The religious right took another severe hit this week with the downfall of Rev. Ted Haggard, an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage.
On Thursday, Haggard resigned as the head of the National Association of Evangelicals, a group representing 45,000 churches with a combined total of over 30 million members after allegations that he paid for sex with a man from whom he also purchased drugs.
On Saturday, Haggard resigned at the pastor of the 14,000 member New Life Church in Colorado Springs that he founded over 20 years ago after an investigative board of the church determined he was guilty of "sexually immoral conduct."
The Advocate has an exclusive interview with Mike Jones, Haggard's accuser.
The facts in this case are not clear. Haggard has admitted to part of what Jones accused him of, and Jones failed a polygraph test during a live radio interview Friday morning.
What is clear, though, is yet another of the loudest voices on the religous right has come up short. One of the men who love pointing fingers at those they do not deem as worthy of God's love as they are has taken a hard, painful fall off the pedistal they placed themselves upon.
This is another reminder that we ALL fall short of God's will for our lives and that we only gain admittance to heaven through his grace, not through earning it by our actions. As a result, no man is in position to judge his fellow man.
Hopefully, this situation will help open some minds and hreats to that critcially important truth.
November 04, 2006
November 03, 2006
Falwell: Clergy Sex-Abuse Case a "Bump In the Road"
Excerpted from an article on EthicsDaily.com:
Jerry Falwell called high-profile allegations that a former pastor of a prominent independent Baptist church molested and raped numerous children over the course of decades a "bump in the road."
"When you hit a bump in the road--the pastor has mentioned six months here of challenges--forget the bump in the road. That's all it is. You've got to move on," Falwell said in a keynote address of a three-day meeting of the Southwide Baptist Fellowship at Trinity Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Fla.
Robert Gray, the former 30-year pastor who led the church out of the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1960s, was arrested in May. He is scheduled to stand trial Nov. 27 on two counts of capital sexual battery, because two of his accusers say he molested them when they were 6 years old.
Twenty-two people, including one man, have come forward since May to accuse Gray of abusing them. The other allegations involve children older than 12, meaning they cannot be prosecuted due to a statute of limitations.
Twenty two people accuse a church pastor of sexual battery and it's a bump in the freakin' road?!
I'm willing to bet the victims approach it a tad differently.
Of course, if your main purpose in visting a church is to keep them aligned with your political goals rather than ministering to their souls with the Holy Spirit, I suppose it's easier to look past these "bumps in the road."
In this follow-up piece, Ethics Today tells how leaders of the church covered up Gray's pattern of abuse out of fear that public knowledge would harm the effectiveness of the ministry.
If their leadership truly felt that way, I have to question how it could have possibly been effective in the first place.
Jerry Falwell called high-profile allegations that a former pastor of a prominent independent Baptist church molested and raped numerous children over the course of decades a "bump in the road."
"When you hit a bump in the road--the pastor has mentioned six months here of challenges--forget the bump in the road. That's all it is. You've got to move on," Falwell said in a keynote address of a three-day meeting of the Southwide Baptist Fellowship at Trinity Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Fla.
Robert Gray, the former 30-year pastor who led the church out of the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1960s, was arrested in May. He is scheduled to stand trial Nov. 27 on two counts of capital sexual battery, because two of his accusers say he molested them when they were 6 years old.
Twenty-two people, including one man, have come forward since May to accuse Gray of abusing them. The other allegations involve children older than 12, meaning they cannot be prosecuted due to a statute of limitations.
Twenty two people accuse a church pastor of sexual battery and it's a bump in the freakin' road?!
I'm willing to bet the victims approach it a tad differently.
Of course, if your main purpose in visting a church is to keep them aligned with your political goals rather than ministering to their souls with the Holy Spirit, I suppose it's easier to look past these "bumps in the road."
In this follow-up piece, Ethics Today tells how leaders of the church covered up Gray's pattern of abuse out of fear that public knowledge would harm the effectiveness of the ministry.
If their leadership truly felt that way, I have to question how it could have possibly been effective in the first place.
November 01, 2006
Casting the First Stone
What was it that Jesus said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone."
There's a bunch of folks in Jerusalem who aren't following that guidance, using stones and bottles as part of their rioting against an upcoming gay pride parade. Religion plays a part in this--the rioters are apparently members of an ultra Orthodox Jewish sect.
This is scheduled to be the second annual such event in Jerusalem. Last year the organizers, a group called Open House, needed a court order to proceed. The parade featured over a dozen arrests and three stabbings.
Apparently people wanted to get an early jump on the violence in an attempt to get the parade cancelled to protect national security. Already, over 70 members of Parliment have signed a petition against holding the parade.
It just goes to show yet again that regardless of the struggles GLBT Americans have, there are others worse off.
Please join me in praying for the safety of those who participate in this event and the softening of the hearts of those who are using violence to protest.
There's a bunch of folks in Jerusalem who aren't following that guidance, using stones and bottles as part of their rioting against an upcoming gay pride parade. Religion plays a part in this--the rioters are apparently members of an ultra Orthodox Jewish sect.
This is scheduled to be the second annual such event in Jerusalem. Last year the organizers, a group called Open House, needed a court order to proceed. The parade featured over a dozen arrests and three stabbings.
Apparently people wanted to get an early jump on the violence in an attempt to get the parade cancelled to protect national security. Already, over 70 members of Parliment have signed a petition against holding the parade.
It just goes to show yet again that regardless of the struggles GLBT Americans have, there are others worse off.
Please join me in praying for the safety of those who participate in this event and the softening of the hearts of those who are using violence to protest.
October 31, 2006
Equality Maryland: "Preparing for a Bruising"
Dan Furmansky, the Executive Director of Equality Maryland, the LGBT advocacy group I belong to, issued a note to members regarding next week's elections. He is bracing supporters for more short term losses as several more states are expected to pass amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, but remains optimistic for the long term:
"It may be little consolation on Nov. 8, but no matter what happens at the polls, eventually, we will win. No matter how many Americans stand against us, eventually we will win. The journey may be a long one, and we may bleed and bruise, but when it comes to basic fairness and justice, equality will always prevail."
Here is the entire note:
I wish it wasn’t necessary to write this, but it is. As an LGBT civil rights leader, I feel I must prepare our community for when voters go to the polls next week.
We were shocked and saddened when eleven states voted to change their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage in November 2004. Reading the gay press afterwards, it was as though we had no idea it was coming, and indeed, most of us hadn't prepared for it. We had hoped to win in Oregon, maybe even in Michigan...but we lost everywhere, in some cases to devastating margins.
Then, pundits and so-called progressives poured lemon juice into our wounds with their unscientific analysis that the marriage issue is what "cost us" the elections. Many LGBT Americans weren't feeling much of an "us" with John Kerry anyway, after he was the only MA member of Congress to speak out in favor of an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution, which the Legislature there thankfully rejected.
Those were dark days none of us want to relive, but we must steady ourselves once again. In a few weeks, media across the country will be reporting on all of the new states that have changed their constitutions. And we could lose in every one of the states with proposed amendments.
It might sting—badly—and right on the heels of New York and Washington high court marriage rulings against us.
I pray I’m wrong, and that instead we’ll be greeted with headlines like the one that appeared in the New York Times on October 14th: “Gay Marriage Losing Punch as Ballot Issue.” I want to see headlines announcing our victories in Wisconsin, South Dakota, Arizona, and everywhere.
But I'm here to urge us to be prepared for what we weren't last time. Most of what I read in the press these days contains hopeful pieces. A September Advocate article had the headline: "Poll: Opposition to Virginia same-sex marriage amendment grows." Several gay media outlets touted a poll from South Dakota that indicated only 48% of voters in that state support the amendment. The Blade reported two weeks ago: "fights in three other states – Arizona, South Dakota and Wisconsin – are competitive and too close to call."
Lord knows I couldn't do this work if an optimist didn't reside somewhere in this heart of mine. As someone who lived in Wisconsin for almost six years, I am hopeful that the first state to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation will be the first to reject these repulsive public gay bashings that are wrapped up in the guise of "defining" marriage.
