Human rights: Arkansas Blog, Arkansas Times

A post-racial world? Gay people treated fairly? Read on

Max Brantley — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 06:28:00 -0500

Belatedly, I'd like to catch up on a couple of depressing articles I read yesterday in the New York Times.

* IT'S NOT ABOUT RACE: You know how Republicans say the opposition to President Obama, particularly in the South, isn't about race? To believe this, you must first ignore the racial imagery in advertising and political thrusts — from health care reform to the dishonest crusade against lifeline phone service for poor people that has become Tiny Tim Griffin's leading battle cry since his pipeline cheerleading ran into the Mayflower sludge pond.

Well, consider this little story about the blowback against General Mills for using a mixed-race family in Cheerios ad. Bring on the Internet hate.

The casting has attracted angry comments, many of them overtly racist. The volume of negative remarks on YouTube reached the point that General Mills has temporarily disabled the commenting function.

* GAY DISCRIMINATION? WHAT GAY DISCRIMINATION?: Then there's the non-discrimination against gay people. You know. The Gravel Ridge Baptist preacher that loves gay people but doesn't want to let Boy Scouts into his church because they might bring cooties from some little gay 12-year-olds. Or the many politicians who say THEY would never discriminate against gay people, they just don't want them to be allowed to marry or adopt children. (Or in the case of Arkansas's hateful Family Council, hold appointed positions on state regulatory boards.)

If all this love is so, how come employment discrimination against gay people is legally permissible in most states in the United States, including Arknasas?

With all of the momentum behind same-sex marriage, the fact that many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people lack a crucial yet basic protection often goes unnoticed: there is still no federal law that explicitly protects workers from job discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

“Where we are headed with marriage is fantastic, but at the same time, in over half of states you can be legally fired for being gay or transgender and no one is talking about that,” said Ineke Mushovic, executive director of the Movement Advancement Project, a research group that co-wrote a recent report about the job discrimination and the various financial inequities that gay people face in the workplace.

That means even if the Supreme Court were to declare that the law that denies same-sex married couples federal benefits was unconstitutional — it is expected to weigh in on the issue this month — such a decision could have a perverse effect: workers who may be permitted to add a same-sex spouse to a pension or a health plan, for instance, would be forced to expose their sexuality in a potentially hostile workplace to receive those benefits.

When many people say it isn't about race, it is about race.

Many people DO want to discriminate against gay people. And do.

Cheerio.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Gay TV producer at center of Imboden controversy to speak in LR

Max Brantley — Sat, 25 May 2013 16:30:00 -0500

* REMEMBER IMBODEN? MEET THE MAN IN THE MIDDLE OF IT: I was happy to get this Facebook note today from Bryant Huddleston, the Imboden native and California TV producer, whose tentative invitation to speak at the Sloan-Hendrix High School graduation fell apart because a couple of School Board members (and many in the community apparently) didn't think it right to have a gay man speak to high school graduates, who included his sister. His father, a retired state trooper and school board member, suggested his son as a speaker. After board members objected, the school superintendent decided to have no outside speaker, breaking a long tradition of speakers that included a Church of Christ preacher and a representative of the local electric company office.

Huddleston has said his message would have been about the value of education and, in honor of his sister, urging women forward particularly. He said he hadn't intended to talk about sexual issues.

Huddleston reports:

Thrilled to announce Philander Smith College, in my home state of Arkansas, has officially invited me to be the keynote speaker for their 'Bless the Mic' series. I'll be heading to campus this fall. This invitation is probably one of the greatest gifts I'll ever receive. Because it speaks directly to the message. It speaks to how I hope most young people today think. They want a future free of any kind of silly intolerance that would get in the way of their personal achievements or those of their friends and family—gay or straight. I never in a million years thought I would become an advocate for change. I vote and I support causes that benefit my family, but I now believe my unfortunate situation was meant to be heard.

I'm also so grateful for the outpouring of love. I just wish my dad and members of my family would have received the same hug I received from people across the country but maybe this will come in time. I was moved that so many people from my past reached out (even an ex-girlfriend—oh yes I said it) but was shocked just how much my story spoke to complete strangers—coast to coast. Those hundreds of messages will be saved for my son. Haven deserves to hear about a letter his daddy wrote that made his Papaw and Aunt Madi proud and sparked an important conversation. Thank You!

I'm happy to say I played a small role in putting Philander together with Huddleston. I'll have details on his appearance in the Bless the Mic lecture series when it's firmed up.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Boy Scouts to allow openly gay scouts

Max Brantley — Thu, 23 May 2013 18:06:00 -0500

From the New York Times:

The Boy Scouts of America on Thursday ended its longstanding policy of forbidding openly gay youths to participate in its activities, a step its chief executive called “compassionate, caring and kind.”

60 percent of 1,400 participating Scout leaders approved the change. It does not extend to scout leaders, which still amounts to a tacit statement of its own. For that matter, it doesn't allow gay adults at the outer edge of Scout membership. Would an Eagle Scout still participating at age 18 be forced to quit?

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force called the change a "monumental step forward," but added, “Boy Scouts' leadership should stop clinging to a policy of exclusion and scrap the ban, once and for all. It’s long past time for a fully inclusive Boy Scouts of America.”

There will be fallout — in the short run, I'd guess, more negative than the positives will come from removal of an official exclusionary policy.

Hard as this step has been to achieve, I admit some softening in my feelings on the issue. But until all are treated equally, there's work to be done. And to the extent the fallen Eagles might have helped encourage this vote, there's nothing to regret.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Arkansas church makes national news for opposition to gay Scouts

Max Brantley — Wed, 22 May 2013 13:55:00 -0500

The Boy Scouts of America may decide tomorrow to lift its ban on gay scouts (though not gay scout leaders).

As a symbol of opposition, NBC News found Eagle Heights Baptist Church in Harrison, Ark., whose pastor says his church will no longer sponsor a Cub Scout pack if gay boys are allowed to be members. Its leaders are trying to pray away the gay.

“We are faced with a very hard decision,” Pack 215’s Cubmaster, Carol Gilley, said last week. “This has been weighing heavy on my mind for a long time ... I finally told myself God is bigger than this problem so I'm just giving it over to God and I pray, I pray about it — that things stay the way they are.”

... For Gilley and others in her pack, talking about homosexuality with their children is a non-starter. Gilley said they refer to the debate as “the issue” around the boys rather than using the word “gay,” and pack secretary, January Studyvin said she is dreading having a “gut-wrenching conversation” with son Daylon, about the fate of the pack.

The Harrison church is undoubtedly not alone in its sentiment, though the Mormon Church, a major scouting sponsor, has given tacit approval.

