Some thoughts from last night

As you know, the ACLU is a non-partisan organization. Both Republicans and Democrats annoy us.

But something struck me last night while watching the election returns. John King of CNN made a comment that the Republicans cannot be a viable national party if the Democrats win 60-plus percent of the Latino vote.

Once again, it became clear that being anti-immigrant just doesn't fly with the electorate. Three different races from the last two election cycles prove it. In northeast PA, Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta lost in his effort to topple incumbent Rep. Paul Kanjorski, after Barletta made a national name for himself with his unconstitutional ordinance on immigration. In the state's attorney general race, Northampton County DA John Morganelli lost to incumbent Tom Corbett, after years of Morganelli stridently supporting anti-immigrant proposals. And, of course, two years ago, Rick Santorum had his hat handed to him by Bob Casey, despite Santorum's claim that Casey supported "amnesty".

Public officials from both parties can try to split hairs over what their anti-immigrant proposals mean. They claim they support immigration and oppose illegal immigration. But the fact is that Latinos see an attack on some of them as an attack on all of them. I know because my wife is Latina and we have numerous Latino friends, and they all feel the same way about what has been going down on immigration the last few years.

Before I knew about Barletta's loss, I thought this might be more of a statewide phenomenon and that candidates might be able to get away with it depending upon their district. But Barletta's defeat proves that may not even be true.

CNN's King also commented, in reference to suburban Philly, that the GOP will continue to lose if the Ds win the suburbs with 60-plus percent of the electorate. When he said that, my thoughts immediately turned to LGBT issues. When we deal with state LGBT initiatives, our swing votes always come from the Philly and Pittsburgh suburbs, and to a lesser extent the suburbs of a few other cities. Being anti-gay doesn't appear to fly either (see: Man-on-Dog Santorum).

Unfortunately, we did take some losses on LGBT rights in Arkansas, Florida, Arizona, and probably in California. These are all stinging defeats. While we know that in the long-term we continue to move closer and closer to LGBT equality, rolling back these constitutional amendments is going to be challenging and is going to require a lot of hardwork, sweat, and tears.

For a rundown on all of the state referendums on civil liberties issues, including victories on drug law reform and reproductive rights, visit national's blog.

Andy in Harrisburg

Tricky Ricky opines

There's been a lot of reaction to the Cali gay marriage decision, too much to track and comment on here. But I am moved to comment after last week's Inquirer column by former Senator Rick Santorum.

Guru Rick claims:

Look at Norway. It began allowing same-sex marriage in the 1990s. In just the last decade, its heterosexual-marriage rates have nose-dived and its out-of-wedlock birthrate skyrocketed to 80 percent for firstborn children.

Huh? How does legalizing same sex marriage lead to a drop in hetero marriage? Did all the straight guys go gay? Maybe all the straight guys became suddenly attracted to their dogs.

Then there's this nugget:

Is anyone saying same-sex couples can't love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too? Marriage is and always has been more than the acknowledgment of the love between two people.

Apples and oranges. I shouldn't even have to say this, but love for your kids or your brother or your mother-in-law is not the same as romantic love....unless Ricky's mother-in-law gives him a thrill up his leg.

But here's the real meat and the real problem with Santorum's op-ed:

There is a constitutional right that is under threat: the free exercise of religion.

Let me go out on another limb here and make another crazy prediction. Within 10 years, clergy will be sued or indicted for preaching on certain Bible passages dealing with homosexuality and churches, and church-related organizations will lose government contracts and even their tax-exempt status.

The idea that pastors will be sued or indicted for exercising their free speech and free expression rights is a straw man scare tactic. It is simply not true. Yes, faith groups' access to government funding may be, and should be, limited. But as long as the Constitution exists, preachers can say any crazy thing they please. And the ACLU will be right there to defend their right to do so.

Andy in Harrisburg

Derailing the so-called new third rail of politics

There are public officials, anti-immigrant advocates, and trolls at SF that think that the anti-immigrant sentiment prevails in America and that the wind is at their back. Democrat wonderboy Rep. Rahm Emmanuel (D-Illin') even claims that immigration is the "new third rail" of politics.

Not so fast, my friends.

In an analysis after Election Day, The Washington Post noted that demagoging on the immigration issue got candidates nowhere in local elections in Virginia.

Voters across Virginia chose candidates in state and local elections yesterday not out of anger over illegal immigration but based on party affiliation, a preference for moderation and strong views on such key issues as residential growth and traffic congestion.

With a few notable exceptions, the trend benefited Democrats and not those who campaigned the loudest for tough sanctions against illegal immigrants.

A less conclusive but still telling analysis was in The New York Times on the Empire State's local elections.

Democrats declared yesterday that Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants had not proved to be the electoral boon Republicans had hoped for in local elections, despite the Republicans' aggressive efforts to exploit overwhelming public opposition to the proposal.

The Republican presidential primary looks like a race to the gutter on this issue, and the Democratic hopefuls are standing at the cliff deciding whether or not to follow the nativist lemmings over the edge. They're all failing to give the American people credit for being more mature than a 12-year-old. Let's face it, the American people embrace people who work hard and have strong family values, and that's why polling has consistently shown that most people in the country want comprehensive immigration reform.

And if you need further proof that the demagogue frame is a loser at the ballot box, look no further than this guy. For weeks leading up to the election in 2006, "Casey for Amnesty" signs were all over the place in PA. And Santorum lost by 17 points.

Andy in Harrisburg