Conservative Catholic group criticizes Vatican

From the WaPo:

We now know that the reaction of right-wing Catholics to Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama falls into the category of "more Catholic than the pope."

To the dismay of many conservatives, the Vatican's own newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, has offered what one antiabortion Catholic blog called "a surprisingly positive assessment of the new president's approach to life issues" -- so positive, in fact, that a spokesman for the National Right to Life Committee was moved to criticize Pope Benedict XVI's daily.....

The article will strengthen the liberal claim that the Catholic right's over-the-top response is rooted at least as much in Republican and conservative politics as in concern over the abortion question.....

A recent Pew Research Center poll found that two-thirds of Catholics approved of Obama's performance in office. .....Largely lost in the Notre Dame furor is the extent to which the ferocity on the Catholic right has emboldened moderate and liberal Catholics to fight back.

About time the social justice Catholics stepped back up for their views. Bill Donohue should be recognized as an aberration, not a spokesman. In America, "The Catholic Weekly", an oped says,

The divisive effects of the new American sectarians have not escaped the notice of the Vatican. Their highly partisan political edge has become a matter of concern. That they never demonstrate the same high dudgeon at the compromises, unfulfilled promises and policy disagreements with Republican politicians as with Democratic ones is plain for all to see. It is time to call this one-sided denunciation by its proper name: political partisanship.....

.... church leaders must promote the primacy of charity among Catholics who advocate different political options. For as the council declared, “The bonds which unite the faithful are mightier than anything which divides them” (“Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,” No. 92).

As an observer of Christianity,however, I have seen precious little example of that in any denomination!

Marriage Equality in Maine

Maine legalizes same-sex marriage:

Same-sex marriage became legal in Maine on Wednesday as Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill less than an hour after the state legislature approved it. "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage," said Baldacci, a Democrat.

It's coming: preparing for the California decision

By law, the Supreme Court of California has 90 days to release its decision on the Proposition 8 case which it heard in March. That date is fast approaching, in early June. (However, they can release the decision at any time.) They will give us 24 hours warning that the decision is coming at their website. There is a rumor that they will release it tomorrow (update, it is not listed on the docket for tomorrow, Opinions are released on M and Th at 10am and announced on the website the day before).

As we've discussed at length here, there are two questions.

First, does the vote of a majority overrule the rights of a minority? That is, was Prop8 legal on the ballot, and even eligible for popular vote? Ken Starr admitted during arguments that the Pro-H8 view was that any minority right was at the whim of the voters. He actually said no rights are inalienable. The rights of religious groups to practise their faith, or of ethnic groups to vote and fully participate, are, according to Ken Starr, completely reversible. It's useful to remember that if inter-racial marriage, allowed by the CA courts in 1948, and by the US Supreme Court in 1967, had been put to the voters, it would not have become legal until around 1994. It wasn't until then that a majority of Americans felt it was "okay" for blacks and whites to marry. But we don't put the rights of the minority to mob vote, especially when the election is funded by overt religious interests. Do we?

The second question is, are the marriages that were fully legal between May and November of 2008 still legal? Pro -Prop8 advocate Starr says those marriages (which include mine) ceased to exist legally on 5 Nov 2008, making this a retroactive decision. The court seemed less comfortable with this argument.

The general consensus following the arguments in March was the the court was against us on the first issue, and possibly for us on the second issue.

But look what's happened since then. Iowa. Vermont. New Hampshire. Maine. Washington DC. Joining Massachusetts and Connecticut, with New Jersey coming along. And unexpected voices in favor of gay rights. And a recent poll suggesting Americans favor gay marriage by a narrow margin .

Will the California court temper its decision with this groundswell? Some think so. There has been a major change in the climate. Let's also remember that the California legislature passed a pro-gay marriage bill TWICE before the initial decision, which was vetoed by the governor, on the grounds that the court should rule first. The court subsequently ruled, in May 2008, that all citizens have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Very similar to the words used in the landmark Perez v. Sharp decision of 1947, that overturned California's anti-miscegenation laws. It would really be unprecedented for fundamental rights to be eliminated by a mob vote, but of course that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Still, we have work to do. We must assume that there will be a new ballot initiaitve in 2010 regardless. You can support that, and learn more here, at EQ-CA and here, at the Courage Campaign .