Indeed, we could come incredibly close in a few states, which would tell us that attitudes are changing. But close or not, if we fail on a popular vote across the board, the media will point and yell "losers" faster than you can say Foley Scandal. And some in our community will cannibalize those who steadfastly fight for equal marriage rights.
If this doomsday scenario comes to pass, we'll wear dark sunglasses for a couple of days. We'll empathize with those in our community who must wonder which of their neighbors voted against their family. But we'll move on.
We'll continue to fight, just as people have done for years before us, and will do years after us. We fought for seventeen years until we overturned a Supreme Court ruling that allowed for the criminalization of consensual same-sex relations. We survived DOMA, and have gone on to see relationship recognition in MA with equal marriage rights, CT and VT with civil unions, NJ, CA, and ME with domestic partnership registries, and HI with a reciprocal beneficiary law.
We are a community of survivors. No matter how much dung the Pat Buchanans of the world hurl at us, we will wash ourselves off and continue to fight for basic dignity and respect.
After we lost the marriage cases in Washington and New York, Evan Wolfson, head of Freedom to Marry, told a crowd of Equality Maryland members that the courts sometimes take the easy way out. After all, he said...it took thirteen state supreme courts to reject the argument that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional before California's Supreme Court had the courage to strike down its ban in 1948—flying in the face of public opinion. After that brave ruling, six states changed their constitutions to “define marriage” in a way that would prevent interracial unions.
No matter what the setbacks, we must continue to view our movement as part of a broader movement for social justice. We must continue to draw inspiration and lessons from those who pioneered social change in the past and continue to welcome the partnerships of those doing this important work today in all areas of rights and freedoms.
As Dr. King said, "All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem." Our gains in Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, and other places have led to opposition and setbacks. Karl Rove and his cohorts are preying upon fear of change and "the other" to orchestrate a campaign that makes a constitutional amendment to limit rights socially acceptable and seemingly innocuous. The success of these amendments elsewhere makes our struggle here in Maryland increasingly important, especially with oral arguments to win marriage equality here scheduled before our high court for early December.
It may be little consolation on Nov. 8, but no matter what happens at the polls, eventually, we will win. No matter how many Americans stand against us, eventually we will win. The journey may be a long one, and we may bleed and bruise, but when it comes to basic fairness and justice, equality will always prevail.
"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant."
Martin Luther King Jr., Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Dec. 10, 1964
"It may be little consolation on Nov. 8, but no matter what happens at the polls, eventually, we will win. No matter how many Americans stand against us, eventually we will win. The journey may be a long one, and we may bleed and bruise, but when it comes to basic fairness and justice, equality will always prevail."
Here is the entire note:
I wish it wasn’t necessary to write this, but it is. As an LGBT civil rights leader, I feel I must prepare our community for when voters go to the polls next week.
We were shocked and saddened when eleven states voted to change their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage in November 2004. Reading the gay press afterwards, it was as though we had no idea it was coming, and indeed, most of us hadn't prepared for it. We had hoped to win in Oregon, maybe even in Michigan...but we lost everywhere, in some cases to devastating margins.
Then, pundits and so-called progressives poured lemon juice into our wounds with their unscientific analysis that the marriage issue is what "cost us" the elections. Many LGBT Americans weren't feeling much of an "us" with John Kerry anyway, after he was the only MA member of Congress to speak out in favor of an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution, which the Legislature there thankfully rejected.
Those were dark days none of us want to relive, but we must steady ourselves once again. In a few weeks, media across the country will be reporting on all of the new states that have changed their constitutions. And we could lose in every one of the states with proposed amendments.
It might sting—badly—and right on the heels of New York and Washington high court marriage rulings against us.
I pray I’m wrong, and that instead we’ll be greeted with headlines like the one that appeared in the New York Times on October 14th: “Gay Marriage Losing Punch as Ballot Issue.” I want to see headlines announcing our victories in Wisconsin, South Dakota, Arizona, and everywhere.
But I'm here to urge us to be prepared for what we weren't last time. Most of what I read in the press these days contains hopeful pieces. A September Advocate article had the headline: "Poll: Opposition to Virginia same-sex marriage amendment grows." Several gay media outlets touted a poll from South Dakota that indicated only 48% of voters in that state support the amendment. The Blade reported two weeks ago: "fights in three other states – Arizona, South Dakota and Wisconsin – are competitive and too close to call."
Lord knows I couldn't do this work if an optimist didn't reside somewhere in this heart of mine. As someone who lived in Wisconsin for almost six years, I am hopeful that the first state to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation will be the first to reject these repulsive public gay bashings that are wrapped up in the guise of "defining" marriage.
Indeed, we could come incredibly close in a few states, which would tell us that attitudes are changing. But close or not, if we fail on a popular vote across the board, the media will point and yell "losers" faster than you can say Foley Scandal. And some in our community will cannibalize those who steadfastly fight for equal marriage rights.
If this doomsday scenario comes to pass, we'll wear dark sunglasses for a couple of days. We'll empathize with those in our community who must wonder which of their neighbors voted against their family. But we'll move on.
We'll continue to fight, just as people have done for years before us, and will do years after us. We fought for seventeen years until we overturned a Supreme Court ruling that allowed for the criminalization of consensual same-sex relations. We survived DOMA, and have gone on to see relationship recognition in MA with equal marriage rights, CT and VT with civil unions, NJ, CA, and ME with domestic partnership registries, and HI with a reciprocal beneficiary law.
We are a community of survivors. No matter how much dung the Pat Buchanans of the world hurl at us, we will wash ourselves off and continue to fight for basic dignity and respect.
After we lost the marriage cases in Washington and New York, Evan Wolfson, head of Freedom to Marry, told a crowd of Equality Maryland members that the courts sometimes take the easy way out. After all, he said...it took thirteen state supreme courts to reject the argument that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional before California's Supreme Court had the courage to strike down its ban in 1948—flying in the face of public opinion. After that brave ruling, six states changed their constitutions to “define marriage” in a way that would prevent interracial unions.
No matter what the setbacks, we must continue to view our movement as part of a broader movement for social justice. We must continue to draw inspiration and lessons from those who pioneered social change in the past and continue to welcome the partnerships of those doing this important work today in all areas of rights and freedoms.
As Dr. King said, "All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem." Our gains in Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, and other places have led to opposition and setbacks. Karl Rove and his cohorts are preying upon fear of change and "the other" to orchestrate a campaign that makes a constitutional amendment to limit rights socially acceptable and seemingly innocuous. The success of these amendments elsewhere makes our struggle here in Maryland increasingly important, especially with oral arguments to win marriage equality here scheduled before our high court for early December.
It may be little consolation on Nov. 8, but no matter what happens at the polls, eventually, we will win. No matter how many Americans stand against us, eventually we will win. The journey may be a long one, and we may bleed and bruise, but when it comes to basic fairness and justice, equality will always prevail.
"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant."
Martin Luther King Jr., Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Dec. 10, 1964
October 30, 2006
Can You Judge a Man By the Company He Keeps?
I know that most of the readers here cringe at that word, "judge," but hopefully you are familiar with the cliche that question is based on.
Here is a case where we can certainly gain some disturbing insight into someone's character by who they are not only associating with but actively promoting. This article specifically refers to Dr. James Dobson and his two day love-fest with right wing sociopath Ann Coulter on the Focus on the Family radio program.
The article goes into plenty of detail about Ms. Coulter's background and how it made her a horribly inappropriate guest for any broadcast sponsored by a allegedly Christian organization. During one of the shows, Coulter referred to the title of her latest rant, Godless, the Church of Liberalism by saying, "they are the opposition party to God." Given her well documented public displays, some of which are listed in this article, it is not clear exactly what her credentials are to make that statement or offer any intelligent commentary regarding Christianity.
These appearances also further diminish Dr. Dobson's credentials as a minister while building them up as an operative of the Republican party.
Here is a case where we can certainly gain some disturbing insight into someone's character by who they are not only associating with but actively promoting. This article specifically refers to Dr. James Dobson and his two day love-fest with right wing sociopath Ann Coulter on the Focus on the Family radio program.
