Governor Deval Patrick’s ill-considered casino gambling proposal went down to a stunning, better than two to one defeat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. The vote was 108-46. Now casino proponents are whining that the governor’s bill did not receive a full and fair hearing, even after many months of very public discussion. The simple fact is that the proposal to place three one billion dollar casinos in the state lost on its merits.

I will never understand why Governor Patrick blew so much political capital and public good will in making the three casinos the central feature of his economic plan. Patrick the candidate opposed casinos, knowing full-well the social and economic destruction they leave in their wake. To call his plan regressive, is to generously overstate what casinos are all about. But we have had that debate, and the regressives were routed.

Frank Phillips reported in the Boston Globe:

One of Patrick’s most immediate problems is that the casino initiative alienated a good chunk of his political base, particularly the progressive Democratic coalition that was at the core of his landslide election in 2006.

“I am saddened that he has greatly disillusioned his political base,” said state Representative Jay Kaufman, a Lexington Democrat and early Patrick supporter who voted against the casino plan.

Indeed. Candidate Patrick urged us to a higher standard of discourse. He called on us to become more deeply involved not only in politics but in the process of governance. He called for greater transparency in government and broad civic engagement. He said he would set a higher standard and restore trust in government. But, he delivered none of this in his casino gambling gambit. Instead, he fronted for a disreputable “industry;” using data derived almost soley from gambling interests, and those financed by gambling interests. He developed his plan with none of the transparency or civic engagement we expected from candidate Patrick.

I think Candidate Patrick needs to have a heart-to-heart talk with Governor Patrick. I think they have much to say to each other.

Leo Maley’s op-ed in the Amherst Bulletin spells it out. Maley points out that casinos are generally economically distastrous, and “result in considerable individual and societal harm.” Everyone knows that a lot of gamblers become “problem gamblers,” a term which does not nearly explain the breadth and depth of the “problems” faced by individuals, their families, communities and society at large. Maley reports, for example, that “Gulfport, Miss., saw a 213 percent increase in suicides (from 24 to 75) in the first two years after casinos opened in the city. Such numbers are replicated elsewhere.”

Seems to me that one of the best programs for suicide prevention would be to ensure that casino gambling never takes hold in Massachussetts. Here is an excerpt from Maley’s piece:

Money spent in casinos is diverted from other areas of the economy. Area businesses suffer. Looking at data from the state of Illinois, Earl Grinols, author of the most comprehensive book-length study of the economic benefits and costs of casino gambling, found that for every $1,000 in casino revenue, businesses within 10 miles of a casino saw a decline of $367 in merchandise sales. Commercial casinos actually generated net job losses in 42 percent of counties where they were introduced. A study in the June 2007 issue of the American Journal of Economics and Sociology concludes that the states “should not expect any long-term growth effects from legalizing casino gambling.”

Independently owned restaurants are especially hard hit. Drawing on ample data from regions around the country that have introduced casino gambling, the Massachusetts Restaurant Association estimates that casinos would force the closure of about 200 restaurants in the state.

These macro economic trends can undercut the economic vitality and diversity of an entire region. But the effect on individuals ought to concern us the most. Estimates vary, but it is likely that 40 to 50 percent of gaming machine revenues of a typical casino comes from problem or pathological gamblers.

A comprehensive literature review conducted by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission found that the rate of problem and pathological gambling addictions double among populations that live within 50 miles of a casino. A recent study published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry found that more than 10 percent of people over the age of 65 are at risk of having financial problems because of gambling, and that older gamblers are increasing at the fastest rate.

A Harvard Medical School study shows that 6 percent of the population has trouble with gambling at some point in their lives and 4 percent – 250,000 people in Massachusetts – report that in the past year they have had problems controlling their urge to gamble. Now imagine if that number were doubled.

Where do our candidates stand on basic matters of separation of church and state and the constellation of values and issues that intersect this foundational doctrine of our culture and our constitution? First Freedom First, a joint project of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Interfaith Alliance Foundation, has ten well-crafted questions to help us find out.

