Governor Deval Patrick's ill-considered casino gambling proposal went down to a stunning, better than two to one defeat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. The vote was 108-46. Now casino proponents are whining that the governor's bill did not receive a full and fair hearing, even after many months of very public discussion. The simple fact is that the proposal to place three one billion dollar casinos in the state lost on its merits.

I will never understand why Governor Patrick blew so much political capital and public good will in making the three casinos the central feature of his economic plan. Patrick the candidate opposed casinos, knowing full-well the social and economic destruction they leave in their wake. To call his plan regressive, is to generously overstate what casinos are all about. But we have had that debate, and the regressives were routed.

Frank Phillips reported in the Boston Globe:

One of Patrick's most immediate problems is that the casino initiative alienated a good chunk of his political base, particularly the progressive Democratic coalition that was at the core of his landslide election in 2006.

"I am saddened that he has greatly disillusioned his political base," said state Representative Jay Kaufman, a Lexington Democrat and early Patrick supporter who voted against the casino plan.

Indeed. Candidate Patrick urged us to a higher standard of discourse. He called on us to become more deeply involved not only in politics but in the process of governance. He called for greater transparency in government and broad civic engagement. He said he would set a higher standard and restore trust in government. But, he delivered none of this in his casino gambling gambit. Instead, he fronted for a disreputable "industry;" using data derived almost soley from gambling interests, and those financed by gambling interests. He developed his plan with none of the transparency or civic engagement we expected from candidate Patrick.

I think Candidate Patrick needs to have a heart-to-heart talk with Governor Patrick. I think they have much to say to each other.

Much will be said about Obama's historic speech. But never mind all that. It is far better to read or watch the thing itself:

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

Leo Maley's op-ed in the Amherst Bulletin spells it out. Maley points out that casinos are generally economically distastrous, and "result in considerable individual and societal harm." Everyone knows that a lot of gamblers become "problem gamblers," a term which does not nearly explain the breadth and depth of the "problems" faced by individuals, their families, communities and society at large. Maley reports, for example, that "Gulfport, Miss., saw a 213 percent increase in suicides (from 24 to 75) in the first two years after casinos opened in the city. Such numbers are replicated elsewhere."

Seems to me that one of the best programs for suicide prevention would be to ensure that casino gambling never takes hold in Massachussetts. Here is an excerpt from Maley's piece:

Money spent in casinos is diverted from other areas of the economy. Area businesses suffer. Looking at data from the state of Illinois, Earl Grinols, author of the most comprehensive book-length study of the economic benefits and costs of casino gambling, found that for every $1,000 in casino revenue, businesses within 10 miles of a casino saw a decline of $367 in merchandise sales. Commercial casinos actually generated net job losses in 42 percent of counties where they were introduced. A study in the June 2007 issue of the American Journal of Economics and Sociology concludes that the states "should not expect any long-term growth effects from legalizing casino gambling."

Independently owned restaurants are especially hard hit. Drawing on ample data from regions around the country that have introduced casino gambling, the Massachusetts Restaurant Association estimates that casinos would force the closure of about 200 restaurants in the state.

These macro economic trends can undercut the economic vitality and diversity of an entire region. But the effect on individuals ought to concern us the most. Estimates vary, but it is likely that 40 to 50 percent of gaming machine revenues of a typical casino comes from problem or pathological gamblers.

A comprehensive literature review conducted by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission found that the rate of problem and pathological gambling addictions double among populations that live within 50 miles of a casino. A recent study published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry found that more than 10 percent of people over the age of 65 are at risk of having financial problems because of gambling, and that older gamblers are increasing at the fastest rate.

A Harvard Medical School study shows that 6 percent of the population has trouble with gambling at some point in their lives and 4 percent - 250,000 people in Massachusetts - report that in the past year they have had problems controlling their urge to gamble. Now imagine if that number were doubled.

Where do our candidates stand on basic matters of separation of church and state and the constellation of values and issues that intersect this foundational doctrine of our culture and our constitution? First Freedom First, a joint project of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Interfaith Alliance Foundation, has ten well-crafted questions to help us find out.

FFF suggests using them at

Town Hall meetings or other locations where candidates for office will be gathering. You can copy and paste them into an email message to the candidates. Or, use these as suggestions to help formulate your own questions to candidates, to find out their views on safeguarding separation of church and state and protecting religious liberty.

These are things that can sometimes make candidates squirm; and they are sometimes coached not to talk about them. But avoidance does not mean that people do now want to know the answers or that there are not important philosophical and public policy matters that directly relate. Our candidatees should not only be prepared to answer such questions, but they can be reasonably assured that we would like to hear good answers.

1) Leaders on the religious right often say that America is a “Christian Nation.” Do you agree with this statement?

2) Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?

3) Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?

4) Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child’s public school science classes?

5) Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?

6) Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?

7) Should “faith-based” charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?

8) Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?

9) Do you think everyone’s religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called “a wall of separation” between church and state?

10) What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?

One of the current fashions emanating from Inside the Beltway is the declaration that the "culture war is over," and in the case of E.J. Dionne, that it is the wrong war to be fought. The currency of such proclamations may not last long. They are variations on the old saw that the religious right is dead, dying, over the hill, and so on. There are analyses to be made about the State of the Religious Right, which is certainly in a state of turmoil and transition, in the wake of the passing of the founding generation from public life. But any analysis whose central premise is any of the above, is probably wishful thinking, at best.

