Louisiana GOP Tries To Force Religion On School Children

Dan Rather comments on the Louisiana GOP's mandate to put the Ten Commandments in every school classroom:

Just when you think the audacity meter has reached its zenith, along comes the Republican-dominated Louisiana state legislature. This week it passed — and the state’s far-right governor signed — a law requiring all public classrooms to display the Ten Commandments. 

 

Governor Jeff Landry argued that the Commandments are not simply religious treatise but “foundational documents of our state and national government,” perhaps trying to circumvent the inevitable hue and cry from just about everyone.

I’ll get to the hue and cry in a moment. First, if one wants to talk about foundational documents of our government, I think the Constitution is a better place to start. The First Amendment guarantees the separation of church and state. Full stop. Requiring the displaying of the Ten Commandments violates the constitutional principle of religious neutrality. 

Honoring Supreme Court precedent is another foundational tenet of our democracy. Yes, this has happened before. In 1980’s Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law that also required the display of the Ten Commandments in schools. The court found that the law violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause. In its opinion, the court wrote that the Ten Commandments are “undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths” and displaying them “serves no ... educational function.”

One could argue that Louisiana should be more concerned with the quality of the education in those classrooms than what is on their walls. The state ranks near the bottom nationally for education and 50th for overall quality of life. Perhaps instead of this political stunt, Louisiana lawmakers should think about raising teacher pay, among the lowest in the nation. Or maybe try to keep kids in school? The state ranks 48th in graduation rate. 

Putting an 11-by-14-inch poster “in a large easy to read font” in every classroom from kindergarten through graduate school will cost money. Don’t worry — it will be paid for by private donations. But who will pay for the inevitable and orchestrated legal fight to come? Louisiana taxpayers. 

After eight years of a Democratic governor, the Republican- controlled state legislature is making up for what it sees as lost time. It recently turned down federal aid for summer food assistance, claiming it wants Louisiana families to be self-sufficient. Those same families suffer from a higher rate of food insecurity than most of the country. And Louisiana is the first state to advance a measure designating abortion pills as dangerous controlled substances. 

 

Now to the hue and cry. It was loud and it was immediate, coming from, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which jointly stated that the law “violates students’ and families’ fundamental right to religious freedom.”

So why would Louisiana bother with what seems to be a cut-and-dried case of unconstitutionality?  

“I can’t wait to be sued,” Governor Landry said at a Republican fundraiser in Nashville, according to The Tennessean. Good thing, because the ACLU has already filed suit.

All this is part of a larger national plan by a minority of  Christians to inject expressions of their faith into everyday life, whether we like it or not. With a highly politicized and far-right majority on the Supreme Court at the ready, these groups believe they will get a friendlier reception from the court and could ultimately be successful. 

 

They have reason to be hopeful. In 2022, the court sided with a high school football coach who argued he had the right to pray on the 50-yard line after games. The increasingly porous boundary between church and state seems to be eroding faster than a snowball in July. Even so, legal experts think this one is a real stretch.

Charles C. Haynes, an expert in religious liberty and civil discourse, told The New York Times that he believes the state is “overreaching,” adding that “even this court will have a hard time justifying” what Louisiana lawmakers came up with. 

But perhaps most interesting is how do parents and lawmakers square the behavior of their revered MAGA leader with the Ten Commandments? 

 

Democratic strategist David Axelrod on X had this recommendation: “Here’s a suggested quiz for the schoolchildren of Louisiana: ‘Look at the poster on the wall of the Ten Commandments and write down the total number Donald Trump has broken.’”

We could quibble about the total number, but let no one be mistaken: This new Louisiana law is a dangerous development for our country. Donald Trump champions a national movement to eliminate the separation between church and state.   

Louisiana GOP Violates The Constitution With New Mandate

 From Dan Rather:

Just when you think the audacity meter has reached its zenith, along comes the Republican-dominated Louisiana state legislature. This week it passed — and the state’s far-right governor signed — a law requiring all public classrooms to display the Ten Commandments. 

