It may be easy to slumber in the air conditioning on the longest days of the year and forget the mid-term elections now only five months away. But if you are awake and keeping up, here are four good reasons to vote against Republicans in November.

One, the world thinks the United States of America is the biggest threat to global security on the planet thanks to the failed policies of our dicktater-in-chief.

Bush Says ‘Absurd’ to Charge U.S. is Biggest Threat to Global Security

Two, the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate is playing politics with the war in Iraq, trying to paint the Democratic Party as the “cut and run” party. The Democrats in the Senate, meanwhile, are just trying to reign in an out of control executive branch and bring some sense to U.S. foreign policy.

With Eye on Elections, Senate Debates Iraq War

The Shadow War, In a Surprising New Light

Three, if you think anyone can make a living on $5.15 an hour, while corporations are posting record profits and corporate executives are taking home record salaries and bonuses, then vote Republican. If you think the workers of America deserve to be paid a living wage, vote Democrat.

Republican Controlled Senate Kills Minimum Wage Increase

Four, if you are a racist and think this country should roll back civil rights, vote Republican. If you think the Voting Rights Act should be renewed, vote Democrat.

Republicans Cancel Renewal of Voting Rights Act

We have been asked by another Alabama blogger to comment on the proposed Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriages that will be on the ballot next Tuesday, June 6.

Jeff Vreeland with the Politics in Alabama blog says he plans to have more to say about it in the next few days. We had not necessarily planned to get into this issue, since we figure it is a done deal anyway. But the invite is too interesting to avoid.

But before we comment on anything, some research is necessary. This ain’t like talk radio y’all where we feel comfortable saying the first thing that pops into our heads.

So the first thing we had to do before posting was to search around and find the language of the amendment. The best we can tell from online research anyway, no news organization in Alabama has actually published the language yet. There have been stories and even editorials about it, along with stories about public opinion surveys on the issue.

Thanks to the friendly folks at the Alabama Secretary of State’s office, however, we had the language in hand within minutes. When you go to the polls next Tuesday, this is what Amendment One will say:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that no marriage license shall be issued in Alabama to parties of the same sex and that the state shall not recognize a marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred as a result of the law of any other jurisdiction. (Proposed by Act 2005-35)

For clarification purposes, the Christian Coalition Web site indicates a “Yes” vote supposedly “protects traditional marriage” and a “No” vote “Does not protect traditional marriage.” But of course that radical, right-wing group of homophobic nutjobs is FOR the amendment.

This is important, since sources tell us that preachers all over Alabama are recommending a “yes” vote, since “the language is confusing.”

Then a look at the public opinion polls seems useful.

According to the University of Auburn University’s E-Commons site, a survey they conducted found that 54 percent of Alabamians strongly support an amendment. Sixty-nine percent of Republicans support it, while Democrats “are more equally divided,” according to poll director Jim Seroka.

This differs markedly from the national surveys. According to a Pew Research Center survey, only the slimmest of majorities, 51 percent of Americans, continue to oppose legalizing gay marriage.

According to some newspaper stories in the state, the amendment might be just as bad for the rights of traditional married couples as it is for gay couples. Opponents of the amendment contend the measure may affect health insurance benefits for children, inheritances, domestic violence protections and property transactions.

An attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center said the amendment would not strengthen Alabama law or protect traditional marriage, and that the amendment is just a political ploy to turn out conservative, Christian voters.

“The Christian Coalition wants to get their people out to vote,” said Rhonda Brownstein, the SPLC’s legal director.

The Alabama Legislature passed the bill setting up the amendment vote in the 2005 regular session. Democrats in the Legislature won in a move to add the measure to the primary ballot, while Republicans wanted it on the general election ballot in November.

Allison Neal, a law fellow with the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, said his organization opposes the amendment as legal overkill.

“It is overkill. It divides people into categories,” he said. “This is not just about marriage. It is about domestic partnerships, common-law unions, access to health and retirement benefits, and benefits for children.”

Howard Bayless, chairman of the board of the gay rights group Equality Alabama, hopes people in Alabama will be more understanding than the Christian Coalition and vote against the amendment.

Gay neighbors have difficulty visiting sick partners in the hospital, for example, and this bill would only make that more difficult.

Former Gov. Don Siegelman, who is also on the ballot next Tuesday as the one of the Democratic Party’s nominees for governor, took a strong stand in favor of the gay marriage ban amendment on Alabama’s “For the Record” show last night.

When asked where he stands on the amendment, he quickly said “I’m for it” almost before the question was out of the moderator’s mouth. He justified this position by saying it was based on “nature.”

But we suspect if he had actually done some research, he would learn that scientists have conducted study after study showing that nature, not nurture, is behind the fact that some people are born gay. In other words, no gay teacher or parent can turn a person into favoring one sex over the other in bed. It’s in the genes. There’s no escaping it, and this is NOT a matter of opinion.

