The Immigration Debate, the Executive Order, and the Other

Charles Blow in the NY Times:

Don’t let yourself get lost in the weeds. Don’t allow yourself to believe that opposition to President Obama’s executive actions on immigration is only about that issue, the president’s tactics, or his lack of obsequiousness to his detractors. 

This hostility and animosity toward this president is, in fact, larger than this president. This is about systems of power and the power of symbols. Particularly, it is about preserving traditional power and destroying emerging symbols that threaten that power.

....

This president is simply the embodiment of the threat, as far as his detractors are concerned, whether they are willing or able to articulate it as such. There is no denying the insinuations in such language: a fear of subjugation by people like this president, an “other” person, predisposed to lawlessness. ....

From this worldview, liberalism isn’t simply an alternate political sensibility, but a rot, an irreparable ruination, a violation of the laws of the land as the founding fathers (most of whom owned slaves at some point) envisioned, but also of the laws of nature, which they see as being directed by God. There are so many examples of this: opposition to L.G.B.T. rights, to the science undergirding climate change and efforts to arrest that change, and to allowing women a full range of reproductive options. 

Make no mistake: This debate is not just about this president, this executive order or immigration. This is about the fear that makes the face flush when people stare into a future in which traditional power — their power — is eroded, and about their desperate, by-any-means determination to deny that future.

No good news in politics

The Republicans took over the Senate far more easily than polls suggested they would. I do blame the Democrats for running away from the record and from the President, and I blame the President, for being too cool and distant.

The idea that this was a wave of some sort is clearly not true;  this was a typical realignment of the Congress in a mid-term election.  It is also clearly not true that the Republicans have repudiated the tea-partiers and put the adults back in charge;  as Charles Pierce writes,

Let us dispense with some conventional wisdom before it petrifies. First of all, the president's basic unpopularity was unquestionably a factor, but not anywhere near as much of a factor as was the reluctance of the Democratic party -- from the president on down -- to embrace the actual successes that the administration has achieved. The economy is, in fact, improving. It is the responsibility of the president and his party that we have the paradoxical polling that indicates that the elements of the Affordable Care Act are popular, while "Obamacare" is not.....The senatorial candidates who lost were senators who ran away from the administration.... 

Second, it was a great night for voter-suppression, which has been central to the Republican response to the fact that the president has been elected twice....It's going to take days to sort out the overall effect of these laws on the general electorate, even if anyone cares to do so, which I've come to doubt, because the Supreme Court created a new normal when John Roberts gutted the Voting Rights Act and declared the day of jubilee, and the people in the country who are not those inconvenienced by these laws, and who are not those against whose franchise these laws were directly aimed, seem perfectly content with this situation. 

Last, and I hate to break this to Tom Brokaw, and to Kasie Hunt, who talked about how the Republicans know they have to "govern," but this election couldn't have been less of a repudiation of the Tea Party. As the cable shows signed off last night, it was dawning even on the most conventional pundits that the Republicans had not elected an escadrille of Republican archangels to descend upon Capitol Hill. It was more like a murder of angry crows. .....Several of these people -- most notably, Sasse and Ernst -- won Republican primaries specifically as Tea Partiers, defeating establishment candidates. The Republicans did not defeat the Tea Party. The Tea Party's ideas animated what happened on Tuesday night. What the Republicans managed to do was to teach the Tea Party to wear shoes, mind its language, and use the proper knife while amputating the social safety net. They did nothing except send the Tea Party to finishing school.

The really depressing thing is that it's not clear how any of this will change in 2016.  And it is also clear that the Dems seem out of ideas, unable to compelling speak a compelling vision.  And Hilary sure as heck doesn't have one--because a vision requires a debate and discussion, not a coronation of someone representing the Corporate Wing of the Democratic party.

It's going to be a long few years.

Why am I not surprised? First attempt to use Hobby Lobby against gays

From the Atlantic,

This week, in the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court ruled that a religious employer could not be required to provide employees with certain types of contraception. That decision is beginning to reverberate: A group of faith leaders is urging the Obama administration to include a religious exemption in a forthcoming LGBT anti-discrimination action. 

Their call, in a letter sent to the White House Tuesday, attempts to capitalize on the Supreme Court case by arguing that it shows the administration must show more deference to the prerogatives of religion. 