 

Governor Jeff Landry argued that the Commandments are not simply religious treatise but “foundational documents of our state and national government,” perhaps trying to circumvent the inevitable hue and cry from just about everyone.

I’ll get to the hue and cry in a moment. First, if one wants to talk about foundational documents of our government, I think the Constitution is a better place to start. The First Amendment guarantees the separation of church and state. Full stop. Requiring the displaying of the Ten Commandments violates the constitutional principle of religious neutrality. 

Honoring Supreme Court precedent is another foundational tenet of our democracy. Yes, this has happened before. In 1980’s Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law that also required the display of the Ten Commandments in schools. The court found that the law violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause. In its opinion, the court wrote that the Ten Commandments are “undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths” and displaying them “serves no ... educational function.”

One could argue that Louisiana should be more concerned with the quality of the education in those classrooms than what is on their walls. The state ranks near the bottom nationally for education and 50th for overall quality of life. Perhaps instead of this political stunt, Louisiana lawmakers should think about raising teacher pay, among the lowest in the nation. Or maybe try to keep kids in school? The state ranks 48th in graduation rate.

 

Putting an 11-by-14-inch poster “in a large easy to read font” in every classroom from kindergarten through graduate school will cost money. Don’t worry — it will be paid for by private donations. But who will pay for the inevitable and orchestrated legal fight to come? Louisiana taxpayers. 

After eight years of a Democratic governor, the Republican- controlled state legislature is making up for what it sees as lost time. It recently turned down federal aid for summer food assistance, claiming it wants Louisiana families to be self-sufficient. Those same families suffer from a higher rate of food insecurity than most of the country. And Louisiana is the first state to advance a measure designating abortion pills as dangerous controlled substances.

  

Now to the hue and cry. It was loud and it was immediate, coming from, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which jointly stated that the law “violates students’ and families’ fundamental right to religious freedom.”

So why would Louisiana bother with what seems to be a cut-and-dried case of unconstitutionality?  

“I can’t wait to be sued,” Governor Landry said at a Republican fundraiser in Nashville, according to The Tennessean. Good thing, because the ACLU has already filed suit.

All this is part of a larger national plan by a minority of  Christians to inject expressions of their faith into everyday life, whether we like it or not. With a highly politicized and far-right majority on the Supreme Court at the ready, these groups believe they will get a friendlier reception from the court and could ultimately be successful.  

They have reason to be hopeful. In 2022, the court sided with a high school football coach who argued he had the right to pray on the 50-yard line after games. The increasingly porous boundary between church and state seems to be eroding faster than a snowball in July. Even so, legal experts think this one is a real stretch.

Charles C. Haynes, an expert in religious liberty and civil discourse, told The New York Times that he believes the state is “overreaching,” adding that “even this court will have a hard time justifying” what Louisiana lawmakers came up with. 

But perhaps most interesting is how do parents and lawmakers square the behavior of their revered MAGA leader with the Ten Commandments? 

 

Democratic strategist David Axelrod on X had this recommendation: “Here’s a suggested quiz for the schoolchildren of Louisiana: ‘Look at the poster on the wall of the Ten Commandments and write down the total number Donald Trump has broken.’”

We could quibble about the total number, but let no one be mistaken: This new Louisiana law is a dangerous development for our country. Donald Trump champions a national movement to eliminate the separation between church and state.  

Ronald Greene's Death Verifies The Need For Police Reform

We are only a couple of days past the anniversary of George Floyd's murder by police, and sadly, nothing has been done on the federal level to reform police departments in the country.

In fact, more incidents of unnecessary police violence is being uncovered. 

More than a year ago, Ronald Greene died after a police chase in Louisiana. The Louisiana State Police said he died when his car struck a tree at the end of that chase. That was a lie!

Video has been recently released that shows Greene was repeatedly tased and beaten after being taken into police custody -- and that was far more likely to have been the cause of his death. In other words, it was another police murder!

