Liberal Libertarian Lunacy

What to expect on Prop 8 ruling

2011-11-16T16:59:00.001-06:00

LibLibLunacy

My apologies for continually referring to the group "Project Marriage" when in fact the group's name is ProtectMarriage.

Announcement of expected ruling

Los Angeles Times article on oral arguments

Time article on U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling

Video about Prop 8 lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies

They're setting gays on fire - No, seriously

2011-11-14T16:46:00.000-06:00

LibLibLunacy

UnicornBooty story about Henry Hilliard

Detroit Free Press story reporting Hilliard was missing.

Detroit News story of when Hilliard was identified

Texas man assaulted, thrown into lit burner barrel

Gay man burned to death in Scotland

"Friends" set gay man on fire

News channel video and interview of man set fire by friends

Respect for Marriage Act heads to full Senate

2011-11-10T22:57:00.001-06:00

LibLibLunacy

News about the Iowa special election.

The American Independent reporting on the repeal of DOMA getting through the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Al Franken comes back at Chuck Grassley.

Wall Street Journal's Law blog.

The lie about how long gay men live

2011-11-06T20:24:00.000-06:00

LiberalLibertarianLunacy

Here are links to some of the information referenced here.

G. Craige Lewis' Twitter page.

Article on Paul Cameron's obituary study.

An article debunking Cameron's findings.

The Family Research Institute

Michigan Republicans allow bullying in anti-bullying bill

2011-11-04T13:06:00.000-05:00

LiberalLibertarianLunacy

Here are the websites mentioned in the video.

Think Progress article with video of Democratic senator's comments

Text of the Senate version of the bill.

Mother Jones article.

Wonkette article.

Here it is! The new Liberal Libertarian Lunacy!

2011-11-02T18:48:00.000-05:00

Here is the relaunch of Liberal Libertarian Lunacy! I hope this will be successful. Please provide feedback, as my persona, style of delivery, voice even are all going through experimentation for this project. So any reaction you can provide will be immensely valuable.

LiberalLibertarianLunacy

Here are links to the items I mentioned in the video.

American Family Association video

Chick-Fil-A story

Texas man beating

Colorado lesbians

Sweet irony

2009-07-26T19:53:00.002-05:00

Ben Shapiro probably couldn’t have shown poorer timing with his recent post at CNSNews.com. With this epistle, Shapiro hand-picks several real news stories that descrribe deplorable events or conditions people elsewhere in the world face: A teenage Iranian girl who faces probable gang rape before she is executed, North Korean citizens starving at the draconian hands of their government, for example. And then with the commonest of a priori reasoning, concludes that these news events are evidence of President Obama’s declining influence throughout the world.

Meanwhile, a new Pew Global Attitudes Project was released that shows opinion of the U.S. overseas has improved. In fact, the report concludes that America’s status in the world has “markedly” improved under the Obama administration. This, mind you, would be an example of an a posteriori argument, one that is based on data.

Using Shapiro’s reasoning, one could easily find plenty of examples in the world press to reach the conclusion that the Bush administration’s neo-conservatism led to an increase in America’s stature throughout the world. But then there would be that pesky empirical data that suggests otherwise.

Reassessing

2009-07-21T19:29:00.002-05:00

It’s been nearly three months since my last post, and I have decided to attempt a resurrection. Why, might you ask, have I taken this hiatus?

Frankly, I had doubts about the viability of this blog. I wasn’t convinced of its voice. I wasn’t sure I was saying anything that anyone wasn’t already saying. And certainly based on the traffic numbers, so plainly displayed by the counted on the right, I wasn’t convinced anyone was reading anything I wrote.

But marriage is an extraordinarily important issue for the lesbigay community, as are many topics. And what the “opposition” is up to is always important to keep track of.

Take today for example. Early this afternoon, bloggers and tweeters were all buzzing about the Senate passing the Matthew Shepard Act, a new hate crimes bill that would include sexual orientation at the federal level. This blog here is just one of many that reported on this bill today. But why didn’t the Matthew Shepard Foundation report anything on the bill’s alleged passing? Neither did the mainstream press, such as CNN or the Associated Press? The Wicked Gay Blog reported on the MSA passing the Senate, but a commenter noted that the MSA was attached to a spending bill that President Obama had vowed to veto.

That bill included funding for the F-22 fighter; but the Senate removed that item from the final bill. Which means the reason Obama threatened a veto has been removed from the bill.

Still, it seems odd to me that the mainstream press hasn’t picked up on this.

New poll presents conundrum

2009-04-30T06:47:00.003-05:00

A recent poll, the highlights of which have been published by the Associated Press today, confuses the heck out of me. Conducted by the polling institute at Quinnipiac University in Hartford, Conn., the poll found that a majority of respondents were opposed to allowing same-sex marriage, but a majority of the same respondents thought that civil unions were OK.

Huh? I don’t understand the rationale. These respondents are fine with civil unions that would provide essentially all the legal trappings of marriage, even the idea of allowing same-sex couples to adopt children. They just don’t want it called marriage. That’s really what they’re saying. And that, to me, makes so sense.

Why go through all the effort of creating this parallel universe of “marriage-like” status when marriage already exists? And besides, the creation of civil unions could not be solely for same-sex couples; it would be an option that would have to be available to mixed-sex couples as well. The anti-marriage crowd doesn’t get the fact that civil unions are in reality bad for marriage; civil unions weaken marriage – they neither strengthen nor protect marriage.

Separate is not equal. I think it comes down to a fear that should same-sex couples be allowed to marry, then clergy of churches that oppose such unions would be required by law to conduct these marriages. The anti-marriage crowd has been very successful in getting this impression to stick, and the gay lobby has helped this perception to linger.

I believe in same-sex marriage, but ...

2009-04-20T22:04:00.004-05:00

Perez Hilton ought to be bitch-slapped for asking that ridiculous question during the Miss USA pageant, and the entire panel of judges should be shamed beyond shame for allowing Miss California to be bumped from the title.

It's just another example for the anti-marriage crowd to add to their arsenal to continually portray those in favor of same-sex marriage as a bunch of militant queers who care nothing about marriage and who are more interested in making a spectacle of themselves.

I mean, look at that outfit Hilton was wearing! It's hideous!

But seriously, such a sophomoric move does nothing for the cause. Nothing.

The road paved with good intentions

2009-04-13T19:51:00.007-05:00

What do Bill O’Reilly and the Rev. Rick Warren have in common? A feeling of frustration that they cannot deny saying something when the evidence is on video.

Alright, I won’t be so harsh. O’Reilly and Warren truly have very little in common. But it remains true that in this age of video taping, the Internet and Google, you can’t count on people being unaware of what you might have said in the past.

Politico ran something Sunday on Warren’s failing to appear as scheduled on ABC’s “This Week.” It was believed that Warren was going to clarify a recent denial that he had endorsed Prop 8. Tough to deny endorsing Prop 8 when you did so willingly while being video taped. But it isn’t just that embarrassment that could have Warren in trouble. The IRS doesn’t take very kindly to tax-exempt institutions – like churches for example – commenting on matters before a public vote. That’s campaigning, and to do so legally, you must register as a campaign organization and reveal who is giving you money to take whatever position you are regarding a ballot proposal.

But Warren pulled a George Jones and was a no show. I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt, what with all those sermons, etc, fatigue likely played a role in his failing to appear. Yet the explanation by a staffer sent to Politico is so delicious because it again proves that, particularly with e-mail, the longer the message, the more likely you will say something you will regret later on. Consider, my friends, this line in the missive:

“Throughout his pastoral ministry spanning nearly 30 years, Pastor Warren has remained committed to the biblical definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, for life -- a position held by most fellow Evangelical pastors. He has further stressed that for 5,000 years, EVERY culture and EVERY religion has maintained this worldview.”

For 5,000 years, eh? One man, one woman, eh? Does this wonk even know his Bible? Abraham must be rolling in his grave. And good King Solomon as well. Gee, and I wonder what Islam has to say about this. Being a practicing Buddhist, I am aware that the Buddha gave no specific teaching about marriage, defining it clearly as one man, one woman, given the fact that, ummm, less than 5,000 years ago it was not uncommon for South Asian men of wealth to have more than one wife. And oh yes, the Chinese have had a long tradition of multiple wives. I bet that goes back further than 5,000 years.

I’m sorry, but these guys simply do not know what they are talking about. They don’t even know their own religious heritage, let alone anything else about any other culture.

Iowa decision deliciously unsurprising

2009-04-05T14:01:00.002-05:00

Alright, I admit that I’ve been a bit slow to post about the recent Iowa Supreme Court decision, which struck down that state’s legislative ban against same-sex marriage. Yes, it’s huge news. And every blogger in the world had something up about the decision immediately. Except me.

Not that I wasn’t excited. I am very excited about the ruling. And I am also very excited about the fact that same-sex couples will be allowed to marry in Iowa for probably two years before any effort can successfully get a constitutional amendment on the state ballot to rescind the decision. By that time, what would be the point of such a constitutional amendment? It certainly would not be an altruistic desire to protect marriage. By that time, such a move would be rightfully perceived as the bigoted move it was from the start.

What I found intriguing about the unanimous ruling was how the court pointedly opined that it could see no benefit to the state in maintaining a ban against same-sex marriage, marking the legislation for what it was: a cowardly attempt to keep down “a historically disfavored class.”

These justices aren’t afraid of upholding the law. I saw that in 1998 when the court issued a monumental decision in the case of Bormann v. Kossuth County, a decision that it upheld in 2004 in Gacke v. Pork Xtra. Now you may be wondering, “what do two agricultural cases have to do with gay marriage?”