The article goes into plenty of detail about Ms. Coulter's background and how it made her a horribly inappropriate guest for any broadcast sponsored by a allegedly Christian organization. During one of the shows, Coulter referred to the title of her latest rant, Godless, the Church of Liberalism by saying, "they are the opposition party to God." Given her well documented public displays, some of which are listed in this article, it is not clear exactly what her credentials are to make that statement or offer any intelligent commentary regarding Christianity.
These appearances also further diminish Dr. Dobson's credentials as a minister while building them up as an operative of the Republican party.
October 29, 2006
An Example Of What We're Fighting
In the wake of last week's New Jersey court decision, a columnist named Kevin McCullough wrote a column on World Net Daily (a right-wing breeding ground) titled "Why Homosexuals Hate Marriage."
I mention this here to affirm how deeply rooted this bigotry is and the broad forum these people have to spew their hate. Here are some excerpts:
"Despite all that their angry-mob front groups argue in front of television cameras to the contrary, radical homosexual activists despise the institution, and more importantly the sanctity, of marriage. That is the fundamental reason why they are seeking to destroy the institution.
This week – dateline Trenton, N.J. – a unified panel of seven judges agreed that illegitimate sexual unions should be made equitable under law to that of monogamous married persons. Without the consent of the governed, these tyrants in black robes sat in judgment of healthy families across the universe and demanded that New Jersey residents accept immoral construction of sexual unions as the equal basis for families and family life in their recreated sexual, liberal utopia."
Of course, the judges wouldn't be "tyrants in black robes" if they had made the "acceptable" decison. How pathetic is that arguement? And what will the right wing say when they lose votes?
Want some more?
"But why? What's the real goal of the activists, the judges and the radicals who seek to subvert a moral worldview?
The answer is simple: No longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over their sexual behaviors, because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy, that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong.
Radical homosexual activists hate biblical marriage, because to achieve its benefits and blessings they must first conform to God's plan for sexuality, and the sinful nature in man is not willing to make such submission and conformity happen. The existence of joyful biblical marriage being practiced by "thumpers" in "Jesusland" infuriates them and thus the only action they can attempt is to destroy the institution that allows for such fundamental societal success.
Radical homosexual activists hate marriage because fundamentally they hate God, and the guilt of both drives them to extremes."
Sadly, this right-wing nut got a book published and is on the radio in the New York and Philadelphia areas. People full of this much hate, who have things so "simply" defined in their black-and-white world, who can so easily dismiss an entire group of people and lump them all in one, will not go away easily. Losing a court decision will only strengthen their resolve and have them coming back with more bigotry, more hatred, and more pronouncement's of God's judgement. They won't go away easily.
The God this hate monger speaks of is not the God I know, the God who sent Jesus down to earth to die for our sins. Thank God.
I mention this here to affirm how deeply rooted this bigotry is and the broad forum these people have to spew their hate. Here are some excerpts:
"Despite all that their angry-mob front groups argue in front of television cameras to the contrary, radical homosexual activists despise the institution, and more importantly the sanctity, of marriage. That is the fundamental reason why they are seeking to destroy the institution.
This week – dateline Trenton, N.J. – a unified panel of seven judges agreed that illegitimate sexual unions should be made equitable under law to that of monogamous married persons. Without the consent of the governed, these tyrants in black robes sat in judgment of healthy families across the universe and demanded that New Jersey residents accept immoral construction of sexual unions as the equal basis for families and family life in their recreated sexual, liberal utopia."
Of course, the judges wouldn't be "tyrants in black robes" if they had made the "acceptable" decison. How pathetic is that arguement? And what will the right wing say when they lose votes?
Want some more?
"But why? What's the real goal of the activists, the judges and the radicals who seek to subvert a moral worldview?
The answer is simple: No longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over their sexual behaviors, because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy, that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong.
Radical homosexual activists hate biblical marriage, because to achieve its benefits and blessings they must first conform to God's plan for sexuality, and the sinful nature in man is not willing to make such submission and conformity happen. The existence of joyful biblical marriage being practiced by "thumpers" in "Jesusland" infuriates them and thus the only action they can attempt is to destroy the institution that allows for such fundamental societal success.
Radical homosexual activists hate marriage because fundamentally they hate God, and the guilt of both drives them to extremes."
Sadly, this right-wing nut got a book published and is on the radio in the New York and Philadelphia areas. People full of this much hate, who have things so "simply" defined in their black-and-white world, who can so easily dismiss an entire group of people and lump them all in one, will not go away easily. Losing a court decision will only strengthen their resolve and have them coming back with more bigotry, more hatred, and more pronouncement's of God's judgement. They won't go away easily.
The God this hate monger speaks of is not the God I know, the God who sent Jesus down to earth to die for our sins. Thank God.
October 28, 2006
Will New Jersey Gay Marriage Ruling Energize Republicans?
This column on Time.com opines that it just might:
"What Republicans are hoping is that they can use the issue of gay marriage and the ruling to motivate conservatives in key states like Tennessee, Missouri and Virginia, where Republicans are in danger of losing Senate seats. Polls this year have shown small, but measurable drop-offs in enthusiasm from Christian conservatives and there's some worry about whether they will stay home on Election Day, particularly after the Foley scandal, which some conservative leaders blamed on congressional Republicans for being too afraid to take action against Foley earlier because it might be perceived as anti-gay.
Measures to ban gay marriage are on the ballot in nine states, including Virginia and Tennessee, and conservative activists will point to the New Jersey decision as a reason people in those states should go to the polls, even if they're dissatisfied with how the Republican majority has run the country. If that message resonates, the same people celebrating the New Jersey decision could be having mixed feelings about it come election day."
This column in the New Republic disagrees: (via the site Faith in Public Life):
But Democrats should relax. It's true that Rove and Co. will do their best to make this case a decisive electoral issue. But that won't be the cakewalk Democrats have nightmares about. America in 2004 is not America in 2006, Lewis is not Goodridge, and, no matter how much Rove might hope for an early Christmas, gay marriage fear-mongering isn't going to be the eleventh-hour savior that Republicans need.
For one big reason why, look no further than the substance of the opinion. Much like Goodridge, Lewis insists that the "unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution." But, unlike Goodridge, Lewis leaves an important question--what should we call this new bundle of rights?--to the state legislature, which has 180 days to provide an answer. The difference in substance will make a difference in the politics.....
And, because the court punts the definitional question to the legislature, Republicans will have difficulty deploying their favorite mythical creature--the crazed, power-thirsty liberal judge, brazenly sweeping aside the democratic will of a helpless public to pursue her own narrow vision of the good life......
The activist-judge trope will fail not just because the legislature is being kept in the picture, but because public consensus in the state is starting to favor gay marriage. A June poll by Rutger's Eagleton Institute for Politics found that "New Jerseyans, by a margin of 50 percent to 44 percent ... support allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally." And, when you drop the word marriage, as the court did, the support is even more robust: 65 percent of state residents support giving same-sex couples "many of the same rights and benefits as a married man and woman." Only 30 percent are opposed.
Support for the decision aside, there's also a serious question about how receptive the Republican base will be to the typical "homosexual agenda" scare tactics. This year's ballot initiatives raise that question better than anything else. When the Times did a roundup of the 2006 initiatives, it found, amazingly, that "supporters of same-sex marriage this year are likely to be as mobilized as the opponents." Whereas many of the 2004 ballot initiatives passed with popular support topping 70 percent, polling in Arizona, Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin--four of the states with ballot initiatives up this November--show only narrow majorities in favor of them. In South Dakota, the ballot initiative might actually fail. The case might cause some polarization, but if the Times report is true, it should motivate both sides equally. This is not the stuff of 2004.
This is a desperate time for Republicans, and they will reach for anything that can stop their slide toward defeat. But there is little that indicates gay marriage is the right piece of underbrush to cling to: This case is not going to fire up that base. Call it homosexuality fatigue. Call it whatever you want. (Or leave it up to the legislature!) Just don't expect Republican demagogues to be able to change it.