At the very least, this is just one more incident showing that police reform is needed in the United States. Far too many people are killed by the police in the U.S., and far too many of them are minorities (especially Blacks).

The following editorial was written by the editorial board of The Washington Post:

RELATIVES OF Ronald Greene said authorities initially told them he died on impact after he failed to pull over for a traffic violation, was chased by Louisiana state troopers and crashed his vehicle into a tree shortly after midnight on May 10, 2019. A one-page statement later issued by police said he was taken into custody after struggling with troopers, became unresponsive and died on the way to the hospital. We now know, thanks to body-cam footage obtained by the Associated Press, that there is far more — horrifyingly more — to the story of how this 49-year-old Black man died. And once again, troubling questions are raised about the conduct, character and credibility of police that underscore the need for reform.

“Okay, okay. I’m sorry. I’m scared. Officer, I’m scared, I’m your brother, I’m scared,” Greene can be heard telling the White troopers as he is subjected to agonizing and brutalizing treatment. He was repeatedly jolted with a stun gun, wrestled to the ground, put in a chokehold, punched in the face and dragged by shackles on his ankles as he lay on the ground. He was left unattended, handcuffed and prone for several minutes — a practice that use-of-force experts deem as dangerous. According to the autopsy, he died due to “cocaine induced agitated delirium complicated by motor vehicle collision, physical struggle, inflicted head injury, and restraint.” But no manner of death was specified and, according to the AP, police withheld basic documents from the coroner. “Does not add up” was the judgment of the emergency room doctor who questioned the initial account that Greene had died on impact as result of a car crash.

The shifting stories and secrecy smack of a coverup. State police at one point argued the use of force was justified — “awful but lawful” — and did not open an administrative investigation until 474 days after Greene’s death. Troopers so far have faced limited repercussions: The officer who dragged Greene by his ankles was given a 50-hour suspension and returned to active duty. A federal investigation is now underway that could hold law enforcement accountable. The family has also filed a wrongful-death suit.

Greene’s death came a year before that of George Floyd and the release of the video footage coincided with the first anniversary of Floyd’s murder, a case that put an international spotlight on the police brutality that has long victimized Black people. It’s impossible to watch the graphic video of Greene pleading to police and not think of Floyd crying for help under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer. How many other cases are there of Black people needlessly killed by police where no video exists that would undermine the official police accounts?

In the wake of Floyd’s death, there have been some modest police reforms on the state and local levels, but federal legislation has stalled in the Senate over disagreement about eliminating the qualified immunity that shields police officers. “I beat the ever-living f--- out of him,” one trooper said of Ronald Greene in chatter picked up on his body-camera mic.

The system is broken, and it is time to fix it so that the people who need protection get it.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Law

The charts above are from the Gallup Poll. The poll was done between May 1st and 13th of a national sample of 1,028 adults with a 4 point margin of error.

The poll shows that a significant majority of the American public supports legal abortion (about 79%). About 50% supports abortion under certain circumstances (as the current law does) and 29% supports abortion under any circumstances. Only 20% would deny abortions under any circumstances.

I don't know if the public's wishes had anything to do with the Supreme Courts most recent decision on abortion, but the decision went along with the public's wishes.

The Supreme Court struck down the Louisiana law that would require doctors who perform abortions to have privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. It was identical to a Texas law that the Supreme Court had struck down about four years ago.

I think the conservatives thought they could get the court to change its mind now that there is a conservative majority on the court. It didn't work that way though. Chief Justice Roberts sided with the four liberals on the court to strike down the Louisiana law on a 5 to 4 vote. Roberts said the Texas law had established a precedent, and he voted to uphold that precedent.

This is a victory for women's rights, but just a small one. It does not mean Roberts might not vote with the conservatives next time -- especially if there is no established precedent.

Domestic Racial Terrorist Is Apprehended In Louisiana

This booking photo is of Holden Matthews -- the 21 year-old son of a deputy sheriff in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana. He is the person responsible for the burning of three Black churches in that parish.