The short answer is nothing. However, what is relevant is the fact that the Iowa Supreme Court has shown a decisive tendency to pay attention to what the law says, rather than to which party has the biggest bank roll. And in doing so, it has historically written very clear opinions so that its decisions will not likely be misinterpreted in the future. This is very good news in terms of the court’s decision Friday in Varnum, et al. v. Polk County.

In the Des Moines Register article I linked above, it was stated that Iowa was chosen for the same-sex marriage case because of “fair-mindedness of its residents and the courts.”

The fact that it could be as long as two years before anything can go before voters to overturn the ruling might have had something to do with the selection as well.

Arguments begin in California

2009-03-05T19:12:00.003-06:00

The airwaves and the newspapers and the blogs have all been a twitter about the Prop 8 hearing today before the California Supreme Court. But sometimes, I really wonder how much mainstream America cares about this.

Perhaps sneaking under the radar, at least in terms of news coverage, was an announcement from Equality Illinois that a bill in the Illinois House that would create civil unions in that state had cleared committee and was headed to the full House for consideration. By the way, I really hate the way their Web site is set up.

Anyway, like other civil union bills, this would create marriage-lite; an arrangement similar to marriage, that would bestow “some of the rights” inherent in marriage, but still would not be marriage. You queer couples, go to the back of the class.

This is not equality.

Meanwhile, Prop 8 got its day in court in California, and the speculation about how it went today is interesting. The San Francisco Chronicle indicated that the court appeared willing to uphold the voters’ decision regarding Prop 8. Quotes The Chronicle: “There have been initiatives that have taken away rights from minorities by majority vote” and have been upheld, said Chief Justice Ronald George. “Isn't that the system we have to live with?” However, it also reported that the court seemed inclined to assert that all the same-sex couples married after its ruling and prior to Prop 8’s passing would remain married.

The Associated Press, however, noted that part of the argument was over whether Prop 8 merely amended California’s constitution, or revised the document.

I know there has been considerable lucid argument by some in the gay community that gaining equality in marriage is not going to be won in the courtroom. This argument has some appeal because it relies on a romantic notion that rationally thinking people can be persuaded to accept same-sex marriage as a reality of life without giving up on their heart-felt religious beliefs. There is a part of me that wants to buy this argument. But I can’t.

Not one single societal injustice in this country’s history was ever won by turning the hearts and minds of the majority. Not one. Every societal wrong this country has committed – from slavery to the subjugation of women and on to brutal child labor – had to be rectified through legal means, often against the majority will. More than 90 years passed after the emancipation before a court finally said enough with segregation, and another 40 years passed before America was willing to elect a black president.

The other side knows this. That’s why it attacks “activist courts.” It knows that as long as it can hobble the judiciary with guilt that it can continue with its bigoted ways.

Prop 8 gets its day in court

2009-02-25T19:52:00.002-06:00

It’s official now. Oral arguments have been scheduled for March 5 in the California Supreme Court regarding the constitutional validity of Prop 8.

I found it gratifying to read the action filed by Lambda Legal challenging Prop 8; gratifying because it raises the same argument I raised in a previous blog post Dec. 21. And that is Prop 8 does more than amend the California constitution; it takes a significant article of that constitution, and writes an exception. Sounds minor, but think about it. The California constitution protects all the states residents with equal protection under the law. Prop 8 says “except for gay couples wanting to marry each other.” This is a unique and challengeable, in my opinion, assertion. Either the state’s constitution provides equal protection under the law or it doesn’t.

By the way, Lambda cites Baehr v. Miike as precedent, which I’ve written about in this blog here, here, here, and here.

Here is the relevant portion of the Lambda lawsuit: “According to the California Constitution, significant changes to the fundamental organizing principles of state government cannot be made through the initiative process, which involves petition signatures and then a simple majority vote. Instead, such changes first require the support of 2/3 of the state legislature, and then approval by a majority of voters. This would not be the first time the court has voided an improper initiative.”

Read the Huffington Post about this as well.

The New York Times pressuring Rhode Island?

2009-02-25T19:22:00.001-06:00

The New York Times in an editorial Monday came out strongly in favor of getting a bill out of a Rhode Island legislative committee to force a vote on whether that state should join its neighbors – Massachusetts and Connecticut – in extending marriage rights to same-sex couples. This bill has been apparently stuck in the Senate Judiciary Committee where it has languished since 2003. If I read the editorial correctly, it appears that the Times believes that if the bill made it out of committee, it has a good chance of succeeding.

“The Connecticut and Massachusetts Legislatures approved civil unions before the courts took the extra step of providing gay couples with full rights,” writes the Times. “Advocacy groups like Marriage Equality of Rhode Island are pushing for full rights rather than the separate-but-equal status of civil unions. They argue, correctly, that anything less is unfair.”

That has been my position all along, marriage over civil unions. However, fairness is not the central part of my position. My assertion is expanding marriage to include same-sex couples strengthens the institution of marriage; creating separate statuses like civil unions is what weakens marriage and makes it less desirable for both straight and gay couples.

Which solution to support?

2009-02-23T18:54:00.002-06:00

My apologies for being away for so long. I became aware of my negligence when I read two Op-Ed pieces in this past Sunday’s New York Times, one directly dealing with the marriage issue and the other tangentially so.

In their joint commentary “A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage,” writers David Blankenhorn and Jonathon Rauch offer a compromise of sorts that seeks to find middle ground in the debate over same-sex marriage. I laud their attempt and regrettably admit that this might be the best solution for the time being. Having said that, I must repeat that any solution that is short of marriage really only weakens the institution of marriage and unnecessarily complicates matters.

In the other Op-Ed piece, William Saletan offers in “This is the Way the Culture Wars End” an argument for same-sex marriage that reflects this conundrum created by civil unions. Although his piece is primarily focused on the abortion debate, at the end he comes out solidly in favor of same-sex marriage.

“Commitment, unlike sexual orientation, is a choice and a virtue,” Saletan writes. “Same-sex marriage binds gay couples to the same ethic of mutual support and sacrifice that Mr. Obama has praised in straight marriages. The cultural imprimatur of marriage makes the gravity of the bond stronger than a civil union or domestic partnership… Let those partners marry. In fact, let’s encourage them to. We shouldn’t just tolerate same-sex marriage. We should promote and favor marriage, regardless of orientation.”

Activist court argument doesn’t wash

2009-02-01T14:29:00.005-06:00

I apologize ahead of time, because this is going to be a long post.

The tired argument against “activist courts” is being trotted out again, this time by a senior editor at the National Review in its Jan. 26 edition. In this piece, decisions pertaining both to marriage equality and assisted suicide are dissected as examples of an activist court overstepping its constitutional authority.

Ramesh Ponnuru’s argument is that these were cases of “profound moral consequence upon which reasonable citizens of goodwill disagree,” and that the courts inappropriately intervened on the presumption that the state constitutions involved would resolve the issue under dispute.

I really find this incredible coming from a conservative writer on many levels. After all, conservatives are often wont to have all of us look upon history for direction. As Russell Kirk once wrote (and I’m paraphrasing), the conservative perspective is one in which those in the present stand upon the shoulders of those from the past in order to gaze into the future. In other words, true conservatism is a method to anticipate the future by using the lessons learned from the past. In terms of that philosophy, I don’t disagree with the premise. But conservatism hasn’t really turned out to be that philosophy; rather, it has become a philosophy blinded by ineffective paradigms.

A case in point: the notion of an “activist judiciary.” What is an “activist judiciary”? Is it a judiciary that inappropriately dictates social policy and supplants the legislature? Or is it a judiciary that, with prescient perspicuity, shows how a current popular sentiment is self-serving and contrary to the true intentions of our Founding Fathers?

Ponnuru attempts to appear fair by noting that both sides of the “judicial activism” argument contain truth, but this is merely a ruse to portray his thesis as being objective and well-thought. It is neither, as he falls into the same tired argument, which he accuses the other side of, and that is he ignores key elements of how our republic is structured as well as how quickly the argument fails when faced with the historical evidence found in precedent.

For example, in the California marriage case, Ponnuru suggests that for the California court to “strengthen his (sic) case, one of the following two things would have to be true: Californians who ratified their state constitution understood its guarantees of equal treatment of persons to entail same-sex marriage, or they understood themselves to be handing over to the courts the authority to order the state to recognize same-sex marriage in the name of equality. Both propositions are, literally, incredible.”

What is incredible is how Ponnuru can come to such a conclusion, because it completely ignores our county’s history. If his premise is correct, it would mean that our Founding Fathers, when creating the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution, were aware that their documents would apply to blacks and women, or that they were giving permission to the courts in the future to come to that conclusion. As we all learn in school, some of the Founding Fathers were slave owners. And undoubtedly all of them wouldn’t think for a minute that a woman could become a local government leader, let alone president. Yet we see that there was great resistance in our republic’s early years to the notion that the statement, “all men are created equal,” really applied to all men. It is also clear that that resistance carried on well into the following centuries. And certainly behind this resistance was the collective will of a majority (white men) that had no intention of allowing that statement to apply to either women or blacks.

Perhaps knowing how weak his assertion is, Ponnuru attempts to fudge the argument even more by suggesting, using the Montana case regarding assisted suicide, that the meaning of words like “equality” or “dignity”, which are at the center of these issues, are open to interpretation because these definitions can be subject to personal nuance.

That may be true with the word “dignity.” When asked to precisely identify what it means to be treated with dignity, a person could stammer his or her way through such a definition; “dignity” can be rightfully labeled a “vague” term even though intuitively we all know what it means. The word is very much like the word “pornography”: we may have difficultly explaining in words precisely what it means in all circumstances, but we can all agree with the notion that we know what pornography is when we see it.

The word “equality”, however, is quite different. It can be precisely defined in words; we don’t need a picture to look at to say “equality is that.” Ask anyone what equality under the law means and you’ll get the same answer time and again: it means the law treats everyone the same.

