Justice Scalia's Rant Misses the Point on Same-Sex Marriage

I couldn’t help but notice the stark contrast in reactions to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in two landmark gay marriage cases.  On one side we saw jubilant celebrations as a long-denied civil right was finally granted to same-sex couples in California, and the dignity and value inherent in loving gay relationships were boldly affirmed in striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The other side was characterized by anguished and bitterly defeated anti-gay marriage Republicans and conservative Christians who condemned the decisions as unholy attacks on traditional marriage and a threat to society. Even the supremely arrogant Justice Antonin Scalia couldn’t resist unleashing his own hostile views in his caustic dissent:
“To defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement.”

Besides being an outspoken advocate for the losing side, Scalia’s rant offers clear evidence that the Right just simply doesn’t get it when it comes to gay marriage. Scalia is correct in asserting that defending traditional marriage is not the same as anti-gay bigotry, and it’s wrong to assume such views to be the motivation of every opponent of same-sex marriage.  However, the major flaw unpinning his argument is thinking that religious-based assertions to uphold the definition of traditional marriage is a legitimate basis to deny extending marriage equality to those who don’t subscribe to it.

In other words, both viewpoints are NOT equally defensible from a social equality and civil rights standpoint. Same-sex marriage doesn’t in any way infringe upon the right or desire of heterosexuals to pursue marriage -- and despite opponents’ empty claims to the contrary -- will have no impact on those unions. However, efforts by opponents of gay marriage to ban, restrict or deprive same-sex couples of the right to marry represent a substantial infringement. 

As a society, we understand the value of social and cultural norms, but a strong belief in tradition is not sufficient grounds to justify unequal or unjust treatment of a class of citizens under the law. Republicans and Christian conservatives vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage either pretend not to grasp this basic point or are so blinded by their own narrow beliefs that they choose to disregard it, which is why they are losing the fight against gay marriage.

Despite the Right’s ideological resistance to change, cultures do evolve -- as do long-held attitudes, traditions and beliefs.  If they didn’t, gay Americans wouldn’t be allowed to serve openly in today’s U.S. military; interracial couples wouldn’t be allowed to wed; African Americans and women would be prevented from voting; and the unjust and immoral practice of racial segregation would still be the shameful law of the land. 

The goal of affirming equality for all citizens is a universal principle that must always trump other narrow religious and ideological interests, no matter how passionately and intensely advocated. That’s a point on which even conservatives can all agree, whether they choose to personally accept gay marriage or not.

G. Chaise Nunnally is a senior proposal editor and freelance writer in Southern California. He can be reached at gcnunnally@aol.com.

Abercrombie & Fitch’s Exclusion Message Rightly Backfired

CEO Mike Jeffries of Abercrombie & Fitch experienced what mirrored a Mitt Romney moment when, in a unguarded moment during an interview seven years ago, he spoke openly and honestly about the consumer market his clothes are intended to attract:

“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool-kids. Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kids with a great attitude and a lot of friends.  A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes] and they can’t belong.  Are we exclusionary? Absolutely!”  

A popular youth brand bragging about the fact that it’s exclusionary, implying that unattractive geeks can't wear its clothes? Honest perhaps, but it’s an off-putting marketing message that has sparked a major backlash against the chain. The retailer’s apologies have yet to quell the firestorm of condemnation from offended teens, celebrities and others.  Is the outrage justified, or is it a case of modern political correctness run amuck? 

First, let’s acknowledge that what Jeffries said, while candid, was also painfully obvious.  One look at Abercrombie’s over-sexualized advertising featuring athletically fit and handsome young male jocks, and there’s no mistaking who the chain is marketing to.  There’s also nothing controversial about a retailer or advertiser targeting a particular niche market of consumers; what retailer doesn‘t?  But what Jefferies said during his ill-expressed moment of candor went beyond merely defining his brand and needlessly offended consumers his brand doesn‘t cater to.  

In today’s more culturally diverse and inclusive society, it’s not good policy nor good business to promote ideas of exclusion or to suggest that some people aren’t welcome or “don’t belong.”  Besides, why turn away consumers who may aspire to be the people a brand celebrates?