He is a violent criminal and a terrorist that was very likely motivated by racial hatred. And he is a prime example of a dangerous and growing problem in the United States -- domestic terrorism.

Recently, the Trump administration disbanded an investigative group within the Department of Homeland Security -- a group that focused on domestic terrorism (including that done by white supremacists and nationalists). This was not surprising, since Trump has refused to condemn (or separate himself) the white supremacists and white nationalists -- calling them "good people".

This was just the opposite of what should have been done. White domestic terrorists pose a far greater threat to this country and its citizens than any foreign terrorists -- and that threat is growing. Our government needs to focus more on these domestic hate terrorists -- not less.

Matthews faces a possible 15 year prison sentence. If convicted, he will deserve every day of that sentence.

NOTE -- Regular readers of this blog will know that I am an atheist. But I am also a strong believer in the U.S. Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion. That gives every American the right to believe in and practice the religion of his/her choice (or not believe in any religion). Criminal acts against religious people for their beliefs is wrong -- just as wrong as trying to force your religious beliefs on others, or using your religion to discriminate against others.

Kansas, Nebraska, Louisiana Democrats Make Their Choice

Democratic voters made their preferences for president known on Saturday in Kansas (caucus), Nebraska (caucus), and Louisiana (primary). Kansas has 37 delegates, Nebraska has 30 delegates, and Louisiana has 59 delegates.

Bernie Sanders won Kansas by about 35 points, and Nebraska by about 14 points. This will likely give Sanders a 13 delegate edge in Kansas and about a 5 delegate edge in Nebraska. But Hillary Clinton won Louisiana by about 48 points, and since Louisiana had nearly twice the delegates of the other two states, will easily cover her delegate shortage and more.

Bernie won a moral victory by taking two out of the three states, but Hillary won the more important delegate victory -- and increases her overall delegate lead.

Here are the results in each state:

KANSAS

Clinton...............12,593 (32.3%)
Sanders...............26,450 (67.7%)

NEBRASKA

Clinton...............11,293 (43.4%)
Sanders...............14,711 (56.6%)

LOUISIANA

Clinton...............221,102 (71.2%)
Sanders...............71,900 (23.1%)

And here are the current delegate totals:

Clinton...............1121
Sanders...............479

New Dem Polls For Louisiana, Michigan, And Mississippi

It looks like Hillary Clinton is in pretty good shape in these three state, who will all be voting in the next few days.

Louisiana - Magellan Strategies (March 1) 865 likely voters (3.3 point moe).

Michigan - Fox 2 Detroit / Mitchell (March 1) 427 likely voters (4.7 point moe).

Mississippi - Magellan Strategies (February 29) 471 likely voters (4.5 point moe).

Raising The Minimum Wage Is A Great Issue For Democrats

The 2014 election is entering its final stage, with less than 3 weeks now until election day -- and candidates are looking for that thing which will put them over the line. There is one issue that Democrats could use to win -- raising the minimum wage. It is an issue that a significant majority of Americans in every state agrees with, and an issue opposed by nearly every single Republican candidate.

The folks at Public Policy Polling looked at six states that have important senate races -- races that could determine which party controls the U.S. Senate. And they looked at what the people thought of raising the minimum wage in those states. Note that a majority of voters in all six states think the minimum wage should be raised to at least $10.10 an hour (and even bigger majorities don't think a family could be raised on the current minimum wage).

Perhaps even more important is how voters would consider candidates who oppose raising the minimum wage. That is illustrated in the chart below, and it's something that should worry Republican candidates. By opposing a higher minimum wage, they lose a lot more votes than they gain.

Smart Democratic candidates should campaign very hard on this issue in the coming couple of weeks. It could easily make the difference between winning and losing in a close race. And not just in these six states. Other PPP polls have shown that people in other states with close senate contests (like Colorado, Arkansas, and Georgia) also have significant majorities supporting a $10.10 an hour minimum wage.