We have to respond to the decision, whether pro or con. If you are in California, you can participate here. Many cities will have an event, whether to celebrate or to protest.

We have to claim our rights, and meet in the middle the weekend after the decision, in Fresno. Yes, San Joaquin friends, you are once again on the front line leading the way for justice.

I hate the fact that I still have this insistent little bird of hope. It's tiny, just a little thing. The realist in me expects the worst, and the problem with having a little bird of hope is that it is so agonizing when it is killed, yet again. It is so much worse to feel its death than not to have heard it to begin with.

But agony of waiting is almost over. Work and life have suffered enormously from living in this limbo. Let's get it over with.

Cross posted at Daily Kos and Streetprophets

And now Maine...and still we wait.

The NY TImes reports,

Gay-rights advocates moved remarkably close to their goal of making same-sex marriage legal throughout New England on Tuesday, when the Maine House of Representative voted to legalize such unions.

One vote against it came from State Representative Sheryl Briggs, who voted against the bill although her daughter is a lesbian:

[H]er daughter has been out to her for 15 years, and ... she still regards her daughter’s sexual orientation as a choice. The representative tearfully announced that she made her own difficult choice to oppose marriage equality..... Briggs said. “I can’t change how I feel. These feelings run very deep. I have kept this secret within me for 15 years, but because of who I am, and where I am today, and as a member of this legislative body, ethically, it is my duty, and my responsibility, to publicly say to my daughter, that I do not support her way of life."

Ah, maternal love. (I'm so lucky that my parents are so accepting!) I hope the daughter has a huge, huge wedding.

Meanwhile, the LA Times points out

Those rights are expanding as legally married gay couples relocate to states that don't allow same-sex marriage, forcing courts, legislatures and employers to deal with the resulting issues of custody, divorce, inheritance and end-of-life decisions....

And as more same-sex couples wed in places where it is legal, the administrative fallout in other states is expected to keep expanding......

Though still few in number, the states recognizing same-sex unions are home to nearly a third of the U.S. population, said Gary Gates, senior research fellow at the Williams Institute. He estimates that at least a quarter of the 780,000 same-sex couples married or registered in civil unions across the country are raising children, boosting the likelihood of legal challenges to secure equal protection from insurers, employers and the government for their families.

In some states, it is illegal to marry your first cousin. In other states, it's allowed. A marriage in an allowed-state is recognized in a not-allowed state. Even though said marriage is technically illegal in the new state! Similarly, marriage to a child: legal at 14 in some states, absolutely not in others. But all marriages are recognized in other states.

In some states, transgender people can receive a birth certificate in their new gender. In other states, they can't. Thus, a MTF transgender woman marrying a man in a permissive state is okay (and their marriage will be recognized wherever they go). In other states, a MTF transgender woman will be considered legally male, and unable to marry a man. Just to confuse things further, in the permissive state, an MTF woman can't marry a woman, while in the non-permissive state, an MTF woman CAN marry a woman. But any marriage legal where it occurred is recognized in the states where it didn't.

Any marriage, but one where the two couple are of the same sex.

And all I want is to stop feeling on tenterhooks waiting to hear if my marriage is still legal. We'll know within a month, and the decision may come any day.

Carrie Prejean Update

Good Christian girl & outspoken beauty pageant winner Carrie Prejean, whose anti-gay remarks have endeared her to conservatives, has become embroiled in another scandal. Seems as if some, rather tame, racy photos [warning: most likely NSFW] of her have surfaced.

But it's OK, I guess. You can still be a hypocrite, as long as you're a hypocrite for Jesus.

(Please note that this editor, speaking only for himself, has nothing against tasteful erotica - but is not at all fond of self-righteous hypocrisy.)

Everything has a cost: lessons from a jacaranda

Nothing comes free, does it? It's early May, and the jacarandas are in bloom in the really old neighborhoods of southern California's cities like San Diego and Los Angeles. These imported trees have an intense purple color that almost glows in the dark and provides a needed dash of beauty in the tired old city streets. One of my most vivid mental pictures is driving down LA's lower Broadway early on a spring evening a few years ago, south of downtown, where the dull industrial buildings and red brick seemed as though they were illuminated by the glow of the jacarandas.