The evangelical vote will probably be the largest undefinable wild card in the 2006 election, and the rights of same-sex couples to marry in several states is one of the main things hanging in the balance.
"What Republicans are hoping is that they can use the issue of gay marriage and the ruling to motivate conservatives in key states like Tennessee, Missouri and Virginia, where Republicans are in danger of losing Senate seats. Polls this year have shown small, but measurable drop-offs in enthusiasm from Christian conservatives and there's some worry about whether they will stay home on Election Day, particularly after the Foley scandal, which some conservative leaders blamed on congressional Republicans for being too afraid to take action against Foley earlier because it might be perceived as anti-gay.
Measures to ban gay marriage are on the ballot in nine states, including Virginia and Tennessee, and conservative activists will point to the New Jersey decision as a reason people in those states should go to the polls, even if they're dissatisfied with how the Republican majority has run the country. If that message resonates, the same people celebrating the New Jersey decision could be having mixed feelings about it come election day."
This column in the New Republic disagrees: (via the site Faith in Public Life):
But Democrats should relax. It's true that Rove and Co. will do their best to make this case a decisive electoral issue. But that won't be the cakewalk Democrats have nightmares about. America in 2004 is not America in 2006, Lewis is not Goodridge, and, no matter how much Rove might hope for an early Christmas, gay marriage fear-mongering isn't going to be the eleventh-hour savior that Republicans need.
For one big reason why, look no further than the substance of the opinion. Much like Goodridge, Lewis insists that the "unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution." But, unlike Goodridge, Lewis leaves an important question--what should we call this new bundle of rights?--to the state legislature, which has 180 days to provide an answer. The difference in substance will make a difference in the politics.....
And, because the court punts the definitional question to the legislature, Republicans will have difficulty deploying their favorite mythical creature--the crazed, power-thirsty liberal judge, brazenly sweeping aside the democratic will of a helpless public to pursue her own narrow vision of the good life......
The activist-judge trope will fail not just because the legislature is being kept in the picture, but because public consensus in the state is starting to favor gay marriage. A June poll by Rutger's Eagleton Institute for Politics found that "New Jerseyans, by a margin of 50 percent to 44 percent ... support allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally." And, when you drop the word marriage, as the court did, the support is even more robust: 65 percent of state residents support giving same-sex couples "many of the same rights and benefits as a married man and woman." Only 30 percent are opposed.
Support for the decision aside, there's also a serious question about how receptive the Republican base will be to the typical "homosexual agenda" scare tactics. This year's ballot initiatives raise that question better than anything else. When the Times did a roundup of the 2006 initiatives, it found, amazingly, that "supporters of same-sex marriage this year are likely to be as mobilized as the opponents." Whereas many of the 2004 ballot initiatives passed with popular support topping 70 percent, polling in Arizona, Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin--four of the states with ballot initiatives up this November--show only narrow majorities in favor of them. In South Dakota, the ballot initiative might actually fail. The case might cause some polarization, but if the Times report is true, it should motivate both sides equally. This is not the stuff of 2004.
This is a desperate time for Republicans, and they will reach for anything that can stop their slide toward defeat. But there is little that indicates gay marriage is the right piece of underbrush to cling to: This case is not going to fire up that base. Call it homosexuality fatigue. Call it whatever you want. (Or leave it up to the legislature!) Just don't expect Republican demagogues to be able to change it.
The evangelical vote will probably be the largest undefinable wild card in the 2006 election, and the rights of same-sex couples to marry in several states is one of the main things hanging in the balance.
October 27, 2006
"It's Not Heaven, It's Not Hell, It's Purgatory"
That was the gist of the message from an e-mail distributed by Steven Goldstein, Chairman of the GLBT advocacy group Garden State Equality in regards to the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage.
Here is the text of the message:
Dear LGBTI New Jerseyans and our millions of straight allies across New Jersey:
I'd like to take a moment, if you'll allow, to have a frank discussion about one of the more unique phenomena that emerged from yesterday's decision on marriage equality. We can't recall seeing so many divergent reactions from our community and supporters to any single event. Many of the reactions were diametrically opposed: Some activists and organizations portrayed the decision as "a big win" or "total victory." Other activists and organizations portrayed the decision as all but a loss -- a bad day when we had expected a total win. Still others, most people actually, had a reaction in between.
We're all over the map as a community. It's understandable -- well, at least the opinions in the middle are understandable -- given the complex nature of the ruling. On the one hand, not a single justice said same-sex couples are unworthy of equal protection. On the other hand, we did not get marriage equality, though it's now up to us to make it happen in the legislature within 180 days.
It's not heaven, it's not hell, it's purgatory.
But here's the problem with telling anyone, whether your family, friends or even journalists, that the decision is a victory: It will hurt our efforts to win marriage equality in the next 180 days. It will, I swear to you, it will. But more on that in a moment.
Describing the decision as a victory at this premature juncture is wrong. If we don't win the label "marriage," we will NOT have equal protection under the law. You know this too well from following our e-mails on the late Lieutenant Laurel Hester. Without the label marriage, couples like Lt. Hester and her partner, and scores of others across New Jersey, have been told time and again, "we don't care with the law says, you're not married."
As we've said a million times and we'll say a million times more, marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world universally accepts. We're not fighting for the label marriage for some moral, ethereal right. We're fighting for the label marriage because it's the only way a gay civil rights law will work in the real world.
And that's what you have to tell everyone you know. Were you to tell folks "it's a win" -- and to be sure, 90 percent of our community and our supporters believe otherwise -- it would tie the hands of those of us at Garden State Equality working every day in Trenton to get a real win: Marriage equality.
Because then legislators would tell us, "You know, we're hearing people call the Supreme Court decision a win. Why are you pressing so hard for marriage then?"
I'll go beyond that point, and this I plead to you with all my heart. A nuanced statement, along the lines of "it's a win, it's not everything we wanted, but it's a win," will still hurt our efforts for marriage equality.
First, such statements would be a lifeline to legislators whom we have got to win over. People hear what they want to hear, particularly legislators looking for an excuse not to do the right thing. They'll grasp onto the clause in a nuanced sentence that gives them an out.
Second, the art of political communications tells us that both the general public and the power-elites, from the press to public officials to others who hold our fate in their hands, don't process nuanced statements well.
If you tell someone, "the decision is a win, but blah, blah, blah," you can bet the "blah, blah, blah" caveat won't be processed and/or reported. People will only hear the headline, i.e. "It's a win." And that would devastate our efforts.
It would lead to reactions like this: "Well, I just read that someone in your community called this a win, I don't understand why you're now saying it's not. Sounds like this civil unions idea is a sensible solution."
Friends, we have 180 days to win 100% marriage equality in the state legislature, as the Supreme Court ruled. I personally plead with you, with every bone and fiber in my body -- and I'm joined by thousands of others at Garden State Equality -- that even if part of you thinks it this was a win in the context of history, it's not what your message should be at this most sensitive, pressure-filled time.
The bottom line is this: Marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world universally accepts. Anything short of marriage equality deprives LGBTI families of the equal protection they so desperately need. Contraptions short of marriage, like civil unions and domestic partnerships, do not provide that protection, as we've learned through the New Jersey experience. Thus we do not have a win yet.
But we're going to work our hearts out to make that happen within 180 days. We're counting on you to be by our side.
Thanks for listening, as it were. All of us at Garden State Equality appreciate you from the heart.
Warmly, Steven Goldstein, Chair of Garden State Equality
From the other side, Matt Daniels, the president of "Alliance for (Straight) Marriage," continues to run his mouth in the mainstream media. This quote from the New York Times, which he was kind enough to distritute by e-mail:
New Jersey's highest court ruled on Wednesday that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples, but ordered the Legislature to decide whether their unions must be called marriage or could be known by another name. But conservative groups opposed to same-sex marriage blasted the ruling as an example of the justices essentially trading judicial robes for legislative pens. ''The court is holding a legal gun to the head of the State Legislature, and saying, 'Listen, there are two bullets, you get to pick the bullet: either gay marriage or civil unions,' '' said Matt Daniels president of Alliance for Marriage, an organization based in the Washington area that supports a federal Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. ''And that is not democracy. That is court-imposed policy-making that takes this out of the hands of the people.''