"We are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need," the letter states.

Because nothing speaks to the love of God like refusing to hire a homo.

The President on ENDA

From the Huffington Post, an OpEd by POTUS:

Here in the United States, we're united by a fundamental principle: we're all created equal and every single American deserves to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. We believe that no matter who you are, if you work hard and play by the rules, you deserve the chance to follow your dreams and pursue your happiness. That's America's promise. 

That's why, for instance, Americans can't be fired from their jobs just because of the color of their skin or for being Christian or Jewish or a woman or an individual with a disability. 

That kind of discrimination has no place in our nation. And yet, right now, in 2013, in many states a person can be fired simply for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.
As a result, millions of LGBT Americans go to work every day fearing that, without any warning, they could lose their jobs -- not because of anything they've done, but simply because of who they are. 

It's offensive. It's wrong. And it needs to stop, because in the United States of America, who you are and who you love should never be a fireable offense. 

That's why Congress needs to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, also known as ENDA, which would provide strong federal protections against discrimination, making it explicitly illegal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This bill has strong bipartisan support and the support of a vast majority of Americans. It ought to be the law of the land.

Who should give the inaugural benediction?

By now I'm sure you've heard that the evangelical pastor, the Rev. Louie Giglio, chosen to given the benediction at Pres. Obama's inaugural has stepped aside, after it became apparent that he preached virulently anti-gay dogma  in the 1990s.  Whether that was right or wrong, it was a tin-ear by the Obama Administration especially after the same thing happened last time, with anti-gay Rick Warren giving the invocation.  (Interestingly, at least one anti-gay group called on Giglio to step down lest his presence be viewed as an endorsement by Real Christians of the Evil Obama Administration.  Giglio couldn't win.)

Now, Think Progress has suggested five people of faith whom it thinks would be able substitutes

1. Bishop Minerva G. Carcaño – A bishop in the United Methodist Church,....

2. Rev. Otis Moss III – Pastor of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ,... 

3. Very Reverend Gary R. Hall – Rev. Hall, an Episcopal priest and dean of the National Cathedral in Washington, DC.... 

4. Brian McLaren – ....A pastor, author, and speaker within the emerging church movement... 

5. Someone who isn’t Christian – ....Possible candidates could include Rabbi Denise Eger, Muslims such as interfaith activist Eboo Patel, or any number of representatives from the Sikh community, just to name a few.....

Go to TP to read more about them.

Who do you think should speak?

A religious view of Obama's "evolution" on marriage equality

From Religion Dispatches:

President Obama’s historic statement on same-sex marriage was 122 words long, and “God” was not one of them. Nevertheless, it was an important religious statement that merits our attention—not just because it’s a slap in the face to the so-called Christian Right (neither Christian nor Right, as some of my progressive Christian friends like to say) but because of its own positive values.... 

But it is also a principled stand for a different variety of religious values. Rick Santorum believes that you have to choose between God and gay, between sexuality and religion. And although I’ve gotten in some trouble for saying so, I’ll repeat my view that Dan Savage did as well.... Savage’s view is fine as a personal religious ideology, but coming in a public statement from Gay Activist #1, it tells traditional religious people that there’s no space for them in an LGBT-inclusive world. Once again, it’s God vs. Gay, at least as that God is understood by traditionalists. 

Obama’s thoughtful statement sends a different message. It says that values like introspection, compassion, and justice support, rather than oppose, equality for LGBT people. We can interpret Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians ten ways from Sunday. But what we can’t ignore are the calls to justice and compassion. 

What, according to the statement, led Obama to this position? The right kind of thinking. Over time, he said, he has come to understand the truth of same-sex couples: that they are as capable of commitment, love, and sanctity as opposite-sex ones; and that it is an injustice to deny the benefits of marriage to gay people. Those are religious values, expressed in a personal way.... 

Is that not the same reasoning that applies in all anti-oppression work, whether regarding sexual minorities, gender minorities, racial minorities, or issues of class, immigration, and economic justice? 

Only 122 words, but we could teach this statement in Sunday school as an example of how we grow as human beings by opening ourselves to the truth of other people’s experiences, by opening our hearts, by revising our opinions. Usually it’s religion that tries to speak to politicians. But today, we saw the reverse.