It is also remarkable that someone of Ponnuru’s intelligence and education would make the following statement: “If you were designing a government from scratch, you would have no compelling reason for entrusting these decisions to judges in your constitution.” It is remarkable that Ponnuru wrote this because the Founding Fathers did precisely that; create a government from scratch with three branches of authority, each specifically designed to keep the other two in check. That this was the intended structure of our government was so self-evident that a traveling Frenchman in 19th century America was able to see that and write extensively about it in his famous tome, “Democracy in America.”

It was clear to Alexis de Tocqueville what the judiciary’s role was in America, and that was to interpret the law to ensure that neither the executive nor the legislative branches abused the authority granted them. It was necessary, Tocqueville wrote, because of an inherent flaw in how the legislative branch was selected: popular vote for limited terms in office, which opened the door for a “tyranny of the majority.” Tocqueville noted that these terms in office were short enough that a representative might be too focused on what his constituents wanted, rather than what was truly good for the country. Hence, there was always the danger that legislators would enact law that was purely motivated by a desire to appease campaign supporters.

Ponnuru closes his article with the reactionary statement: “Our laws would deserve respect even if they were wrong in taking most policy discussions out of the hands of the courts, simply because they are our laws.” Such a statement is fraught with incredible danger, because it promotes the notion of emasculating one of the three branches of government, removing the very authority it was granted by the authors of the Constitution. It is clear that our courts must play such an “activist” role, if that is how it shall be labeled. Ponnuru’s desire for a reluctance by the court to playing an activist role was granted in Plessy v. Ferguson, yet would anyone today agree that the court’s majority decision in that case was the correct one? One could easily imagine Ponnuru, were he living at the time of Plessy, writing a scathing attack against Justice John Marshall Harlan for his “activist” position that the majority decision was wrong.

It is clear that if we did not have activist courts, we would still be faced with lawfully enforced segregation, lawfully enforced restrictions on the races intermarrying, lawfully enforced prohibitions against women voting or having equal opportunity, and lawfully enforced disrespect for minority religious beliefs.

Take a look at Z

2009-01-27T19:34:00.003-06:00

Rehashing what went wrong with Prop 8 last fall has been a popular topic for many writers and bloggers. It can get boring. But it is important to look at what others are saying and find out who is really cutting to the quick.

For example, there are those who like to blame others for Prop 8’s outcome. I must admit, I have been one to play the blame game, and by that I mean blaming someone other than the lesbigay community for the falter. Blame the religious blacks, or the Mormons, or whatever. But I must agree with what Michael Bronski wrote in the January issue of Z Magazine: It’s out fault. Period. (Sorry I don’t have a link to the article because the online version of Z Magazine is available to subscribers only; the archived article will be available later)

One issue Bronski highlighted was the frequent citing of Loving v. Virginia in the argument for same-sex marriage, a Supreme Court decision I have mentioned from time to time as well. First, this is what Bronski wrote:

“Another blunder was the constant recitation that the fight for same-sex marriage was exactly like the fight for interracial marriage that was won by Loving v. Virginia – an essentially false comparison that must have been difficult for many African Americans to hear and was not useful in trying to present the question of same-sex marriage (a moral issue for many people) in a civil rights context.”

This is a good point to keep in mind. While I have used the Loving case in previous blog posts, my context was different. Rather than trying to use Loving as a template for same-sex marriage, I was ferreting out text from the decision I saw as applicable. The issue of interracial marriage prohibitions and that of banning same-sex marriage are fundamentally different. They share certain arguments, but each circumstance if undoubtedly different.

The Loving case can play a role in our argument, but it cannot be a substitution for our argument. And Bronski is right to differentiate that interracial marriage is a civil rights issue, whereas same-sex marriage is a moral issue for many, regardless of how badly we might wish it to be purely about civil rights.

Something else that caught my attention in Bronski’s piece was his exposition regarding Barack Obama. Take a look at this quote.

“In the last days of the campaign the group Protect-Marriage.com distributed flyers with a photograph of Barack Obama quoting him as being against same-sex marriage, which was true. But Obama had also stated that he was against state-wide referendums to decide the issue and was specifically against Prop 8.”

Bronski, I believe, is trying to portray the use of Obama’s statement by Protect-Marriage.com as being disingenuous because they didn’t include the other facts. But I disagree. Think about it. On one hand, you say you are against same-sex marriage. Then, on the other hand, you say you are against an effort to ban such marriages? How can that make sense? And that raises another issue. Just how much of an ally is Barack Obama? How can you be against enacting laws that ban same-sex marriage and be against such marriages as well? It doesn’t wash, and Protect-Marriage.com was well within the sphere of legitimate use of his statement in its campaign.

Face it folks: until he says something different, Obama does not support equal marriage rights for us. He cannot oppose efforts to ban same-sex marriage and simultaneously be against same-sex marriage. It’s one or the other.

The problem is I believe Obama thinks that civil unions will be an acceptable answer. But he’s wrong. Civil unions weaken marriage. Allowing same-sex marriage does not weaken marriage. Obama really needs to ready David Myers’ book.

Repeal DOMA?

2009-01-25T17:32:00.002-06:00

An article published this past week at CNSNews.com reveals that the Obama administration wants to repeal DOMA as well as extend all the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. Does that mean Obama supports same-sex marriage? Not even. It does mean, however, further expansion of civil unions, which I have repeatedly said are actually bad for marriage. But this is how moderate politicians seek to gain support from the lesbigay community.

The problem, of course, is that when civil unions become more formalized, they won’t just be for gays. Civil unions will have to be available for everyone, gay and straight. And if that’s the case, why would straights want to get married? So rather than protecting marriage, expansion of civil unions will work to erode the institution further until it becomes moot. And seeing how civil unions would have to be available to everyone, why bother creating them? We already have an institution that covers what a civil union covers.

It’s called marriage.

The Rev. Warren and AIDS

2009-01-24T18:00:00.004-06:00

Hats off to the blogger at my new-found favorite blog, Joe.My.God., for finding a report and getting it out there for more to see regarding the truth about the Rev. Rick Warren’s “work against AIDS.”

I expressed my doubt about Warren’s assertion that he was deeply involved in the fight against AIDS, but my doubt was raised over his willingness to fight AIDS in Africa, not America. My question was where was Warren when AIDS was a national issue here?

The blog refers to a piece in The Daily Beast written by Max Blumenthal. Granted, my blog is not about AIDS, or even gay rights in general. I am focused on the marriage issue. But as I have written about Warren in the past because of his deep involvement in opposing Prop 8 in California, I wanted to bring this to light.

Read Blumenthal’s article. You need to know.

Reassessing Prop 8

2009-01-24T12:02:00.004-06:00

Everyone who supports equal marriage rights needs to read what Matt Foreman wrote for the Web site towleroad. He reiterates a point I have been trying to make, and that is we cannot achieve our goals if we ridicule and belittle those with strongly-held religious beliefs.

“Anyone who thinks it is easy to overcome homophobia that’s reinforced on a weekly basis from a person’s own house of worship doesn’t appreciate the role of religion in so many people’s lives or its pervasive use as a rationale for voting for Prop 8: an astonishing 94 percent of ‘Yes’ voters said ‘religion’ or the ‘Bible’ was most influential in deciding how to vote.”

Foreman also points out another issue marriage supporters need to address, and that is fellow gays who have no interest in gaining marriage rights. This is probably more of an issue among gay men than lesbians; nonetheless, we must recognize that there are those among us who see marriage as a negative rather than a positive for the community. To them, marriage represents the grand assimilation of our culture into the larger straight culture. And at the heart of this argument, I contend, is a desire for unrestricted sexual freedom. Straight people know that, and they will always exploit that.

But as Foreman points out, marriage is much more significant an issue for our community than merely attaining a package of privileges.

I have to agree with Foreman when he points out our strategy has been ineffective because we have clung to this notion that all we have to do is show ourselves without horns and people will love us. Hello!

“Think about friends who tell you their relatives are OK with them being gay or lesbian so long as they don’t talk about it,” Foreman writes. “Why do so many of us find it so incredibly hard to bring up gay issues with co-workers or when we visit our families over the holidays? Or when we do, what about the painful silence or uncomfortable glances that so often follow? Think your Aunt Jane – who’s only recently started to be nice to your partner -- is going to see a television ad and suddenly think, ‘Darn, I’ve been wrong all along about this gay marriage thing!’? Think again.”

It’s a very good piece and I strongly urge my readers to take a look at it.

Encouraging news

2009-01-24T11:08:00.002-06:00

Politicians who say they don’t pay attention to polls are lying. All pay attention to them. It’s how they use that information that is important. Bill Clinton’s presidency got the reputation of forming policy around poll results, which turned out to be a smart policy for a while. But all it takes is one contrary poll to cause confusion and doubt.

Same-sex marriage is a popular topic for pollsters, and there is a plethora of these polls. A recent one comes out of Florida, where the Orlando Sentinel reported that most Florida voters were in favor of either allowing same-sex marriage or civil unions. That’s encouraging news; however, the article fails to reveal the poll’s methodology as well as how many Florida voters were sampled and where they lived.

But the results are bothersome as well because I continue to be troubled by the support that exists for civil unions, which I liken to Rice-a-roni, the ultimate consolation prize (watch the movie “The Broken Hearts Club” to see what I mean).

The blogger at Joe.My.God. has some news that the Swedish parliament may be taking the right step to move beyond allowing same-sex couples to register within civil unions by expanding the right to marry, both civilly and within a religious ceremony. And as would be expected, the legislation allows for ministers to opt out of conducting same-sex marriages. Which supports a point I’ve always tried to make – Your religious beliefs cannot accommodate same-sex marriage? Fine! You don’t have to conduct any of them. But don’t stand in the way of those religious leaders who are willing to conduct them.