That's right, the courts took marriage away from being strictly in the hands of straight couples and allow same-sex couples, in some form, to share in it.
Here is the text of the message:
Dear LGBTI New Jerseyans and our millions of straight allies across New Jersey:
I'd like to take a moment, if you'll allow, to have a frank discussion about one of the more unique phenomena that emerged from yesterday's decision on marriage equality. We can't recall seeing so many divergent reactions from our community and supporters to any single event. Many of the reactions were diametrically opposed: Some activists and organizations portrayed the decision as "a big win" or "total victory." Other activists and organizations portrayed the decision as all but a loss -- a bad day when we had expected a total win. Still others, most people actually, had a reaction in between.
We're all over the map as a community. It's understandable -- well, at least the opinions in the middle are understandable -- given the complex nature of the ruling. On the one hand, not a single justice said same-sex couples are unworthy of equal protection. On the other hand, we did not get marriage equality, though it's now up to us to make it happen in the legislature within 180 days.
It's not heaven, it's not hell, it's purgatory.
But here's the problem with telling anyone, whether your family, friends or even journalists, that the decision is a victory: It will hurt our efforts to win marriage equality in the next 180 days. It will, I swear to you, it will. But more on that in a moment.
Describing the decision as a victory at this premature juncture is wrong. If we don't win the label "marriage," we will NOT have equal protection under the law. You know this too well from following our e-mails on the late Lieutenant Laurel Hester. Without the label marriage, couples like Lt. Hester and her partner, and scores of others across New Jersey, have been told time and again, "we don't care with the law says, you're not married."
As we've said a million times and we'll say a million times more, marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world universally accepts. We're not fighting for the label marriage for some moral, ethereal right. We're fighting for the label marriage because it's the only way a gay civil rights law will work in the real world.
And that's what you have to tell everyone you know. Were you to tell folks "it's a win" -- and to be sure, 90 percent of our community and our supporters believe otherwise -- it would tie the hands of those of us at Garden State Equality working every day in Trenton to get a real win: Marriage equality.
Because then legislators would tell us, "You know, we're hearing people call the Supreme Court decision a win. Why are you pressing so hard for marriage then?"
I'll go beyond that point, and this I plead to you with all my heart. A nuanced statement, along the lines of "it's a win, it's not everything we wanted, but it's a win," will still hurt our efforts for marriage equality.
First, such statements would be a lifeline to legislators whom we have got to win over. People hear what they want to hear, particularly legislators looking for an excuse not to do the right thing. They'll grasp onto the clause in a nuanced sentence that gives them an out.
Second, the art of political communications tells us that both the general public and the power-elites, from the press to public officials to others who hold our fate in their hands, don't process nuanced statements well.
If you tell someone, "the decision is a win, but blah, blah, blah," you can bet the "blah, blah, blah" caveat won't be processed and/or reported. People will only hear the headline, i.e. "It's a win." And that would devastate our efforts.
It would lead to reactions like this: "Well, I just read that someone in your community called this a win, I don't understand why you're now saying it's not. Sounds like this civil unions idea is a sensible solution."
Friends, we have 180 days to win 100% marriage equality in the state legislature, as the Supreme Court ruled. I personally plead with you, with every bone and fiber in my body -- and I'm joined by thousands of others at Garden State Equality -- that even if part of you thinks it this was a win in the context of history, it's not what your message should be at this most sensitive, pressure-filled time.
The bottom line is this: Marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world universally accepts. Anything short of marriage equality deprives LGBTI families of the equal protection they so desperately need. Contraptions short of marriage, like civil unions and domestic partnerships, do not provide that protection, as we've learned through the New Jersey experience. Thus we do not have a win yet.
But we're going to work our hearts out to make that happen within 180 days. We're counting on you to be by our side.
Thanks for listening, as it were. All of us at Garden State Equality appreciate you from the heart.
Warmly, Steven Goldstein, Chair of Garden State Equality
From the other side, Matt Daniels, the president of "Alliance for (Straight) Marriage," continues to run his mouth in the mainstream media. This quote from the New York Times, which he was kind enough to distritute by e-mail:
New Jersey's highest court ruled on Wednesday that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples, but ordered the Legislature to decide whether their unions must be called marriage or could be known by another name. But conservative groups opposed to same-sex marriage blasted the ruling as an example of the justices essentially trading judicial robes for legislative pens. ''The court is holding a legal gun to the head of the State Legislature, and saying, 'Listen, there are two bullets, you get to pick the bullet: either gay marriage or civil unions,' '' said Matt Daniels president of Alliance for Marriage, an organization based in the Washington area that supports a federal Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. ''And that is not democracy. That is court-imposed policy-making that takes this out of the hands of the people.''
That's right, the courts took marriage away from being strictly in the hands of straight couples and allow same-sex couples, in some form, to share in it.
October 26, 2006
AFA Gets After Wal-Mart
The American Family Association, often a well-deserved object of scorn here, recently sent out an e-mail blast titled "Wall-Mart Rolls Out Red Carpet For Homosexual Marriage."
Among what the AFA considers the company's heinous sins are:
o Joining the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and being appointed to its board.
o Having the nerve to sell books that are supportive of same-sex marriage
Then this which really cracked me up:
"A quick search of Wal-Mart's website turned up the following number of items for sale: Gay - 1148 Lesbian - 468Transgender - 40 Bisexual - 38 Gay Marriage - 26 "
Personally, I think someone there has waaaaay too much time on their hands.
From my perspective, and I suspect that of most people who aren't aggressive homophobes like the AFA, Wal-Mart hardly comes across as a social activist. I have no doubt these measures were taken to promote business, and I applaud the company for that. It can only be a good thing, in my opinion, for large companies to be sensitive to the needs of GLBT consumers--a win-win for everyone involved.
Of course, the AFA just wants gay people to crawl back in the closet and it grinds their cookies when companies like Ford and Wal-Mart not only acknowledge the existence of the GLBT community but active engages it.
Good.
Among what the AFA considers the company's heinous sins are:
o Joining the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and being appointed to its board.
o Having the nerve to sell books that are supportive of same-sex marriage
Then this which really cracked me up:
"A quick search of Wal-Mart's website turned up the following number of items for sale: Gay - 1148 Lesbian - 468Transgender - 40 Bisexual - 38 Gay Marriage - 26 "
Personally, I think someone there has waaaaay too much time on their hands.
From my perspective, and I suspect that of most people who aren't aggressive homophobes like the AFA, Wal-Mart hardly comes across as a social activist. I have no doubt these measures were taken to promote business, and I applaud the company for that. It can only be a good thing, in my opinion, for large companies to be sensitive to the needs of GLBT consumers--a win-win for everyone involved.
Of course, the AFA just wants gay people to crawl back in the closet and it grinds their cookies when companies like Ford and Wal-Mart not only acknowledge the existence of the GLBT community but active engages it.
Good.
October 25, 2006
New Jersey Rules on Same-Sex Marriage
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled today in favor of same-sex marriage--sort of. A decision seemingly designed to avoid making anyone unhappy left both sides unhappy, which is usually how that goes.
As CNN reported: In a decision likely to stoke the contentious election-year debate over same-sex marriage, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that state lawmakers must provide the rights and benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.
The high court on Wednesday gave legislators six months to either change state marriage laws to include same-sex couples, or come up with another mechanism, such as civil unions, that would provide the same protections and benefits.
The court's vote was 4-to-3. But the ruling was more strongly in favor of same-sex marriage than that split would indicate. The three dissenting justices argued the court should have extended full marriage rights to homosexuals, without kicking the issue back to legislators.
In a release titled "Radical Activists Prevail in New Jersey Marriage Decision," the right-wing Alliance for (Straight) Marriage was not happy:
"This marks the second state -- after Vermont -- where radical activist groups have convinced state court judges to hold a gun to the head of the legislature," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage. “The legislature will now be compelled to choose between two bullets -- all under court order. Either they create so-called ‘gay marriage’ or they create a civil union scheme that is identical. Either way, the people of New Jersey lose the right to decide -- freely and democratically -- to choose the course that is best for them, their families and their children.”
