Judicial tyranny and civil rights: who said this?

What conservative, speaking today about equal rights for LGBT people, do you think said this?

"Ministers, lawyers, teachers, newspapers, and every private citizen must guard his speech and watch his actions to avoid the deliberately imposed booby traps put into this bill. It is designed to make Federal crimes of our customs, beliefs, and traditions. Therefore, under the fantastic powers of the Federal judiciary to punish for contempt of court and under their fantastic powers to regulate our most intimate aspects of our lives by injunction, every american citizen is in jeopardy and must stand guard against these despots…. 

A left-wing monster has risen up in this nation. It has invaded the government. It has invaded the news media. It has invaded the leadership of many of our churches. It has invaded every phase and aspect of the life of freedom-loving people. 

It consists of many and various and powerful interests, but it has combined into one massive drive and is held together by the cohesive power of the emotion, setting forth civil rights as supreme to all. 

But, in reality, it is a drive to destroy the rights of private property, to destroy the freedom and liberty of you and me…. 

We must destroy the power to dictate, to forbid, to require, to demand, to distribute, to edict, and to judge what is best and enforce that will of judgment upon free citizens.
We must revitalize a government founded in this nation on faith in god.

Not today, and not about LGBT rights.  These words were spoken by George Wallace.  Yet they seem perfectly in the zeitgeist of the hysterical anti-gays of the Tea Party and fundamentalist Evangelicals, don't they?




http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1951-/speech-by-george-c-wallace-the-civil-rights-movement-fraud-sham-and-hoax-1964-.php

"My sister is...."

I've been slow at posting because of work and the problems of our new house (and boy does it have problems). We had a significant leak in the bathroom and the Drying Contractors brought in blowers and dehumidifiers and filter units, they ripped out much of the tile in the shower, and we lived inside what felt like a turbojet for several days.  (Now we are living without a master bathroom till the renovation contractors can put it back together... we know we are lucky to have #firstworldproblems but it's still frustrating!)

The workman who came to remove the fans etc. is a big burly man with a beard.  I had to sign some paperwork that BP had filled out originally.  I told Big Guy that I had to add my name to the form because my wife had signed it before.

Every time I say the word "wife" to a new person, there's a little hesitation.  Stereotypically, one might expect Big Guy might not be friendly. Stereotypically, one might worry that a blue-collar white dude might be pretty uncomfortable with Teh Gay. But one would be wrong.

"Oh," he said in a cheerful, conversational tone, "when did you get married?"

"Right before Prop 8," I said.

"So did my sister!"  he said.  "She and her partner have been together over 20 years!"

Over and over again BP and I have found that people (upon hearing us use "wife"), will put forth their credentials of friendliness by citing their sibling/cousin/best friend who is gay.  I've had students tell me about their older brother, as a way of saying "see, I'm friendly too!"  BP had a conversation with our mortgage officer who asked her to explain how  DOMA affects us.

Average straight people, from a diversity of backgrounds and age and education and experience,  take pains to explain that they are on our side, using the proxy of "my sister".

They don't see us as a threat.  They see us as their families, friends, and co-workers, whom they love.

And that is why we will win.

British Evangelical comes out in support of gay couples

Over in the UK, the argument over marriage equality is quite hot. Over 1000 Roman Catholic priests have protested against the Government's plan to allow marriage equality. So it was a surprise this week when a well-known Evangelical minister, the Rev. Steve Chalke, explained that he now supports recognition of gay couples, within the church  (my emphases):

...I'm worried that the noise of the arguments around gay marriage will cloud and confuse the real question for the Church, which is about the nature of inclusion. I am convinced that it is only as the Christian community grapples with this that we will find wise answers, not only regarding gay marriage, but also to related questions around the Church's wider attitude to gay people. ... 

Some will think that I have strayed from scripture - that I am no longer an evangelical. I have formed my view, however, not out of any disregard for the Bible's authority, but by way of grappling with it and, through prayerful reflection, seeking to take it seriously. ...