Imagine retailer Victoria Secret saying that they only market their stylish lingerie to thin, beautiful women who like to feel sexy.  Implied message: fat, ugly women should look elsewhere. But, in truth, some fat women may want to feel sexy, too.  And if they are willing to spend money on clothes that aren’t intended for them, so be it. The retailer makes a profit either way.

The flap over the comments by Abercrombie’s CEO isn’t about suggesting that apparel retailers should cater to every type of consumer in the marketplace, which is both unreasonable and unrealistic, as well as being adverse to the ideals of free market enterprise.  The flap, however, is about denouncing a corporate message that seemed to insensitively dismiss or demean “the wrong type” of desired customers. 

Efforts by teen groups trying to pressure the chain to expand it sizes or tone down its sexualized advertising are perhaps well-intended but misguided.  Abercrombie forces no one to shop at it stores.  Teens offended by its brand or marketing message can simply choose to shop elsewhere, or even encourage other teens to boycott the store if they choose.

Yes, all clothing styles aren’t made for all body types and sizes.  And we have all seen people who fail to grasp that concept in their fashion choices. But Abercrombie as well as other apparel retailers are well-advised to let consumers decide for themselves what clothes they “belong in.” 

Exclusion is an unwise marketing message for almost any retailer, and Abercrombie’s seemingly out-of-touch CEO now knows why, as some shoppers will likely “exclude” his store from places they prefer to shop.

G. Chaise Nunnally is a senior proposal editor and freelance writer in Southern California.  He can be reached at gcnunnally@aol.com.

The Good, the Bad and the Lame From 2012

With the dawning of a new year fast approaching, it’s worth taking a look back at some of the people, personalities and events that made 2012 memorable. While some individuals (winners) merit praise, others (losers) merely earned our collective contempt.  Here’s my list of some top standouts.

The Winners:

Barack Obama
Obama is by far the most obvious winner of the year having survived a hard-fought presidential campaign in a tough economy to be re-elected to a second term.  He is now posed to become one of the most consequential Democratic presidents in history. His decisive electoral college sweep left Mitt Romney and the GOP stunned and confused.

Bill Clinton
Bill stepped back into the national spotlight in grand rhetorical style with his delivery of a truly awesome Democratic convention speech, by far the best of both party conventions.  He in no small measure deserves considerable credit for helping to get Obama re-elected, and Obama knows it.

Gay Marriage
The cause for marriage equality had a great year in 2012 with the number of states legalizing same-sex marriage expanding to nine total.  The most significant victory came from three states (Maine, Maryland, Washington) where voters, for the first time, supported ballot initiatives on marriage equality. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court will review the decision striking down California’s Prop 8 as unconstitutional, full nationwide recognition of same-sex marriage is likely less than a year away.

Nate Silver & Polling
Numbers expert Nate Silver was bashed by the Right for daring to offer sound polling-based predictions about the likelihood of an Obama presidential election victory. His methods and pitch-perfect predictions prevailed, making conservatives look whiny and foolish. Election polling isn’t magic; it’s a scientific means of collecting opinion data on a large group.  When done correctly, it’s often surprisingly accurate.  The simple truth: Politicians who whine about polling results are usually the ones who know they are losing.

David Axelrod and David Plouffe
These two Obama campaign gurus deserve high praise for their sheer campaign genius.  They helped forge a formidable re-election strategy, voter coalition and ground operation that dwarfed any well-financed efforts by Romney and the GOP.

The Losers:

Mitt Romney
Romney learned the tough lesson that having lots of money is no guarantee of election victory, no matter how long you‘ve been running for high office.  Also, having a strong business resume is no substitute for a lack of political integrity and personal authenticity. This political phony struggled from the outset of this campaign to connect with voters. In the end, they wisely rejected him and his disingenuous attempt to recast himself as a moderate late in the campaign.

Lindsay Lohan
Enough already likely sums up what most people probably think of Lohan and her endless saga of reckless and self-destructive behavior. My advice: Go to rehab; see a shrink; just please stop tormenting us with your celebrity antics. And by the way, even with a good makeup job, Elizabeth Taylor she is certainly not.