Ralph Reed's enlistment in what would be only a half-measure is scant encouragement to change my earlier sentiments on the subject.

UPDATE: Here's the leader of the Boy Scouts on the compromise effort to dance on a head of a pin.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

It Could Happen to You: the open line

Max Brantley — Sun, 19 May 2013 16:11:40 -0500

The day's not done, but I've seen two excellent films at the Little Rock Film Festival. "Muscle Shoals" was a tuneful history of the large and talented personalities behind the recording industry in that seemingly unlikely place. Even better was "Bridegroom," a love story that I wish somebody would put in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court soon.

Here's the Facebook page for "Bridegroom," the story of Shane Bitney Crone, who lost Tom Bridegroom, the love of his life, in an accident. It is a story about the travails of a same-sex couple deprived of rights others enjoy (visiting a loved one in a hospital, for example), along with the simple hazards of being gay in some families and some places. Hard to see how this story wouldn't touch just about anyone, though Tom's family erased Shane from their son's life, preventing him from attending the funeral.

The movie is the work of Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, who was inspired by the 10-minute YouTube above. "It Could Happen to You" was produced by Crone after his partner's death. I hadn't been aware of this viral phenomenon (3.8 million views) until today. The movie takes the story much farther, in a sensitive and complete way, fair even to the hard-hearted in their lives. Truth hurts, of course. Crone was at the screening this morning and talked about his life today and the movie — an audience winner at Tribeca Film Festival, where it was introduced by Bill Clinton. It was another occasion to be grateful for the LRFF.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

News update: E-mails on Imboden graduation controversy, more

Max Brantley — Tue, 07 May 2013 18:40:43 -0500

Some late arriving news item:

* IMBODEN SUPERINTENDENT DID TALK ABOUT BRYANT HUDDLESTON AS GRADUATION SPEAKER: We've been writing about the complaint by California TV producer and former KAIT anchor Bryant Huddleston that an invitation for him to speak to this year's graduating class at Sloan-Hendrix High School in Imboden had been withdrawn because he is gay.

Since then, Superintendent Mitch Walton has said there was no formal invitation. Huddleston's father Steve, president of the School Board, has said there had indeed been discussions in January about having Bryant speak, but objections from two school board members, Preston Clark and Aaron Murphy, had led Walton to decide to have no graduation speaker at all.

Community opinion has been sharply divided, with many staking out the position on a local news website that it was a blow for morality to prevent a gay man (successful and a father notwithstanding) from speaking, no matter whether he intended to talk about homosexuality or not. Huddleston has said he was going to speak about continuing education and to encourage women, such as his sister, a graduating senior, to take positions of leadership.

Today, I asked for and received from Supt. Walton some e-mails he'd written to board members that touched on the subject. He still isn't granting interviews. But to those who think the matter was closed by Walton's previous — and continuing insistence — that no invitation was made, I think you might agree that Steve Huddleston's story dovetails with some of this new information.

January 21, in a lengthy e-mail about various matters, Walton mentioned to board members:

I am planning to ask Col. Witt to speak at our Graduation exercise in May.

A State Police spokesman said State Police Director Stan Witt, himself from Imboden, had never received an invitation to speak from the superintendent. Huddleston has said, after Walton mentioned Witt, that he reminded the superintendent of their earlier conversation about having his son return home to speak at his alma mater. March 5, Walton wrote the following to the School Board

Gentlemen

I meant to mention this to you at the last board meeting, but did not get the "graduation speaker" on the discussion log. A few months ago, Steve H had asked to give consideration to allow his son, Bryant Huddleston, for commencement speaker at the graduation ceremony for the class of 2013 in May. Since Steve was board president and Madicyn was graduating, he wanted to include Bryant as the speaker.

I told Steve that I did not have a problem with this. I usually mention who the graduation speaker will be to all the school board members (and usually it is later in the spring before I have somebody lined up). Please let me know you thoughts. I will need to confirm with Bryant as soon as possible if okay with other board members. Thanks!

The document sent to me added:

Reply from one board member

Sounds like a good idea to me. Robert

By Huddleston's account, two of the five members expressed reservations. No invitation was extended. Bryant Huddleston eventually wrote his letter of protest.

The superintendent's own e-mail indicates he intended to ask Bryant to speak. Then it didn't happen. Is there really much doubt that Steve Huddleston has reflected accurately what happened, that his son's sexual orientation made him an unacceptable speaker?

Walton is trying to cover for the board that hires him. He seems, at the outset at least, not to have been influenced by what I've been led to believe is general knowledge of Bryant Huddleston's sexual orientation. But community wishes are strong. Check out Imboden Live to see how deep feelings about homosexuality run and how openly the antipathy is expressed. I hope even those who hold those views might have a shred of sympathy for Bryant's account of how difficult his high school years had been as a closeted gay youth and why he decided to make a stand against prejudice for the benefit of others in the same position.

Bryant didn't speak because he's gay. Many in the community, including a leading banker and dentist who are school board members, support that decision. Sad.

* REPEAL OBAMACARE: As promised, teabagger Glenn Gallus of Garland County has begun trying to qualify a petition for the ballot to repeal the legislature's implementation of Obamacare through Medicaid financing of private insurance coverage. Attorney General Dustin McDaniel has rejected his first try at a ballot title and popular name. McDaniel said Gallas' proposal had not fairly and accurately summarized the legislation being referred.

* CATCHING UP WITH AN ESCAPED KILLER: The Detroit newspaper carries a good AP feature on a convicted Arkansas killer, Lester Stiggers, who escaped in 1970 and has been living openly in Michigan for 43 years thanks to sanctuary granted by a moderate Republican governor who disapproved of conditions in Arkansas's then-medieval prisons. Arkansas has recently renewed efforts to bring him back. The law's on Arkansas's side, though Michigan sympathizers think justice won't be served by extradition.

* NORTH LITTLE ROCK ADMINISTRATOR TO TAKE OVER DOLLARWAY: State Education Director Tom Kimbrell has named North Little Rock Assistant Superintendent Bobby Acklin to head the Dollarway School District July 1. Frank Anthony has been serving as interim superintendent since the state took over the troubled district last June.

* THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL TO DC: Enough dreaming. South Carolina voters in a majority white predominantly Republican district will not send a Democrat to Congress, not even when the Republican is the conniving, philandering, cold-blooded Mark Sanford. The race has been called for Sanford, about 54-46 last i looked.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Flash: Texas grows enlightened on women's issues

Max Brantley — Tue, 07 May 2013 12:52:00 -0500

Interesting story from Texas on the Texas legislature. Republicans, who control nearly everything in Texas, apparently suffered huge blowback from their war on women in the last legislative session that cut health care to women in the battle to destroy Planned Parenthood.