The time is not to kid ourselves with wishful thinking, but to be clear about the current nature and capacities of the religious right; staying aware of the direction of the religious right’s issues, organizations and electoral campaigns, and making any necessary adjustments.

Here is an example from today’s news: one of the most divisive issues of the culture war, marriage equality, is now before the California Supreme Court. It’s as high profile a case as they come; and in the largest state in the union; and it may well be decided prior to the November elections. The case will be heard on March 4th.

The San Francisco Chronicle has a helpful article about how religious institutions on both sides have lined up with amicus briefs in this case. This is important as the arguments made by these groups (as well as many others) will inform the battles to come in this area, and may very well serve as helpful briefings for candidates, staff and consultants.

The Chronicle reports:

As the state Supreme Court prepares for a three-hour hearing March 4 on the constitutionality of a state law allowing only opposite-sex couples to marry, the justices have been flooded with written arguments from advocates on both sides - including two large contingents of religious organizations with sharply differing views.

On one side are the Mormon church, the California Catholic Conference, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. They describe marriage between a man and a woman as "the lifeblood of community, society and the state" and say any attempt by the courts to change that would create "deep tensions between civil and religious understandings of that institution."

On the other side are the Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Soka Gakkai branch of Buddhism, and dissident groups of Mormons, Catholics and Muslims. Saying their faiths and a wide range of historical traditions honor same-sex unions, they argue that the current law puts the state's stamp of approval on "the religious orthodoxy of some sects concerning who may marry."

Raoul Kennedy, the attorney for the plaintiffs said, according to the Chronicle:

"... same-sex marriages were recognized by the Christian church in the fifth century, were observed among natives by the first Spanish explorers in the Americas, were common among the Mojave Indians of the Colorado River in southeastern California, and have been documented in more than 230 African tribes.

Besides religious denominations, Kennedy's clients include about 80 churches and temples in California and more than 250 clergy members, some of whom perform same-sex weddings despite the state's refusal to recognize them.

"By sanctioning only marriages between a man and a woman, the state relegates the beliefs and practices of (these) religions, denominations and clergy to second-class status," Kennedy said. He argued that such treatment violates the California Constitution's guarantee of "free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference," language that state courts have interpreted as separating church and state more strictly than the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

Further info on the case can be found on the web site of the California Supreme Court.

All of the amicus briefs can be found here.

It is not clear when the court will rule on the case, however, there is the possibility that the ruling will come before the November election, and of course, then be an animating campaign issue, just as it was when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision on marriage equality in the run-up to the 2004 elections.

So, let’s not be lulled into complacency. The issues that animate the culture wars are alive and well and are not going away, and neither are the active players. The LGTB civil rights movement will continue to go forward, and the reactionary institutions of the religious right and several generations of trained activists will carry on as well. We can also reasonably expect that the Republican Party and its religoius right allies will skillfully exploit the issue (as they have in the past) if it should come up.

I think that the question that we Democrats at all levels need to answer for ourselves is -- will we be ready if the California Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality?

The religious right has succeeded in dominating public discourse on the intersection of science and religion for a long time now. Among many other things, seesaw battles have been waged in many states over the teaching of creationism or intelligent design; and faith based "abstinence" programs as against thoughtful, comprehensive sexuality education.

But beyond the courtroom and legislative theatrics, and conflict driven media coverage, mainstream science and religion have been getting organized. Those who posit that religion and science are inherently in conflict are two sides of the same counter productive framing of the argument. Most Americans understand, believe and accept that faith and science are not necessarily in conflict. Those who support religious pluralism and sound science and science education are natural allies against the religious supremacism, Christian nationalism and crackpot science of the religious right.


A few of these efforts include Evolution Sunday, (actually, Evolution Weekend, Feb. 8 - 10 2008) in which hundreds of churches have sermons discussing the compatibility of their faith and evolutionary science; the publication of a book by the National Academy of Sciences on the compatibility of faith and science; and the publication of a groundbreaking theological statement by the United Church of Christ that seeks to end the "feud" between science and religion. The UCC has backed it up with an ad campaign targeted to science blogs.

Much more...

So says the growing chorus of opposition to what I call Governor Deval Patrick's plan to expand gambling addiction in Massachusetts. Although as a candidate he opposed casino gambling, Patrick has made casino gambling the centerpiece of his economic program. This has come as a surprise to those of us who supported him from early on.

The Boston Globe reports that while the governor's support for his own program has been "tepid," a far flung network of opponents from the Massachusetts Council of Churches to the Massachusetts Restaurant Association is mobilizing against it. Restauranteurs are rightfully concerned that massive "resort casinos" will undermine existing businesses:

Over the past several years there has been a well-funded effort to expand gaming in the Commonwealth. Proposals to allow thousands of slot machines at the state's racetracks have been unsuccessful thus far. There are important economic risks that could result from expanding gaming, in addition to the well-documented social costs.

The MRA opposes all efforts to expand gaming and allow slot machines at racetracks.

* The restaurant industry is vital to the state's economy and our success is directly correlated to people's discretionary income. The expansion of gaming would divert much of that discretionary income out of the economy,the same income that is presently used for dining out.