Mystery senator supports marriage rights

2009-01-23T21:27:00.004-06:00

Huffington Post had a bit on Kirsten Gillibrand, who was appointed to fill Senate vacancy left by Hillary Clinton. Of particular interest in the item was a quote from a representative from the Empire State Pride Agenda that indicated that Gillibrand supported equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Good news from a somewhat obscure individual. But will she be in the Senate long enough to be able to act on her conviction? She would have to run to retain the seat in 2010.

Hawaii 1996, Part 4

2009-01-19T21:34:00.003-06:00

Forgive my indulgences and my diversions away from my series on the remarkable 1996 Hawaii marriage case. But the time has come for me to resume the narrative with the “second half” of the state’s case, the half during which everything began to fall apart.

As I wrote in the last entry on the case, the state of Hawaii did its best to argue in its best interest. The state brought forward two very reputable witnesses to essentially assert that allowing same-sex marriage would be bad for children because it disrupted the traditional family model of a father and a mother. The first two witnesses for the state presented evidence that children do best when raised in a two-parent household with both biological parents.

I just want to repeat that I, nor should anyone else, have any argument with this assertion. But as was revealed during cross-examination of these witnesses, there is no reason to presume that single-parent households are incapable of raising well-adjusted children simply because it is a single-parent household. And further, that a same-sex household is not predisposed to ineffectively rearing children simply because it is a same-sex household.

That’s an important distinction to keep in mind.

The next witness brought by the case was Richard Williams, an “expert in the field of psychology with special expertise in qualitative and quantitative research and research methods, statistical analysis and construction of research studies.” When you realize what Williams’ testimony was, you can see where the state was going; but it was a dangerous and risky move.

For all I can tell, Williams was brought in to cast doubt on all psychological and sociological studies because both psychology and sociology were inexact sciences. But he didn’t stop there, as he went on to say that both were bogus sciences, period. And if his testimony was to be accepted by the court, it would mean that the state’s first two witnesses’ testimony was suspect as well.

As it turned out, Judge Kevin S.C. Chang ruled that “the testimony of Dr. Williams is not persuasive or believable because of his expressed bias against the social sciences…. At times, Dr. Williams expressed severe views. For example, (he) believes that there is no scientific proof that evolution occurred.”

Then came the state’s last witness, Thomas Merrill, an expert in psychology, including “human development, gender development and relationships relative to children and their development.” Sounds good, except that Merrill’s experience was in private practice: he was a counselor. And he had very limited experience with children raised in same-sex households. Add to that he had not testified as an expert witness in such a case prior to this one, nor had he either participated in or conducted “any study which focused on the children of gay and lesbian parents.”

“Dr. Merrill examined the issue of same-sex versus opposite sex parent and child development for the first time as a result of his retention in this case.”

Wow. And he came after a witness who essentially believed that all social science was mumbo jumbo.

But Merrill did say something worthy of note, and as is the case in assessing witnesses, testimony from a witness can be rejected entirely, accepted in its entirety, or only parts of it accepted and the rest rejected. It’s up to the “tryer of fact,” which is normally a jury, but in this case was Judge Chang. Merrill said that children should not be denied benefits such as health care, education or housing based on their parents’ status. “Opposite-sex, same-sex, single and adoptive parent status should not be a basis to deny benefits to children.”

Thus ended the state’s case. And while the burden of proof was entirely the state’s responsibility, the plaintiffs not required to provide any evidence at all, the plaintiffs picked up their case next.

It was a case that especially impressed the judge.

The wrong fight to pick

2009-01-05T19:39:00.003-06:00

An Associated Press article I found while checking the CNS News site provides another example of the wrong fight to pick. In this story, a lesbian couple’s request to have their civil union ceremony conducted on a church-owned camp facility with an ocean view was denied by the church that owns the property. Instead of taking their request to another landowner, the lesbian couple sued. The couple took their case to the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights, which concluded the church’s refusal to make available its property violated state law.

This is the wrong fight to pick. Even if same-sex couples could be married, any church would, and should, still retain the right to refuse to conduct the ceremony or allow its facilities to be used for the ceremony. It’s not just private property; it’s property owned by a recognized religious organization, which has some of its own constitutional rights that include being able to worship in a manner it sees fit as long as it causes no public harm.

Heterosexual couples often shop for a minister to conduct their marriage when they want a religious ceremony because there are times when the first minister they turn to turns them down. This happens because the minister sees something about the proposed marriage that he or she does not wish to condone. Refusing to conduct a same-sex ceremony, or allowing one to occur, is the type of discretion any church ought to be allowed to have.

We aren’t going to succeed in achieving equal marriage rights by forcing it on people. We can use the law appropriately, but when we encounter an irresistible force (or mind set), we should just move on. I have to wonder if this couple really wants to have an ocean-side ceremony, or if they’re just pissed off and want to make a point. It looks to me that they are just pissed off and bitter, because I bet there is other ocean-side property available they could use.

If they want to pick this fight, I am rooting for the church.

I repeat: Civil unions are bad for marriage!

2009-01-03T22:55:00.003-06:00

The debate about same-sex marriage is heating up once again like it never has before. Bloggers every where are obsessed with the fallout from the Rev. Rick Warren’s deliverance of the invocation at the inauguration, as well as whether civil unions are equal to marriage or if they undermine marriage.

Sorry for my diversion from my posts regarding the Hawaii 1996 marriage case – I promise to return to them soon – but this stuff is just too delicious to ignore!

A current thread I’m reading began with Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish, but that led to a blog at The Confabulum, which in turn lead to a column at the National Review.

I’ll start of with the ridiculous statements Mona Charen makes in her column for the National Review. She’s pulling out the old argument of asking where it will stop if you allow same-sex couples to marry – polygamy and incest is right around the corner – while acknowledging it is an old argument because the gay lobby rightfully labels it as a slippery slope argument. But she waves it about valiantly nonetheless, and offers this particularly ridiculous statement:

“But what about bisexuals? I ask this not to poke fun or to hurt anyone’s feelings, but in all seriousness. How does gay marriage help a bisexual? I assume that if you are bisexual, you believe that you need to have sexual relationships with both men and women.”

This specious argument completely ignores what a marriage is: a legal monogamous union between two people. If a bisexual man marries a woman, by virtue of the marriage he has committed himself to that woman. Any sex outside of that marriage would be adultery. I would expect someone of Charen’s stature to recognize the folly of her argument, unless she is deliberately trying to mislead readers.

Joe Carter at The Confabulum called Charen’s column “excellent and persuasive.” After reading that in the first sentence of his item from Dec. 31, I reluctantly read on (and it is a very long column!). Carter is a supporter of civil unions as a method to protect marriage. He trots out a slew of “gay” writers who routinely opine in favor of open relationships. Why is it that all the gay writers in open relationships get all the ink and we monogamous types are pushed into dim corners?

Carter doesn’t understand that by promoting civil unions, he is actually cheerleading for marriage’s demise. And that leads us to Sullivan’s bit posted today. Sullivan asks some very pointed questions, particularly this one: “Could a straight couple choose to have a civil union rather than a civil marriage and suffer no legal penalty?”

People who argue for civil unions, such as Carter, are failing to realize that civil unions will not protect marriage; rather, civil unions will further weaken marriage. Allowing same-sex couples to marry will strengthen marriage because it allows a group of people to publicly proclaim in a legal forum their relationship that up to now has been barred from that possibility. Expanding marriage makes it stronger because it will eliminate the options that weaken it. Civil unions weaken marriage.

New bill possible in New Hampshire

2009-01-02T10:46:00.002-06:00

A brief diversion in my posts about the history of the Hawaii marriage case, I found this item while taking a look at Andrew Sullivan’s “The Daily Dish.” I will keep an eye on New Hampshire to see how this move works out. It’s a good move on one level because civil unions are not marriages. However, if the bill succeeds, civil unions would remain in New Hampshire, and that, I think, is not a good idea, as I believe (as do some others who have written about it) civil unions weaken marriage by creating a new option that really isn’t necessary.

Anyway, we shall see how it works out in New Hampshire.

Hawaii 1996, Part 3

2009-01-01T17:36:00.003-06:00

Four expert witnesses were presented by the state of Hawaii during the Baehr v. Miike case, all of whom were expected to testify that children ought to be raised in a two-parent home by both biological parents. It was the ideal and most desirable environment, they told then-Circuit Judge Kevin S.C. Chang. Children raised in a gay couple’s home would be “burdened” by such an environment; hence, allowing same-sex couples to marry would harm children.

Yet, under oath, these same expert witnesses mustered by the state of Hawaii admitted that same-sex couples can, and do, provide positive nurturing home environments for children, and children raised in such households turn out just fine.

If you haven’t read the two previous posts to this, you ought to now before reading further. Begin with part one, and then read part two before returning to this post.

Psychiatrist Kyle D. Pruett had conducted a 10-year longitudinal study of two-parent families with young children in which the father had a primary role in raising the children. Pruett concluded that children raised primarily by their fathers during the early years did very well in later childhood. He also noted other significant benefits to a developing child having a father present during the child’s rearing.

“Dr. Pruett stated that same-sex relationships do not provide the same type of learning model or experience for children as does male-female parenting, because there is an overabundance of information about one gender and little information about the other gender,” Chang wrote in his decision.

That was very important information for the state to get on the record. But did the state count on what else Dr. Pruett was going to say?

“Nevertheless, Dr. Pruett also stated that same-sex parents can, and do, produce children with a clear sense of gender identity… that single parents, gay fathers, lesbian mothers and same-sex couples have the potential to, and often do, raise children that are happy, healthy and well-adjusted…that single parents, gay fathers, lesbian mothers, adoptive parents, foster parents and same-sex couples can be, and do become, good parents. Significantly, Dr. Pruett knows the foregoing to be true based on his clinical experience. More specifically, Dr. Pruett stated that parents’ sexual orientation does not disqualify them from being good, fit, loving or successful parents.”