One tragic outworking of the Church's historical rejection of faithful gay relationships is our failure to provide homosexual people with any model of how to cope with their sexuality, except for those who have the gift of, or capacity for, celibacy. In this way we have left people vulnerable and isolated. When we refuse to make room for gay people to live in loving, stable relationships, we consign them to lives of loneness, secrecy and fear. It's one thing to be critical of a promiscuous lifestyle - but shouldn't the Church consider nurturing positive models for permanent and monogamous homosexual relationships? 

....

In fact, a growing number of evangelical scholars argue that what the New Testament writers refer to as homosexual practice could not have been the stable same-sex unions of the sort that exist today, of which they knew nothing, but promiscuity associated with wild occultic orgies....

Here is my question. Shouldn't we take the same principle that we readily apply to the role of women, slavery, and numerous other issues, and apply it our understanding of permanent, faithful, homosexual relationships? Wouldn't it be inconsistent not to?...

A Pastoral Plea
Why am I so passionate about this issue? Because people's lives are at stake. Numerous studies show that suicide rates among gay people, especially young people, are comparatively high. Church leaders sometimes use this data to argue that homosexuality is unhealthy when tragically it's anti-gay stigma, propped up by Church attitudes, which, all too often, drives these statistics. 

I believe that when we treat homosexual people as pariahs and push them outside our communities and churches; when we blame them for what they are; when we deny them our blessing on their commitment to lifelong, faithful relationships, we make them doubt whether they are children of God, made in his image. ...

Rather than condemn and exclude, can we dare to create an environment for homosexual people where issues of self-esteem and wellbeing can be talked about; where the virtues of loyalty, respect, interdependence and faithfulness can be nurtured, and where exclusive and permanent same-sex relationships can be supported? 

Tolerance is not the same as Christ-like love. Christ-like love calls us to go beyond tolerance to want for the other the same respect, freedom, and equality one wants for oneself. We should find ways to formally support and encourage those who are in, or wish to enter into, faithful same-sex partnerships, as well as in their wider role as members of Christ's body. 

I end where I started; in the coming months there will be huge and often heated debate around gay marriage. I am committed to listening and trying to understand the intricacies of the arguments on both sides. But, whatever the outcome and whichever side of the debate we find ourselves on, my hope is that as Christians we face what I think is the central issue - what does real, Christ-like, inclusion look like?

Predictably, there is an outraged backlash, but Chalke may be in the vanguard of a new movement in Evangelical circles, joining people like Brian McLaren and Jay Bakker, who recognize that gay couples should be called to the same standards of fidelity and commitment of straight couples.

 One hopes that the dam is breaking...

Hero of the Day: Phil Snider

The Rev. Dr Phil Snider is a writer and senior minister of a church in Springfield IL and gave this speech about a non-discrimination policy at city council.

Sadly, they didn't take action.

Over on his blog, he follows up

A lot of people ask, “How can a pastor who values the Bible take this kind of stance?” Truth be told, there are a bunch of pastors and people of faith across the country who are open and affirming — not in spite of their faith, but precisely because of it.....

I also want you to know that there are several churches around the US with a similar ethos. We may not be big churches or fancy churches, but we are there. We may listen to Stephen Colbert more than the pope, but we are there. We may not have a Starbucks in our building (we may not even have a building!), but we are there. So I encourage you to check out some of the communities of faith in your area — perhaps those that are part of the United Church of Christ (which is not the same thing as the Church of Christ), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), The Disciples of Christ, or perhaps the Episcopalian Church. While none are perfect by any stretch of the imagination (some of the churches aren’t very big, and often there aren’t very many young people), these denominations ordain openly gay clergy and tend to work toward equality for all people. As the United Church of Christ likes to say, “Our faith is 2,000 years old. Our thinking is not.” If you live in a particular area and want a suggestion on churches to perhaps visit, please feel free to send me a message, I’d be glad to help as I can.

On "evolution"

Being gay is being civically "other", always on the outside, looking in.  As blogger Barry Yeoman writes,

I attend a friend's heterosexual wedding; talk at a party with someone who volunteers with his son's Boy Scout troop; or receive an invitation to donate blood during a drive—and find myself viewing all those experiences as outside to my own. Then I generalize to other things, because it has become a habit. This is your world. It is not mine. 