Rush Limbaugh
This always obnoxious rightwing windbag reached a new low when he crudely and reprehensively denigrated college student Sandra Fluke because of her advocacy for women’s contraceptive rights.  Limbaugh’s toxic rhetoric pollutes the air with angry hate-filled drivel that does a disservice to both his party and our body politic. It is long past time for this arrogant and polarizing loudmouth to leave the stage.

People Who Camp Out at Apple Stores
I mean, really? It’s just a phone people -- get a life. 

Tea Party
Thankfully, after a over-hyped rise to power in 2010, the tea seemed to have cooled for this bunch of renegade leaders. Their unwillingness to embrace sensible compromise did nothing but make efforts to get things done in Congress all the more difficult.  But in the aftermath of having suffered big loses in the November election, this party and all its extremist nonsense may be over.

Religious Right
This once powerful Christian conservative group doesn’t seem to pack the punch it used to for the GOP. As a key constituency of the Republican base, candidates still kneel at the group’s alter for electoral support.  But with issues such as gay-marriage clearly on the rise, the group has lost its persuasive voice on social issues. Figuring out how to straddle the line between appealing to more socially liberal young voters while satisfying the demands for moral purity from their religious base will be a difficult task for GOP candidates. All I can say is, “good luck with that.”

Nancy Grace
As HLN’s queen of exploiting human tragedy for entertainment Nancy Grace is herself a disgrace.  Her characteristic faux outrage and overbearing tone is nothing more than a thinly veiled cover for shameless sensationalism. Viewers have heard enough from this phony drama queen and her tabloid news antics.  HLN needs to eliminate her show and give that time slot to someone of far greater value.

Karl Rove
Rove was once considered to be a master Republican political strategist for the electoral wins he helped orchestrate for the GOP under George Bush. Today, he has become a overrated has-been who raised a campaign fortune but still failed to deliver a GOP election victory. His embarrassing Fox News meltdown on election night when he protested Ohio being called for Obama showed just how out of touch he was with political reality. Rove once audaciously proclaimed his goal to achieve a permanent Republican majority in Congress. And just like this plan to regain GOP control of the U.S. Senate, things didn't work out so well.

Chick-fil-A
After bad publicity from a much-publicized boycott in response to views expressed by the fast-food chain’s owner opposing gay marriage, the restaurant learned the hard way the value of keeping personal views separate from company business interests, which is selling a product that turns a profit and not moralizing about social issues.   

GOP and Math: Their Problems Go Beyond Poll Number Blindness

Much has been mentioned since the results of the recent presidential election about the GOP’s problem with math. More specifically, about the apparent willingness among many conservatives to blatantly shun polls numbers and other data before the election that had pointed to the high probability of a President Obama win. Many conservative pundits and commentators, especially those broadcast on the Fox News Channel, asserted with unflinching certitude, even gleeful self-assurance that Mitt Romney would “win in a landslide!”  Of course, Obama’s commanding Electoral College sweep proved those predictions to be not just wrong, but dead wrong.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow believes the party’s shock and denial about the election was the consequence of living in a Republican bubble fueled by a rightwing spin machine. She noted that the election result “was not magic; it was just math -- math that was completely invisible to the political right.”

But the GOP’s problems with arithmetic goes well beyond absurdly false predictions and partisan skewing of poll numbers. Conservatives made fundamental miscalculations across the board about the electorate, political issues and changing cultural attitudes in the country. The party’s challenge moving forward will require a major re-calculation of the political landscape that today is quite different than one the party has long relied on to win elections.

Having often been indifferent to the concerns of minority voters, the GOP got a rude awakening by the sheer growth of Latino, black and Asian voters as a percentage of the overall electorate this year. And even more shocking was the astounding level of support these group gave to Democrats over Republicans: More than 90 percent of blacks and nearly three-quarters of both Latinos and Asians voted for Obama.

But this demographic trend showing a burgeoning minority presence in the country, particularly among Latinos, has been apparent for years. The GOP, with the exception of George W. Bush who received about 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004, simply chose to ignore it. Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer suggested two years ago that the GOP’s challenge with Latino voters was more of a long-term problem for the party and not an immediate concern - again another gross miscalculation.