It was very significant testimony for Chang to hear, and that was from the state’s first expert witness! It got better when Pruitt said that gay couples should be allowed to adopt, and that the sex of the parents was not the most important characteristic of having a positive influence on a child: rather, the “quality of the nurturing relationship between parent and child could, and would, outweigh any limitation or burden imposed on the child as a result of having same-sex parents.” (emphasis added)

Then came testimony from sociologist David Eggebeen, which dealt largely with what marriage is all about and why people marry.

Eggebeen presented data on how over the years the marriage rate had declined while the divorce rate had increased, as had the number of “young people” cohabiting, etc.

“It’s common today to find children in single parent families. It’s common today to find children living with a mother who never married. It’s common today to find children in remarried families. It’s common today to find children in dual earner families where both parents participate in the type of work. It is common or getting common to find children whose parents never married and they’re cohabiting,” Eggebeen testified. Having said that, however, he noted that 60 percent of children were being raised in two-parent households where the parents were married to each other and both parents were the biological parents.

Through Eggebeen’s testimony it is clear that the American nuclear family is in serious trouble. And the anti-marriage crowd likes to remind everyone of this. But that argument is easily countered with the one found in Turner v. Safley. In that case, the state of Missouri argued against allowing some inmates to marry someone from the outside because of the potential security problems such arrangements might create. The Supreme Court, however, noted that those security problems would exist regardless; to say that allowing marriages for inmates would exacerbate the situation was a baseless assertion.

In this case, Eggebeen reveals to the court that the problems with marriage existent at the time were already present, so any argument that allowing same-sex couples the opportunity to marry would exacerbate the situation, or, as some in the anti-marriage crow argue, even create such situations is spurious.

Eggebeen also tells the court something else the anti-marriage crowd loves to repeat in some form or another, and that is marriage is a “gateway to becoming a parent,” that it is “synonymous with having children.” However, Eggebeen’s testimony indicated he did not believe that such a characteristic was exclusive by any means. Rather, individuals get married without any intention of having children at all, or who may be biologically incapable of reproduction. And given that, the absence of any intent to have children, regardless of the reason, “does not weaken the institution of marriage.”

“In fact, Dr. Eggebeen recognized that people marry and want to get married for reasons other than having children; that those reasons are valuable and important; and that regardless of children, it is beneficial to society for adults to marry. Dr. Eggebeen testified that individuals should not be prohibited from marriage simply because they cannot have children.”

So, two of the state’s own expert witnesses have given testimony that undermines the state’s position. But Eggebeen’s testimony gets even better.

“Finally, and importantly, Dr. Eggebeen stated that children of same-sex couples would be helped if their families had access to or were able to receive the following benefits of marriage: (1) state income tax advantages; (2) public assistance; (3) enforcement of child support, alimony or other support orders; (4) inheritance rights; and (5) the ability to prosecute wrongful death actions. Dr. Eggebeen also agreed that children of same-sex couples would be helped if their families received the social status derived from marriage.” (emphasis added)

I will take up the state’s two other witnesses in the next installment, witnesses that include one that Chang found to be unpersuasive and unbelievable because the witness testified that he believed all social science, including psychology and sociology, is so flawed that it can never be fixed.

Hawaii 1996, Part 2

2008-12-31T16:08:00.008-06:00

While the Baehr v. Miike case is a watershed moment in terms of case law regarding same-sex marriage, there is a lesser-known case from Minnesota that struck down an attempt to gain marriage recognition as simply unimaginable. However, if you haven’t read the post just prior to this one, you really need to read it first.

Baker v. Nelson was decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court in October 1971, and is probably the first ever case in which a gay couple sued to have their relationship recognized as a marriage.

The Minnesota court’s decision was very mundane in that it relied on basic dictionary definitions of marriage to reach its conclusion, as well as referring to what the current forms offered by the state had written on them.

“It is unrealistic to think that the original draftsmen of our marriage statutes, which date from territorial days, would have used the term in any different sense,” wrote the Minnesota court. “The term is of contemporary significance as well, for the present statute is replete with words of heterosexual import such as ‘husband and wife’ and ‘bride and groom.’”

Very unimaginative. The court then dismissed without discussion any challenges that were made regarding the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. It was, after all, a state court.

“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis,” wrote the court. Wow. (So is slavery). And the court cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision Skinner v. Oklahoma to support the assertion that “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” Of course, the Skinner case really had nothing to do with marriage; it was a case about whether a state could sterilize habitual offenders.

Ironically, the Minnesota court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the U.S. Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia applied, a case that struck down prohibitions against interracial marriage. It’s ironic because of the passage from Loving that the Minnesota court quoted: “To deny this fundamental freedom (of marriage) on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

Granted, denying a marriage license on the basis of the race of the applicants is truly offensive, but that’s not what is relevant in the quotation. What is critical is that the court called the ability to select one’s spouse a “fundamental freedom.” That’s a pretty solid precedent given the fact that it was written in 1967 and hasn’t been questioned since.

So for almost 20 years, no other case that garnered any attention came before a judge seeking recognition of same sex marriages. But on Dec. 20, 1990, two lesbian couples and one gay couple requested marriage licenses in Hawaii, a request that went denied. The couples filed a complaint May 1, 1991, initiating the Baehr case. The case, then known as Baehr v. Lewin, wound up in the Hawaii Supreme Court after the couples lost the first round through a series of court filings. But the state supreme court sent the case back for trial with some specific instructions:

“On remand, in accordance with the ‘strict scrutiny’ standard, the burden will rest on [Defendant] to overcome the presumption that HRS 572-1 is unconstitutional by demonstrating that it furthers compelling state interests and is narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgments of constitutional rights.”

That order from the Hawaii Supreme Court, that the case must be judged according to the strict scrutiny standard, carried huge significance. The “strict scrutiny” test is the highest standard to meet in federal law. In the past, same-sex issues were often judged according to the “rational basis” rule, which means that if the rule has a rational basis – a rational reason, so to speak – for its existence, then it meets the requirement of the law. But when the Hawaii Supreme Court said this case must be judged according to the strict scrutiny standard, the bar was set very high indeed. It was almost as if the high court was saying, “we already think the rule is onerous on same-sex couples, but just to be sure, we’d like to hear the state’s justification for the statute.” The state was so shocked by this order, it requested a clarification, which the high court granted with the following statement on May 17, 1993:

“Because … the circuit court erroneously granted Lewin’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, the circuit court’s order and judgment are vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the plurality opinion. On remand, in accordance with the ‘strict scrutiny’ standard, the burden will rest on [Defendant] to overcome the presumption that HRS 572-1 is unconstitutional by demonstrating that it furthers compelling state interests and is narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgments of constitutional rights.”

In this clarification, the high court was reprimanding the lower court by saying that such an important case of civil rights should have been decided only after a trial, not through a series of pleadings. And not just any trial; rather, the judge must apply the highest legal standard there is to decide the case.

That trial eventually began Sept. 10, 1996. Just prior to the trial’s beginning, the state filed its case and laid out its legal position as to why the state of Hawaii should refuse to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple:

“The State of Hawaii has a compelling interest to promote the optimal development of children. . . . It is the State of Hawaii’s position that, all things being equal, it is best for a child that it be raised in a single home by its parents, or at least by a married male and female. . . . The marriage law furthers the compelling state interest of securing or assuring recognition of Hawaii marriages in other jurisdictions. . . . The marriage law furthers the compelling state interest in protecting the public fisc (sic) from the reasonably foreseeable effects of approval of same-sex marriage.(emphasis added)”

Yes, the public had to be protected from the “reasonably foreseeable effects” of allowing same-sex marriage. And what might those effects be? Based on the case the state presented at trial, “reasonably foreseeable effects” turned out to be a euphemism for the notion that same-sex marriage is so bad, that children will be irreparably harmed.

I’ll pick up some of the details from the trial in my next posting.

It all began with Hawaii in 1996

2008-12-30T18:40:00.003-06:00

On Dec. 3, 1996, something extraordinary happened: A state judge ruled that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. The ruling, by a circuit judge in Hawaii, to this day remains the most eloquent and succinct legal description on why a state with an equal protection clause or equal rights amendment in its constitution must allow same-sex couples to marry. And to this day, the anti-marriage crowd doesn’t want to talk about it because it knows it has no retort.

Twelve years ago, First Circuit Judge Kevin S.C. Chang (by the way, Chang is now a federal magistrate) ruled in Baehr v. Miike that the state of Hawaii had no compelling interest to bar a man of legal age from marrying another man of legal age, or a woman of legal age marrying another woman of legal age.

His ruling, even before it was issued, set off a frenzy of panic among the religious Right all across America. The anti-marriage crowd saw what was happening, and the urgency was felt by legislators in Alaska who concluded they had to act quickly. They passed a law in February 1996 specifically barring same-sex couples from marrying, which was then challenged as unconstitutional. In February 1998, Superior Court Judge Peter A Michalski, reached nearly the same conclusion as Chang and ruled the Alaska law unconstitutional.

Back in Hawaii, Chang’s ruling was appealed, but the Hawaii Supreme Court sat on the case long enough for a constitutional convention to be called, during which the state constitution was amended to prohibit same-sex marriage. Everyone knew what was likely to happen, because the Hawaii Supreme Court had already ruled that the case had merit; all it wanted Chang to do was conduct a trial to create a record of findings. Alaska did the same before its Supreme Court could review Michalski’s decision.