This sense that many of these basic rituals are available to others but not to me can't help but alter my relationship to civitas. Self-identifying as American is predicated on some elemental expectations: I can bind my financial life to another's. I can volunteer my time to help foster our community's youth. I can volunteer my healthy blood to save a life. Take away these basic assumptions, and patriotism means very little. Funny, but I don't get angry when I think of this, or even sad. It just is. 

Multiply me by a few million, and think about how much civic energy is squandered as a result.

But yesterday, that changed.  Yesterday, the president said, yes, he supports marriage equality, and he does so because he's a Christian.  Andrew Sullivan describes it as "letting go of fear".   More than one has compared it to Harry Truman in 1948, an election year, who signed an unpopular order to integrate the military over the opposition of (you guessed it) the South.

I phoned the white house to say thanks and found myself tearing up.  E. J. Graff sums up my feelings pretty well. 

There's something very deep about having your government declare you a stranger to its laws, defining your love as outside all respectable recognition. For my president to stand up and say that I should belong fully to my nation, that my wife and I should be considered as fully married as my brother and his wife—well, it reopens and washes out some very deeply incised sense of exclusion...

Of course the battle is not yet won.  But Chris Geidner at Metroweekly argues that this is all of a piece with other recent moves by the Administration, part of that arc towards justice.  Nate Silver, uber meta-pollster, finds more support than opposition.  Rob Tisinai doesn't care about the calculated politics of it.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. It’s happened Obama can claim another civil rights first. He hasn’t just broken the color barrier — he’s opened the yellow brick road. He’s giving back, repaying the fighters and activists of previous generations who made his own election possible, so that now, somewhere, in a tiny little no-name corner of the nation, a bright and talented gay kid has suddenly realized: I can be president.

And as  Jonathan Rauch said,

The courts, as Obama, the former law professor, must be well aware, will take notice. Two big gay-rights cases--one challenging California's revocation of gay marriage, the other challenging the Defense of Marriage Act--are on their way toward the Supreme Court. With his switch from ambivalence to advocacy, Obama is sending a signal to the courts that the country is ready for gay marriage, giving them more cover to uphold it. Courts may not go by poll results, but they do like to stay within the mainstream. And Obama has just moved it.

Justice Kennedy, are you listening? 

One town's war on gay teens

Rolling Stone has a searing article about the rate of suicides in the Anoka-Hennepin School District in Minnesota (Michelle Bachman's district). It is a must read, as it shows how a culture grew up in which teachers were not allowed to make any positive references to gay people, and literally looked the other way as gay kids were bullied mercilessly. At the same time, the local right wingers explained the spate of gay suicides as having nothing to do with bullying, and entirely reflecting the "unhealthiness" of being gay.

 This is an utter failure of institutions that should put a child's welfare first. It's a shameful example of the bigotry, ignorance and hatred against which we must continue to fight--and a shameful example of how so-called "Christians" can be anything but.  Here's a selection (my emphases) but you should definitely read the whole thing 

 Yet while everyone in the district was buzzing about the neutrality policy, the board simply refused to discuss it, not even when students began appearing before them to detail their experiences with LGBT harassment. "The board stated quite clearly that they were standing behind that policy and were not willing to take another look," recalls board member Wenzel. Further insulating itself from reality, the district launched an investigation into the suicides and unsurprisingly, absolved itself of any responsibility. "Based on all the information we've been able to gather," read a statement from the superintendent's office, "none of the suicides were connected to incidents of bullying or harassment."  

 Just to be on the safe side, however, the district held PowerPoint presentations in a handful of schools to train teachers how to defend gay students from harassment while also remaining neutral on homosexuality. One slide instructed teachers that if they hear gay slurs – say, the word "fag" – the best response is a tepid "That language is unacceptable in this school." ("If a more authoritative response is needed," the slide added, the teacher could continue with the stilted, almost apologetic explanation, "In this school we are required to welcome all people and to make them feel safe.") But teachers were, of course, reminded to never show "personal support for GLBT people" in the classroom.