FFF suggests using them at

Town Hall meetings or other locations where candidates for office will be gathering. You can copy and paste them into an email message to the candidates. Or, use these as suggestions to help formulate your own questions to candidates, to find out their views on safeguarding separation of church and state and protecting religious liberty.

These are things that can sometimes make candidates squirm; and they are sometimes coached not to talk about them. But avoidance does not mean that people do now want to know the answers or that there are not important philosophical and public policy matters that directly relate. Our candidatees should not only be prepared to answer such questions, but they can be reasonably assured that we would like to hear good answers.

1) Leaders on the religious right often say that America is a “Christian Nation.” Do you agree with this statement?

2) Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?

3) Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?

4) Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child’s public school science classes?

5) Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?

6) Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?

7) Should “faith-based” charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?

Do you think one’s right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else’s right to believe?

9) Do you think everyone’s religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called “a wall of separation” between church and state?

10) What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?

One of the current fashions emanating from Inside the Beltway is the declaration that the “culture war is over,” and in the case of E.J. Dionne, that it is the wrong war to be fought. The currency of such proclamations may not last long. They are variations on the old saw that the religious right is dead, dying, over the hill, and so on. There are analyses to be made about the State of the Religious Right, which is certainly in a state of turmoil and transition, in the wake of the passing of the founding generation from public life. But any analysis whose central premise is any of the above, is probably wishful thinking, at best.

The time is not to kid ourselves with wishful thinking, but to be clear about the current nature and capacities of the religious right; staying aware of the direction of the religious right’s issues, organizations and electoral campaigns, and making any necessary adjustments.

Here is an example from today’s news: one of the most divisive issues of the culture war, marriage equality, is now before the California Supreme Court. It’s as high profile a case as they come; and in the largest state in the union; and it may well be decided prior to the November elections. The case will be heard on March 4th.

The San Francisco Chronicle has a helpful article about how religious institutions on both sides have lined up with amicus briefs in this case. This is important as the arguments made by these groups (as well as many others) will inform the battles to come in this area, and may very well serve as helpful briefings for candidates, staff and consultants.

The Chronicle reports:

As the state Supreme Court prepares for a three-hour hearing March 4 on the constitutionality of a state law allowing only opposite-sex couples to marry, the justices have been flooded with written arguments from advocates on both sides – including two large contingents of religious organizations with sharply differing views.

On one side are the Mormon church, the California Catholic Conference, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. They describe marriage between a man and a woman as “the lifeblood of community, society and the state” and say any attempt by the courts to change that would create “deep tensions between civil and religious understandings of that institution.”

On the other side are the Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Soka Gakkai branch of Buddhism, and dissident groups of Mormons, Catholics and Muslims. Saying their faiths and a wide range of historical traditions honor same-sex unions, they argue that the current law puts the state’s stamp of approval on “the religious orthodoxy of some sects concerning who may marry.”

Raoul Kennedy, the attorney for the plaintiffs said, according to the Chronicle:

“… same-sex marriages were recognized by the Christian church in the fifth century, were observed among natives by the first Spanish explorers in the Americas, were common among the Mojave Indians of the Colorado River in southeastern California, and have been documented in more than 230 African tribes.

Besides religious denominations, Kennedy’s clients include about 80 churches and temples in California and more than 250 clergy members, some of whom perform same-sex weddings despite the state’s refusal to recognize them.

“By sanctioning only marriages between a man and a woman, the state relegates the beliefs and practices of (these) religions, denominations and clergy to second-class status,” Kennedy said. He argued that such treatment violates the California Constitution’s guarantee of “free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference,” language that state courts have interpreted as separating church and state more strictly than the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

Further info on the case can be found on the web site of the California Supreme Court.

All of the amicus briefs can be found here.

It is not clear when the court will rule on the case, however, there is the possibility that the ruling will come before the November election, and of course, then be an animating campaign issue, just as it was when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision on marriage equality in the run-up to the 2004 elections.

So, let’s not be lulled into complacency. The issues that animate the culture wars are alive and well and are not going away, and neither are the active players. The LGTB civil rights movement will continue to go forward, and the reactionary institutions of the religious right and several generations of trained activists will carry on as well. We can also reasonably expect that the Republican Party and its religoius right allies will skillfully exploit the issue (as they have in the past) if it should come up.