* The huge revenues that would be created by slot machines would allow these establishments to attract customers away from our businesses with their free or subsidized food, beverages, and entertainment.

* The restaurant industry is vital to the state's economy. We employ over 9% of the Massachusetts workforce and contributed over $591 million in sales tax on meals last year. Expanded gaming would put this very important economic engine at great peril.

* Our industry is currently being challenged by the economy. Today, operators are facing huge increases in the cost of doing business. Some of these factors include healthcare, energy, and the overall vulnerability in the commodities market.

Restaurants are good neighbors and are owned by many people who have invested in their communities. The livelihoods of many are dependent upon the success of these small businesses. To shift the income of a few businesses (racetracks) would be benefiting a few at the expense of many.

Meanwhile, a pro-gambling addiction state legislator plans to stage a procasino hearing featuring... (drum roll please) -- the gambling industry!

The Springfield Republican reports:

BOSTON - Hoping to create some momentum, a pro-casino legislator plans to hold a hearing on Beacon Hill that will emphasize the economic benefits of expanded gambling.

State Rep. David L. Flynn, D-Bridgewater, said he invited representatives of some gambling companies including Harrah's Entertainment of Las Vegas and owners of the state's four horse and dog tracks.

"We had the anti-gaming hearing, the can't-do hearing," said Flynn, co-chairman of the Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets. "This is a can-do hearing."

Oh yeah. And top officials of the Patrick administration will be there too.

Yeah, I know. Everyone is writing about it. But here is my take.

Laurel writes over at Talk to Action:

Holocaust revisionist and homobigot Scott Lively is moving to Springfield, MA. Lively has been the CA state director for Don Wildmon's American Family Association.

Most recently, Lively co-founded Watchmen on the Walls, a quasi-religious anti-gay hate group which calls homosexuality "inherently evil". His collaborators include Alexey Ledyaev and Ken Hutcherson. Alexey Ledyaev is the leader of the Latvia-based international New Generation church. New Generation's flagship location in the USA is Springfield, MA, to which Lively plans to move. Hutcherson is founder of Antioch Bible Church, another anti-gay enterprise located near Seattle, WA.

Lively, Hutcherson and Ledyaev spend a good deal of time traveling around the former Soviet Union and the US spreading the anti-gay message of hate.

The Daily News reports:

Rudy Giuliani is jetting around the country wooing Bible-thumping conservatives, but his plane is often provided by a king of Sin City.

The Republican presidential hopeful anted up more than $122,000 last summer alone for jets traceable to casino kingpin Sheldon Adelson, whose Las Vegas Sands empire has made him the third-richest American, a Daily News review of campaign records shows.

Last quarter, The Sands' innocuously named Interface Operations LLC was the top provider of corporate jets to the frequently flying Giuliani, who was whisked around the country on the casino's plush Gulfstream G-IV in late August and early September, records show.

"You have to follow the money and ask, 'Why is Sheldon Adelson partnering with Rudy Giuliani?'" asked Stacey Cargill, an anti-gambling and Republican Party activist in Iowa, where the nation's first presidential caucus is set for Jan. 3.

Cargill, who views even legal gambling as a magnet for crime and vice, said, "If Rudy Giuliani wants to be the crimefighting candidate, why is he partnering with a large and growing gambling empire?"

But airplane rides around the country are not the only thing Giuliani has recieved from the casino kingpin:

Last month, Adelson... held a Giuliani fund-raiser at his Venetian casino in Las Vegas.

High-rollers who agreed to raise $25,000 for Giuliani's presidential bid got a special treat - cigars with the former mayor.

The U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops is too poor, according to The Boston Globe, to send to its local parishes, its traditional instructional mailing on how to approach politics and public policy. The Globe did not explain why the Bishops are broke and buried the point in the last paragraph of the story -- but we can guess that it probably has something to do with the massive payouts the church has made to settle lawsuits related to the priest pedophilia scandal.

Traditionally, the document has been mailed to all parishes in the United States; this year, to save money, the cash-strapped bishops' conference will e-mail the document to parishes and post it on a website.

However, the Globe headlined the story, O'Malley draws line with Democrats: Backing abortion rights candidates 'borders on scandal'.

The Globe reported:

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, saying the Democratic Party has been persistently hostile to opponents of abortion rights, asserted yesterday that the support of many Catholics for Democratic candidates "borders on scandal."

In his sharpest comments about the political landscape since he was installed as archbishop of Boston four years ago, O'Malley made clear that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers.

"I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church's position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues," O'Malley said.

The Globe continued:

O'Malley's predecessors as archbishop of Boston were also staunchly antiabortion. Cardinal Bernard F. Law called a news conference to criticize a Republican governor, William F. Weld, for his support for abortion rights, and Law had the lieutenant governor at the time, Paul Cellucci, also a Republican, disinvited from a Catholic high school for the same reason; Law also blasted Geraldine A. Ferraro, the Democratic candidate for vice president in 1984, for her support of abortion rights. Law's predecessor, Cardinal Humberto S. Medeiros, in 1980 tried unsuccessfully to persuade Catholics to vote against two Democratic congressional candidates, Barney Frank and Jim Shannon, because of their support for abortion rights.