The "ick" factor and conservative politics

These days, thinking about conservative politics gives me a strong sense of disgust. But it turns out that our sense of revulsion at disturbing images is linked to our political viewpoints quite viscerally. From LIveScience:

Most people would likely avert their eyes when passing by a man with a mouth full of writhing worms, or, say, the sight of a pile of excrement. But some are more disgusted than others, and new research suggests those individuals who respond with a more intense "yuck" are more likely to hold conservative political views and specifically are more likely to oppose same-sex marriage.

Now, we knew some of this already. But a new study looks even more closely.

For the study, Smith, UNL political scientist John Hibbing and their colleagues selected 50 individuals from a random sample ...As the participants looked at a series of 38 images that ranged from pleasant to unpleasant, their skin conductance was measured, which is a gauge of the level of activation of the sympathetic nervous system, the part of the nervous system that activates the automatic "fight or flight" response in surprising situations....

The participants also answered questions to gauge their political views. The results showed, as predicted, that those who indicated conservative political views responded to the icky pictures with much more intense disgust than did liberals....

Scientists think some level of disgust sensitivity is "normal," and helps us along with our human ancestors avoid disease. "The role of disgust in the avoidance of disease, one of the primary sources of mortality over the centuries, makes it essential to survival," the researchers write this month in the online journal PLoS ONE.

But what does this disease-avoidance system have to do with political views?

"I think that one plausible explanation is sort of along the lines that one way to understand some of these attitudes about politics and morality is that they have a strong emotional component," Pizarro told LiveScience in a telephone interview. Different emotions are linked with different kinds of judgments and behavior, he added. For instance, fear is linked to vigilance and preparedness, he said, while disgust is linked to steering clear of any sort of contamination, "foreign looking" things, or possibly even strange people.

As such, people who are more easily disgusted may be more likely to take on political views that help them avoid these "disgusting" situations.

"Sex, with its exchange of bodily fluids and all that can be viewed as disgusting," Hibbing told LiveScience in an email. "And this appears to be particularly true for homosexual sex [and] in fact this response is often described as the 'ick' factor. So the long-standing hypothesis that variations in disgust would be correlated with policy stances related to sexuality and homosexuality seems to follow naturally from this."

This doesn't explain why conservatives who are opposed to LGBT equality are so often obsessed with the "mechanics" of gay sex. I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the graphic descriptions of certain sexual acts that conservatives seem to relish describing.

Still, what it suggests is that conservativism and anti-gay attitudes are to some extent biological. Well, to some extent EVERYTHING is biological. But what distinguishes us from the beasts is that we have an intellect that can overcome the raw biological instincts with reason.

Although, it would appear that some conservatives are more limited in that department.

Catholics on the campaign against equality

Over and over again, polls tell us that Roman Catholic laity--that is, the people in the pews-- are amongst the most supportive groups when it comes to marriage equality.  But the Roman Catholic hierarchy, that is, the Bishops and up, are amongst the most intense opponents, funneling millions into the anti-marriage campaigns.

Why, in Minnesota, the Archbishop actually suggested that parents reject their children rather than the church.  Yeah, how's that workin' for ya?

And NOM, the most active, yet secretive opponent to equality, is run by conservative Catholics as a front group for Catholic money.

The laity have practiced a sort of don't-ask-don't-tell, managing to ignore this, but stories of denying funerals to parishioners who are gay don't sit well with anyone.

As this excellent piece in ReligionDispatches points out, it's as though being gay is a unique sin.

In their zeal to deny any form of legitimacy to same-sex relationships, the bishops have neglected more urgent pastoral duties. Catholic schools and parishes are closing by the dozen in dioceses across the country, yet somehow the hierarchy and its allies in the Knights of Columbus have found millions of dollars to spend in one state after another opposing marriage equality, or its weaker cousin, the civil union.

Many Catholics, though, still believe in their church as an agent of social justice.

...The Church’s teachings on social justice compelled us to act as advocates for fairness, justice, and individual dignity, that its teachings on politics instructed us to vote for the common good, and that in making moral decisions, we were to follow the promptings of our own well-formed consciences

There are times, it seems, when our hierarchy is so committed to cultivating political power, and deploying our Church’s resources in contemporary culture wars, that they expect us to forget all of this. We won’t..