I think that the question that we Democrats at all levels need to answer for ourselves is — will we be ready if the California Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality?

The religious right has succeeded in dominating public discourse on the intersection of science and religion for a long time now. Among many other things, seesaw battles have been waged in many states over the teaching of creationism or intelligent design; and faith based “abstinence” programs as against thoughtful, comprehensive sexuality education.

But beyond the courtroom and legislative theatrics, and conflict driven media coverage, mainstream science and religion have been getting organized. Those who posit that religion and science are inherently in conflict are two sides of the same counter productive framing of the argument. Most Americans understand, believe and accept that faith and science are not necessarily in conflict. Those who support religious pluralism and sound science and science education are natural allies against the religious supremacism, Christian nationalism and crackpot science of the religious right.

A few of these efforts include Evolution Sunday, (actually, Evolution Weekend, Feb. 8 – 10 2008) in which hundreds of churches have sermons discussing the compatibility of their faith and evolutionary science; the publication of a book by the National Academy of Sciences on the compatibility of faith and science; and the publication of a groundbreaking theological statement by the United Church of Christ that seeks to end the “feud” between science and religion. The UCC has backed it up with an ad campaign targeted to science blogs.

Much more…

So says the growing chorus of opposition to what I call Governor Deval Patrick’s plan to expand gambling addiction in Massachusetts. Although as a candidate he opposed casino gambling, Patrick has made casino gambling the centerpiece of his economic program. This has come as a surprise to those of us who supported him from early on.

The Boston Globe reports that while the governor’s support for his own program has been “tepid,” a far flung network of opponents from the Massachusetts Council of Churches to the Massachusetts Restaurant Association is mobilizing against it. Restauranteurs are rightfully concerned that massive “resort casinos” will undermine existing businesses:

Over the past several years there has been a well-funded effort to expand gaming in the Commonwealth. Proposals to allow thousands of slot machines at the state’s racetracks have been unsuccessful thus far. There are important economic risks that could result from expanding gaming, in addition to the well-documented social costs.

The MRA opposes all efforts to expand gaming and allow slot machines at racetracks.

* The restaurant industry is vital to the state’s economy and our success is directly correlated to people’s discretionary income. The expansion of gaming would divert much of that discretionary income out of the economy,the same income that is presently used for dining out.

* The huge revenues that would be created by slot machines would allow these establishments to attract customers away from our businesses with their free or subsidized food, beverages, and entertainment.

* The restaurant industry is vital to the state’s economy. We employ over 9% of the Massachusetts workforce and contributed over $591 million in sales tax on meals last year. Expanded gaming would put this very important economic engine at great peril.

* Our industry is currently being challenged by the economy. Today, operators are facing huge increases in the cost of doing business. Some of these factors include healthcare, energy, and the overall vulnerability in the commodities market.

Restaurants are good neighbors and are owned by many people who have invested in their communities. The livelihoods of many are dependent upon the success of these small businesses. To shift the income of a few businesses (racetracks) would be benefiting a few at the expense of many.

Meanwhile, a pro-gambling addiction state legislator plans to stage a procasino hearing featuring… (drum roll please) — the gambling industry!

The Springfield Republican reports:

BOSTON – Hoping to create some momentum, a pro-casino legislator plans to hold a hearing on Beacon Hill that will emphasize the economic benefits of expanded gambling.

State Rep. David L. Flynn, D-Bridgewater, said he invited representatives of some gambling companies including Harrah’s Entertainment of Las Vegas and owners of the state’s four horse and dog tracks.

“We had the anti-gaming hearing, the can’t-do hearing,” said Flynn, co-chairman of the Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets. “This is a can-do hearing.”

Oh yeah. And top officials of the Patrick administration will be there too.

Yeah, I know. Everyone is writing about it. But here is my take.

Laurel writes over at Talk to Action:

Holocaust revisionist and homobigot Scott Lively is moving to Springfield, MA. Lively has been the CA state director for Don Wildmon’s American Family Association.