Despite their beauty, the trees aren't planted in new developments. They are very messy, dropping petals and sticky goo all over the street. You need a maintenance team to fight back. In earlier days, people thought it was worth it, but not any more.

It's rather sad, I think. We're such a hurry-up society, unwilling to make the investment or pay the cost. We want it all just so, colored within the arbitrary lines that we set. And whether its children or colleagues or congregations, we are unwilling to make space for the messy yet wonderful variation that oozes outside the lines and gives our lives color and variety. But I am an advocate for breaking outside the lines. I'm going to celebrate the jacarandas.

Picture from here

LA Diocese Seeks Legal Fees

In a move an attorney for St. James Anglican Church called “threatening and bullying behavior,” the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles will try to recover attorneys fees and court costs from the church and some of its members who voted to break away from the Episcopal Church in 2004...“They are doing this so no one ever dares leave the Episcopal hierarchy ever again,” said attorney Daniel Lula, who represents St. James.

Yeah, so no one ever leaves again with the family silver. See the whole story in the Newport Beach and Costa Mesa Daily Pilot.

[tip o' the hat to the Rev. Jan Nunley]

Signs of Spring, new birth, and hope

Here in Southern California, it is definitely well into spring. My pea plants are flowering and we are already starting to harvest radishes, and it is sunny and warm. (It stops raining here in March.)

A few years ago, the phoebes built a mud nest under the eaves of our house and now every year they come back to raise a couple of broods of babies in it. Phoebes are black and white flycatchers, very common in the suburbs here. They are devoted parents and during the day there is a regular cycle of each parent bringing large and delectable bugs to the peeping babies. The first brood of 2009 is being fed right now. I can occasionally see a bill or a tail of a baby over the edge of the nest. At night, one of the parents wedges itself on the top of the nest to keep them warm. There are at least 2 or 3 fledglings in the nest.

Last year, we were astonished when the nest (about the size of a regular sized teacup) erupted forth with 4 babies! We had the privilege of watching first flight from the nest down to our table where they stayed while the parents continued to feed them. That's what the picture is; notice the baby has its mouth open to be fed! At night, mom and dad herded the babies back up to the nest where they oozed over the edges, being far too big to fit. Each day they flew a little further around the garden, but on the 4th day, they finally flew away.

With all the baby phoebes we have hatched over the years, we have to wonder if we have populated this entire neighborhood with these industrious, unassuming birds. It's sadder to think that some of our babies may not have survived the winter, gentle as it is in southern California. So I'm not thinking about that, but instead wondering how many new birds are behind the peeps that I can hear, and how they manage to eat those enormous bugs that mom and dad bring them, and whether BP and I will be lucky enough see that first hopeful, clumsy flight when they finally emerge from the nest.

Scrappy Bloggers

Thanks to Cany for passing this award onto us. As a group blog, we reflect a number of personalities and our readers have to endure a certain amount of jumping around on different topics, and non-sequiturs. Oh look! ketchup!

Ye old College tribe

It's May first, which among other things is College Decision Day. As you know, it's been a long road for us. But it's official now, it looks like we are going to be an Aztec family!

You know, working in higher education makes school loyalty a very difficult business, and I have a variety of logo clothing items to prove it. There's my undergraduate university, and my graduate university, plus the various institutions where I have worked as postdoc and professor. BP has different loyalties from her family and her own alma mater. Now there's a new addition, The Boy's new university. So I have relationships with lots of schools.

To complicate matters further, some of of these have antagonistic sporting relations with the others. (BP and I have found ourselves on opposite sides of a sporting event once so far. I regret to say that her team won. Though I have to say, she gloated less than I would have.) My family are all stalwart supporters of one school, but I am inevitably divided, which means I end up on the outside a lot, on the periphery. Which seems to be my usual place in life.

Meantime, today, along with parents of almost 5000 other freshman, it's all about one thing: GO AZTECS!

Judy Shepard on passage of Hate Crimes Bill

Judy Shepard on why we need this legislation and her reaction to the Congresswoman who called Matt's hate crime death a hoax.