the ranks of the super-rich. The
income chart for the super-rich in the U.S. goes off the scale. The
top 1% are vastly more wealthy not only than the average, but also
vastly more wealthy than the next 9%. I grant them their right to
spend their money, but I don’t grant them an exemption of public
criticism for the way they spend their money, especially if they are trying to subvert democracy and the legal system.

@Leo
“One might even make the argument that the rich are oriented
to making money, perhaps as far back as they can remember, and that
being less rich would be a substantial change in their deeply felt identity. It could
be argued that acting on their orientation is a choice, but that is
so for sexual orientation as well.”

Unless they’re having intercourse with the money, I don’t think they can claim it’s an orientation. We (hardly) don’t care about protecting the middle class or poor from loss of jobs, and other economic woes, so I don’t think the rich can claim that it deserves protection since we hardly protect anyone else in this country. If anything the rich ARE the most protected in this country. The republican party has been all about protecting the rich for the last 30+ years.

“I don’t think Dr. J. would object to Rob if we were not trying to
nullify the results of a referendum that the pro-SSM California Supreme Court
itself both refused to halt before the vote and upheld after the vote.”

I think if Dr. J side had lost they would have been doing any sort of appeal the could, claiming that they were in the right, representing the “true” democracy of america. Her wording in her posts about this do not go into the “why” this is “circumventing democracy” It just attacks him for being rich, and disagreeing with her.

I’d say we already are a sort of plutocracy. I only ever seem to see people complain about it when it’s someone they don’t like.

“I seriously doubt that Dr. J. is in the ranks of the super-rich. The
income chart for the super-rich in the U.S. goes off the scale”

I doubt she is anywhere near super-rich. But I also highly doubt she’s middle class.

The rich do not, and have not played by the same rules as the rest of country since it was founded. Calling out Rob Reiner the way she has rings hollow because none of the other actions or writings on this site ever call out other rich for subverting the legal system. Where was the outrage over corporate personhood? If a human life is so precious and important, where was criticism for granting corporations the same protection (more even) then a person? This site has always been about attacking “the left” for a difference in cultural ideology.

Betsy, I have tried. Somehow my comments on the NOM blog always seem to “get lost” in cyberspace. Besides, TRI is associated with NOM, right? I only raise the issue to point out the hypocrisy of attacking donors on our side when we haven’t been able to find out who the donors are against us.

“Churches have no power to impose their views, except by the power of free speech and persuasion.”

They instruct their club members to do this or that, or give money, or support certain politicians. So long as they have indoctrinated their members to do as they are told, they possess disproportionate power, which is not supposed to be used for political gain.

“This is just part of a larger campaign to force people of faith out of the public square.”

If religions are so powerless, as you claim, then how is it that a small minority is so powerful? People of “faith” act as if not getting their views imposed on everyone else is a defeat for their religion. Our country was specifically set up to avoid state-sponsored religious influence.

Why limit orientation to merely a sexual context? Sounds like special pleading to me, not arguing for a universal principle. Only certain minorities count as minorities.

Many of us do care about protecting the middle class and the poor. The rich are merely claiming that equality requires they not be singled out for extra taxation. The rich are an unpopular minority whose rights the rest of us get to vote on.

I see no evidence that the NOM is trying to block by legal maneuver the No on 8 folks from holding another ballot referendum. None whatsoever. But the No on 8 folks did try to block Prop 8 from appearing on the ballot. I see no evidence that the NOM is trying to deny legal standing to those challenging Prop 8. But the No on 8 folks are trying to deny a defense of Prop 8 in court. I saw a determined effort to publicize the names of every Prop 8 donor, but the No on 8 donors remain largely unknown. At the height of the campaign it was easier to find out the names of the members of the North Korean Politburo than to find the names of the No on 8 leadership. I personally know someone who was harassed on their doorstep because their name was posted on 8 Maps. The intent is obviously to intimidate future donors even though the No on 8 campaign raised more money both from in-state and out-of-state donors than did the Yes on 8 campaign.

That doesn’t mean the left is always wrong or the right is always right. It does mean that the No on 8 campaign is waging an unprecedented campaign against the right of the citizens of California to amend their own constitution financed by extremely wealthy donors. This is not just a campaign against an amendment; it is a campaign against even allowing an amendment to have a chance to exist, even if the people are for it and the California Supreme Court allows it. It is an attempt to prevent any appeal to the SCOTUS. It is an attempt to game the system. This is lawfare. No thoughtful person should stand idly by while democracy and the judicial process are so compromised. Even if your special interest is benefited thereby, eventually a corrupted system will turn on you. Classical liberals understand this.

@Heidi

I cannot speak for the NOM blog. If they don’t publish your comments, why not get your own blog?