Result: A "grand bargain," engineered by a female Republican legislator from the Houston area.

No abortion bills have, so far, made it to the floor of the legislature. Plus, nobody is offering crippling amendments to the legislation to restore health services, including family planning, to women.

“A lot of people really felt they got snookered by some of the people in the pro-life movement about that family-planning issue,” said State Senator Bob Deuell, Republican of Greenville, who has been a strong advocate for restoring family-planning financing for low-income women by way of primary care.

Dr. Deuell, a primary care physician, is an ardent opponent of state money going to Planned Parenthood clinics. But he said the vitriol of some abortion opponents last session had prevented the state from pursuing good policy decisions. He recalled being compared to Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, when he argued that cutting family-planning services would lead to more unwanted pregnancies, and therefore more abortions and more children living in poverty.

Texas is actually going to increase family planning spending, though no money may go to places affiliated with abortion clinics. Some direct federal grants have managed to keep some money flowing to Planned Parenthood family planning clinics.

No Arkansas Republican would believe this. Their votes were automatic on these issues, though Democratic strength in a House committee did manage to derail some of the anti-woman agenda, including a bill to stop sex education funding in Little Rock because the program was provided by Planned Parenthood.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Imboden superintendent: Disputes accounts on gay graduation speaker, says no outside speakers in future

Max Brantley — Sun, 05 May 2013 10:01:43 -0500

From Imboden Live this sleepy Sunday comes breaking news over the viral story about TV producer Bryant Huddleston's complaint that a plan to have him speak at graduation of his alma mater, Imboden's Sloan-Hendrix High School, was scrapped because he's gay.

School Superintendent Mitch Walton has issued a statement posted at the website, which triggered this news event in the first place. In short, he says everybody has it wrong and Imboden will never again have outside commercement speakers. The statement:

Sloan-Hendrix has had individuals to speak at graduation in the past. Contrary to what has been said, no invitation was extended this year to anyone. As superintendent, I have the authority to decide about who the speaker will be or whether we have a speaker at all. The school board does not vote on speakers for graduation.

This year, Mr. Steve Huddleston, a board member, suggested his son as a speaker. Bryant Huddleston graduated from Sloan-Hendrix in 1990 and went on to success in the entertainment industry. He was never invited by me to be the graduation speaker. After visiting informally with board members, no agreement was reached as to who should be invited to speak. Therefore, my decision was to do what had been discussed in the past—to discontinue the use of outside speakers and thereby shorten an already lengthy graduation program.

Sloan-Hendrix has exceptional graduates. Graduation this year and in the future will feature only student speakers. Graduation is a celebration of the accomplishments of Sloan- Hendrix students and a time to let those students shine for their families and the community at large. We welcome the presence of everyone in the community to share in this event.

Sincerely,
Mitch Walton
Superintendent Sloan-Hendrix School District

Well. You can read past items about this here and also here and decide if this is artful dodging of what's become a national topic.

Bryant Huddleston commented on Facebook:

I read it over the phone to my father. He blew out my right ear from laughter

I also will add some relative links about past practice on graduation speakers.

In 2005, a state representative, David Cook.

In 2006, the man who's now head of the state Education Department, Tom Kimbrell.

In 2007, a Pocahontas doctor.

In 2009, a minister from the Imboden Church of Christ.

In 2010, an official from Williams Baptist College.

In 2011, a director of communication for Entergy Services.

In 2012, Paul Austin, an Imboden native and director of the Arkansas Humanities Council.

Don't know about 2008. Maybe somebody tried to sneak some gay in that year, too, and no agreement could be reached.

PS — "visiting informally with school board members." If two members were present in any discussions — formal or informal — the superintendent was in violation of the state open meetings law. Round-robin conversations to avoid the open meetings law can also be problematic when decisions are reached in such a fashion.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Civil rights in Imboden: A new lesson for Sloan-Hendrix students

Max Brantley — Sun, 05 May 2013 07:07:00 -0500

The previous post relates the story of Bryant Huddleston, a former TV news anchor and successful TV producer whose invitation to speak at his high school alma mater, Imboden's Sloan-Hendrix High School, was withdrawn because at least two School Board members didn't think a gay man should speak at graduation. As he poignantly recounted, it was a continuation of the difficult experience he had as a student at the high school.

Rooting around on the school district website this morning, I noted a link with contact information for the school district, should you like to write the school district or Superintendent Mitch Walton, who reportedly forced the issue.

I was interested to note, too, a link to a unit on civil rights taught across several classes at the high school this year. It focused on the struggle by African-Americans and the work included several flyers developed by students, including the one I've shown at the top. Perhaps next year the unit could be expanded to other people struggling for equal treatment under the law.

Minutes of school board meetings don't reflect the vote reported on Huddleston's scheduled appearance at his sister's graduation ceremony. This is the vote in which Huddleston said his father, School Board President Steve Huddleston, a retired state trooper, was reportedly not allowed to participate. Huddleston identified School Board members Preston Clark of Imboden and Dr. Aaron Murphy of Imboden as the key votes against his appearance. This news account indicates, however, that the decision was reached privately by the superintendent and some of the board members.

Steve Huddleston said he spoke to the other board members, and that two said they wouldn't oppose his son speaking but that two others "thought there would be backlash if we allowed an openly gay man to speak."

Pop quiz for an Imboden civics class: When government officials deny speech on account of the potential message, do any of our founding documents come to mind?

A quick Google shows the story is spreading far and wide. Brave comment, given the prevailing local sentiment, can be found on the imbodenlive.com websiteabout the withdrawn speaking invitation.

... This decision saddens me for many reasons. The first being I know Bryant. He is a fellow Class of 1990 Sloan- Hendrix graduate. I moved to Imboden my junior year of high school and he was one of the first and one of the few people who made me feel welcome as a shy new kid coming into a school where tight-knit friendships went back years.

He’s gone on in life to meet some impressive personal success as a television producer in California and a father to a son whom he is quite proud of. Bryant’s sisters are Sloan-Hendrix graduates as well and his father, Steve Huddleston, has served on our school board for ten years.

This makes me sad because I love this little town and I want the best for our school. I know the men involved in making our schools decisions and these are not bad men. This isn’t a town of full of bigots nor do I believe that intolerance and prejudice is something the majority of people who live here condone . If a few people who represent our school denying Bryant the opportunity to speak at graduation based only on his sexual preference and their personal beliefs then is that the right decision for our community as a whole? I don’t see how it can be.