Public Policy Polling interviewed 767 likely voters in Louisiana, 974 likely voters in North Carolina, 812 likely voters in Illinois, 659 likely voters in Iowa, 1,175 likely voters in Kentucky, and 841 likely voters in Wisconsin between October 10th and 12th. The margins of error for the surveys are +/-3.5% in Louisiana, +/-3.1% in North Carolina, +/- 3.4% in Illinois, +/-3.8% in Iowa, +/-2.9% in Kentucky, and +/-3.4% in Wisconsin. 

Senate Polls In Louisiana, Georgia, And Arkansas

Vox Populi Polling

WRBL / Ledger-Enquirer / PMB Poll

Rasmussen Poll

New Polls In Seven U.S. Senate Races

Rasmussen Poll

Rasmussen Poll

Rasmussen Poll

Rasmussen Poll

CNN / ORC Poll

CNN / ORC Poll

Des Moines Register Poll

More Polls On Various 2014 U.S. Senate Races

This is from a Fox News Poll done between September 14th and 16th of 604 likely Kansas voters, with a margin of error of 4 points.

This is from a Fox News Poll done between September 14th and 16th of 605 likely North Carolina voters, with a margin of error of 4 points.

This is from a Fox News Poll done between September 14th and 16th of 617 likely Louisiana voters, with a margin of error of 4 points.

This is from a Fox News Poll done between September 14th and 16th of 600 likely Iowa voters, with a margin of error of 4 points.

This is from a Quinnipiac University Poll done between September 10th and 15th of 1,167 likely voters, with a 2.9 point margin of error.

This is from a Quinnipiac University Poll done between September 10th and 15th of 1,211 likely Colorado voters, with a margin of error of 2.8 points.

This is from a Rasmussen Poll done on September 15th and 16th of 750 likely Georgia voters, with a margin of error of 4 points.

This is from a Hays Research Group Poll done on September 13th and 14th of 500 likely Alaska voters, with a margin of error of 4.38 points.

This is a Vanguard Public Affairs Poll done between September 11th and 13th of 600 Michigan voters, with a margin of error of 4 points.

A Third Appeals Court Upholds Equal Marriage Rights

There had already been two appeals courts to uphold a district judge's decision that banning marriages of same-sex couples was unconstitutional -- the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (on cases from Utah and Oklahoma), and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (on a case from Virginia). Now a third appeals court has done the same.

Cases from Indiana and Wisconsin had been appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and that court has now ruled that banning same-sex marriages violates the United States Constitution. The court stayed its decision to give those states time to appeal to the Supreme Court -- but unless some other appeals court decides differently, the Supreme Court might just decide to let the appeals court decisions to stand (and dodge the heat that would come with deciding the matter).

There was a federal judge in Louisiana that broke a string of 20 federal judge decisions on marriage equal rights by ruling the state of Louisiana had the right to ban same-sex marriages -- but that decision is rather moot. There is already a case on the matter pending before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (a case from Texas), and if that appeals court rules same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, then that would apply to Louisiana also -- and if they decide the other way, it would just insure the Supreme Court will have to make the final decision.

I expect the Supreme Court will wait for a few more appeals courts to make their decision, before deciding whether they should take up the matter themselves. It would really be kind of pointless to take a case before knowing if all the appeals courts agree, or if one or more disagrees with the decisions already made.

This issue is finally coming to a head, and should be decided within the next two years -- either by all appeals courts agreeing, or by the Supreme Court finally making a decision.

Christie Will Have A Tough Time In The South

Chris Christie went back to Iowa this last week. Seems like in spite of his scandal troubles in New Jersey, he's still got a desire to run for president in 2016. But if those scandals don't kill his chances, then the South probably will. As these two new polls show, Christie is not well-liked in the South and is having trouble getting out of single digits in any Southern States poll. The Southern States are teabagger states, and they still haven't forgiven Christie for having the audacity to shake hands with President Obama after the hurricane struck the Northeast.

The Public Policy Polling survey in Mississippi questioned 434 GOP primary voters between July 10th and 13th, and has a margin of error of about 4.7 points.