And so the stage was set for state after state to amend its constitution to prevent judges from reaching the same conclusion that both Chang and Michalski had reached: that states have no compelling interest to prohibit same-sex marriage, especially when that state’s constitution contains an equal protection clause.

What was it about Chang’s decision in Baehr v. Miike that caused such alarm? I would like to address that, despite having provided a link to the entire text of the decision. There are a few key portions of the trial and the decision that are worth pointing out for their legal brilliance.

The state of Hawaii, when arguing its case before Judge Chang, sincerely did the best it could. It chose the most powerful argument at its disposal, and it was a significant choice because its failure utterly crushes the majority of arguments that are made against any type of recognition or extension of rights to homosexuals.

The state chose to argue that allowing same-sex couples to marry would be bad for children.

I get goose bumps talking about this, because the strategy the state selected covered almost every argument, outside of a religious one, that anyone could muster against gays; it contained every prejudice and every caricature about homosexuals. And it wasn’t that the state really muffed it by selecting this legal strategy. Quite the contrary, it was the only legitimate legal argument it could make. Theological doctrine holds no weight in a court of law; it cannot be presented as a legal construct. It can guide judges, but the bottom line is what does the law say?

And what Chang concluded after hearing the state’s argument was that it failed. Completely.

I’m going to break this blog entry into parts, because I don’t want each entry to get too long, so bear with me please. The next installment is coming up.

Paradigm paralysis: We just don't understand the divine nature of marriage (not)

2008-12-29T18:29:00.002-06:00

Is it possible that we gays reject church teaching regarding the sacredness of marriage because we fail to understand the divine nature of the two sexes, male and female?

That is the argument of some theologians, as revealed in an article at CNSNews.com that explains why Pope Benedict’s recent words about saving the human race have created such umbrage with gays.

CNSNews did a fine job of giving equal time to theologians who wished to rebut the pope’s words, although those quoted either had nothing of real substance to say being the usual sound bites, or CNSNews omitted anything substantial. But what I find curious is what the apologist for the pope said. His words are worth paying attention to.

“Fr. (George William) Rutler, who holds a pontifical doctorate in sacred theology, and a master of studies from Oxford University, said that homosexual activists and secular liberals do not understand the relationship between the human race and nature because they are essentially Gnostics, they see the natural world – the material world – as contrary to anything divine and ‘the result of energies other than God.’”

It isn’t acceptable to someone like Rutler that his premise is rejected, rather than misunderstood, by many gay activists. So he re-interprets what we are saying and doing to fit within the paradigm proposed by the church. The divine explanation can’t possibly be incorrect, so gays must be failing to understand it. That is why they react against it.

This is the trouble with paradigms. They are very useful tools to provide easy explanations about how the world works without needing to know the details. But paradigms have an inherent flaw, and that is when new evidence emerges that shows the paradigm is no longer useful and may, in fact, be false, that new evidence is rejected out of hand. This is particularly so if the paradigm in question is tied to a particular person’s or group’s retention of power.

“As a consequence, for example, homosexuals ‘do not see marriage as an essentially divine institution – they see it as a legal construction that can be changed at will,’ said Rutler. ‘They see a Supreme Court changing the law on marriage and say it is valid. But from the point of natural law, it would be like saying the Supreme Court could repeal the law of gravity.’”

We have a square peg argument being shoved into a round hole here, because marriage always has been a legal construct. Even during Old Testament times, marriage was an arranged contract and solely had to do with property. It was a completely misogynistic entity as evidenced by the biblical tracts that recite how some man begot another man, ad infinitum. In fact, Medieval art reflected this notion that women had no role in procreation other than being a receptacle with images of sperm containing tiny babies; it was believed that the babies were in the man’s sperm and all that was needed was a woman’s womb to grow it.

The church got into the marrying game because it was the only entity of any consequence that could recognize the marriage as a public union. As local government became more sophisticated, it also began to recognize marriages; hence, marriages were not always religiously based. Civil marriage was born. And over time, marriage was a legal construct that went through revisions: Everything from how many wives to how old the parties had to be and how distant the familial relationship. There is nothing natural about marriage. Shacking up is natural, yes, but marriage had to be created to protect property, and in the old days, that meant the man’s property.

“In 1992, then-Pope John Paul II described homosexual marriage as ‘perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.’”

I love the above because for one, it is clearly an addition by CNSNews, as it is not sourced. But the real beauty is how the statement so easily portrays anyone who supports equal rights for marriage as being a promoter of a “new ideology of evil,” so evil that it will destroy the human race. This is so classic Roman Catholicism, so much so that even the Protestants won’t admit it, but it is Rome ideology all the way.

If it threatens the church, then it is evil, so evil it must be destroyed. That’s the message.

This is a tough argument. This requires patience and persistence. The sophomoric retort of “homophobe” just doesn’t cut it.

Warren's a poor choice, but it's not policy

2008-12-28T21:54:00.002-06:00

If you haven’t read it, take a look at Frank Rich’s column in the New York Times. It’s an even-handed look at Obama’s decision to invite the Rev. Rick Warren to present the invocation at the inauguration.

“When Obama defends Warren’s words by calling them an example of the ‘wide range of viewpoints’ in a ‘diverse and noisy and opinionated’ America, he is being too cute by half. He knows full well that a ‘viewpoint’ defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable.”

Warren may be a bad choice, and a stinging one at that, but Rich is correct to point out that selecting Warren cannot be necessarily viewed as a proxy on how Obama will shape policy.

Calling the kettle slate gray

2008-12-27T18:38:00.003-06:00

In his Christmas Eve column at CNSNews.com, Ben Shapiro attempts to put lipstick on an old pig of a specious argument by reminding folks that gay people are intolerant – too. His coy interjection of “too” at the end of his column’s title is a mousy attempt to note that the religious Right has been intolerant; but rather than explain that intolerance, Shapiro resorts to the most sophomoric of retorts, as if he were Pee Wee Herman asking the rhetorical, “I know you are, but what am I?”

First of all, let me say I agree with Shapiro when he opines that many in the gay community are intolerant of contrary beliefs. These intolerant queers demand respect for their position, but are not the slightest bit inclined to show any respect to a contrary opinion. With the quickness of an unthinking automaton, these militant gays resort immediately to name calling whenever someone indicates that they are against gay marriage. “Homophobe!”, they shout. And where does that get anyone?

Now that is done, I can get to the really feeble argument Shapiro presents in his column.

“Advocates for traditional morality have won virtually every electoral battle over gay marriage. The gay community has won its victories in the courtroom, calling on elitist judges to twist the words of state constitutions. It’s illegitimate, and it cuts against the most basic American value: the right of the people to decide how to regulate their communities.”

I mean really, this guy is a Harvard Law School graduate and he’s writing this? The gay community has resorted to “calling on elitist judges to twist the words of state constitutions.” Really now, would that be the same elitist judges that struck down state laws that banned inter-racial marriage, such as in Loving v. Virginia? Oh wait, I know the argument, the retort: at least in Loving the marriage was between a man and woman and the opportunity for procreation existed. There is no opportunity for procreation in a same-sex marriage. So yeah, procreation is part of marriage, it’s essential. Until, mmm, we talk about Turner v. Safley, a case brought forward by Missouri prison inmates who wanted to marry. Prison officials wouldn’t allow the marriages, basing their position largely on the fact that the inmates involved would never be allowed to consummate the marriage. If there’s no sex, there’s no procreation, so no marriage.

But interestingly, the Supreme Court had a different notion about why people get married.

For one, the court opined that “any governmental objective must be a legitimate and neutral one.” In the Turner case, inmates weren’t allowed to marry unless they had the prison’s permission, and that would only be granted if there was a “compelling reason” to allow the marriage. The marriages were never allowed because prison officials asserted that such marriages would cause security problems, as well as most would never be consumated. It is worth pointing out that the court rejected the security argument fairly quickly, noting that any security problems would likely exist whether the marriage occurred or not.

But what the court said about marriage is more interesting. Several reasons for allowing the marriages were given, but first on the court’s list was this: “First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship.”

So, marriage is an expression of emotional support for the other partner, and it’s an expression of public commitment. And inmate marriages, even though some may never have an opportunity for consummation, are just like any other marriage.

And you know what case will be applicable in the review of Prop 8? I think it might be Romer v. Evans.

Yes, it is true that many in the gay community need to temper their reactions when dealing with those in the anti-marriage crowd. But the Right needs to pay attention to reality and understand that blaming “activist” judges for “re-interpreting” the constitution is a non-starter. It would do them well to read up on their Tocqueville.

Who says we won't get married?

2008-12-26T11:59:00.005-06:00

It was inevitable that someone within the gay community would eventually opine that all this fuss about Prop 8, the Rev. Rick Warren, and same-sex marriage in general is misplaced energy and the wrong tack for the gay community to take. Bob Ostertag doesn’t disappoint in this vein with his column at the Huffington Post. What is frustrating, however, about Ostertag’s premise and those who profess that seeking equal marriage rights is either a waste of time or the wrong issue to push forward is that Ostertag and others in his camp resort to baseless assertions about what we want. And it’s an argumentative style that isn’t much different from the anti-marriage crowd on the hetero, religious Right side.

The foundation of Ostertag’s argument is that by striving for equal marriage rights, we are striving to be “just like them.” By embracing marriage, we are turning away from our queerness and we are allowing ourselves to be absorbed by the amoebic hetero society. He goes on with: “We could be making common cause with them (unmarried straights). We could be fighting for equal rights for everyone, not just gays and lesbians, but for all unmarried people. In the process we would leave religious institutions to define marriage however their members see fit.”

Such a specious argument ignores some very key facts. A religious institution is already allowed to define marriage however its members see fit. And while it is true that there are many unmarried heterosexuals and their reasons for being unmarried are varied, the option of marriage remains available to them should they change their mind.