Obama a staunch defender of religious freedom

In their race to make this election a referendum on religiosity, the Republican presidential candidates frequently decry President Obama as a threat to "religious freedom". However, his administration has actually been incredibly deferential to religion.

Obama may be accused of ignoring the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which forbids government support of religion. But if so, it's because he has given too much deference to religious freedom rather than too little.... In doing all this, the administration isn't simply doing the politically appealing thing. Anything but. Those who endorse letting faith-based groups have a free hand in hiring are mostly religious conservatives who wouldn't vote for Obama if he resurrected the dead.

The congregations victimized by zoning regulations are too small to matter. Prison inmates generally can't vote. There is no detectable political gain in anything Obama is doing here. ...

The president's detractors may continue to portray him as a secular fanatic with, as Rick Santorum claims, an "overt hostility to faith in America." Before they do, though, they might want to remember the Ten Commandments -- especially the one about bearing false witness.

Read the whole thing for descriptions of individual cases.

What the complaint is from the conservatives is that Obama is not favoring a right wing Christian worldview over everyone else's. Isn't it odd that in the USA, a country founded on notions of religious freedom and separation of church and state, that the 2012 election is setting up to be a battle between two wings of Christianity?

Actually I find it rather horrifying. I'm perfectly happy to live and let live with folks of every stripe of faith as long as the public square is open to all. Butut I am very concerned that a pluralistic and tolerant society is being highjacked on the road to theocracy.

Update In another distinctly "non-Christian" fit of mendacity, the Republican side is mis-stating the charitable giving of Obama relative to the Republican candidates. Turns out that the Obamas and the Romneys are both very generous, in terms of the percentage of their giving. Those good Catholics, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum-- not so much.

Thank you, Mr President

Yesterday, something amazing happened.

The Secretary of State gave a long, powerful speech supporting the rights of gay people around the world.

From the LA TImes:

In a speech to mark Human Rights Day, which is celebrated Saturday, Clinton declared that protecting the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is "now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time" and compared it to the battles for women's rights, racial equality and religious freedom.

(Video and transcript here). Along with this, the Obama Administration has released a memo detailing its efforts.

Now, as you know I'm an advocate for marriage equality.

But this, like many of our issues here in the US are "luxury" issues.  Gay people in many parts of the world don't have the luxury of marriage, or serving in the military. They are lacking even fundamental rights like life and liberty.  Gay people in many places, particularly but not exclusively Africa,  are at risk of violence, imprisonment, and even death simply for being who they are.

There are people here who advocate the same thing. They pop up in the comment threads of articles on line, they write hateful things on the pages of NOM's facebook, they buy NOM"s lies.  But they aren't the majority.  So they export their hate, and fan the flames in Uganda and Nigeria.

But now, the US is saying with the weight of officialdom, "Being gay is NOT a crime." Well done.

Update:  Rick Perry, presidential wanna-be, complains:  "Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money."

Andrew Sullivan fires back: "Not getting murdered is NOT a special right."

The politics of destruction

Andrew Sullivan:

To me, from the zero GOP votes for the first stimulus, the last three years have been an exercize in calculated, cynical, partisan destruction. The Republicans greeted a Democratic president eager to reach to conservatives as a Jihadist Marxist they would try to destroy at all costs. They've stuck with the message through thick and thin.

Right now, the obvious strategy for emerging from the economic soup is short-term stimulus combined with a Grand Bargain on spending and taxes for long-term fiscal retrenchment. But this would improve the economy in the next year and so hurt Republican chances to regain the White House and Senate. Hence its evaporation. It is far more important for the GOP that Obama lose his job than that more Americans should save theirs' - even if it means voting against proposals they have endorsed in the past.

For a decade, the Grand Bargain concept was taken seriously by both sides. Then after Obama's election, the GOP decided to go for broke on keeping revenues deeply depressed, while offering politically impossible proposals to end Medicare as an entitlement or abolish social security. And short term, it worked.

Long term, once voters really assess the choice next year? I'm not so sure.

I'm less hopeful than Sullivan.  It's not clear to me that, should Obama win a second term, anything will change.

Quote of the Day

Brilliant article in the NY TImes summarizes our disappointment in Obama. He is not the man we hoped he was.