The Public Policy Polling survey in Louisiana questioned 308 GOP primary voters between June 26th and 29th, and has a margin of error of about 5.6 points.

Senate Races (New Jersey, Mississippi, And Louisiana)

The charts above reflect the current voter preferences for the senate races in New Jersey, Mississippi, and Louisiana. They show the Democrat is favored in one race, the Republican in another, and the third race could be very competitive.

The race favoring a Democrat is in New Jersey, where the incumbent (Cory Booker) has a 20 point lead over his Republican opponent. It is going to be very difficult for the Republican to even be competitive in this race -- let alone win it.

In Mississippi, the incumbent Republican (Thad Cochran) looks to be in pretty good shape -- leading his Democratic opponent by 12 points. The only real hope is that the teabaggers in that state stay mad at Cochran for appealing to Blacks to beat their favorite candidate -- and either vote for a third party or stay at home on election day. If they come home to the GOP (as expected), then Cochran will probably win pretty easily.

The race in Louisiana looks good for Democratic incumbent Mary Landrieu, but we need to remember that all three of her opponents are Republicans. Unless she gets over 50% of the vote, there will be a runoff -- and the supporters of the two losing Republicans will probably support Landrieu's surviving Republican opponent, which would tighten the race up considerably. I still think Landrieu will eke out a win in Louisiana, but it is not going to be as easy as Booker or Cochran.

In the final analysis, I don't think these three states will change the balance of power in the United States Senate.

The Monmouth University Poll was done between June 25th and 29th of 800 New Jersey adults, and has a 3.5 point margin of error.

The Rasmussen Poll was done on June 25th and 26th of 750 Mississippi likely voters, and has a margin of error of about 4 points.

The survey from Public Policy Polling was done between June 26th and 29th of 664 Louisiana registered voters, and has a 3.8 point margin of error.

The Ridiculous Teabagger War On Common Core Standards

The state of Louisiana had joined most other states last year in agreeing to federal common core standards in education. As most states have, they recognized that the federal standards would improve education in the United States by making sure all states met a minimum standard, and by raising those standards so U.S. students could compete with students from other developed nations. Education is more important than ever in this modern world, and the United States simply cannot afford to let states set inadequate standards.

But a few days ago, Governor Bobby Jindal did a 180 degree turn and signed an executive order that would stop Louisiana from adopting the same standards, the common core standards, that most other states have adopted. It is not known whether Jindal actually had the authority to do this, and those who value education in the state are going to fight him on this (even if they have to go to court to uphold current law).

Why did Jindal do this? He did it because he wanted to protect his own political future. He spouted some tripe about the federal government taking over the state's schools, but he knows that is a lie. Agreeing to adopt higher standards doesn't give the federal government control over Louisiana's (or any other state's) schools. The schools would remain firmly in the control of state and local school boards.

Jindal still thinks he has a chance to become the GOP's presidential nominee in 2016, just like Perry in Texas and some other Republican governors. And those Republican governors know they cannot win the GOP nomination without the support of teabaggers and evangelicals (who together make up a majority of the party's base). And as Jindal, Perry, and others realize, the teabagger/evangelicals don't like the common core standards for education.

Note in the chart above, made from info in a recent NBC News / Wall Street Journal Poll, the teabaggers oppose the new stricter standards for education by a significant margin (53% to 38% -- a 15 point margin). The question is why do they oppose the common core standards. Do they really think that allowing their states to adopt lower standards than the federal standards is the way to help their own students get a good education? Do they really think the simple adoption of higher education standards enumerated by the federal government to assure consistency across the country is a "federal takeover" of their schools?

The truth is that this goes back to an argument that's been held in this country for many years -- about the teaching of religion in public schools. These teabagger/evangelicals know that the common core standards don't allow for the teaching of creationism instead of science in science classes, and doesn't allow the teaching of right-wing fundamentalist propaganda in history and government classes. And they are willing to sacrifice an adequate education for the children of this country to be able to teach their creationism and right-wing propaganda.