"Given the continuous attacks upon marriage in courts across the country, AFM's Marriage Protection Amendment is clearly the only hope for the American people to determine the future of marriage under our laws," Daniels added.
Daniels also added, "Most Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose. But they don't believe they have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society," said Daniels. "Americans want our laws to send a positive message to children about marriage, family and their future."
Let me insert a point here: Why shouldn't marriage be redefined? Doesn't the fact that the divorce rate hovers around 50% indicate that the institution, as now designed and practiced, falls WAY short of prefection?
Here's a positive message to kids about marriage: fall in love with whoever your heart leads you to, commit yourselves to that person, and stick with it. Just because it's always been done boy-girl and that's how it was in the bible doesn't mean boy-boy or girl-girl can't work and, more importantly, that God wouldn't bless it. Just because narrow minds don't understand something doesn't make it wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean that should be part of the U. S. Constitution.
Not all GLBT activists were completely happy with the New Jersey decision, however. This from Equality Maryland:
“If the true intent is to give all benefits to same-sex couples, then what is the point of calling it civil unions if not to caste a separate and negative class for LGBT couples,” said Executive Director Dan Furmansky. “This day will be remembered in history as one where a court of law granted some protections to same-sex headed families, but denied these families true equality and dignity under the law."
I tend to think that Dan is taking too much bloom off the rose today, but I also can't dispute his points. If I had invested as much of myself as he and other GLBT activists have to fight for the right to marry, I probably would not be satisfied with this incremental step either.
I still believe, however, that this was an important step forward for GLBT rights. People like Matt Daniels and his organization will insure that many, many more steps need to be taken before GLBT people will gain equality in marriage, but at least today there is one less obstacle to overcome.
As CNN reported: In a decision likely to stoke the contentious election-year debate over same-sex marriage, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that state lawmakers must provide the rights and benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.
The high court on Wednesday gave legislators six months to either change state marriage laws to include same-sex couples, or come up with another mechanism, such as civil unions, that would provide the same protections and benefits.
The court's vote was 4-to-3. But the ruling was more strongly in favor of same-sex marriage than that split would indicate. The three dissenting justices argued the court should have extended full marriage rights to homosexuals, without kicking the issue back to legislators.
In a release titled "Radical Activists Prevail in New Jersey Marriage Decision," the right-wing Alliance for (Straight) Marriage was not happy:
"This marks the second state -- after Vermont -- where radical activist groups have convinced state court judges to hold a gun to the head of the legislature," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage. “The legislature will now be compelled to choose between two bullets -- all under court order. Either they create so-called ‘gay marriage’ or they create a civil union scheme that is identical. Either way, the people of New Jersey lose the right to decide -- freely and democratically -- to choose the course that is best for them, their families and their children.”
"Given the continuous attacks upon marriage in courts across the country, AFM's Marriage Protection Amendment is clearly the only hope for the American people to determine the future of marriage under our laws," Daniels added.
Daniels also added, "Most Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose. But they don't believe they have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society," said Daniels. "Americans want our laws to send a positive message to children about marriage, family and their future."
Let me insert a point here: Why shouldn't marriage be redefined? Doesn't the fact that the divorce rate hovers around 50% indicate that the institution, as now designed and practiced, falls WAY short of prefection?
Here's a positive message to kids about marriage: fall in love with whoever your heart leads you to, commit yourselves to that person, and stick with it. Just because it's always been done boy-girl and that's how it was in the bible doesn't mean boy-boy or girl-girl can't work and, more importantly, that God wouldn't bless it. Just because narrow minds don't understand something doesn't make it wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean that should be part of the U. S. Constitution.
Not all GLBT activists were completely happy with the New Jersey decision, however. This from Equality Maryland:
“If the true intent is to give all benefits to same-sex couples, then what is the point of calling it civil unions if not to caste a separate and negative class for LGBT couples,” said Executive Director Dan Furmansky. “This day will be remembered in history as one where a court of law granted some protections to same-sex headed families, but denied these families true equality and dignity under the law."
I tend to think that Dan is taking too much bloom off the rose today, but I also can't dispute his points. If I had invested as much of myself as he and other GLBT activists have to fight for the right to marry, I probably would not be satisfied with this incremental step either.
I still believe, however, that this was an important step forward for GLBT rights. People like Matt Daniels and his organization will insure that many, many more steps need to be taken before GLBT people will gain equality in marriage, but at least today there is one less obstacle to overcome.
October 24, 2006
U. S. Catholic Bishops to Define Their Stance on Gays
According to this report in the Boston Globe, the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will be voting on a proposal at their next gathering that would condemn "scorn and hatred" of homosexuals. The bishops are also expected to declare that gay couples should not be allowed to marry or adopt children.
In other words, Catholics won't outright condemn homosexuals, but they won't recognize some of the basic rights and needs of human life for gays and lesbians either.
The report says they will reaffirm that "homosexual acts are `always sinful' and `morally wrong."
No big surprise there.
Sam Sinnett , the president of Dignity USA, an organization of gay Catholics, said the document "will be discussed entirely by celibate males, and their viewpoint is more concerned with keeping their jobs than being pastoral leaders."
As usual, it comes down to politics.
In other words, Catholics won't outright condemn homosexuals, but they won't recognize some of the basic rights and needs of human life for gays and lesbians either.
The report says they will reaffirm that "homosexual acts are `always sinful' and `morally wrong."
No big surprise there.
Sam Sinnett , the president of Dignity USA, an organization of gay Catholics, said the document "will be discussed entirely by celibate males, and their viewpoint is more concerned with keeping their jobs than being pastoral leaders."
As usual, it comes down to politics.
October 23, 2006
Churches Thrust Into Marriage Debate in Virginia
This report in the Roanoke Times shows how much of the political battle over the issue of same-sex marriage in Virginia is being fought from pulpits of churches and amongst congregations.
VAMarriage.org, a coalition that supports the measure, has asked pastors to give Nov. 5 sermons for "Marriage Protection Sunday." The group has handed out "pastor packets" and other tools to galvanize voters. This is apparently legal since the churches are not endorsing a specific political candidate.
Here are a couple of excerpts:
"Marriage is something that cannot be tarnished," said the Family Foundation's Victoria Cobb at a recent pastors luncheon in Roanoke. "We believe the churches are key. The pastors must lead and remind people that this is a biblical issue."
"People of faith are not all on one side of the issue," said Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, campaign manager for the Commonwealth Coalition, which opposes the measure.
"People of Faith for Equality in Virginia was formed more than a year ago to help voters understand that there are people of faith who are 'no' voters and that is OK. The other side doesn't have any campaign except to scare, shame and goad some people of faith into voting yes."
It personally makes me ill that churches are a political battleground. That is clearly not what Jesus had in mind and it angers me that some Christians can try to get me to believe that it is.
VAMarriage.org, a coalition that supports the measure, has asked pastors to give Nov. 5 sermons for "Marriage Protection Sunday." The group has handed out "pastor packets" and other tools to galvanize voters. This is apparently legal since the churches are not endorsing a specific political candidate.
Here are a couple of excerpts:
"Marriage is something that cannot be tarnished," said the Family Foundation's Victoria Cobb at a recent pastors luncheon in Roanoke. "We believe the churches are key. The pastors must lead and remind people that this is a biblical issue."
"People of faith are not all on one side of the issue," said Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, campaign manager for the Commonwealth Coalition, which opposes the measure.
"People of Faith for Equality in Virginia was formed more than a year ago to help voters understand that there are people of faith who are 'no' voters and that is OK. The other side doesn't have any campaign except to scare, shame and goad some people of faith into voting yes."
It personally makes me ill that churches are a political battleground. That is clearly not what Jesus had in mind and it angers me that some Christians can try to get me to believe that it is.
October 22, 2006
Are Right-Wing Attacks Actually Opening Closet Doors?
That is the conclusion of this article, which analyzes two U. S. government surveys.