And then, of course, there's the hypocrisy, such as expelling children of gay parents from Catholic schools.

The archbishop argued that parents must be able to cooperate with Catholic schools in the education of their children, and that those who do not embrace Church doctrine cannot do so.

This was not an argument he employed against Protestants, or non-Christians, or children whose parents had remarried after a divorce. It was employed exclusively against lesbian parents. Because in the theological universe that our bishops are constructing to support their personal biases, there is sin, and then there is gay sin, and gay sin is so much worse.

Remember, BP used to be Roman Catholic--until the day she visited an unfamiliar church prior to Prop8, and a priest spat bile and hatred over homosexuals in a vile screeching sermon. Her many, many supportive RC friends urged her to stay with her regular congregation, to practice Don't Ask Don't Tell with the priest. But how can you have a healthy spiritual life if you can't be honest? So BP is now Episcopalian, where she is welcomed as a total person and our marriage is, literally, blessed.

So while it's great that these individual Roman Catholics at Religion Dispatches are calling out the bishops, there's a problem. The Roman Catholic church is not a democracy. The institution is still actively harming gay people, and pouring money into anti-equality efforts. And while individual RC don't agree and don't support that, what are they doing--what can they do-- to stop the abuse?

Children will listen: the NY gubernatorial candidate, and another youth suicide

A story from New York, and one from Oklahoma.

Carl Paladino, gubernatorial candidate in New York (tea-party Republican), doesn't much like gay people:

Paladino[,] told a gathering in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Sunday that children should not be “brainwashed” into thinking that homosexuality was acceptable, and criticized his opponent, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, for marching in a gay pride parade earlier this year.

Addressing Orthodox Jewish leaders, Mr. Paladino described his opposition to same-sex marriage.

“I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t,” he said, reading from a prepared address, according to a video of the event......Newsday.com reported that Mr. Paladino’s prepared text had included the sentence: “There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual.” But Mr. Paladino omitted the sentence in his speech.

He's a good Catholic. With an illegitimate child. Well, i guess since Sarah Palin, illegitimate children in stalwart Republican families are nothing to be ashamed of. (Call me old-fashioned in my "family values", but I don't believe in bearing children outside of legal commitments. )

The Times goes on,

Brian Ellner, head of the marriage initiative for the gay advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, said that the Republican’s remarks were insensitive given a recent swirl of news about suicide in the gay community and antigay violence.

The New York City Police Department announced on Friday that nine men in the Bronx had lured three men they believed were gay and then tortured them. Last month, a student at Rutgers University jumped off the George Washington Bridge after two classmates broadcast his sexual encounter with a man over the Internet.

Mr Paladino of course claims he has no animus to GLBT people, even while they are being tortured and bullied to death.

Meanwhile, in Norman, Oklahoma, 19 year old Zach Harrington sat in the audience listening to a city council meeting where the locals weighed in about whether the city should acknowledge LGBT History month. A week later, he killed himself, and his family see a clear line linking the two events.

Support for and opposition to the proclamation were fairly even and the public comment portion of the agenda item lasted for three hours — the entire time allotted.

...One man said he moved to Norman because he thought it was the kind of place that would never accept the GLBT community with open arms....Some of those who opposed the proclamation claimed that members of the GLBT community would use it to infiltrate the public school system, essentially allowing the “gay lifestyle” to become a part of the curriculum....Numerous residents also claimed the Bible was their guiding light, citing the ancient text as their primary reason for opposing the proclamation and the GLBT community in general.

And for those in attendance, it was hard to ignore the intolerant grumblings, the exasperated sighs and cold, hard stares that followed comments from supporters of the GLBT proclamation....

Harrington’s family, who described him as a private young man who internalized his feelings and emotions, said it was this “toxic” environment at the Sept. 28 council meeting that may have pushed their gay son and brother over the edge.....

“When we talk about our feelings in a hypothetical way and we send our toxic thoughts out in a public setting that way, they will affect people in a negative way,” Nikki [Harrington, Zach's sister] said. “People need to think about the things they are saying and ask themselves, ‘Is this right?’”