Interesting, but I don't recall -- and the Globe does not mention -- any Catholic official ever having blasted any Massachusetts Republicans in recent years for their positions on abortion -- suchas the formerly prochoice Gov. Mitt Romney or continuously prochoice Lt. Gov and later gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey -- although I suppose I could have missed something.

It is interesting too, to see the Cardinal attack the Democratic Party as a whole, as if it had a lot of say, or should have a lot of say over who the membership picks as its candidates, and who the voters ultimately choose as its representatives.


[See the expanded version of this post at Talk to Action.]

As now seems likely, Massachusetts may reschedule its primaries from March to February 5th. The Boston Globe reports:

"February 5 has become a de facto national primary day," [Secretary of State William] Galvin said. "This gives Massachusetts voters the first chance in years to participate in some significant way in the selection process for nominees in both parties."

Most analysts agree that the results of Feb. 5 primaries could well mark the end of the presidential nominating races in both parties. There will be as many as 21 primaries that day, including votes in delegate-rich states of New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California... The new date for a Massachusetts primary could create a political problem for Mitt Romney. The former governor, who is not as popular among Bay State Republicans as he once was, may be forced to compete here in an effort to avoid an embarrassing loss in his home state.

Indeed. The Republicans have a winner take all primary, and Romney is not nearly as popular among Bay State Republicans as outsiders might think.

On the Democractic side, my raw speculation would be that this gives an advantage to Obama since Governor Patrick is mobilizing supporters on Obama's behalf and no one else seems to have much of a presence in the state, having assumed that the primary, if it mattered at all, would be in March.

At the same time, Galvin says that one of the reasons for doing this is to simultaneously schedule five party primaries for vacant state legislative seats. And there is at least one blogger running. Lori Erlich is running in the Dem primary for State Rep from Marblehead. She is a environental activist, a CPA and based on the profile of the field in The Marblehead Reporter, she sounds like the progressive choice -- and of course, being a fellow blogger gets her a mention here.

The current issue of Hustler magazine has an interview with the woman who says she was Republican Sen. David Vitter's hooker -- as well as a "naked pictorial" -- according to The Advocate newspaper of Baton Rouge.

But first, let's underscore that the man who campaigned against "Massachusetts values" has made his career grandstanding on the sanctity of marriage -- apparently while breaking laws as well as his marriage vows. Here is what he had to say when running for the U.S. Senate:

    Vitter Statement on Protecting the Sanctity of Marriage

We need a U.S. Senator who will stand up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts's values.  I am the only Senate Candidate to coauthor the Federal Marriage Amendment; the only one fighting for its passage... stated David Vitter.

Much more.

Is the governor's proposal to expand gambling addiction in the state in trouble? The evidence suggests so.

The Massachusetts Council of Churches has a footnoted list of Economic Arguments Against Casino Gambling. Here is one compelling point that we won't hear the Governor's spokespersons even try to rebut:

Gambling addiction to slot machines is all about speed…the faster you play, the more likely you will play out-of-control and be more reckless with your money as you lose it in the machine. Today’s slots are meticulously designed computers, generating precise profits, deliberately creating a false sense of "near wins" and regular small payoffs that create an illusion of sporting chance. They are the most addictive form of gambling ever devised.[7]

Anyone comforted by the idea that casino gambling is voluntary should spend a day with the casino staffs that target people based on how fast they play a slot machine and track prospects' and players' observed worth, define their predicted value, and systematically maximize individual "share of wallet" through targeted and customized promotional messages, limited-time cash offers, and carefully tracked time-to-response and spending analysis. This predatory marketing explains why for people who live within 50 miles of a casino, at least 1 out of every 20 people becomes a gambling addict.[8] But while these problem gamblers are very lucrative for the industry, their addiction leads to crime, distressed families, suicide and bankruptcy.[9] Non-gamblers are left paying the tab for these costs through higher taxes.

And the new statewide coalition, Casino Free Mass, has a useful set of talking points.

Is the Catholic League of Massachusetts a Sham? The evidence suggests so.

Just one question: Who said this?

"Taxing the poor through casinos is cynical and cowardly"

A: The Massachusetts Council of Churches

B: The Amherst Democratic Town Committee

C: The Boston Business Journal

D: Some Lefty Blogger (like me.)

Correct answer at the bottom of this post!

If you guessed the correct answer -- you are the winner in the FrederickClarkson.com Sweepstakes! And unlike Governor Deval Patrick's casino gambling proposal, what you get is nothing but satisfaction. The FrederickClarkson.com Sweepstakes has no history of causing addictive behaviors; bankrupsies; divorses -- and has no known ties to organized crime!

The Boston Business Journal argues that we should all be responsible for fixing our roads and bridges rather than trying to scam the poor and the vulnerable. But beyond the social costs, the Journal also thinks it's bad business -- and bad for business.

As a matter of economic policy, expanded gambling is a non-starter. The commonwealth stands to skim $600 million off the top in licensing fees, one-time revenue that quickly becomes lost when it gets absorbed into $26.8 billion budget. Then it expects $400 million per year in additional tax revenue. But has anyone counted the taxes it won't take in when $1.5 billion -- the amount gamblers will need to spend in the state annually to raise the tax expected tax revenues -- is sucked out of the local economy?