The number of same-sex couples that identified themselves as such has increased 30% in just five years, a period which saw the general population grow 6%. Interestingly, some of the larger jumps were in the Midwest, especially Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
The survey also suggests that the push to outlaw same-sex marriage is encouraging GLBT couples to emerge from the closet to stand up and be counted. Six of the eight states with an anti-gay marriage initiative on this year's ballot -- Arizona, Colorado, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin -- saw rate jumps higher than the 30 percent national average.
A New York Times poll cited in this article showed that the understanding of what homosexuality is truly about is increasing. The poll showed that 53% of respondents thought that people do NOT chose to be gay, up from 43% in 1993. Also, the percentage of those who believe homosexuality is morally wrong has plummeted to 37%, down from 55% in 1993.
My conclusion from this data is that, eventually, ignorance allways loses.
The number of same-sex couples that identified themselves as such has increased 30% in just five years, a period which saw the general population grow 6%. Interestingly, some of the larger jumps were in the Midwest, especially Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
The survey also suggests that the push to outlaw same-sex marriage is encouraging GLBT couples to emerge from the closet to stand up and be counted. Six of the eight states with an anti-gay marriage initiative on this year's ballot -- Arizona, Colorado, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin -- saw rate jumps higher than the 30 percent national average.
A New York Times poll cited in this article showed that the understanding of what homosexuality is truly about is increasing. The poll showed that 53% of respondents thought that people do NOT chose to be gay, up from 43% in 1993. Also, the percentage of those who believe homosexuality is morally wrong has plummeted to 37%, down from 55% in 1993.
My conclusion from this data is that, eventually, ignorance allways loses.
October 20, 2006
Should Gay Rand epublicans Be Outed?
In the wake of the Foley scandal, that has become one of the hot button questions in politics and the GLBT community these days.
Blogger Ann Althouse offers her opinion:
"Honestly, I think these creepy, gleeful efforts at outing will only make social conservatives more conservative, and they will continue to look to the Republican party to serve their needs."
These is also a spirited conversation on this topic in the comment section (270 comments at this posting).
Andrew Sullivan shares a similar opinion on the topic.
"Look: I loathe the closet. I despise the hypocrisy in the Republican party. But a witch-hunt is a witch-hunt. If the gay left thinks it will advance gay dignity by using tactics that depend on homophobia to work, that violate privacy, that demonizes gay people, then all I can say is: they are wrong."
Michael Reagan goes on the counter attack:
"Mike Rogers is a scandalmonger who calls himself a "Gay activist blogger" devoted to "outing" alleged closet-gay Republicans."
"He's outing all of these targets, not caring who he hurts, simply because they don't agree with the radical gay agenda. There is no outrage from the Democrats or the media that there is somebody out there punishing conservatives who don't agree with the liberal gay agenda. "
Here's my take:
As a rule, I'm not in favor of outing myself. I've learned how traumatic an experience it can be and don't think anyone else should make that decision for someone unless there are serious mitigating circumstances.
I do belive, however, that a closeted gay person actively working to restrict the rights of other GLBT people makes them fair game to being outed. It's one thing for a person to have their own issues with self-loathing and inability to accept themselves, it's quite another for them to direct that energy into harming others by working to shape public policy.
Since integrity and motivation are often questioned by people on different sides of an issue, in my view the notion of if any Republicans or their staffers in Congress (the party that has tried to make discrimination against GLBT people part of the U. S. Constitution) are closeted gay people belongs on the table.
If they are lying about that, what else are they lying about?
I'd appreciate your thoughts on an issue that is colored in shades of grey.
Blogger Ann Althouse offers her opinion:
"Honestly, I think these creepy, gleeful efforts at outing will only make social conservatives more conservative, and they will continue to look to the Republican party to serve their needs."
These is also a spirited conversation on this topic in the comment section (270 comments at this posting).
Andrew Sullivan shares a similar opinion on the topic.
"Look: I loathe the closet. I despise the hypocrisy in the Republican party. But a witch-hunt is a witch-hunt. If the gay left thinks it will advance gay dignity by using tactics that depend on homophobia to work, that violate privacy, that demonizes gay people, then all I can say is: they are wrong."
Michael Reagan goes on the counter attack:
"Mike Rogers is a scandalmonger who calls himself a "Gay activist blogger" devoted to "outing" alleged closet-gay Republicans."
"He's outing all of these targets, not caring who he hurts, simply because they don't agree with the radical gay agenda. There is no outrage from the Democrats or the media that there is somebody out there punishing conservatives who don't agree with the liberal gay agenda. "
Here's my take:
As a rule, I'm not in favor of outing myself. I've learned how traumatic an experience it can be and don't think anyone else should make that decision for someone unless there are serious mitigating circumstances.
I do belive, however, that a closeted gay person actively working to restrict the rights of other GLBT people makes them fair game to being outed. It's one thing for a person to have their own issues with self-loathing and inability to accept themselves, it's quite another for them to direct that energy into harming others by working to shape public policy.
Since integrity and motivation are often questioned by people on different sides of an issue, in my view the notion of if any Republicans or their staffers in Congress (the party that has tried to make discrimination against GLBT people part of the U. S. Constitution) are closeted gay people belongs on the table.
If they are lying about that, what else are they lying about?
I'd appreciate your thoughts on an issue that is colored in shades of grey.
October 19, 2006
James Dobson and his "Sheeple"
This column in the Denver Post starts out:
"There's a reason followers of the reactionary James Dobson are called "sheeple."
As chairman of the $145 million-a-year propaganda organization Focus on the Family, Dobson is the ultimate puppet master, giving conservative members of Congress marching orders in exchange for votes from his flock. "
This column goes on to show how Dobson's organization, now a Political Action Committee posing as a religious ministry, influences the votes of millions of people.
The columnist, Cindy Rodriguez, concludes:
"So wouldn't a person of strong moral values at least chide (Hastert for his inaction?
Nope. Not when you are a puppet master of members of Congress who use the name of God to pass laws that take away civil rights in exchange for campaign contributions and the promise of votes from the flock. A man of real moral values would urge Congress to increase college Pell grants, expand work training programs, and offer struggling working- class families subsidized day care.
Instead, he vilifies gay people as people who are destroying marriage. Dobson talks about having a pro-life agenda, but never speaks out against the deaths of more than 2,700 American troops in Iraq, or against capital punishment, which is really a euphemism for state-sponsored murder.
The sad part is the sheeple don't see the hypocrisy and don't realize they're being used."
Jesus didn't teach anything about selective morality. Dr. Dobson came up with that on his own.
"There's a reason followers of the reactionary James Dobson are called "sheeple."
As chairman of the $145 million-a-year propaganda organization Focus on the Family, Dobson is the ultimate puppet master, giving conservative members of Congress marching orders in exchange for votes from his flock. "
This column goes on to show how Dobson's organization, now a Political Action Committee posing as a religious ministry, influences the votes of millions of people.
The columnist, Cindy Rodriguez, concludes:
"So wouldn't a person of strong moral values at least chide (Hastert for his inaction?
Nope. Not when you are a puppet master of members of Congress who use the name of God to pass laws that take away civil rights in exchange for campaign contributions and the promise of votes from the flock. A man of real moral values would urge Congress to increase college Pell grants, expand work training programs, and offer struggling working- class families subsidized day care.
Instead, he vilifies gay people as people who are destroying marriage. Dobson talks about having a pro-life agenda, but never speaks out against the deaths of more than 2,700 American troops in Iraq, or against capital punishment, which is really a euphemism for state-sponsored murder.
The sad part is the sheeple don't see the hypocrisy and don't realize they're being used."
Jesus didn't teach anything about selective morality. Dr. Dobson came up with that on his own.
October 18, 2006
Condi Rice Swears In (gasp!) a Gay Guy!
Boy, does the religious right have their collective undies twisted in a knot after this. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swore in Mark Dybul as the nation's new global AIDS coordinator, a position that ranks him as an ambassador. Dybul is openly gay and the bible at his swearing in ceremony was held by his partner Jason Claire. During the ceremony, Secretary Rice referred to Claire's mother as Dybul's "mother-in-law." Yep, you could practically hear right-winger's underwear getting twisted up as those words came out of Rice's mouth.