Well, Mr Paladino?

Homophobes, Hypocrites, and Redemption

"If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." - Hermann Hesse

In 1996, a research team recruited a group of straight men and used a questionnaire to determine how gay-friendly they were. They divided them into two groups: homophobic, and non-homophobic. Then they showed them straight and gay porn videos, while monitoring their sexual response. Remarkably, the firecely straight, homophobic men were sexually stimulated by gay porn, while the gay-friendly men were not. Adams HE, et al, J Abnorm Psychol. 1996 Aug;105(3):440-5

Lots of writers are wondering if that study explains the spectacular crash-n-burn of fulminating anti-gay activists, preachers, and politicians: people like George "Rentboy" Rekers, Ted "Meth-n-Sex" Haggard, Larry "wide stance" Craig, and Roy "gay clubber" Ashburn. These men make careers out of attacking GLBT individuals and families while at the same time seeking gay sex. (In fact, Rekers may have found this particularly lucrative; I'll tell you about that soon, over at GMC). Ashburn at least now admits he's gay, which could put him on a path to recovery (think the former Governor of NJ, Jim McGreevey, who also came out and is now studying theology).

Writing in the Daily Beast, Michelle Goldberg says,

Rekers deserves a measure of pity as well as scorn. If he portrayed homosexuality as a life-destroying temptation that only the strictest of measures could contain, that’s because, for him, it was.

I think this is the kernal of truth in the matter. These men all have internalized homophobia. They have denied who they are, and made that denial at the root of their being. How much they must resent the healthy gay men who are open and happy, while they have deeply invested in the worst type of self-loathing closet.

Moreover, it is probably significant that these men were all engaged in the most soulless sexual encounters. That's all they know, so of course, that's what they think describes all gay relationships. The absolute bile and bigotry they spew makes some twisted sense if you realize that to them, pickups and prostitutes and anonymous sex are all there is to it. They don't experience healthy sexuality, faithfulness in relationships, or family life. Homosexuality to them really is only about furtive, hidden, and dirty sex. Of course that's counter to what any of our goals are for healthy lives. Sadly, their own secret desires lead them to attack those who disprove their own experience.

For many of us in our middle years, the dawning awareness of our sexuality came late. And for a variety of professional reasons, many of us lived in the closet for some period of time. It seemed safer in there, though absolutely suffocating. Coming out in mid-life is therefore nothing new, though it can be painful and messy. Yet the serenity that comes from the freedom to live honestly cannot be overstated. No career is worth the lies of the closet.

Let's compare the difference in two preachers. Longtime Jerry Falwell associate Mel White was an active participant in Falwell's anti-gay evangelical movement. But he acknowledged his sexuality, was cast out of Falwell's sphere, and now lives as an openly gay man. White founded the progay religious group Soulforce. Redemption, new life, happy ending.

In contrast, Rekers, who is also a Baptist minister, is still twisting in the breeze as his name is erased from all the gay-phobic right wing groups that he helped found, while bleating unconvincingly that he is not, and never has been, a homosexual. This story is pretty dark right now. Any bets on whether he'll find the light?

Recruiting the faithful

Here's a great site focused on winning over people of faith to the cause of equality: Get to know us first in faith

Through a partnership with the California Council of Churches and California Faith for Equality, we are distributing Study Guides and DVDs to over 5,000 houses of worship. Our kit provides an accessible starting point to discuss the scriptural references to homosexuality and the differences between civil and religious marriage.

The kit uses a DVD, and a 5 page handout to facilitate discussion.

You can adopt a congregation, or suggest one.

All the materials are available for viewing on their website. These resources might be useful to anyone who is starting the conversation.

Check it out!

Are gays people? Christian? American?

NO ONE should put the rights of a minority to the ballot. They will always lose. NO CIVIL RIGHTS BATTLES ARE WON AT THE BALLOT BOX. It's outrageous that we have to beg our fellow citizens for citizenship. And they aren't going to give it to us now, any more than the majority would have voted to end slavery, to give women the vote, to give African-Americans full civil rights, or to allow mixed race marriage.

