James Scarantino Comes Out of the Closet

By that I mean that James Scarantino, who writes an op-ed column for the Albuquerque Journal and is a regular panelist on KNME's "New Mexico In Focus," has finally showed his true colors. Over the years, and certainly recently, there have been more than a few hints of Scarantino's real agenda -- and perceived problems with his ethics, honesty and analytical abilities. But, somehow, he's managed to hang onto a patina of respectability -- at least with some figures who populate the punditry and media in the Duke City and beyond.

This time, however, Jim's Mr. Nice and Reasonable Guy mask has fallen away to reveal a truly dishonest, hypocritical persona that puts stirring up unwarranted fear before speaking the truth.

Jim presents himself as a brainy and moderate -- if somewhat pompous -- independent "libertarian." But his latest Journal column shows he's nothing more than another garden variety extremist bent on twisting the truth into a fiction that supports his prejudices and biases.

Progressives = Well-Meaning Fascists
In the column, Scarantino first suggests that today's liberals and progressives are really fascists seeking to limit people's freedom, even if they originally mean well. In making that claim, he refers to the writings of "magic hand of the market" economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek, who was linked with the Pinochet regime in Chile, the Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan administrations and the unregulated capitalism of Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago.

If you need to know more about Hayek's damaging brand of capitalism, and what it has been used to justify, check out the writings of Naomi Klein. Her latest book, Disaster Capitalism, provides a jarring view of what interpretations of his philosophy have wrought in the real world.

At any rate, in Jim's concocted view, we're the latest in a long line of Mussolini and Stalin lovers, on the march for Communism and a police state. Scarantino's claims may have attracted some true believers in the Red Scare McCarthy era (or in the days before laissez faire capitalism caused us the financial ruin we're experiencing now). These days, however, we're moving into a new era grounded in practicalities and pragmatism -- not convoluted ideologies. Most political thinkers have moved on to more modern, commonsense frameworks. Not Scarantino.

He moves from attacking progressives generally to using his version of Hayek's theories to criticize domestic partnership legislation. Maybe Jim should read this terrific knock down of that line of thought by someone who knows a thing or two about Hayek.

Attacking the Domestic Partnership Bill
Scarantino raises the specter of fascism in response to a little ol' bill that would give couples, straight or gay, the right to buy a civil license of partnership. In this way, they would be permitted to avoid expending undue money or time to secure their rights in terms of routine things like hospital visitation, tax-free inheritance, ER decision-making and family legal protections.

The proposed Domestic Partnership Rights and Responsibilities bill would in no way offer the same rights and responsibilities provided by federally recognized marriages. It would merely provide some very basic civil rights that would primarily benefit gay couples who aren't allowed to marry under civil law, and many elderly and disabled folks who would lose their much needed benefits if they married certain individuals.

Scary, isn't it? In Scarantino's world it is. In his column, he plucks a nonexistent requirement out of thin air and claims it's in the bill:

State Rep. Mimi Stewart has again introduced legislation to extend to same-sex partners the contractual rights enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. For what it's worth, I am on record supporting this concept. In seeking to extend rights to the intended beneficiaries of her legislation, however, Stewart would deprive others of their right to practice a religious faith that condemns homosexuality.

Every major religion continues to reject homosexual unions. In a nation that honors religious freedom as a fundamental principle, these beliefs — regardless of our personal views — must be forever immune from governmental interference. Stewart's legislation purports to recognize that principle. A clause in her bill states that nothing “shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body.”

But Stewart's bill does not honor the religious beliefs and practices of individuals. Stewart thus echoes the Mexican progressives who sought to confine religion to temples. Under Stewart's bill, any individual who attempts to observe a faith-based objection to homosexuality outside a church building — say, by declining to provide services to a same-sex ceremony — will be subject to punishment by the state. [emphasis mine]

How Low Can Jim Go?
I can muster some understanding and respect for critics of domestic partnership legislation who may genuinely harbor a misunderstanding of the bill's requirements. But Scarantino certainly knows better. He's a lawyer and knows exactly what the bill would require, and what it would not.

Scarantino knows as well as I do that the bill has nothing to do with forcing church officials to perform domestic partnership ceremonies, and yet he insists -- apparently for the sake of stirring up controversy and anti-GLBT emotions in the community -- that it does.

Rep. Stewart Responds
I spoke with State Rep. Mimi Stewart, the Domestic Partnership bill's sponsor on the House side, and she had this to say about Scarantino's claims about the impact of the bill:

"I am surprised that the Journal would publish an opinion editorial with such falsehoods and misrepresentations, said Rep. Stewart. Jim Scarantino must not have read the Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibility Act because the only penalty in the entire law is a misdemeanor citation only if the domestic partnership is entered into falsely. Here the section in its entirety."

Section 9. MISREPRESENTATION OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP ELIGIBILITY--PENALTY.--Filing an intentionally and materially false affidavit of domestic partnership shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.

Rep. Stewart continued, "I don't understand how any licensed attorney could read this bill and claim it would punish religious officials or others in any manner."

How Can We Fight Back?
I think it's important that Scarantino's knowingly false interpretation of the domestic partnership bill be nipped in the bud right now. I also think Scarantino should be "outed" for what he is -- a dishonest pundit out to cause trouble and muddy the waters about progressive change. Left unchallenged, Scarantino's false claims have the potential to jeopardize a thoroughly justified expansion of our civil liberties -- and create havoc in the lives of those who support domestic partnership legislation.

I hope you'll contact Scarantino, the Albuquerque Journal and the producer and hosts of "New Mexico In Focus." Express your views about the inaccuracies portrayed as the truth by Scarantino, and why you believe he should no longer be provided with print and TV soapboxes to push his distorted agenda.

It's no secret that legislators who support domestic partnership legislation are increasingly the victim of often invective-filled phone calls from people stirred up by dishonest screeds like Scarantino's. Stirring up hate is stirring up hate, whether or not your urgings to narrowmindedness are cloaked in intellectual pretenses. It has to stop. We need honest discussions about proposed legislation in our newspapers and on local TV shows -- not deliberate misinformation meant to appeal to the worst common denominator.

Also see my next post, which answers Scarantino's response to this post.

Other blogs that link to and comment on this post:

New Mexico FBIHOP
Plastic Manzikert
Duke City Fix
'Burque Babble