But the arc of history does not bend toward justice through capitulation cast as compromise. It does not bend when 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans. It does not bend when the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically. It does not bend when we cut the fixed incomes of our parents and grandparents so hedge fund managers can keep their 15 percent tax rates. It does not bend when only one side in negotiations between workers and their bosses is allowed representation. And it does not bend when, as political scientists have shown, it is not public opinion but the opinions of the wealthy that predict the votes of the Senate. The arc of history can bend only so far before it breaks.

What they really think

Mike Huckabee, darling of the evangelical right, went on a cruise to Alaska with a bunch of supporters. And for the people who support him… well, I can't comment better than just letting you read this quote:

Maggie Benedict and Jinx Drda from suburban St Louis were also greatly disappointed to hear Huckabee had bowed out of the presidential race. They’ve always voted but it wasn’t until Obama’s victory that they became more active in politics.

“It’s the first time I’ve felt the president wasn’t a true American,” Maggie says. “And that he wants to become a dictator. We didn’t like seeing him get elected because of his race.”

The mind, it boggles.

WWJD? Picture from Prior Aelred

Obama: It Gets Better video

Okay. Thank you Mr President.

Obama sees gay rights in conflict with his faith

President Obama sat down with the Catholic Press over the fourth of July. Let's listen in to what he said (from US News):

For the gay and lesbian community in this country, I think it's clear that they feel victimized in fairly powerful ways and they're often hurt by not just certain teachings of the Catholic Church, but the Christian faith generally. And as a Christian, I'm constantly wrestling with my faith and my solicitude and regard and concern for gays and lesbians.

The US News reporter thinks this will "effortlessly" appeal to social liberals because he's "struggling" to reconcile faith and equality. I don't think so. Uh, Mr President? Lots of Christians support gay rights from a place of faith. We've talked about that just on the marriage issue here, here, here and here. There are even (Gasp!) gay Christians. So you don't have to place your faith in opposition to our rights. They go hand in hand.

Obama argues for DOMA

Americablog is reporting on the DOMA case coming before the Federal Court. The lawyers for Obama are using all the old arguments. According to Americablog:

We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It's pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush's top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn't just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn't motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn't be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn't discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can't).

He actually argued that the courts shouldn't consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.

And before Obama claims he didn't have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we'll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was "abhorrent." Folks, Obama's lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He's taking us down for his own benefit.

Here is the case.

Bishop Robinson: "Patience is wearing thin"

From a new interview with Bishop Robinson:

On marriage in New Hampshire:

JS: I know that Gov. John Lynch had said that he personally believes that marriage is between a man and woman, but this is a compromise that he felt was suitable and that would represent where public opinion is and where lawmakers are on this issue. Do you sense that your colleagues across various faiths are supportive of the changes that were implemented?

GR: The fact of the matter is that the changes that the governor proposed did not put anything into place that was not already guaranteed under the law. .... But in fact what he was demanding was a statement and a restatement and indeed an overstatement of what was already true so as to assure religious people who oppose this that they would not have to participate in ways that violated their consciences.

On Obama:

JS: Let me ask you about Pres. Obama. There's much consternation bubbling up in the gay community that he's not visible on issues of interest to the community. Many say, for example, they'd like him to do more in trying to retract the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy. And yet he's been awfully quiet since taking office on this and other issues. Do you feel like he's losing some goodwill among gays and lesbians?

GR: I think that a number of us are beginning to be impatient with him. The argument that he's got other things on his plate really doesn't hold water since he has certainly demonstrated an ability to multitask and to tackle very, very important issues at the same time..... I still believe that he is going to move forward on [DADT] and on the Defense of Marriage Act and so on, but I do think patience is wearing thin, and I think it's time for him to begin to give this some of his time and energy.

Pic from Gene Robinson's blog

GLBT Episcopalians: Standing in a crucified place since 2006

It just cries for a logo, don't you think?

The revelation that yet another committee is "studying the issue" (this one so secretly, no one knows who is on it), with a report destined for, oh, 2011 or so, shouldn't be surprise. In fact it very much mirrors what's going on politically in the US.

President Obama was elected promising to be a "fierce advocate" for the GLBT community. However, there has been no movement on the issues of most concern: First, repealing DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell), which is particularly high profile given the case of linguist Lt Dan Choi and pilot Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, both separated from the military for being gay. While this will have to be repealed by Congress, there are executive options available to stop the loss of these men, which the White House hasn't taken. But they have proposed a new study. Sound familiar?