No comments are being accepted on the website currently.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

TV producer Bryant Huddleston disinvited as Imboden Ark., high school graduation speaker because he's gay

Max Brantley — Sat, 04 May 2013 17:18:21 -0500

Our news partner Channel 4 has a news story that deserves repetition in full. More national headlines for the small people of Arkansas should follow directly. This is precisely why it's relevant when Arkansas politicians dismiss questions, not about same-sex marriage, but about simple equal treatment in employment and otherwise for gay people.

By Shane Deitert
Arkansas Matters

The graduate of a northeast Arkansas School has been uninvited to speak at Sloan-Hendrix graduation this year. Bryant Huddleston feels because he is out as a gay man that Superintendent Mitch Walton told him he couldn't speak because two school board members felt there were concerns for the community.

Huddleston, now a single dad and, TV Writer and producer in Los Angeles, grew up in Imboden. He got his degree in broadcasting from Arkansas State and felt he could share his story and might help a kid deal with the situation he had growing up. Huddleston's father Steve is a retired Arkansas State Trooper and President of the Sloan-Hendrix school board. Huddleston's younger sister is set to graduate from Sloan-Hendrix this year.

Huddleston wrote a letter to Walton expression his feeling about the situation. Read the letter below.

To the Sloan-Hendrix School Board and Superintendent Mitch Walton:

Dear Mr. Walton,

I am writing to express my disappointment in your recent decision to recant your invitation for me to be the keynote speaker at my little sister, Madicyn's, graduation from Sloan-Hendrix High School this year, based solely on the fact that I am gay.

What baffles me Mr. Walton is that you chose to disregard the fact that I grew up in Imboden, and my career accomplishments—KAIT news anchor and reporter, successful television producer in Hollywood, producing shows such as E! News, Access Hollywood, etc., —were dismissed and instead you chose to make me a hot bed controversial issue.

Mr. Walton, your decision forced the members of the Sloan-Hendrix School Board to vote on my participation but what was equally unfair is that you forced the President of the Board Steve Huddleston (my father), to abstain from voting, thus forcing a tie and then declared there would be "no speaker this year," ultimately nixing any opportunity to share my pathway to success with the graduates. Was this in the students' best interest or is this a decision based on religious beliefs?

During my years at SHHS, I was the student body president for two years in a row. I also helped lead our Student Council to receive state-wide recognition for the first time— all despite being bullied on campus for many years. Mr. Walton, your decision here is like being bullied again twenty-three years later. Personally, it's both sad and disappointing. I'm disappointed that board members Preston Clark and Aaron Murphy, who represent the school that my sisters and I hold so dear, fear that I would be unfit as a role model, and I'm saddened that you Mr. Walton, appear to be more concerned with what your congregation might say on Sunday, rather than doing what is right for the students.

I understand that Mr. Clark and Mr. Murphy both stated there would be "concern from the community" if I were allowed to speak. I'm curious—did you think my speech would have focused on recruiting youngsters and passing out "Go Straight to Gay" cards over sharing the tools that I used to achieve success? You might be surprised to know that "recruitment" does not and never will work. And just for the record, just so we're clear, my words were not going to address a "certain agenda," but I was hoping to empower your students to continue their education. My speech would have also touched on the importance of women, like my sister, who will go out into the world and know that they can now pull their chairs right up to the table of equality. To encourage them that they can no longer sit in the back and let men make the important decisions for them. And for that matter, letting them know that someday a woman or two or three can become a member of the Sloan-Hendrix School Board. After all, there's an opening, since my father will resign from the Board later this month.

I could just sit back and let this slide, but if I did, the discrimination that has taken place here would go unnoticed like it has so many times in history. Unless my arguments here cause you to reevaluate, nothing will change. But what must change, is the way we treat our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth because, News Flash, the world is changing and it starts in our homes, our schools and yes, even in our places of worship. The suicide rate amongst LGBT teens is staggering. As Superintendent, Mr. Walton—I hope you are aware that LGBT youth already attend classes on your campus. They are going from class to class with a fear of being outed or being treated horribly by their classmates—so adding educators and mentors to that mix prohibits these teens from thriving. The Board represents them too, and by silencing me, you're telling those students that it isn't okay to be who they are.

Being gay is not all that I am and it's certainly not something I chose. I'm a loving son, brother, a professional, and a fantastic friend. But what I am first and foremost is a father who tries every day to do the best he can to raise a kind and loving son. My little boy came into my life from the Los Angeles foster care system. I was the luckiest man in the world when, as a single parent, the adoption was complete. I'm raising him to understand that there are all kinds of people on our planet, all kinds of families and all kinds of love. While you want me to steer clear of the commencement podium, I am asked to speak annually to hundreds of potential parents about the importance of adopting these forgotten children.

Finally, I heard someone say that progress comes from those who are willing to walk a mile in someone else's shoes. We are currently fighting against inequality in our country. It's a fight—by the way—which we will ultimately win. Your decision to ban me from speaking solely because I'm gay is not unlike the arguments white men made years ago, to not allow black children to share the same school house halls with white children. It's the same thing, Mr. Walton, it's called discrimination. And, in closing, in the words of Eleanor Roosevelt:

"...Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world."

Today, by your actions, that small place is in a small town called Imboden, where decisions are made around a small table, surrounded by five men and a School Superintendent. So, next time you're faced with an important decision, I hope you take time to think twice, have a proper dialogue, and most importantly choose to be on the right side of history.

Bryant Huddleston, Sloan-Hendrix Class of 1990

Cry for Arkansas until this can't happen here. Mr. Huddleston, you're welcome to send us your graduation speech. We'll be happy to print it. When Huddleston's father resigns from the School Board, the remnant will be a vivid representation of the need for more education. If there was an actual vote, the nays should be identified in the public record, not just by Huddleston's letter. So far, the superintendent has refused to identify them. They should be proud, shouldn't they, for standing up for Arkansas values?

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

NBA player Jason Collins comes out

Max Brantley — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:27:00 -0500

The decision by NBA journeyman Jason Collins to announce he is gay is making headlines all over today. He's the first among the major pro sports to come out of the closet while still an active player. The Human Rights Campaign says he "changes the face of sports forever." Tyro Twitterer Bill Clinton tweets: "I'm proud to call Jason Collins a friend."

The attention is a commentary on a lot of things, not least of them being the primacy of sports in the American consciousness. It is also a comment on the fact that — despite dramatically improving attitudes and circumstances — it is still not easy to be gay in America. But others will stand on Jason Collins' shoulders. And equality will come, even in Arkansas, though we'll battle Oklahoma and Alabama for last place.

Discrimination isn't restricted to this region:

A former gym teacher at a Catholic high school in Columbus, OH is fighting to get her job back after she was fired after her partner's name appeared in her mother's obituary.