One of the fundamental fallacies of the casino revenue scheme is that casinos generate new money that falls out of the sky. No, most of this money simply won't be spent elsewhere in Massachusetts. Perhaps $500 million will be redirected from Connecticut casinos. The rest is money Massachusetts residents will plunk into the pockets of casino operators and won't spend on other things: meals, clothes, vacations, toys. Lawmakers should ask for a reasonable estimate of what the impact of squeezing more from Massachusetts gamblers will have on the income and sales tax figures.

The correct answer is "C".

As I wrote the other day, the opposition to Governor Deval Patrick's casino gambling gambit -- is gathering steam. Those who enjoy political spectacles -- particularly those among the Patrick's political opponents -- will be breaking out the popcorn to watch this classic case of slo-mo road kill. As a fan of the guv, that is a show I would rather see cancelled after these first few disastrous episodes. My friendly advice from this distance is that the sooner he starts shopping plan B to address the state's economic issues -- the better off we all will be.

A statewide coalition, Casino Free Mass, was formally launched on Monday in Boston, and is organizing statewide.

Supporters of the Casino Free Mass coalition include: The National Association on Mental Illness, Massachusetts Chapter; the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts; the National Association of Social Workers, Massachusetts Chapter; the Massachusetts Catholic Conference; the Massachusetts Council of Churches; the Massachusetts Family Institute; the Interchurch Council of Greater New Bedford; the Muslim American Society, Boston Chapter; Casinofacts.org

Press coverage has been intensive all over New England. The announcement of the coalition was, for example, the headline frontpage story in the Springfield Republican newspaper.

BOSTON - Religious groups, political activists and human service workers yesterday launched a statewide effort to oppose casinos in Massachusetts.

Members of the Casino Free Mass coalition said they will hold meetings around the state to organize people against casinos. They said they have no plans to lobby legislators.

Members said casinos in Massachusetts will create a new generation of addicted gamblers. They warned that casinos take money from the poor and elderly, those who can least afford it.

The Rev. John V. Johnson, executive director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches, said casino gambling is a moral issue. The council is helping lead the coalition.

"Raising revenue off the addiction of its citizens is both a bad bet and bad government," Johnson said at a press conference outside the Statehouse.

The Berkshire Eagle was one of many media outlets in MA and around the country to run the State House News Service or the AP wire stories.

The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts first voiced its opposition to casino gambling in 1982, said Diane Jeffery, president of the league. The league opposes casinos because casino jobs are short term, such as construction jobs, or low paying. In addition, casinos sprout crime, gambling addiction and traffic, according to studies conducted by the league.

"At a time when cities and towns are looking for money, this is not the time to bring in gambling," said Jeffery, in an interview. "We need to focus on industries that don't drain the economy."

The Massachusetts Council of Churches has anti-gambling resources posted on its web site -- including economic arguments against casino gambling.

The National Gambling Impact Study, created and funded by Congress, found that the rate of problem and addicted gamblers doubles within a 50-mile radius of a new casino.

State sponsored revenue-by-addiction is a non-starter. Give it up now please, Governor Patrick.

Massachusetts is routinely taken for granted in American politics. We are an early primary state -- but not early enough apparently. But there is more. This taking for granted is particuarly acute in the progressive and Democratic political communities -- including the national political blogger community,, which finds itself fascinated, just fascinated by obscure precincts in Montana or who said what to whom in the halls of Congress and even on Fox News -- you know the network True Dems are not supposed to appear on... there is more, but I digress.

Let us now celebrate Massachusetts -- one of, if not THE bluest state in the nation.

Let us celebrate our all-Dem Congressional delegation and Senators Kennedy and Kerry. (Aren't we glad Senator Kennedy is back at work after a hospital stay?)

Let us celebrate a progressive Democratic electorate who had the vision, the wisdom and the energy to get Deval Patrick the nomination for governor over overwhelmingly better funded and more established candidates.

Let us celebrate the good sense -- and the enthusiasm -- of the wider electorate who rejected yet another GOP hack in favor of a pragmatic statesman who also happens to be the first African American governor of Massachusetts and only the second African American governor --after Doug Wilder in VA. And let us celebtrate that -- Inside the Beltway conventional wisdom be damned -- among the ways that Patrick distinguished himself as a candidate was to be articulately and unapologetically prochoice and promarriage equality and pro- stem cell research.

Indeed, let us celebrate the simple fact that Massachusetts has led the way in the instituting of marriage equality, thanks to the wisdom of our Supreme Judicial Court. In the several years since the legalization of gay marriage, nothing untoward has happened, the dire and histrionic warnings of the religious right and the Catholic bishops not withstanding. Come visit us and you'll see that nothing has changed, except that some people are happier and more secure in their lives. More recently, our state legislature blocked a ballot initiative that would have amended the state constitution to overturn the court decision. The initiative would have been on the ballot in '08 and served as a further distraction from the real issues facing our state and the nation. We reject hate-based politics and refuse to put bigotry on the ballot, let alone in the state constitution.

The religious right is going to try to target the courageous state representatives and senators who took a chance and did the right thing. But we will not forget them and leave them vulnerable -- and we are already blogging and organizing fundraisers.