And then he makes this baseless assertion: “The fact is most of us won't marry even if we have the right to. We are putting all our resources into winning a right that only the few of us in long-term conventional couple relationships will enjoy.”

How does he know that “most of us won’t marry”? How can he make that statement? Did he conduct a survey? How many gay couples did he ask? It’s just more of the same BS that the religiously-oriented anti-marriage crowd makes when it asserts that allowing gays to marry would harm children and society.

At the heart of Ostertag’s argument, as well as others who share his views, is a desire for sexual freedom – for lack of a better term, unlicensed promiscuity. What he refuses to acknowledge is that by expanding the right to marriage to include same-sex couples in no way burdens his lifestyle with any onerous limitations. In reality, his argument is no different from the anti-marriage crowed on the religious Right. The religious anti-marriage crowd fears that allowing same-sex marriage will somehow denigrate or burden its marriage and its lifestyle, and that’s what Ostertag fears too: that he can’t define his family any way he wants if gays can marry. And that is just plain poppycock. Gay men who want to copulate with as many partners as they like may still do so and continue to behave irresponsibly for as long as they like, just as sexually irresponsible heterosexuals can do. And anyone who wishes to behave sexually responsibly outside the parameters of marriage may also do so, regardless of sexual orientation. Having the option of marriage doesn’t change that. Only individuals can change that, when they come to a conclusion that living such a life no longer fulfills their needs. And I’m not saying that such a life in and of itself is unfulfilling; what I’m saying is that it doesn’t suit me. Marriage suits me. That’s my cup of tea and I want to drink it badly. I don’t want Ostertag’s tea. Let him have it.

Ironically, Ostertag even puts a condition on marriage when he says: “It is no secret that marriage isn't working for straight people. That's why religious institutions are so up in arms about it. The institution of marriage is in crisis. On what basis does anyone imagine it is going to work better for queers?”

Marriage doesn’t have to work better for gays than straights for gays to desire it. As much as Ostertag might want to deny it, gays really are not any different from straights. We make poor relationship decisions just as easily as straight people do. But marriage “isn’t working” because the institution of marriage is flawed; it isn’t working because people who marry are more and more less inclined to accept the commitment that it requires. Why should I get married if the law can be changed to allow for civil unions and health benefits to anyone, related or not? The fact is that efforts to create other alternatives to civil marriage – like civil partnerships or unions – have become the primary reason for marriage becoming increasingly irrelevant. Like it or not, those who share Ostertag’s belief on this matter are like the character in the Bob Dylan song “It’s Alright Ma (I’m Only Bleeding)” when he sings, “While one who sings with his tongue on fire/Gargles in the rat race choir/Bent out of shape from society’s pliers/Cares not to come up any higher/But rather get you down in the hole/That he’s in.”

Even if Ostertag is correct in his assertion that most gays won’t marry even when given the chance, it’s no argument to stop trying. It’s his argument for his personal circumstances.

Finally, there’s a very persuasive argument that once marriage equality is achieved, all other inequalities become moot, unsupportable and even inhuman. Marriage equality breaks down all the other barriers that Ostertag correctly points out that remain in our way. It is because the argument against marriage equality has been justified that all other violence against us continues with impunity. At the heart of the anti-marriage argument is we’re different in such a significant and harmful way, that even our love is illegitimate. Granted, we remove that, then Ostertag is correct: we do become just like everyone else in the eyes of the law. But what Ostertage doesn’t get is that we already are just like everyone else. We aren’t going to change. What needs to change is the law.

Homophobe versus Christophobe

2008-12-24T09:08:00.002-06:00

I offer this link to the Rev. Rick Warrens most recent video blog for your information and to point this out as a reason why is it a poor strategy to automatically label those who are anti-marriage – such as Warren – as being homophobes or haters or bigots or whatever. It’s a poor strategy because it gets us no where, stops the debate cold, and allows the other side to blame a lack of progress on us. It’s a ridiculous tactic, and Warren provides the perfect reason why it’s ridiculous when he retorts with the idea that those who call Christians names for supporting Prop 8 are “Christophobes.”

I know some of you are probably laughing at such a sophomoric label for us, but I urge you not to. Examine your reaction to this spurious moniker, because your reaction is their reaction. Pay attention to it and learn.

Warren’s message is being delivered to ready ears; he is, after all, speaking to his congregation. So when he calls those of us in the pro-marriage camp “Christophobes,” it’s a label that will stick. However, it is an easy label to discredit. And when you think about it, how we might respond to this label is again very similar to how a Christian might respond to the label “homophobe.” It’s similar, but not identical.

No one likes to be called names. And no matter a person’s age, the response to being called a name is universal; we react with a very immature response that goes back to childhood. Our feelings become hurt, and when our feelings get hurt, our ability to think clearly disappears; rather, we react. And all you have to do is look at a 4-year-old to see what the reaction normally is: we respond with name-calling of our own. Warren gets labeled a homophobe and his response is to call us Christophobes. And where are we after that?

Rather, we should respond with empathy and understanding. We need to listen to the anti-marriage crowd and understand why they feel the way they do. And each time they provide a concrete reason for their particular belief, we need to be able to provide contrary evidence as found in other denominations within the Christian faith. Why is it that their belief is that God does not sanctify same-sex marriage when other denominations believe that God does sanctify such unions? We don’t need to establish that one belief is correct and the other incorrect. Just point out the difference, because the next question to ask is given that these interpretational differences exist, is it necessary to go out and denounce the other denomination for believing that way? Chances are the response is: no, we don’t need to denounce the other denomination, but I don’t need to ascribe to it either.

Yay! That’s progress, because the logical response is that the other denomination doesn’t need to ascribe to that person’s interpretation either, do they? So why does his or her interpretation have to be mandated into civil law, when it is clearly a matter up for theological dispute?

This isn’t the end of the discussion, obviously. But it’s a place to start. This opens the door for more discussion. Name calling, however, is a closer.

Prop 8's legal validity: what is it?

2008-12-21T10:52:00.006-06:00

As we get closer to finding out whether the California Supreme Court will rule on Prop 8’s validity, I find myself asking just what issues will be argued in the appeal? And this item from the eMediaWire provides a bit of explanation that isn’t too weighed down by legalease.

What I find interesting is that in deciding the state must allow same-sex couples to marry, the California Supreme Court ruled that the state's Family Code sections, which limited marriage to between one man and one woman, violated the state’s Equal Protection Clause in its constitution. That is why the court determined that the state must allow same-sex marriages.

So along comes Prop 8, which amends the constitution with language that creates an exception to the state’s Equal Protection Clause. Curious I think. There is a legal argument that the court cannot do anything to change Prop 8 because it is a constitutional measure; all is left is what happens to those same-sex marriages that were already recognized. But is that all that is left? Does it make legal and logical sense to create a legal document, such as a constitution, that creates broad rights for all citizens, and then later amend that document to remove some classes of people from its protection? What legal theory supports that kind of argument? What precedence exists that gives weight to such a theory? Because that is what the law is built upon: precedent.

Reaction to Warren heats up

2008-12-20T11:05:00.005-06:00

Obama’s selection of the Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation during the president-elect’s inauguration is worth following up with more incredulity. Really, Obama has completely got it wrong. Even Rachel Maddow on Friday revealed that Obama’s campaign realized the potential liability it faced if it went forward with allowing the Rev. Wright deliver an invocation at Obama’s campaign announcement back in 2007. And eventually, as we all know, Obama had to clearly distance himself from the Rev. Wright by denouncing him.

So what gives with Warren, the pastor at the California mega-Saddleback Church? This notion of sending a message of inclusiveness to evangelicals is simply going too far and is being done without serious thought to future consequences. Reading the church’s position on homosexuality clearly indicates that there’s been some biblical revision going on there. (editor's note Dec. 22: as reported on the Rachel Maddow show, the Saddleback Church has removed the item from its Web site regarding homosexuals are barred from membership) And reading an allegedly leaked transcript from the Obama team on the rationale for this decision does nothing more in my view than reveal that Obama has got some nuts giving him advice. The reaction continues even today with William Fisher at The Huffington Post asking the same question on nearly everyone’s mind: What was Obama thinking?

I must agree with Fisher when he writes, “To begin with, this strikes me as a strange move for a careful guy like Obama to make.” This choice appears to have been carelessly made, which is indeed out of character for someone like Obama. There is more to this reaction than the obvious statement from the Human Rights Campaign on the selection. And that is, when you listen to the Rev. Rick Warren speak on this matter, you clearly see that he really hasn’t thought through his objection to same-sex marriage; rather, he merely parrots old lines about sexual restraint and deviancy.

During Ann Curry’s interview with the Rev. Warren, we hear his speciousness come straight from his mouth when he talks about a human’s natural inclinations by relaying what his “gay friends” say to him. What “they say” is that they have an inclination to have sex with as many individuals as they like, to which Warren tells Curry that he, too, has a natural inclination to copulate with multiple “beautiful” women. But, he goes on, it is important for humans to restrain this impulse.

By the way, what Warren says about Buddhism endorsing only man/woman marriages is a lie. Buddhism endorses monogamy, but does not dictate that sex must occur within “marriage,” nor is there any explicit condemnation, other than in the rules for being a monk or nun, of homosexual acts. And the Buddha was clear about that: all sex, whether hetero or homo or even self-stimulation, was off limits to the Buddhist clergy.

But back to Curry’s interview. First, we have Warren talking about his gay friends. Who are these friends? I can’t imagine any gay man or woman being “friends” with Warren when knowing how he stands not just on same-sex marriage, but homosexuality in general.

Next, regarding the need for sexual restraint, I have no real argument there. It is a wiser path to show restraint. But how convenient for Warren that in the process of restraining his own sexual hunger, Warren can get married. He won’t allow that option to gays.