..."The Catholic Church respects the fundamental dignity of all persons but must insist that those in its employ respect the tenets of the church. Personnel who choose to publicly espouse relationships or principles that are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church cannot, ultimately, remain in the employ of the church," said Diocese of Columbus spokesman George Jones.

Hmmmm. Might this affect people who worked, say, for a hospital operated by a joint board governed by an Arkansas state entity and a church-related health organization?

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

A half-measure from the Boy Scouts

Max Brantley — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:03:00 -0500

The Boy Scouts leadership is preparing to consider a policy change that would allow gay youths to join Scouting, but still prohibit gay leaders. They can still keep the Eagle badge I sent back.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Today, Mark Pryor opposes marriage equality

Max Brantley — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:36:09 -0500

U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor reiterated to reporters today that he's opposed to marriage equality.

That's more or less consistent with what he's said repeatedly.

More or less.

Except there was that one time last week when he seemed to say he was undecided, right after he and an aide had taken pains to say he was opposed.

So make him a firm no. Today.

Though he might be evolving on the question of whether homosexuality is a choice or not. Or not.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Another Mark Pryor waffle: And my apology to Mark Darr

Max Brantley — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 19:41:25 -0500

This takes a separate item. I reported not long ago that U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor had walked back the comment attributed to him in which he stated his belief that homosexuality was a choice.

In that same interview, Pryor had said — as he has many times — that he opposed gay marriage. News stories today have repeatedly labeled him as one of four Democratic U.S. senators who remain in opposition to marriage equality.

Just to be sure, after aide Michael Teague told me about Pryor's mitigating remarks on whether homosexuality is a chosen orientation or not, I still asked him whether Pryor remained opposed to same-sex marriage.

At 5:48 p.m., I received this e-mail from Michael Teague:

His position has not changed.

No surprise. So I confidently put a message on Twitter, responding to Lt. Gov. Mark Darr, when he tweeted a news report that Pryor was "silent" on gay marriage. Wrong, I confidently said, based on all his published statements and a re-confirmation from aide Teague. Not that I was happy to say it, but wanted the facts straight.

Somebody was wrong, all right. Me. And even wronger than I first knew. Pryor went beyond silence.

Because I later read this from a taped interview with KFSM/KXNW, Channel 5, after Mark Henry posted a Twitter note on it. Straight from the horse's, er, mouth:

“I would put me down in the undecided category,” he [Pryor] said of same-sex marriage. “I did talk with some friends of mine in the gay and lesbian community over the last week or so. We talked about this issue. We also talked about a question I received in the office not too long ago where they asked whether being gay was a choice or whether you were born that way. I told them, I said, ‘Honestly I’ve never really thought a lot about that.” Maybe a lot of people think about that. I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about that. But one of the things I hear from them is they feel very strongly that it’s not a choice for them, and I respect that. I’m not going to dispute that. I appreciate that, and I appreciate their honesty. For a lot of these people they just really open their heart to me and talked about some of the struggles they’ve had over the years with their sexual orientation. I respect that and appreciate their patience, and I appreciate their honesty.”

My apologies to Lt. Gov. Mark Darr for describing his remark as wrong.

My apologies to all for accepting anything from Mark Pryor's office at face value.

My apologies to Arkansas voters that, at this moment, this pitiful muddle is the best we can hope from a U.S. senator, who — despite his inconstancy — has a decent voting record and is, on the issues, leagues better than likely opponent Tom Cotton, the Club for Growth candidate. As tortured as Pryor's response has been, I"ll grant you that I think Mark Pryor a kind person who bears no animus to gay people.

But ... As I said before, those inclined not to like him in the first place will never believe him no matter where he comes down on this issue, or on guns or on just about any other hot topic. Can you blame them?

(To Pryor's credit, he said he leaned toward the "pro-life" side of the abortion debate. While he chose the slanted labeling preferred by opponents of women's medical rights, he did at least add that "there are circumstances where the woman should be able to make that decision." That's better than you'll get out of any Arkansas Republican.)

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

The evening line: Sen. Pryor retreats on gay 'choice' comment

Max Brantley — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 17:11:00 -0500

Enough already. The Friday night line is open. I close with this:

* MARK PRYOR WALKS BACK COMMENT ON GAY PEOPLE: I wrote earlier today that U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor was one of only four Democrats left in the U.S. Senate who remain opposed to marriage equality — the ability of same-sex couples to marry and enjoy the same protection available under 100s of laws available to other married couples. I also commented he'd yet to be heard from on changes in a statement attributed to him earlier in which he was quoted as telling the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that he believed homosexuality was a choice, something soundly rejected by the scientific community at large.

His aide Michael Teague provides an update:

Senator Pryor participated in an editorial board meeting this afternoon in Northwest Arkansas (Doug Thompson, Rusty Turner, etc) During which the choice issue was discussed.

I wasn’t there but this is what I was told he said.

When I got asked this question I honesty hadn’t given it much thought and I said ultimately I didn’t know — Since then I’ve had time to visit with my friends in the gay and lesbian community and they very strongly believe that this is not a choice for them. I respect that, I understand where they’re coming from, I will not dispute them. I appreciate their time, openness and patience.

Teague has objected since that the Democrat-Gazette only posed the particular question about choice to Pryor, and not any of the others in the congressional delegation. He also said the newspaper pressed Pryor harder for answers, while accepting no comments from others, including potential future rival opponent, Republican Rep. Tom Cotton. The D-G has declined to talk to me about the circumstances by which Pryor was singled out. Nonetheless, the answers were his own. His opposition to marriage equality is unchanged.

* TAX DODGER EXXON MOBIL: Mad yet about the nasty pipeline oil spill in Mayflower? Mad yet that Exxon is controlling access to the scene, including airways? Mad that Exxon apparently isn't telling the whole truth about spread of oil to Lake Conway waters? Mad that this gunk isn't oil for purposes of being taxed to help finance oil spill cleanup funds of the federal government? Maybe it might make you mad to read an Americans for Tax Fairness fact sheet on the incredible tax giveaways enjoyed by Exxon Mobil, maybe the richest corporation in the world.

Still not mad? Is your name U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin, who's never met a pipeline, oil company or tax preference for a rich corporation he didn't like.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

And then there's the Final Four for inequality, including Sen. Mark Pryor

Max Brantley — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:07:00 -0500

Two more U.S. senators from conservative states — Indiana and North Dakota — have joined the Senate majority in favor of marriage equality.

Only four Democratic U.S. senators remain opposed to equality, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, Tim Johnson and Joe Manchin. Perhaps Pryor can make a plus of his staunch opposition in his re-election campaign next year. Sad truth is that, while many in Arkansas might share that feeling, they won't credit Pryor for joining the side of discrimination, any more than they'll credit him for bedding down with the NRA on gun legislation intended to give the gun lobby cover against Obama administration efforts to improve gun safety.