I am proud to report that the Massachusetts state senate has passed a bill that would establish a 35 foot buffer zone between clinics and religious right zealots who routinely harrrass people going in and out. The Boston Globe reports:

During a press conference... [Senator Harriette] Chandler, Senator Susan Fargo, a cosponsor, and advocates from Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts stood next to large photographs of a protester dressed as a Boston police officer talking to a driver entering a healthcare facility.

"This is the level of protesting that is going at reproductive health centers in Massachusetts," said Angus McQuilken of Planned Parenthood. "This is the type of protesting that this law is designed to prevent." ...

Expansion of the buffer zone has the support of House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi and nearly half of the 160 state representatives, said Representative Carl Sciortino, a cosponsor. Attorney General Martha Coakley testified in support of the bill at a hearing in May.

Governor Deval Patrick released a statement of support.

"Women in the Commonwealth have the right to medical care free of violence, harassment, or intimidation," Patrick said. "The Senate's decision today to widen the buffer zone around reproductive clinics will protect patients from the abuse that so many have encountered as they seek care."

"We're not talking here about denying people the right to have freedom of speech," Chandler said. "What we're talking about is allowing people to access healthcare."

Let me just say that this stands in sharp contrast to other states that turn a blind-eye to the harrassment of patients and staff of clinics that provide abortion care, among other womens health services. If you want to see what Democratic values in action look like -- take a look at Massachusetts. My state is not an oasis to which progressives can look longingly -- it is a stronghold -- and we are intent on making it stronger.

And presidential campaigns -- I am talking to you. You come to our state looking for volunteers for your New Hampshire operations. We are glad to help. But I also hope that you will look to our state as the epitome of what the Democratic Party stands for and the kinds of approaches to politics and public policy it can bring.

For the first time in the better part of a generation, we have a Democratic governor and legislature that is not only overwhelmingling Dem, but is also far more progressive than it was just a few years ago. They are all still finding their sea legs, but I can't wait to see what they can do once they learn the ropes.

In the media it seems like all we hear about are how white evangelicals are disgusted with Bush and the GOP -- well, who isn't? But let us recall who we are as Democrats. We welcome those white evangelicals who are not already with us -- after all, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Al Gore are white evangelicals. But let's also not forget who we are, and never allow those who make a buck off of selling us new ways to appeal to hypothetical microdemographics dominate the conversation at the cost of our most deeply held values as Democrats.

As my colleague Chip Berlet recently wrote:

"Human rights are not political commodities."

The problem is not "abortion" or “reducing the number of abortions." The problem is unwanted pregnancies, how to prevent them, and how to support women who get pregnant in the decisions they deem appropriate. This includes access to legal and safe contraception and abortion; as well as access to health care and child care for women who choose to give birth and raise children—concepts seen as fundamental rights in other industrialized countries. Our rights, and the rights of our friends, relatives, and neighbors who are women, are not political commodities to be traded for votes.

The problem is not "gay rights" or "gay marriage." The problem is building a society where the basic human rights of all people are respected and defended. Under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is no such thing as "Special Rights." When some Christian conservatives claim that gay people want "Special Rights," it is a falsehood. Our rights, and the rights of our friends, relatives, and neighbors in LGBTQ communities, are not political commodities to be traded for votes.

We intend to vote in the upcoming elections in 2008, and we intend to vote for candidates who make it crystal clear that they support basic human rights for all. At the same time, we will continue to build broad and diverse coalitions seeking fundamental progressive social change. As we rebuild our progressive social movement, we will pay special attention to politicians who have through words or actions objectively undermined basic human rights for women, the LGBTQ communities, or any other group in our society.

Oh yeah, and Chip is from Massachusetts too.

A statewide coalition led by Casinofacts.org is going public:

On Monday 10/29, there will be an announcement about the formation of a state-wide coalition to oppose Governor Patrick's casino plan. This event will take place at 11am on the front steps of the Statehouse.

The coalition is a combination of religious groups, mental health organizations, business groups, social service agencies and citizen activist groups. They will be coming together under one banner to oppose the Governor's plan to put casinos in three communities in Massachusetts. This is the start of the first organized opposition to this flawed "economic model".

Casinofacts.org has put together strong arguments on the gambling industry and has posted links to solid research on its web site.

dkennedy has more in a post over at Blue Mass Group.

I was a supporter of Governor Deval Patrick when he was best known as "Deval Who?" I actively supported his campaign in the blogosphere, and inside Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts (PDM) (one of his first significant endorsements) and took a lot of skepticism about the viability of his candidacy.

But I also knew that Patrick was right when he told us that there would be times when we would disagree. So naturally he will understand that many of us who so vigorously supported his candidacy are vociferously opposed to his proposal for a multibillion dollar distortion of the Massachusetts economy in the form of three casino gambling "resorts".

I remember being very impressed when then-candidate Patrick offered articulate and principled opposition to casino gambling in light of the profound social harms he knew were associated with the euphemistically termed "gaming industry." Now, in the interest of generating revenue for the state, he is backing a proposal for state sponsorship of the very social harms of which he warned in the form of three state licensed casinos. Yes, his proposal calls for state issued band aids. But the planning for band aids only confirms that he appreciates the harm his casino proposal will cause.

Patrick got it right when he argued during the campaign that rather than debating whether we should raise or lower taxes, we should first consider what we want to do and then discuss how to pay for it. In that spirit those of us who were with him from the beginning are saying that it is time to talk.