And like the Latino vote, the GOP completely misread the emerging youth vote, which overwhelmingly backed Obama by 60 percent, a slightly larger margin than in 2008.  The flawed assumption was that young voters, who had expressed some disappointment with Obama, wouldn‘t come out in mass in 2012.  The fact that young voters don’t have a strong history of voting consistently may have also aided the GOP’s flawed assumptions. But as with minority voter turnout, their political calculation completely missed the mark.

On the economy, Republicans made another political blunder.  Mitt Romney staked his entire campaign on pitching voters a gloomy narrative about the state of the U.S. economy under Obama, claiming it was worst than it was four years ago. His calculation was that a "bad" economy meant certain election defeat for an incumbent president. The problem, however, was that his dubious claims didn't square with current economic reality: a declining unemployment rate, consumer confidence at a five-year high, increasing housing prices and improvement in economic growth. Sometimes reality simply trumps political spin.

On the social issue front, the GOP suffered yet another miscalculation.  Despite polls that had been showing a dramatic shift in public attitudes toward gay marriage acceptance, with a slight majority now supporting it, GOP opposition persisted.  Conservatives even touted the fact that whenever same-sex marriage was put before voters, it was always defeated.  And that held true until Maine and Maryland and Washington all approved marriage equality for same-sex couples on Election Day. The result offered more evidence of an American society holding ever more moderate views on gay marriage and other social issues. This shift is being fueled in large measure by a more socially liberal young generation. But while this seismic cultural shift continues, the GOP clings to a rigidly conservative base and outdated approach to some social issues that fails to resonate.

So yes, the GOP has a math problem.  But the issue isn’t just that they sometimes choose to ignore inconvenient facts such as polls; it’s that too many things they advocate and represent as a party just doesn‘t seem to add up. Conservative strategist and commentator Matthew Dowd said it best in describing the current GOP’s challenge as a “Mad Men party in a Modern Family America.”

“Mad Men” is of course a reference to the popular AMC drama set in 1960s America where white men ruled and women were relegated to being stereotypical housewives. ABC’s successful “Modern Family” depicts a prominent married gay couple raising an adopted daughter. The former is a throwback to a time long past and the latter captures family life in today’s more tolerant society.

If the GOP expects its party’s fortunes to improve it must start by re-calculating how to adapt its message and policies to align with this new cultural and political reality. Only time will tell if their changes add up to any value by the next election.

George Will's Shameless Racial Theory of Obama Presidency

I have long regarded conservative columnist George Will as a rational and thoughtful intellectual, but both of those attributes were betrayed by his shameless recent Wall Street Journal column, in which he suggests President Barack Obama may be re-elected simply because of his race.  What Will fails to acknowledge in his insulting essay is that there are numerous objective assessments one may use in deciding whom to support for president.  Will’s list of select so-called Obama “failures” is skewed to support his own narrow thesis.  One can just as easily produce a listing of substantive Obama accomplishments that include: health care reform, student loan reform, financial regulatory reform, credit card reform, successful auto industry bailout, rescuing the economy from the precipice of collapse, ending the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law, etc.  These may be considered irrelevant achievements from Will’s perspective, but they could be among the many factors influencing how others choose to view the president. 

It’s also important to note that presidents sometime face the electorate with mixed records, leaving voters to weigh the pros and cons of their accomplishments while in office.  On balance, the judgment rendered so far seems to tilt in favor of the president over his challenger this election cycle. Personal characteristics such as likeability and charisma no doubt factor into voter assessments as well.

Glaringly absent from Will’s narrative was any substantive critique of Mitt Romney's shortcomings as a candidate, someone Will himself once called a “recidivist reviser of principles.” The reality is that the GOP ran a weak general election candidate routinely regarded as an unprincipled flip-flopper who speaks in platitudes and whose ideas (tax plan and entitlement reforms) have so far been rejected by many voters.  Romney has also run an incompetent campaign filled with numerous gaffes and political miscalculations, not the least of which was making a poor choice for his vice presidential running mate.

So if Will wants a more plausible reason for why Obama might win despite the country’s economic woes, blame the sadly deficient candidate GOP voters chose to challenge him.