We did not vote on any of those issues. Why is MY citizenship up to the ballot? Why are gay people uniquely required to be approved by a majority vote?

As quoted by Susan Russell,Harry Knox wrote,

Once again, when American voters have had an opportunity to affirm my humanity and the loving commitment I have made to my husband, a majority of those voters have made a conscious decision to deny my humanity and treat me as if my citizenship and my marriage mean nothing; all the while patting themselves on the back for their piety. The slap they intended is received. I am made to wonder – Am I human? Am I an American? Am I a Christian? Am I married?

It is clear that most voters in Maine, like majorities in other states before them, intend for me to feel less than human. People we respect as sisters and brothers in the human family, we treat as equals. Those majorities have reserved to themselves a legal right they feel specially entitled to – in spite of the fact that my husband and I face all the health, financial, familial and social challenges they do, and need the same supports they enjoy.

Once you dehumanize, it's not a long step to seeing no problem with imprisonment, or even death. Here's a sample of the hate language from the Maine Campaign: "evil", "sickness", "perversion", "unspeakable".

Let's look at a few issues in the broader world/Anglican-Episcopal flavor on these lines.

Item 1: The nation of Uganda plans to increase the criminal penalties for "homosexual behavior" up to and including the death penalty. There are also penalties for "advocacy". This "Anti-Homosexuality Bill" has been met with surprising silence. US Rep Tammy Baldwin has written Hilary Clinton asking for a response. THe US and French Embassies have decried it. But there appears to be no response from TEC or the Anglican Communion overall, outside of the blogs.

Item 2: In the almost-schismatic Dio South Carolina, which is holding its breath so as not to be contaminated by the cooties of the rest of TEC, they had a resolution as follows:

Whereas the Diocese of South Carolina recognizes we have all been created in God‟s image and are precious in his sight, and
Whereas we acknowledge we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and stand equally in need of his mercy and grace, we thankfully and humbly,
Resolve that this Diocese will not condone prejudice or deny the dignity of any person, includingbut not limited to, those who believe themselves to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. Nevertheless, we will speak the truth in love as Holy Scripture commends for the amendment of life required of disciples of Christ. It is love of neighbor and the abiding concern for their spiritual well being that compels such honesty and will never allow us to remain silent.

Despite basically being a resolution allowing them to slap around gays with the literalist bible, this nevertheless was defeated, 182-117. As commented by LIsa at My Manner of LIfe, this makes it official: the Dio South Carolina WILL condone prejudice and deny the dignity of gay people. (Of course the "believe themselves to be" is another slap in the face, but given that South Carolina is a hotbed of anti-science creationism, perhaps not surprising).

The official TEC responses to these? ::crickets::

But at least there are a few bright lights. The Episcopal Bishop of Maine has a sad statement of regret about Question 1,

Many faithful Episcopalians are deeply grieved at this decision. They had hoped that they and their families might enjoy the recognition and protections afforded heterosexual couples. The rejection of the law also feels like rejection of them as persons. I join in their grief that the right of same gender couples to enter into a lifelong, monogamous marriage has been denied. ....

The Episcopal Church in Maine will continue to offer a warm welcome to all people including those for whom the results of this referendum are disappointing. Especially in this tender time, I offer our assurances to gay and lesbian Mainers that you, your relationships, and your families have our support and blessing.

Yay, Bishop Lane. We saw in California a number of RC seeking solace from their church's institutional hatred in the Episcopal Church. Look for Mainers to do the same thing, I think, especially because their Roman Catholic Bishop of Maine was the major supporter of the anti-equality alliance (a view not necessarily shared by Maine Catholics).

The gay marriage issue is challenging Christianity's credibility just as it is challenging Constitutional credibility. Really, the challenge of radical love, just like the challenge of true American liberty, is applying those principles to those who are distinctly Other.

A new blog, a new ad ,for gay marriage

Perfect new ad. What's so scary about Frances and Cynthia?


I would also like to launch a New Blog:
Gay Married Californian

Why? Because I want to create a space for those of us who are in the limbo of being Gay Married Californians to tell our stories, and to provide a central place for the talking points and resources to support gay marriage in this state. Please stop by and say hello!