Pryor has yet, by the way, to walk back a public statement issued in his behalf by staff that homosexuality is a matter of choice.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

War on Women continues: Republicans again kill ERA in Senate committee

Max Brantley — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:50:59 -0500

Sen. Joyce Elliott will try again today.

A resolution for Arkansas to ratify the federal Equal Rights Amendment is on the Senate State Agencies Committee agenda at 10 a.m. this morning.

The only point of interest is what fanciful argument will be mounted by Republicans to defeat the concept of equal rights yet again. Same-sex bathrooms? Gay marriage? Uppity wives?

UPDATE: The old Supreme Court chambers at the Capitol was SRO for the hearing. A big crowd of women, 150 by one estimate, turned out in support of the measure.

Sen. Eddie Joe Williams, predictably, asked why the ERA is necessary. Elliott provided good instruction on the lack of gender reference in the Constitution and the fact that legislation has been required to give women equal rights in some areas. Sen. Bobby Pierce worried about the military. Elliott responded that, of course, equal rights doesn't mean requiring giving the same assignment to people unable to carry out an assignment — such as physical demands for serving in combat. Elliott said job assignments should ask the same of Joe and Josephine. No one has a right to do something they cannot do. Or to be prevented from doing something they CAN do on the basis of gender.

And YES!!!!! There's the Family Council's Jerry Cox trotting out the forced mixing warhorse, along with other "unintended consequences." He fears women would be forced to share college dorm rooms with men. He also suggests ERA could be used to force public funding of abortion. (Are men getting abortions now? No, but a New Mexico ruling based on a state amendment supports this argument.) Sen. David Johnson said he saw nothing in the amendment that could allow the scenarios Cox depicted. As if that matters.

Former Republican legislator Dan Greenberg joined the mixed-bathroom, mixed-dorm, diminished-military, forced-abortion-payment chorus. He said affirmative action could be eliminated by the ERA. (Who knew? A conservative who claims to be in support of affirmative action.) Senator Johnson again argued that the ERA would only further support existing laws, not knock down equity laws. Senator Pierce jammed Greenberg pretty good for all the hypothetical problems he envisioned. Greenberg had pooh-poohed hypotheticals offered by opponents of the Voter ID bill he supported.

Greenberg was quoted by my in-room observer as closing by saying "equality in all circumstances is not always the best policy."

Really? Inequality is good?

Former legislator Lindsley Smith spoke in support and was widely lauded on Twitter accounts I've seen for her call for strict scrutiny on gender discrimination that an amendment would provide. Here's her remarks.

IN CONCLUSION: Senator Elliott closed by saying the ERA would give consistency that laws do not provide.

A motion for a do-pass failed 3-5. Robert Thompson, Johnson and Pierce voted for it. (CORRECTION: I recorded vote incorrectly originally as including Elliott, but she's not a member of the committee and doesn't vote. She just presented the measure.) The other members of the committee are Eddie Joe Williams, Jane English, Bryan King, Gary Stubblefield and Jimmy Hickey, all Republicans.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Mark Pryor: Worse than Tom Cotton on gay rights

Max Brantley — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:30:00 -0500

A campaigner for U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor told me weeks ago there'd be moments undoubtedly when people of my political persuasion would be unhappy with some of the positions he took in his re-election campaign. But the alternative would be worse.

Really?

Today, Alex Daniels of the Democrat-Gazette rounded up congressional feelings on gay rights following U.S. Supreme Court arguments on the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act. I didn't expect much from Mark Pryor.

As Politico noted, he's among the red state senators with re-election battles who've been dancing around, if not running directly against, the growing national tide of greater tolerance toward the country's sexual minority. And the Arkansas House yesterday whooped through a resolution in support of gay discrimination (but not even Republicans demanded a roll call for election year use and nays were audible and many, on top of the wonderful Deborah Ferguson's impassioned speech.)

But get a load of this tiny slice of the D-G reporting:

Rep. Tom Cotton, a Republican, denied an interview request.

“He doesn’t have a lot to say on that topic,” said his spokesman, Caroline Rabbit.

And now our senator, potentially facing a match with Cotton next year:

Michael Teague, a spokesman for Sen. Mark Pryor, the delegation’s only Democratic member, said Pryor had a “moral belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.” He said that he didn’t know the “ultimate” answer, but that he believed that homosexuality is a choice, not a characteristic people are born with.

Marriage is one thing. Advancing the non-reality-based argument of the worst sorts of bigots that homosexuality is a "lifestyle" choice is something else entirely.

When you can't say something good, don't say anything.

Tom Cotton 1; Mark Pryor 0.

If Mark Pryor thinks he can say and do anything because he need not fear centrists and progressives abandoning him, he best think again about how a lack of enthusiasm can be disastrous to a candidate. He could call up lobbyist Blanche Lincoln on that.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Legislature today — gay rights, environment, football and steel

Max Brantley — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:12:00 -0500

From the Capitol today:

* MARRIAGE: Supreme Court arguments were concluded by the time this occurred, but there's still time to get Rep. Jim Dotson's resolution to them so they dasn't overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The resolution says Arkies hate gay marriage even more than they like George Bush. We want discrimination to continue, including against people lawfully married elsewhere. That ought to get the justices' attention, by golly. I hope Dotson sends this thing out to Alice Walton, BTW. She's been a little slack on gay discrimination in her work in Dotson's hometown of Bentonville, in fact noticeably tolerant of gay people, as her family's company has been.

The resolution passed on a voice vote. No roll call. Many audible nays were heard.

Roll the tape at the House website if you get a chance for a moving speech by Rep. Deborah Ferguson of West Memphis who spoke warmly of the friends, neighbors and others that she and others know who are gay. "I have personally seen their struggles, first for acceptance and now for their rights under the law. This resolution is hurtful to our sons and daughters and an entire community. It says we don't value them as equal citizens." She said Arkansas had repeatedly been on not only the losing, but "wrong" side of history — in support for slavery, in early opposition to women's voting rights, in the civil rights era when the legislature passed seg laws following the Brown v. Board of Education decision and now in voting to deny gay people equal treatment under the law. "How do you want your grandchildren to remember how you voted today?" She urged the members to "stand up for love and tolerance and understanding."