I cannot speak for the Ruth Blog, but if they aren’t focused on the issues of corporate excess, other blogs are. Mercatornet is a Catholic-oriented blog often referenced on the Ruth Blog that covers a wider range of issues, and such issues do sometimes come up there for a healthy debate.

@Leo
Well, it’s not entirely sexual, however orientation is about the combination of sexual and romantic attractions (at least in the manner we’re speaking). It would be very hard to portray being rich as a sexual orientation and worthy of being protected, given that money is external, and few people would actually have sexual feelings towards money. Also, usually “protection” or “compensation” for wronged people or groups involve money. It’s hard to claim the rich are oppressed or victims when they have more money then everyone else. The rich are not denied rights (if anything, they have extra rights). Being rich may be a minority, but it’s hardly being used against them.

“Why limit orientation to merely a sexual context? Sounds like special pleading to me, not arguing for a universal principle. Only certain minorities count as minorities.”

Good question! Why did straight people create special rights for only straight people?

Yes, there are all sorts of minorities. But we generally are more concerned about minorities who are discriminated against immorally and unequally, to their detriment. And the immutability of one’s minority characteristics seems to figure in the calculus, too.

We have previously shown that gay couples already prosper more economically than heterosexual couples. Much heralded “pink money” describes the huge purchasing power of the gay community, often especially with respect to the power of its political donations. Rich people also prosper more than the average person. By nerdygirl’s logic neither group should be able to claim they are a downtrodden minority when they have more money than their counterparts. The average black family can only dream of the day when blacks prosper more than the average. Black buying power and gay buying power are roughly equal according to the estimates I’ve seen, yet blacks are 12.6% of the population and gays are 2-3% of the population.

Libertarians claim, not without reason, that to impose extra taxes on the wealthy simply because they are more industrious, frugal, and productive, is not only immoral and unequal, it is rational and counterproductive. It is certainly to the detriment of the rich to have their income taxed (they might say confiscated) at a higher rate. And the rich are often hated. See http://atlanticsentinel.com/2011/04/why-so-many-people-hate-the-rich/
You might rationally disagree, but does that make you a bigot? Does that mean the less affluent have no right to decide that the rich should be taxed at a different and higher rate?

Sean has not proven immutability. The case has by no means been proven despite its constant repetition. The hypothesized gay gene has not been pinpointed in the genome, and twin studies are not conclusive for its existence. I strongly favor further research into what influences sexual orientation or any behavior before we jump to conclusions.
See http://www.mygenes.co.nz/MGMMDIInfo.htm and http://www.springerlink.com/content/rk67865783602411/

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. Unfortunately, says Yale’s [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, it’s hard to come up with many findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated….All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute. See Mann, C. Genes and Behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994).

Even if orientation was immutable, has society ever previously protected or given special status to any behavior because it is claimed it is immutable? Belonging to a racial group is immutable (albeit somewhat arbitrary) and rightly protected, but there are no privileged or protected racial behaviors. See, for example, Rogers v. American Airlines.

None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are based on any “immutable characteristic” other than being human. The ideal of the enlightenment was universal rights, not special rights based on political correctness and identity politics. And these rights were in the context of change, behavior, and choice. Indeed, true freedom of religion requires that religion be changeable. There are places in the world where you can be killed for changing your religion. Those places don’t have freedom of religion. The universal rights in the Bill of Rights are all based on changeable characteristics.

@Leo
People don’t hate the rich the same way they hate gays though. When’s the last time a rich person was beaten to death just for being rich?

Also, few people are going to agree that the rich, as a whole are “industrious, frugal (you’re really going to lose people there) and productive. ” Many are hardworking individuals who got their income through tears and perspiration. But, with the exception of those born into money, at some point in time, they all got lucky. Being lucky doesn’t warrant extra protection.

You can’t claim to be the voice of the majority in the same breath as claiming being “the little guy”.

“Even if orientation was immutable, has society ever previously protected or given special status to any behavior because it is claimed it is immutable? ”

Yes. Heterosexuality. It is immutable, as is homosexuality. It is given protected and special status bound in 1000+ rights, benefits, rules, protections, and responsibilities encoded in state and/or federal law.

“The ideal of the enlightenment was universal rights, not special rights based on political correctness and identity politics.”

The fact that it has been reduced to political correctness and identity politics is not the fault of LGBT Americans. Instead, it is the fault of groups like NOM and her supporters for taking the private lives and households of gay Americans and politicizing them.

Do you know what it feels like to have what is the most personal (not private) and important aspect of your life (who you love) turned into a political issue that, because of the nature of society, you hear about every hour of every day?

This is not about behavior. Under your reducing gay couples to ‘behavior’ there is a minority status as immutable and arbitrary as skin color. The primary source testimony, multiply attested across all societies and cultures of gay men and women is evidence enough of that.