Lucy Baxley took a different tack when asked the question on the show the night before. She would not reveal how she will vote on the amendment, since she said her vote is a private matter. But she did say her position is that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

We have no doubt Judge Roy Moore and Gov. Bob Riley will come out for it, and Riley’s latest television commercials allude to it, along with his “right to life” position on abortion and arresting all the illegal immigrants and deporting them.

So, now that we have some information, here is our position.

We will vote against the amendment banning gay marriage, because we think it is just another dumbass reactionary use of the electoral process to push a right-wing agenda and discriminate against Americans who are not white, heterosexual, married and live in the suburbs and drive everywhere they go.

Marriage should be a private matter between consenting adults - not an issue for the state. As a simple matter of civil rights, citizens of this country should not be discriminated against because of their race, gender, political party affiliation or sexual orientation.

This amendment codifies discrimination into the state Constitution, which should be scrapped and rewritten in any event. The problem with rewriting it now is this: Do you trust the idiots in power in Montgomery at this juncture to do the rewriting? We don’t.

But at least we should be able to vote down state sanctioned discrimination every chance we get at the election polls.

We therefore urge a “No” vote on Amendment One.

Officials with the Alabama Democratic Party are trying to figure out what to do today about Larry Darby, a candidate for the party’s nomination for attorney general.

Darby is the founder of the Atheist Law Center in Montgomery and a longtime advocate for the separation of church and state. He made something of a name for himself a couple of years ago by getting quoted in the news for his opposition to judge Roy Moore’s idea of sneaking a granite monument of the Ten Commandments into the state Supreme Court building.

Recently, however, Darby has come out of the closet so to speak as a Holocaust denier, an anti-Semite and a white supremacist.

Party officials say they were not aware of Darby’s extremist views until the Associated Press ran a story about it last week and we posted this story. But the Southern Poverty Law Center’s magazine, the Intelligence Report, had published something of an expose on Darby back in the fall of 2005.

Strange Bedfellows: Disgraced Holocaust denier hosted by Alabama atheist

Joe Turnham, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Alabama, said Monday morning he is trying to figure out how to de-certify Darby.

“But this is a sensitive issue,” he said. “Darby is a lawyer.”

Turnham said he just thought Darby was an atheist and an activist for the separation of church and state.

“I had no idea he was a holocaust denier and a racist,” he said.

Turnham says he doubts Darby could win the race in any event, although the Democratic Party only has two candidates running in the June 6 primary. The winner between Darby and Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson will face the winner of the Republican Primary, most likely the incumbent Troy King, who is running against Mark Montiel.

But to have a George Wallace-style racist in the party in the year 2006 could damage the party’s image and give political ammunition to Republican candidates all over the state, Turnham acknowledged.

“We are trying to figure out what to do about it now,” he said. “I doubt if I would certify him in any event.”

For more information on this issue, check with the blogger Hammer of Truth.

by Glynn Wilson

Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, a potential anti-war candidate in the 2008 presidential field, according to AP, urged fellow Democrats on Monday to show more backbone in challenging President Bush on his decision to invade Iraq.

“We must get out of our political foxholes and be willing to clearly and specifically point out what a strategic error the Iraq invasion has been,” Feingold told an audience at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

Watch the re-run on C-SPAN on TV, or watch the video online here.

Feingold, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees, said some Democrats in Congress gave in to “intimidation” by the Bush administration when they voted to authorize the war in 2002.

“If we do not show both a practical and emotional readiness to lead in the fight against terrorism, we will lose in ‘06 and we will lose in ‘08, just like we did in ‘02 and ‘04,” he warned.

Feingold called for the censure of Bush over the administration’s warrantless surveillance program back in March. So far, only two Democrats, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California, have signed on as co-sponsors. Some on the hard left, and even some Republicans, have said censure is not the answer, impeachment is…

Feingold has also proposed that U.S. troops leave Iraq by the end of the year, rejecting criticism that such a move could lead to chaos there.

“I believe the situation would probably get better” if U.S. troops left, he said. “The lesson of insurgency is when the occupying power leaves, it tends to lessen, rather than increase, the level of violence.”

He said people ask him at every stop he makes out in the country, including Montgomery, Alabama, why Democrats won’t stand up publicly for what they believe - especially against President George W. Bush. This includes Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, rather than pursuing al Qaeda.

Iraq was not on the administration’s list of countries where al Qaeda was operating on 9/11, he pointed out.

“It was not even on THEIR list,” he said.

Feingold, who cast the lone vote against the USA Patriot Act in the Senate, also said he has no confidence in the assurances issued Monday by Bush’s new appointee to the CIA, Gen. Michael Hayden, that the NSA has not been spying on American citizens without warrants.