Republican Rep. Justin Harris also invoked the grandchild angle, but in defense of the resolution. "What will be your response when you are asked, did you defend marriage between one man and one woman?" Harris also set a few heads scratching when he said this: "Although the nation may be trending one way, Arkansas has been proven to be a leader on issues dear to the mainstream...." Huh? He explained that these issues may not be mainstream to the "liberal media" but "they are mainstream to heartbeat of everyday Arkansans." Harris acknowledged remarks earlier in the day by Justice Anthony Kennedy that many have taken to mean DOMA is to be struck down. Arkansas will still have its constitutional amendment against gay marriage, Harris said. A little discrimination is better than none, in other words.

Rep. Greg Leding of Fayetteville, in opposing the resolution, recounted telling gay friends about his own engagement. "I felt guilty. Here was something I was excited about that I got to do, that they don't get to do."

Like Leding, Rep. Warwick Sabin of Little Rock said he couldn't see a reason to prevent two people from entering marriage. It comes down to freedom, he said. Sabin also said he didn't think people in Arkansas who opposed same sex marriage hated gay people. But he was overcome by emotion as he began to elaborate and couldn't continue, leaving the well of the House.

Dotson closed by saying he didn't see the need to redefine marriage. Nobody had asked him to.

PS — Republicans will get a chance tomorrow (CORRECTION: The ERA is actually on a Senate committee agenda next Tuesday) to again kill the ERA in committee. What a hit list. Minorities (voter ID); gays (today); women (tomorrow); poor people (tax cut bills); non-Christians and non-believers (prayer and Bible teaching bills). The only people unscathed by this legislature are gun-toting old white male fundamentalists.

*LOVE THAT DIRTY WATER: The industry bill, HB 1929, gutting Arkansas's clean water standards came out of a Senate committee 5-0 after debate was truncated. Bill Kopsky of the Arkansas Public Policy Panel comments: "A legal challenge to the bill is sure to come, tying up the implementation of the bill for years and costing the state millions. There was a better way!"

* FOOTBALL: Rep. Andy Mayberry is presenting his bill to require the UA Razorbacks and Arkansas State to play a football game at War Memorial Stadium, with $250,000 of the proceeds going to Children's Hospital. It's in House Rules. I haven't checked old school ties of members, but normally you wouldn't expect such a bill to survive the UA's historic opposition. UPDATE: The bill failed.

* BIG RIVER STEEL: Roby Brock at Talk Business reports that details have now been added to the bill to provide $75 million in grants and $50 million in loans to the startup Big River Steel project in Mississippi County. It could have a committee test Thursday.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Today's gay rights case: DOMA in trouble

Max Brantley — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:47:00 -0500

Jeffrey Toobin provides the early word on arguments today at the U.S. Supreme Court on a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The law is in trouble, he says. Swing Justice Anthony Kennedy is troubled by the federal law's infringement on states rights in the way it discriminates against people from states that have legalized same-sex marriage.

This could change dramatically, of course, when Kennedy learns the Arkansas legislature has voted its endorsement of DOMA. That's set to come later today in a House resolution vote.

UPDATE: Here's the transcript of today's arguments.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

U.S. Supreme Court takes up gay rights

Max Brantley — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:25:31 -0500

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today and tomorrow on two landmark civil rights cases — the challenge to California's ban on same-sex marriage and, Wednesday, a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

You can do far worse for following developments than to check in with the scotusblog for background, preliminary events and summaries of arguments, plus analysis of what justices' questioning might mean. The Human Rights Campaign, headed by Arkansas native Chad Griffin, is also a good page to visit.

I remain optimistic the cases will advance the cause of civil rights for gay people at least incrementally, even if the court doesn't knock down legal discrimination in sweeping decisions. Those who favor continued legal discrimination against gay people, be of good cheer. There's always Arkansas, where guns and fetuses are held sacred and where government intrusion is loathed except when necessary to enforce personal religious beliefs.

The Arkansas House will vote Wednesday on a resolution reaffirming the legislature's support for prohibition of same-sex marriage and state discrimination against same-sex couples who move here (why?) legally married from more advanced states. I did receive a note this morning from the daughter of an Arkansas legislator who plans to speak against the resolution tomorrow. No, of course she's not a Republican.

Good commentary here from a Georgetown law professor who, though favoring broad rights for gay people, thinks a sweeping decision might not be well-timed.

UPDATE: Early take is that the justices demonstrated no hunger to issue a sweeping ruling on a right to marriage in the California case. A decision that upholds the lower court rulings striking down the anti-gay-marriage initiative will be a big victory just the same and mean that more than 1 in 4 Americans live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal.

UPDATE II: Here's a transcript of today's U.S. Supreme Court arguments.

UPDATE III: It's all about Kennedy as swing vote.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

The fight for equal rights: Too early to celebrate

Max Brantley — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:02:00 -0500

The Sunday papers are full of news related to the struggle for gay rights. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a couple of potentially landmark cases — a ban on gay marriage in California and a challenge of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to discriminate against those legally married elsewhere.

The New York Times rounds up the cautionary tale of Roe v. Wade. Rather than settle abortion rights for all time, the case became a lightning rod and the right to choose in some quarters (Arkansas for example) has never been more in peril. It is said that case could guide the Supreme Court and persuade it not to move too far in granting equal rights to gay people under the law.

Still, few on the gay rights side are pessimistic, whatever the court may rule in the two pending cases. They cheer the sea change in public opinion on marriage equality and other gay rights issues, particularly among young people (80-20 for same-sex marriage among people 29 and under in a recent major poll). They see no return to the bad old days as the old-timers with their old prejudices die off and the more enlightened younger generation supplants them.

Columnist Frank Bruni is typical. He writes of an "aura of inevitability" about the arrival of equal rights.

In an astonishingly brief period of time, this country has experienced a seismic shift in opinion — a profound social and political revolution — when it comes to gay and lesbian people. And it’s worth pausing, on the cusp of the court hearings, to take note of this change and to mull what’s behind it.

As for the change itself, look at the last month alone. Look merely at the Republican Party. Although its 2012 platform called for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, scores of prominent Republicans, including a few senior advisers to Mitt Romney’s campaign, broke ranks in late February and put their names to a Supreme Court amicus brief in favor of marriage equality.

That these dissidents can’t be dismissed as pure anomalies was made clear at the annual gathering of the Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend. CPAC, mind you, is no enclave of moderation and reason. It’s more like an aviary for the far-right “wacko birds” whom John McCain recently called out.

But as BuzzFeed’s Chris Geidner, who covered the conference, noted, “Opponents of gay rights spoke to a nearly empty room, while supporters had a standing-room-only crowd.” That observation came under a headline that said, “At CPAC, the Marriage Fight Is Over.” The article went on to quote a bit of counsel that the Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin gave her fellow conservatives. On the issue of same-sex marriage, she told them, the country was headed in one and only one direction. Republicans could either get with the program or get comfy with their image of being woefully out of touch.