Of course, religious right leaders responded, well, about like you would expect them to.
Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, says the secretary's comments were "profoundly offensive" and fly in the face of the Bush administration's endorsement of a federal marriage protection amendment, though that backing be less than enthusiastic.
"We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," says Sprigg. "But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner's family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing."
Actually, I find his comments "profoundly offensive."
Of course, religious right leaders responded, well, about like you would expect them to.
Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, says the secretary's comments were "profoundly offensive" and fly in the face of the Bush administration's endorsement of a federal marriage protection amendment, though that backing be less than enthusiastic.
"We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," says Sprigg. "But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner's family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing."
Actually, I find his comments "profoundly offensive."
October 17, 2006
Info On GLBT History Month
The Equality Forum has put up an excellent web site in conjunction with GLBT History Month.
Found at http://www.glbthistorymonth.com/glbthistorymonth/, the site features the biography of an individual important to GLBT history every day for the month of October. The people covered range from Oscar Wilde to Sheryl Swoopes, Elton John to Barney Frank, etc.
I encourage you to check it out.
Found at http://www.glbthistorymonth.com/glbthistorymonth/, the site features the biography of an individual important to GLBT history every day for the month of October. The people covered range from Oscar Wilde to Sheryl Swoopes, Elton John to Barney Frank, etc.
I encourage you to check it out.
Research Shows Kids of Gay Parents Do Just Fine
To anyone with an open mind or who knows of any children raised by same-sex parents, this is a true DUH headline, but the fact that is was published in the mainstream press will hopefully make some people reconsider their position on adoption by gay parents.
The story in the Madison, Wisconsin State Journal, a state with gay marriage prohibition on the ballot this November, quotes NYU sociology professor Judith Stacey, who claims that anti-gay marriage groups have been dishonest in the way they used data from a study she conducted five years.
I'll give you a moment to get over the shock of that statement.
Moving forward, Stacey has updated her study with new research over the last five years.
"I have been surprised that the differences so far seem to be smaller than I would have guessed," Stacey said.
Stacey, who has always supported gay marriage, is co-authoring an update to the first article that looks at some 80 studies of gay and lesbian parents, single mothers and fathers and their children from several countries.
In the first article, Stacey's study examined potential limitations in the studies' samples of human subjects and methods. Today, there are still holes in what we know, she said, noting that many studies of same-sex parents have focused on well-to-do whites and have neglected minorities and the poor.
But she said a new wave of research is "much solider now," addressing more of those issues as well as children such as Hill, who were born into families of same-sex parents rather than to opposite-sex parents who later split up and took same-sex partners.
"The kids are fine. There's no evidence whatsoever that children of gay and lesbian parents have noticeably different outcomes on mental health," Stacey said of the findings. "They turn out at least as well.
These children may turn out somewhat better, she added. "It's not because of the sexuality but because of selection factors. It's because these are wanted children," Stacey said, noting that same-sex couples have to deliberately set out to conceive or adopt children. "When you're looking at heterosexual parenting, you have a lot of accidental" pregnancies.
There is a lot of interesting detail in the State Journal article, along with the obligatory dissenting opinion by a tool of Focus on the Family, that is worth reading.
The story in the Madison, Wisconsin State Journal, a state with gay marriage prohibition on the ballot this November, quotes NYU sociology professor Judith Stacey, who claims that anti-gay marriage groups have been dishonest in the way they used data from a study she conducted five years.
I'll give you a moment to get over the shock of that statement.
Moving forward, Stacey has updated her study with new research over the last five years.
"I have been surprised that the differences so far seem to be smaller than I would have guessed," Stacey said.
Stacey, who has always supported gay marriage, is co-authoring an update to the first article that looks at some 80 studies of gay and lesbian parents, single mothers and fathers and their children from several countries.
In the first article, Stacey's study examined potential limitations in the studies' samples of human subjects and methods. Today, there are still holes in what we know, she said, noting that many studies of same-sex parents have focused on well-to-do whites and have neglected minorities and the poor.
But she said a new wave of research is "much solider now," addressing more of those issues as well as children such as Hill, who were born into families of same-sex parents rather than to opposite-sex parents who later split up and took same-sex partners.
"The kids are fine. There's no evidence whatsoever that children of gay and lesbian parents have noticeably different outcomes on mental health," Stacey said of the findings. "They turn out at least as well.
These children may turn out somewhat better, she added. "It's not because of the sexuality but because of selection factors. It's because these are wanted children," Stacey said, noting that same-sex couples have to deliberately set out to conceive or adopt children. "When you're looking at heterosexual parenting, you have a lot of accidental" pregnancies.
There is a lot of interesting detail in the State Journal article, along with the obligatory dissenting opinion by a tool of Focus on the Family, that is worth reading.
Will There Be Success at the Polls for Same-Sex Marriage?
It could happen according to this USA Today article.
"It could be a watershed year," said Carrie Evans, state legislative director at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian advocacy group.
Heading into next month's elections, opponents have gone 19 for 19 in winning state ballot initiatives that banned same-sex marriage, winning an average 70% of the votes.
That could change this year, however. Colorado could be the first state to vote in favor of same-sex domestic partnerships, and polls in Arizona and South Dakota are both running against banning same-sex marriage.
If these numbers hold up, that will fly in the face of the religious right's two favorite arguements in opposition; the voice of the majority and the overreach of activist judges.
I wonder what they'll come up in those states? I instinctively cringe at the thought.
"It could be a watershed year," said Carrie Evans, state legislative director at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian advocacy group.
Heading into next month's elections, opponents have gone 19 for 19 in winning state ballot initiatives that banned same-sex marriage, winning an average 70% of the votes.
That could change this year, however. Colorado could be the first state to vote in favor of same-sex domestic partnerships, and polls in Arizona and South Dakota are both running against banning same-sex marriage.
If these numbers hold up, that will fly in the face of the religious right's two favorite arguements in opposition; the voice of the majority and the overreach of activist judges.
I wonder what they'll come up in those states? I instinctively cringe at the thought.
October 16, 2006
"Ex-Gay" Lies and God's Love
About a month ago, I linked to a piece in The Advocate by a young man named Kyle Rice, who wrote about why he hated being gay.
Today, I'm linking to a response in the same place by Timothy Kinkaid, who writes for the outstanding site "Ex-Gay Watch." Tim was, like Kyle, raised as a conservative Christian and wrote this piece because Kyle's "reminded me of where I came from."
As I would have expected, Tim's piece is well written with compassion and empathy, encouraging Kyle not to head down the "ex-gay" path. Here's an excerpt:
"But the most damaging and difficult lie of all is that you cannot be gay and Christian.
I don't say that because I think Christians should never try to change their orientation. I say that because the vast majority of people who do try will never experience such a change.
And when they finally give up their long, futile struggle, they often believe that this means they must also abandon their faith. I pray that when you discover you have not become straight you will not then believe that you must give up your relationship with God."
I continue my prayers for Kyle and also give thanks for gay men like Tim who have walked through the fire of condemnation and doubt and emerged stronger for it.
Today, I'm linking to a response in the same place by Timothy Kinkaid, who writes for the outstanding site "Ex-Gay Watch." Tim was, like Kyle, raised as a conservative Christian and wrote this piece because Kyle's "reminded me of where I came from."
As I would have expected, Tim's piece is well written with compassion and empathy, encouraging Kyle not to head down the "ex-gay" path. Here's an excerpt:
"But the most damaging and difficult lie of all is that you cannot be gay and Christian.
I don't say that because I think Christians should never try to change their orientation. I say that because the vast majority of people who do try will never experience such a change.
And when they finally give up their long, futile struggle, they often believe that this means they must also abandon their faith. I pray that when you discover you have not become straight you will not then believe that you must give up your relationship with God."
I continue my prayers for Kyle and also give thanks for gay men like Tim who have walked through the fire of condemnation and doubt and emerged stronger for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