Listen to the words the Amherst Democratic Town Committee -- the party leaders in a town that supported Patrick more strongly than any other in the Commonwealth in the hotly contested Democratic primary, and again in the general election:

Amherst Democratic Town Committee

October 18, 2007

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS the platform of the Massachusetts Democratic Party commits the party to "tax equity and responsible budgeting," "special support for small businesses and agriculture," "sustainable development practices to foster economic stability for both urban and rural cities and towns," and the provision of "a sustainable revenue source to finance state government that support a healthy economy;"

WHEREAS casino gambling would not promote tax equity, responsible budgeting, sustainable development practices, or a sustainable revenue source, and likely would damage small businesses and agriculture in Western Massachusetts;

WHEREAS the Governor's proposal for casinos in Massachusetts represents a missed opportunity to advocate for a more equitable tax system; and

WHEREAS the League of Women Voters Massachusetts and Representative Ellen Story have been consistent and forthright in their advocacy for more equitable taxation and their opposition to casino gambling;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

The Amherst Democratic Town Committee supports the League of Women Voters Massachusetts and Representative Story in their opposition to casino gambling in Massachusetts and in their commitment to a more equitable system of taxation for residents of the Commonwealth.

Motion made by Leo Maley.

Motion seconded by Diana Stein.

Motion, as amended, passed by a vote of 13 to 2 with 0 abstentions.

# # #

Here is the press release that is being vigorously emailed around the state:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Meeting on October 18, 2007, members of the Amherst Democratic Town Committee (ADTC) voted to support the League of Women Voters Massachusetts and local State Representative Ellen Story in their opposition to casino gambling in Massachusetts.

The ADTC resolution states that Governor Deval Patrick's casino gambling proposal "would not promote tax equity, responsible budgeting, sustainable development practices, or a sustainable revenue source, and likely would damage small businesses and agriculture in Western Massachusetts."

The resolution also stated that the Governor's casino proposal "represents a missed opportunity to advocate for a more equitable tax system" in Massachusetts.

ADTC member Leo Maley brought the resolution to the Committee. Following an hour-long discussion, the resolution passed by a vote of 13 to 2.

"It was a lively and informative discussion. Committee members came to the meeting well-informed on the subject. Most members had read the very informative materials prepared by the League of Women Voters Massachusetts concerning the economic and social effects of casino gambling," Maley noted.

"It is great to see this level of knowledge and passion concerning such an important issue at the grass roots of the Democratic party."

"Many Committee members expressed their disappointment in Governor Patrick," Maley noted. "Only one Committee member expressed support for Governor Deval Patrick's casino proposal. Most Committee members were passionately opposed to the Governor's plan," Maley noted.

Maley, a community and political organizer, notes that he strongly supported Deval Patrick in last year's Democratic primary and general elections and that many ADTC members had campaigned hard for Patrick.

"Amherst voted 84 percent for Deval Patrick in a three-way Democratic primary and again by 84 percent in the general election," Maley noted. "ADTC members helped lead the effort for Deval Patrick in Western Massachusetts."

Maley noted that "The Governor has done many wonderful things since he's been in office. I continue to support him. However, it is unfortunate to see the Governor so out of step with his core supporters on this very important issue."

Maley can be reached for comment by phone at 413-262-0630 or by email at leomaley3@hotmail.com

I'll be speaking at Write Angles this year:

Join us for one of New England's longest-running writers' conferences on Saturday, December 1, 2007, at the Willits-Hallowell Conference Center at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, MA. This year's theme is "New Angles on Writing." Over 20 experienced authors, editors, journalists, and agents will present panel discussions and workshops aimed at seasoned writers and novices alike. Best selling author Dennis Lehane and National Book Award winner Julia Glass will make keynote presentations. Conference fee includes continental breakfast and a bountiful buffet luncheon. Preregistration is advised as space is limited.


(Plenty of free parking is available in front of, or near, the Conference Center. Also, the facilities are wheelchair accessible.)

Lake of Fire is coming to the Brattle Theater in Cambridge for an exclusive engagement October 26th - November 2nd.

I have blogged about this 2 1/2 hour Hollywood documentary on the politics of abortion a number of times since it first appeared at the Toronto Film festival last year. More recently, I have summarized the strong and interesting reviews the film is gaining, mainly in mainstream newspapers.

What I have found most interesting is the film's treatment of antiabortion militance and violence in the U.S. -- which has been such an intergral element rather than an exception to, the antiabortion movement and the wider religious right. Awhile back I wrote:

The film spends a lot of time on an underdiscussed subject: violence against abortion providers. Interviewees include Emily Lyons, an Alabama nurse who was severely injured by a pipe bomb exploded at a clinic by Eric Rudolph, who was on the FBIs Most Wanted List for years in connection with the bombing of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, as well as two clinics and a gay bar. Also interviewed is Paul Hill, who publicly advocated the notion that the murder of abortion providers is "justifiable homicide."  Hill went on to murder a doctor and an escort himself, and was executed in Florida for his crimes. The loose-but-nevertheless-criminal-and-theocratic revolutionary-underground-network is rarely discussed anywhere, let alone in such a remarkable and prominent vehicle as this.