Then, there's repealing DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), which is becoming particularly of concern given the rapid pace of marriage equality victories in the country. Six states now allow same sex marriages, and from the White House..... not a crumb, not a peep. Are those crickets I hear?

So the Double Secret Probation Bishop's Committee doesn't come as a surprise. I don't know what they are trying to delay, and in fact, the delay is a pastoral failure. After all, in 6 states faithful Episcopalians can get married by the state--but nothing from their church. One of our new Episcopal friends explained that he did not marry his long-time partner during the Interregnum in California specifically because of this. "I want a real marriage, in the church", he said. "We'll wait for that." At some level, just as I view Domestic Partnerships as "marriage lite", he views civil marriage as "marriage lite". More power to him. I hope he gets his wish (and I hope we are invited to the wedding.) It would help if the Star Chamber got a move on so TEC is not late to the equality party.

The President speaks

President Obama spoke today at Notre Dame:

Unfortunately, finding that common ground — recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a "single garment of destiny" — is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man — our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice.......

The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

.....the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the golden rule — the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this earth.

Photo from the LA Times

Presidential Advisory Committee on Faith

The news reports:

The Obama administration is set to announce a diverse set of advisers to a revamped White House office that will steer government money to religious and neighborhood groups doing social service work. They include a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, a Jewish rabbi active in Washington and a pioneering female African-American bishop.
......
[A] religious leader with knowledge of the advisory group said representation from the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community is also anticipated.

"Certainly, they'll be encouraged to voice their individual voices," the leader said.

Right....I'm SO encouraged. Just what representation do they expect? Our only experience so far is that we can voice our opinions but no one listens.

By far, the most sensitive issue surrounding the initiative is Obama's campaign pledge to allow religious institutions taking part in the program to hire and fire based on religion only in the non-taxpayer funded portions of their activities.

Where there are state or local laws prohibiting hiring choices based on sexual orientation in the federally funded portion of the programs, Obama has said he would support those being applied......

The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, said he and other religious leaders have conveyed their concerns about the hiring issue in conference calls with the transition team and the Obama White House. One concern is that churches or other faith groups would be required to change their bylaws or hiring practices to qualify for the grants.

Have you noticed that that's always their canard? It's not true, of course, no one is telling them they have to change their church-y laws. Just for the part that gets public money. Because guess what, church-y dude, GAY PEOPLE PAY TAXES TOO, and it's WRONG for you to steal my money and use it against me.

"I believe it's not practical and it's not going to happen — and the president knows the backlash from the faith community would be egregious," Rodriguez said. "To push the envelope on that, to say, for example, 'You're going to have to hire gays and lesbians' ... that would be unprecedented."

Was that said anywhere? That there's a GLBT quota?

Now I have plenty of problems with "faith based" as it by its nature excludes those without faith. Make a community-works council that includes the religious, sure, but giving the religious their OWN council bothers me.

Of course, I am one lonely voice and no one cares. So, let's consider it as a legit committee, and ask, who's gonna run it?

President Obama plans to name Joshua DuBois, a 26-year-old Pentecostal pastor and political strategist who handled religious outreach for the Obama campaign, to direct a revamped office of faith-based initiatives, according to religious leaders who have been informed about the choice.

This guy has no real world executive experience, so put him in a federal office? Right....

As one blogger wrote,

/Newsweek columnist Sally Quinn says that DuBois was the person who first floated Rick Warren’s name as a possible inaugural speaker; DuBois, who was in charge of faith-based outreach for the Obama campaign, also put together the program that featured Donnie McClurkin, an “ex-gay” gospel singer who has said that “homosexuality is a curse.”

DuBois is young. I don’t think he did these things to send a message to gays and lesbians - I think he did those things because he doesn’t figure us in at all.

Yes, I think we've gotten that message. Loud and Clear.

Ask not what your country can do for you....

Well, since President Obama got started, he has signed executive orders to close Gitmo, established new ethics rules, given a major foreign policy speech at the State Dept, phoned numerous foreign leaders, met with the national security team, worked to block those last minute Bush exec orders, and....oh yeah. At some point in the last few weeks, he recorded a commercial for USA volunteer.org asking for service which is now being broadcast. Check it out.