Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
In the next Pappy O'Daniel administration, these boys is gonna be my brain trust
Oh Brother, Where Art Thou
Bilerico reports on Bobby Jindal's new brain trust:
In December, Jindal announced the formation of the Louisiana Commission on Marriage and Family, billed as "an entity within the executive department that serves to propose programs, policies, incentives and curriculum regarding marriage and family by collecting and analyzing data on the social and personal effects of marriage and child-bearing within the state of Louisiana."In other words, Jindal's Commission is going to be looking at - and making recommendations regarding - marriage and family issues within the state.
I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear that the group is made up of a virtual who's who of the religious right in Louisiana:
And a quick look at some of those appointed by the Governor to serve on the panel leaves no doubt that, in the end, the line-up will do nothing more than promote an extreme, anti-gay agenda that sets back, blocks and battles any attempts to recognize or respect Louisiana's same-sex families.Among those who have been appointed by Jindal to serve on the Commission are Tony Perkins (who hails from Baton Rouge), the president of the anti-gay advocacy group known as The Family Research Council . . . Gene Mills, executive director of the far-right Louisiana Family Forum . . . Mike Johnson, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund . . . and numerous members of the clergy. All, Jindal has said, "have significant academic and/or professional expertise" on issues of marriage and family.
And each has a long history of spouting anti-gay rhetoric, too.
Perkins and Mills, especially, are vociferous anti-gay advocates, and have been the driving forces behind attempts to ban legal protections for same-sex couples. And on his website, Mills promotes publications with titles such as Morally Straight, Protect Your Children, and Three Myths About Homosexuality. All are inflammatory, inaccurate and outrageously biased papers that demean and degrade lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. (The Family Research Council's list of similarly harmful publications is too long to list in a single blog entry.)
Because as we all should have learned by now, the phrase "family values" really just means "get the gays." This is nothing new for Jindal, a man whose religious beliefs are so delusional that he claims to have helped cast "demons" out of someone. One of his top priorities upon taking office was to make it legal for the state government that he leads to discriminate against gays. And he lied through his teeth while doing so:
Governor Jindal, a former Congressman who is also (really!) an exorcist, told the media on Thursday that he has no plans to renew an executive order, signed in 2004 by his predecessor Kathleen Blanco, which prohibits discrimination and harassment against state workers and contractors. Among the categories included in the order is sexual orientation."Jindal said Wednesday that discrimination is prohibited under state and federal laws and he doesn't want to create more special categories by executive order," the Associated Press reported. "He also said he worried it could cause problems with faith-based organizations' ability to contract with the state . . . "
"We're not going to renew it. That shouldn't come as a surprise," he said.
That was a lie. Neither federal nor Louisiana state law has any prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation. The executive order from Blanco prohibited discrimination against state employees and by those who receive state money through contracts only. And Jindal couldn't wait to make sure that he had the legal authority to discriminate against those folks.
Politics
Comments
Now, now. That's untrue.
It's also means "the right to beat your kids."
Posted by: Michael Ralston | January 9, 2009 9:55 AM
...and "no abortions".
Posted by: Ranson | January 9, 2009 9:56 AM
Jindal is the man I fear most in the GOP, beyond even the Palin scare we experienced this past electoral season. He is also that party's biggest temptation to become even more socially conservative rather than reforming, in fact I believe he's an even bigger temptation than Palin given he is capable while she clearly is not.
Jindal's very articulate and he appears to be a very capable executive. Therefore his extreme positions will be given more credence by the sheeple, including moderates and independents, which is why I fear him. The mainstream TV media is also not capable of adequately interviewing him and exposing his extreme views, they simply are too dumb or too cowardly.
Jindal could be the GOP's Barack Obama and that's bad news for the country because contrary to Obama, Jindal in no way supports the ideals of liberty and equal protection rooted in our Constitution. Instead he supports the agenda of Christianists even when their agenda contradicts the interests of the country, which it frequently does.
One can argue about the wisdom of Obama's policies, but not coherently about his loyalty or priorities. However with Jindal, it's clear his priorities are not the priorities of the country or its citizens, but instead of those seeking a Christian theocracy or something very close to it.
What I find interesting is that the Bush/Rove model was clearly not as interested in a Christianist state for religious objectives, but to instead promote a corporatist agenda that required the votes from the sheeple since such an interest benefits relatively few, and certainly not enough for a viable voting constituency (Thomas Frank's thesis and prediction which has now been validated). Jindal on the other hand appears to be a true believer similar to Huckabee, but unlike Huckabee, doesn't bring some of the populist baggage Huckabee did that had him rejected by the corporatists like Limbaugh and Romney (e.g., balancing budgets, spending for the good of the people).