Operation Rescue had a slogan -- "If abortion is murder, then act like it's murder." That many people don't "act like is murder" underscores the moral complexity of the matter. That there are those who do, and who are tacitly supported by many others, underscores the revolutionary quality of such thinking.

But many mainstream newspaper accounts reduce discussion of the film to matter of the morality of abortion over the wider political and indeed, criminal and terrorist dimensions of the story. The latest such discussion is in The Guardian newspaper of London.

Tony Kaye, who made his name as a award-winning director of commercial and music videos, has spent 16 years and devoted $7m (£3.4m) of his own money to produce what he hopes will be the definitive documentary on the American abortion debate. The film, which has opened in New York and is set for release across 23 US cities, has divided critics, with some hailing it as the documentary of the year, others denouncing it as sensationalist. Detractors have also pointed out that most of the talking heads who appear on camera are male, including Noam Chomsky and the lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

(And me.) The Guardian continues:

Kaye began shooting Lake of Fire in 1992 as a way, he says, of exploring his own deep moral uncertainties about abortion. His personal opinions, he told the Guardian, are as polarised as those of the American public. "If I had to tick a box I would say I was pro-choice. I would vote for a woman's right to chose without hesitation, because without legal abortions poor women die." But emotionally, he says, he is "completely opposed to abortion. I see it as murder - the taking of another's life."

The result of his own internal conflict is a documentary that is, in the conclusion of Cineaste magazine, "a maddeningly elusive film". Shot in arty black and white, it has sequences that will dismay pro-choice feminists and pro-life fundamentalists in equal measure.

The most shocking section of the 152-minute film is footage shot by Kaye himself of the abortion of a 20-week foetus. It shows the foetus's head and eye staring straight at the camera, its hand in a metal collecting tray and its foot placed on a ruler and measuring just over 3cm.

The foetal parts are checked by a doctor to ensure the operation has been completed while he explains why he has conducted the operation: "The really important thing is that we have been able to help this young lady to get on with her life by facilitating her decision not to be a mother at this time."

Kaye told the Guardian that he wholly agreed with those sentiments. "But the irony of that moment is that you are seeing a snuff movie - they have chopped up a human being, a baby."

The footage, which Kaye describes as "probably the most controversial shot ever shown in cinemas", has raised accusations that the documentary is slanted against abortion. But other graphic images, including a picture of a woman slumped in the corner of a hotel room where she had died trying to abort her own foetus with a coat hanger, will prove no less shocking to pro-life supporters.

Indeed.

But because the film defies existing, contradictory narratives about abortion -- it may very well be ignored by the political community. So far, there have been few commentaries on the film from the opposing camps. Most of the writing about the film has come from professional film reviewers.
Still, the film may yet filter into the broader public discussion of the politics of abortion and affect it in surprising and unexpected ways. But I believe it will take a lot more people to actually see and start discussing the film for that to happen.

A local political drama in Springfield, Massachusetts is the beginning of what may signal the launch of a national religious right campaign against promarriage equality legislators in Blue states.

Yesterday, a billboard went up on I-91 near the Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield -- comparing Democratic state Rep. Angelo Puppolo to Judas Iscariot and Benedict Arnold.

At issue is Rep. Puppolo's vote last June not to allow a state constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage to appear on the ballot in 2008. Titled "BETRAYED" the billboard has a vibrant yellow background and features illustrations - one depecting Jesus being betrayed by Judas, one of Benedict Arnold -- and a photo of Angelo Puppolo.

"Tactics like this reinforce my belief that I did the right thing," Puppolo told The Springfield Republican. "I voted to keep discrimination off the ballot and out of the Massachusetts constitution."

Much more.

Over at Talk to Action, Ann Rose reports on the two sessions on the religious right I organized with Chip Berlet and Susan Thistlethwaite:

There are several reasons why these sessions were significant. One is that serious discussions about the religious right are rare at big political conferences. Another is that when they do take place, they are usually marked by some good information and analysis and scary stories, but what to do is often crammed into off the cuff remarks in the Q&A or appeals to support the organization of the speaker. What was done at YearlyKos was to have a first panel discussing the dynamics of the religious right, and then a second one focused solely on what to do about the religious right. To my knowledge, that has never been done before.

Much more (with pics!).

When Our Distinguished Panel of Judges convened to consider several weeks' worth of worthy candidates for Theocrat of the Week -- they were most impressed by a recent covert theocratic act by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).

Readers may recall that Vitter has been previously recognized by Our Distinguished Panel of Judges for having overcome tremendous obstacles to theocratic action when he returned to the Senate to conduct theocratic business as usual -- even after having been exposed as a consumer of the services of Bourbon Street prostitutes.

The personal moral code of a theocratic polititian need not be consistent with his public policy goals. His theocratic backers can forgive him his sins -- as long as he continues to work, as he has, to form a more theocratic union.

Our Distinguished Panel of Judges believes that Senator Vitter merits his co-Theocrat of the Week award for having overcome (so far) the extraordinary humiliation of exposure of his double life -- to return to the Senate and continue with theocratic business as usual.

Our Distinguished Panel of Judges takes great satisfaction in seeing that their confidence in Sen. Vitter was not misplaced. Indeed, even though he lacks a theocratic majority in the Senate, he remains undeterred.