Fortunately, as the chart shows, most Americans disagree with the teabaggers and support adoption of the common core standards -- by 59% to 31%, a huge 28 point margin. Unfortunately, that doesn't help the students who live in Louisiana, Texas, and other teabagger-controlled states.

Prospect Of GOP Taking The Senate Growing Dimmer

Last year, there was a lot of talk among Republicans and Beltway pundits that the Republicans would do so well in the 2014 off-year election that they might even take control of the U.S. Senate (currently controlled by Democrats). The thinking was that they would be able to fairly easily take several Southern Senate seats held by Democrats, while holding the seats they now have in that legislative body. Among the seats they expected to take were seats in Arkansas, Louisiana, and North Carolina.

But seizing those seats has turned out to be more problematic than was believed. Recent polls have shown the Democrats have a good chance of holding on to those seats, and that is now verified by a new poll -- the New York Times / Kaiser Family Foundation Poll. The poll surveyed 857 registered voters in Arkansas, 946 in Louisiana, and 900 in North Carolina -- and the these early results showed the Democrats in those states are hanging tough (and aren't nearly as unpopular as the GOP had hoped they were.

And that's not the only bad news for Republicans. About 891 registered voters were queried in Kentucky, and shows that race is still a dead heat. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has already spent a ton of money in that state, but has been unable to build a credible lead over Democrat Alison Grimes. There is a good chance the Republicans could actually lose this seat.

The Red States Don't Oppose Legalizing Same-Sex Unions - As Long As You Don't Call It Marriage

It has been widely reported, and commonly believed, that people in the red states (those states controlled by right-wing Republicans) oppose granting the LGBT community equal rights by allowing same-sex marriages. But it's not quite that simple. The reality is that most folks in those states (a significant majority) would like to see the LGBT community granted equal rights. They just don't want to call it "marriage".

Kansas is a perfect example. Public Policy Polling recently questioned residents of that state on the question. The poll was done between February 18th and 20th of 693 Kansas residents, and has a margin of error of 3.7 points. Note that when people were asked if they supported legalizing same-sex marriage, a plurality said no (48% to 44%). But when they were asked if they favored legalizing same-sex civil unions (unions that would have all of the legal rights and privileges of opposite-sex marriages), a clear majority (66% to 32%) supported that.

To me, this is a rather strange outcome. If you allow legal same-sex civil unions, and those civil unions have all the same rights and privileges granted to opposite-sex marriages, haven't you in effect legalized same-sex marriages? Of course you have. The only difference is the use of the word "marriage" -- a difference that has no real meaning.

Why does this difference exist, since it is only a semantic one? Some right-wing fundamentalists will claim it is because marriage is a religious (christian) sacrament. That simply doesn't hold water. Marriages existed long before any of the modern religious were established, and opposite-sex couples have long had the right to be joined in a civil ceremony -- and have those civil unions called marriages.

Others will tell you that if same-sex marriages are legalized, then some churches that oppose those unions will be forced to perform them. That is also ludicrous. No one is advocating making any church preform any ceremony they do not approve of, since that would be a violation of religious freedom. For example, there are churches that don't approve of inter-faith marriages, or marriages between a believer and a non-believer. But while those marriages are legal in all 50 states, no church is required or forced to perform them.

The same would be true of same-sex marriages. Some churches would perform them and some would refuse to do so -- but it would be left up to the individual church, and none would have to violate their own beliefs.

Personally, I feel there is only one reason for right-wing christians to cling to this semantic difference. It is a face-saving device. Many of them are beginning to realize they are advocating an untenable position -- a bigoted position that is unconstitutional and promotes granting some people more rights than others. They want to grant all Americans equal rights, but don't want to admit they have been wrong -- so they favor civil unions without the use of the word "marriage".

And Kansas is not the only red state that thinks this way. In fact, I would venture to say that is the position in most (if not all) of them. Here are some other examples of red state voters that approve of civil unions (without using the word "marriage"):