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 9, 2009 10:13 AM
Uh... so the order was redundant because the discrimination was already prohibited by existing law, but he also had to remove it so that faith-based organizations could do something they couldn't otherwise? In other words, it was clearly prohibiting something the existing law didn't?
Posted by: Morgan | January 9, 2009 10:27 AM
Perkins and anyone affiliated with the ADF should NOT be allowed to be near a government of any kind.
What rat-bastards!
Posted by: SharonB | January 9, 2009 12:26 PM
From the linked article - "...the line-up will do nothing more than promote an extreme, anti-gay agenda..."
Mr. Ralls is quite wrong, here. I think we can expect this Commission to also discourage effective sex education in favor of abstinence-only, to suggest new ways to roadblock women seeking abortions, and probably to provide their own opinion on how to teach the origins of life in public schools - and any number of other theocratic principles near and dear to Jindal's heart. To suggest that they will do nothing but fight against the gays seriously underestimates their threat.
Posted by: BobApril | January 11, 2009 6:29 AM
Jindal is interestingly retrograde, even for a modern Southern Republican, not unlike Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. However, as Huckabee and Palin are folksy and quietly angry--a simmering brew that attracts those who love the taste of the politics of resentment--Jindal offers an ostensibly more attractive and polished style. His worldview's blend of the conservative and crypto-magical reminds me of the Persian magi or even Confucian diviners. Compared to Huckabee's or Palin's (or Pat Robertson's), Jindal's religion-hampered thought processes are surely just as dangerously contrary to the rationalism of the republic's founders, but potentially more seductive, especially to younger voters.
Posted by: Scott Isebrand | January 11, 2009 8:58 AM
Jindal is interestingly retrograde, even for a modern Southern Republican, not unlike Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. However, as Huckabee and Palin are folksy and quietly angry--a simmering brew that attracts those who love the taste of the politics of resentment--Jindal offers an ostensibly more attractive and polished style. His worldview's blend of the conservative and crypto-magical reminds me of the Persian magi or even Confucian diviners. Compared to Huckabee's or Palin's (or Pat Robertson's), Jindal's religion-hampered thought processes are surely just as dangerously contrary to the rationalism of the republic's founders, but potentially more seductive, especially to younger voters.
Posted by: Scott Isebrand | January 11, 2009 9:12 AM
Last week, I was at a lecture/comedy event in the basement of a bar (it's a little hard to explain, just bear with me) in the reliably liberal/Democratic Park Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn. One speaker was doing a year-in-review thing and was in the midst of a smug bit about how the GOP has lost its way and been exiled to the wilderness, etc. etc. He said something like, "The Republican Party can go one of two ways," and jumped to his next PowerPoint slide.
It was a picture of Palin next to a picture of Jindal. Palin supposedly represented the old religious/social conservative whackjob way, with Jindal supposedly the new, multicultural or whatever path. My jaw dropped. It was stunning to think that Jindal has managed to sell as blue a demographic as was sitting in that room, on this idea of himself.
However, it might be a little early to start worrying too much about the guy yet. The exorcism thing, for just one example, will surely provide rich SNL fodder if he's ever in line for the White House. On the other hand again, he's obviously smarter, slicker and more knowledgeable than Palin, and "she's dumb and inexperienced" was the popular meme that did her in. Far more so than "she's a religious nut," which, sadly, probably drew at least as many people to her as people it repelled from her. On yet another hand, (I'm running out of hands) his Catholicism and the exorcism thing might help further fracture the religious right coalition. I dunno.
In general, I'm pinning a lot of hopes on eight years of an Obama administration giving time for more shifting of voter demographics towards younger, more secular and more liberal.
Posted by: MPW | January 12, 2009 12:22 AM
Wow...You guys really do drink the Kool Aid mixed with your own poison, don't you...What a bunch of idiotic remarks...Those of us with family values are not "Out to get" the homosexual community, nor are we in anyway about the abuse of children...Absolutely absurd remarks. As far as abortion may be concerned, yes, we are for the reduction in the number of abortions, except in the cases of rape, incest and endangerment of the mothers life. Read your science, an unborn child has different DNA than it's mother, so how is it "Part" of her body to do with as she pleases? we rail and accuse other countries around the world of violation of human rights and yet we murder our own unborn children, near 4,000 a day. Tell me what is the greater human rights violation, those acts against other adults or the acts against the completely innocent unborn. But your far left opinions, as shown here, is the very reason we cannot have open and honest dialogue. You radical views and militant speech against the right is disturbing, to say the least. And then you wonder why the right avoids you or discussions with you.
Posted by: Tony P. | March 14, 2009 4:15 PM