Will he or won't he do the right thing?

The NY Times reports:

Just seven weeks into office, President Obama is being forced to confront one of the most sensitive social and political issues of the day: whether the government must provide health insurance benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

In separate, strongly worded orders, two judges of the federal appeals court in California said that employees of their court were entitled to health benefits for their same-sex partners under the program that insures millions of federal workers.

But the federal Office of Personnel Management has instructed insurers not to provide the benefits ordered by the judges, citing a 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act.

As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama said he would “fight hard” for the rights of gay couples. As a senator, he sponsored legislation that would have provided health benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

Now, Mr. Obama is in a tough spot. If he supports the personnel office on denying benefits to the San Francisco court employees, he risks agitating liberal groups that helped him win election. If he supports the judges and challenges the marriage act, he risks alienating Republicans with whom he is seeking to work on economic, health care and numerous other matters.

The truth comes out in Salt Lake City (updated)

During the arguments about Prop 8, one of the big points made by the Mormons and others opposed to gay marriage was that they weren't BIGOTS, oh gracious me, no! And they didn't mind giving the homos some basic rights just as long as, you know, they weren't REDEFINING MARRIAGE. They stated explicitly that they were not opposed to legal protections for same sex couples.

So, Equality Utah took them at their word and launched the "Common ground" initiatives regarding health care, fair employment, and inheritance. Not gay marriage. Not even civil unions. Just statutory protections for same sex couples in Utah.

So, how are they doing? Not so well, reports the SLC Tribune:

Four down, one to go.

The Utah Legislature snuffed out two more gay-rights bills Tuesday.

After lengthy public hearings, House committees rejected two measures: HB288, which would have allowed same-sex couples and other unmarried pairs to adopt and foster children; and HB267, which would have protected gay and transgender Utahns from housing and employment discrimination. Two other gay-rights measures also are off the docket: One was pulled by its sponsor and the other died in committee. The final bill faces a test today.

Alas, it failed that test. As reported by a SLC Tribune blog,

Probably the most frustrating part for the bill's supporters is that HB160 obviously was dead before the House Judiciary Committee convened. Nevertheless, citizens, gay and straight, went through the motions—testifying the state needs a simple way to protect the rights of cohabiting adults in inheritance and medical decision making. The opposition, including the Eagle Forum's Gayle Ruzicka, right, complained that the bill was unnecessary and a veilded attempt to drag the state into legalizing gay marriage.

Strikingly, few committee members bothered to ask questions...Rep. Keith Grover, R-Orem, idly surfed the Web on his laptop as unmarried couples told of their fears that they would not be able to care medically, financially and emotionally for "the person who matters to me most."

As Andrew Sullivan noted on his blogpost Calling the Christianist bluff, there never was any interest in fairness. This exposes the opposition's views clearly. It is simply contempt, without even the pretense of a fair hearing about how these people's lives are affected.

Meanwhile, a hateful and hate-filled advertisement published in the SLC Tribune attacking the "Homosexual movement" and declaring "homosexuality is not a race!" It states

"To add sexual orientation to the law...would enhance the rights of a few and diminish the rights of the rest...."

"By holding hands and kissing in public.....if backed by law will force the acceptance of homosexuality as a[n equal] relationship"

"Gays should be forced not to display their conduct to our children".

"people can be gay, like people can be druggies or hookers"

.Now, I want you to think if instead of "homosexual" it said black. Or Mexicans. Or Jewish. Or, Mormon. Do you think this advertisement would have been accepted and published in a major city newspaper if it singled out any other group of Americans?

They aren't interested in co-existence. They aren't interested in tolerance. They lied about that, too. Maybe it's time to bring out the pink triangles in Utah.

(Update) Adding to the theme, in a recent interview with a Utah TV station, UT State Senator Buttars revealed that gays are"probably the greatest threat to America." Think Muslim terrorists, and yes, he went there. This is a man who takes credit for destruction of any gay rights legislation in Utah. His family values are so strong he is the former director of one of the Mormon re-education camps, known for abuse of young people and also favored as a place to beat "teh gay" out of them.