Well. I think times are changing. I'd prefer to be hopeful. But I live in Arkansas. The only direction evident here — on gay rights and every other social issue — is full speed behind.

The New York columnist missed the headline Friday out of Arkansas, where the Republican legislative majority took a minute off from gun worship and advancing the rights of the zygote over those of living women to pass out of committee, without a peep of objection, a resolution endorsing state and federal law discrimination against gay people. The Republican Party's paid social media shill trumpeted the news and will certainly be standing by to preserve the vote of any who dare to vote in the roll call against support for de jure discrimination.

Arkansas by no means stands alone. The U.S. Supreme Court justices include the likes (at least threee others, in fact) of Samuel Alito. He was mentioned by former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in an interview with Terry Gross on O'Connor's new book on the court. It was quoted in today's Times.

Gross observed that O’Connor had once criticized a lower-court decision by Samuel Alito — the judge who eventually replaced her on the Supreme Court — upholding a Pennsylvania law that required women to seek their husband’s approval before getting an abortion: “You called that view repugnant to our present understanding of marriage and to the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry. Can you elaborate on that at all?” O’Connor’s terse reply showed she hasn’t lost her judicious instincts: “No,” she said. “I don’t think I’ll try.”

That's about how I feel in noting the legislative offerings of the pro-discrimination resolution author, Rep. Jim Dotson of Bentonville.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

The women's rights open line

Max Brantley — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:36:54 -0500

A two-week grassroots campaign on social media brought maybe 500 people to the Capitol on a cold, rainy Saturday to protest the legislature's attack on women's medical rights. Speakers invoked a range of other liberty-infringing efforts by the legislature, from voting rights to tattoo-like body art.

Sen. Joyce Elliott gave a ringing speech on the not only uncompleted, but now regressing struggle for equal rights for women. She urged the crowd to remember the current battle wasn't about abortion, but about control. Quoting Dr. Joycelyn Elders, she said women who can't control their own bodies can't control their lives.

Elliott and Reps. Fred Love and Warwick Sabin were the only legislators I saw on hand. Linda Tyler, who lost a Senate race last year to Jason Rapert, the leader of the war on women, joined the crowd. It was diverse and full of young people, the hope for Arkansas and the U.S. politically.

Rita Sklar, who leads the Arkansas chapter of the ACLU, said the organization will sue over the most restrictive abortion legislation, which would prohibit most abortions at 12 weeks of pregnancy. Other legal groups are considering a challenge to the 20-week ban as well. Other fights could include Rapert's effort to end support of Planned Parenthood family planning and medical services. These services, which don't include abortion, were referenced often in handmade signs waved at the event.

Elliott urged the crowd to stay tuned for another effort to pass a resolution for Arkansas to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. I look forward to the list of reasons from the Raperts of the world about why it's unnecessary because .......

On other topics:

* PRESIDENT HUCKABEE: Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus suggested the other day that the genial Mike Huckabee would be a good ambassador for the party as it attempts to convince voters that it is not the mean, exclusionary group voters think it is, with hatred for gay people, women's rights and all the rest. I laughed when I saw the initial report because, genial though the Huckster can be, he throws some of his sharpest arrows on social issues, slavishly advancing the most extreme views of the evangelical base, often in decidedly unfriendly ways. Raw Story gives a fuller account of this side of Huckabee than some earlier reports on the subject. An ambassador to gay people and abortion rights activists? No way.

* MARK PRYOR WON'T STAND ALONE: U.S. Sen. Pryor, already under sustained attack from moneyed Republican interests, won't go it alone. I received today copy of an appeal from Florida Sen. Bill Nelson to his base on Pryor's behalf. He writes:

The extremists did it to me in last year's election. So naturally I take offense when they start using the same dirty tactics against my friend and U.S. Senate colleague Mark Pryor, in Arkansas.

Mark has had a laser-like focus on creating jobs and growing our economy. And just as importantly, he has always stood strong for Medicare and Social Security.

But the outside big-money groups hate that. They want someone working for THEM. That's why they're now using false TV attack ads and coming after one of the most threatened senators on our side: Mark Pryor.

...Club for Growth has already began advertising in Arkansas, attacking Mark Pryor for votes siding with his state's middle class.

And Karl Rove's Crossroads organization has already indicated that this race will be one of its top priorities.

Look, going head-to-head with a tough opponent is difficult enough. But when Club for Growth, Karl Rove and other right-wing mega-donors flood the airwaves with tens of millions of dollars in misleading attack ads, that challenge multiplies exponentially.

But Mark can beat them. How do I know? Because I faced millions of dollars in attacks, too — and with support from Americans like you, together we prevailed.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Stand up for women today at the Capitol

Max Brantley — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 07:22:00 -0500

A reminder of the rally at the Capitol at 3 p.m. Saturday over the legislature's unprecedented and unconstitutional infringement on women's medical rights.

All it takes is showing up. Plenty of details at the group's Facebook page on the event.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Gay discrimination endorsed in House committee

Max Brantley — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:47:45 -0500

I've mentioned previously the curious absence of gay bashing by the new Republican legislative majority. It's a favorite base tickler, after all, and considered political gold by Republicans.

I needn't have worried. A paid Republican shill Twitters that a House committee this morning approved a resolution — no discussion, no roll call, a couple of "nays" heard — reaffirming support for the Arkansas constitutional provision banning same-sex marriage and for the federal Defense of Marriage Act, currently facing a federal constitutional challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court.

You may be sure this measure, by Republican Rep. Jim Dotson of Bentonville, received careful consideration and thorough, informed debate. Not. The resolution was in shell form, not even completed, on the committee agenda this morning. Some things are just instinctive for the legislature, of course. Guns and tax cuts good. Women's rights and homosexuality, bad. What's to debate? (Wonder if Dotson knows that a famous billionaire philanthropist in his hometown has put a personal seal of approval on a prominent gay couple living, with child, in Bentonville?)

Happily, the national news is better on attitudes.

Public support for gay marriage has hit a new high as Americans increasingly see homosexuality not as a choice but as a way some people are, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The poll shows that 58 percent of Americans now believe it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to get married; 36 percent say it should be illegal. Public attitudes toward gay marriage are a mirror image of what they were a decade ago: in 2003, 37 percent favored gay nuptials, and 55 percent opposed them.

... There has been a related movement in public opinion about homosexuality. Fully 62 percent of Americans now say being gay is just the way some people are, not something people choose to be. About 20 years ago, fewer than half of the public said so.

If you're not in this growing majority, well, Arkansas, not San Francisco, is the place for you. The Arkansas legislature tells us so.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]