Most recently, Lively co-founded Watchmen on the Walls, a quasi-religious anti-gay hate group which calls homosexuality “inherently evil”. His collaborators include Alexey Ledyaev and Ken Hutcherson. Alexey Ledyaev is the leader of the Latvia-based international New Generation church. New Generation’s flagship location in the USA is Springfield, MA, to which Lively plans to move. Hutcherson is founder of Antioch Bible Church, another anti-gay enterprise located near Seattle, WA.

Lively, Hutcherson and Ledyaev spend a good deal of time traveling around the former Soviet Union and the US spreading the anti-gay message of hate.

The Daily News reports:

Rudy Giuliani is jetting around the country wooing Bible-thumping conservatives, but his plane is often provided by a king of Sin City.

The Republican presidential hopeful anted up more than $122,000 last summer alone for jets traceable to casino kingpin Sheldon Adelson, whose Las Vegas Sands empire has made him the third-richest American, a Daily News review of campaign records shows.

Last quarter, The Sands’ innocuously named Interface Operations LLC was the top provider of corporate jets to the frequently flying Giuliani, who was whisked around the country on the casino’s plush Gulfstream G-IV in late August and early September, records show.

“You have to follow the money and ask, ‘Why is Sheldon Adelson partnering with Rudy Giuliani?’” asked Stacey Cargill, an anti-gambling and Republican Party activist in Iowa, where the nation’s first presidential caucus is set for Jan. 3.

Cargill, who views even legal gambling as a magnet for crime and vice, said, “If Rudy Giuliani wants to be the crimefighting candidate, why is he partnering with a large and growing gambling empire?”

But airplane rides around the country are not the only thing Giuliani has recieved from the casino kingpin:

Last month, Adelson… held a Giuliani fund-raiser at his Venetian casino in Las Vegas.

High-rollers who agreed to raise $25,000 for Giuliani’s presidential bid got a special treat – cigars with the former mayor.

The U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops is too poor, according to The Boston Globe, to send to its local parishes, its traditional instructional mailing on how to approach politics and public policy. The Globe did not explain why the Bishops are broke and buried the point in the last paragraph of the story — but we can guess that it probably has something to do with the massive payouts the church has made to settle lawsuits related to the priest pedophilia scandal.

Traditionally, the document has been mailed to all parishes in the United States; this year, to save money, the cash-strapped bishops’ conference will e-mail the document to parishes and post it on a website.

However, the Globe headlined the story, O’Malley draws line with Democrats: Backing abortion rights candidates ‘borders on scandal’.

The Globe reported:

Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston, saying the Democratic Party has been persistently hostile to opponents of abortion rights, asserted yesterday that the support of many Catholics for Democratic candidates “borders on scandal.”

In his sharpest comments about the political landscape since he was installed as archbishop of Boston four years ago, O’Malley made clear that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers.

“I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church’s position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues,” O’Malley said.

The Globe continued:

O’Malley’s predecessors as archbishop of Boston were also staunchly antiabortion. Cardinal Bernard F. Law called a news conference to criticize a Republican governor, William F. Weld, for his support for abortion rights, and Law had the lieutenant governor at the time, Paul Cellucci, also a Republican, disinvited from a Catholic high school for the same reason; Law also blasted Geraldine A. Ferraro, the Democratic candidate for vice president in 1984, for her support of abortion rights. Law’s predecessor, Cardinal Humberto S. Medeiros, in 1980 tried unsuccessfully to persuade Catholics to vote against two Democratic congressional candidates, Barney Frank and Jim Shannon, because of their support for abortion rights.

Interesting, but I don’t recall — and the Globe does not mention — any Catholic official ever having blasted any Massachusetts Republicans in recent years for their positions on abortion — suchas the formerly prochoice Gov. Mitt Romney or continuously prochoice Lt. Gov and later gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey — although I suppose I could have missed something.

It is interesting too, to see the Cardinal attack the Democratic Party as a whole, as if it had a lot of say, or should have a lot of say over who the membership picks as its candidates, and who the voters ultimately choose as its representatives.

[See the expanded version of this post at Talk to Action.]