And apparently, Curry becomes a Warren apologist, trying to explain how this poor man is fearful he won’t even be able to speak his position from his own pulpit. Oh gosh, poor guy. Apparently Curry didn’t do even basic background research on Prop 8 to know that its failure would have no impact on what preachers could say within their congregations.

This is not just a clunker of a decision for Obama. It is a political blunder that shoves him in a corner that will require him spending too much time explaining his way out of.

Southern Baptist lambasts Newsweek

2008-12-18T14:41:00.002-06:00

The president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary lambasted a recent Newsweek article that presented a Christian-based argument for supporting same-sex marriage. R. Albert Mohler Jr., was unequivocal in his condemnation of not only the article, but the reasoning behind it.

“Let’s face it, what the sum and substance of this cover story really attempts to do is to say that Christians have basically been wrong for the better part of 20 centuries in understanding the Scripture and that the vast majority of believers in this country are wrong in believing that same-sex marriage is prohibited by scriptural injunction,” Mohler said. “And that’s no understatement.”

Obama muffs it

2008-12-18T14:01:00.006-06:00

I can understand that Barack Obama wants to reach out to as many groups and people as possible, to bridge widening gaps that often get in the way of progressive dialogue, but the president-elect really muffed it by naming the Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation during the inauguration.

Warren is an out-spoken opponent of same-sex marriage and was a key player in endorsing Prop 8. It really makes you wonder how a candidate that had such wide support within the gay community would pick Warren to play such a prominent role during the inauguration. There are so many other gay-friendly ministers out there to choose from.

I realize that even New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has portrayed Warren as an evangelical that even a liberal can love, but Kristof’s example of Warren’s compassion for AIDS issues cannot translate into acceptance of gays. That’s because it was the plight of African children stricken with AIDS that moved Warren to take this issue seriously; where was he when hundreds of thousands of gay men were dying?

But the real problem is Warren’s opposition to same-sex marriage. What’s the message that Obama is sending? That he is siding with the anti-marriage crowd? Looks that way to me.

Granted, I will give Obama his due by mentioning his response to the flak from the gay community that this created. Nonetheless, how can you be a "strong advocate" for the rights of one group when you give such a prominent pulpit to someone who stands in the way of those rights?

Libertarian lunacy

2008-12-14T11:06:00.003-06:00

The Web is filled with an extraordinary level of rationalizations when it comes to finding ways to justify support for gays without support for marriage rights. And this one at Code Monkey Ramblings is truly ingenious in its self-deception.

In this classic libertarian thinking, the idea is that government involvement in marriage is abhorrent to begin with, so any further expansion of this involvement should be stopped. Allowing gays to marry is not the issue with “classic” libertarians; it’s the mere fact that the government is involved that upsets them.

The problem with this is that an entire class of people is denied equal rights in this area through active support of a ballot measure (voting yes on Prop 8) while efforts to dismantle the objectionable government involvement (civil recognition of marriage) are nonexistent. These libertarians do absolutely nothing to get government out of marriage except write convoluted treatises on why it should, but they will step forward and vote for discriminatory measures like Prop 8 because “government just shouldn’t be involved in marriage.” This is lunacy!

“As it currently stands, there is nothing short of the problem of finding a pastor, priest or rabbi who is willing to perform the marriage rite that is stopping most gay couples from getting married,” writes the blogger at Code Monkey. “This issue is really about other legal topics such as power of attorney and employer benefits than marriage itself, at least on the legal front.”

No kidding! This is also a truly overused setup for injecting classic Orwellian doublespeak into the debate, and Code Monkey does this when he writes: “The fact is, proponents of state licensing of gay marriages are generally in favor of using the power of the state to force society to accept homosexuality and gay marriage.”

First, he interjects the notions that we are trying to force society to accept homosexuality, yet does not explain how that can be. And second, he creates the moniker “gay marriage,” which creates the notion that a marriage involving two people of the same sex is somehow different from a marriage that involves a man and a woman.

At the heart of the argument that allowing gays to marry would force others to accept homosexuality is fear and animus. It is also a completely fallacious notion. I do not accept in any way the beliefs of those people who align themselves with Christian Identity, yet such people are legally able to marry. The mere fact that they can marry in no way requires me to accept the ideology’s anti-Semitic thesis as legitimate. I do not accept Christian Identity theology, nor do I have to just because people of that ilk are allowed to marry. So anyone who is a homophobe, whether admittedly or unconsciously, is in no way forced to accept homosexuality as legitimate merely because gays are allowed to marry. This would extend to clergy as well, because the clergy is not required by law to perform any marriage that comes along; rather, those in the clergy are allowed to do so if it involves a union that meets his or her requirements. Marriages, after all, can be performed by judges (even ship captains), who have no vested interest in who the parties are in the marriage.

And regarding the term “gay marriage,” it is a spurious term that we need to correct every time it is mentioned. There is no such thing as a “gay” marriage. There is only marriage, and what we are striving for is expansion of marriage to include same-sex couples as well as different-sex couples.

I’ll continue on this later.

Huckabee and Jon Stewart

2008-12-13T13:37:00.002-06:00

Check out Stewart's interview with Huckabee. You must take seriously Huckabee's comment that we must get serious if we are to persuade conservative Christians to accept our premise of marriage equality.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

U.S. balks at UN resolution

2008-12-13T13:32:00.007-06:00

The folks at UGA Liberal posted today an item about a United Nations resolution condemning the criminalization of homosexuality. The bog links to an article at PinkNews.co.uk reporting that the resolution will be presented to General Assembly in January, although UGA Liberal suggests the matter will be addressed this coming week.

While not immediately relevant to the issue of same-sex marriage, the Christian Science Monitor reported Dec. 9 that the resolution is feared by the Vatican as a way to further open the door to wider acceptance of marriage equality. Not surprisingly, the U.S. remains silent on the resolution.

The Monitor article is very telling, particularly with this passage: “(T)he Association of Catholic Jurists issued a statement trying to clarify the position of the Church. According to the group's president, Francesco D'Agostino, ‘The Vatican endorses the decriminalization of homosexuality, but opposes the equality between different sexual orientation.’” The epitome of doublespeak. How can you rationalize support for decriminalizing as sexual orientation while opposing equality? Criminalizing a human state of being, such as homosexuality, creates inequality. By decriminalizing, does that not then suggest equality in terms of just merely being? It’s just the Vatican trying to ensnare folks into its duplicitous position via manipulation of language. And amazingly, despite the Vatican having a nonvoting seat in the General Assembly, the Monitor reports that it carries great influence among the assembly, particularly on matters of human rights.

How does an entity with one of the worst histories in terms of human rights and respect for other cultural norms manage to hold such sway over this topic?

A comment, also, by the blogger at UGA, points once again to the challenge we face in obtaining marriage equality. “I can accept a lot of disagreements as valid when it comes to issues like same-sex marriage,” he writes. I would really like to hear his rationalization how the disagreements can be accepted as “valid.” Does he mean valid in that these disagreements are legitimate points of view on their own merits? Or valid because he is showing respect for an individual’s perspective, regardless of the merits?

"Fresh Air" interview results in resignation

2008-12-12T15:34:00.001-06:00

FOXNews reports that a top evangelical resigned after his support for civil unions was made public.

Too bad the Rev. Richard Cizik didn’t go all the way and show support for same-sex marriage. Civil unions are not the way to go. Civil unions are bad for marriage.

Better latent than never

2008-12-10T15:34:00.001-06:00

Slackers are getting into the marriage groove, now that they’ve seen how complacency gets them nowhere. A New York Times article from earlier today reveals how a new crop of gay activists is sprouting in the wake of the spanking we took in California over Prop 8.

Let’s hope it gains some traction.

Stop providing fodder!

2008-12-08T21:40:00.003-06:00

I found these links on the Facebook page for the site “A civil union is not a marriage! Legalize gay marriage!” More evidence of the stupid and short-sighted things people do that damage our efforts to attain marriage equality. It’s not just the anti-marriage crowd we must do battle with. Unfortunately, we must battle ourselves as well.

In this story, a teacher hands out homosexual pledge cards to kindergartners. It is truly astounding that the teacher had the merest thought that what she did was even remotely appropriate.

A charter school in Hayward, Calif., held a “Gay Day” without notifying parents. This faux pas was quickly used by the Pacific Justice Institute as evidence that Prop 8’s passage would mean changes in public schools that would include “homosexual indoctrination.”

There were a couple other links, but the point is made.

Newsweek draws fire from Christian conservatives

2008-12-08T15:31:00.003-06:00

Newsweek is taking a lot of heat for a cover story this week that suggests there is a pro-gay marriage argument that is Christian-based. The flak from the Christian right is covered by Politico.

As I posted previously, the religionists are sly at re-stating the facts, which author Lisa Miller so effectively points out in her article, “Our Mutual Joy.” Miller brings up a quote by the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, who spoke to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for an article in June: “The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because it stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition.”

No where, in the Bible – at least of the several interpretations I have read – is marriage explicitly defined as being between one man and one woman. And there is also the misogynistic apostle Paul, who, in Chapter 7 of his first epistle to the Corinthians, promoted celibacy as the way to God, but if you can’t be celibate, then get married rather than degrade yourself with a prostitute.

Richard Land, who heads the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, criticizes the article for failing to mention two important biblical passages – one involving Adam and Eve, and the other in the New Testament book of Ephesians – that describe marriage as being between one man and one woman. However, Land offers no explanation for the more than 1,000 pages of polygamous relationships and slavery in between these two definitive passages.

Miller’s article is excellent and should be read. It adds to the argument that David Myers and Lisa Dawson Scanzoni presented in their 2004 book, “What God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay Marriage.”

Beware the revisionists

2008-12-07T13:44:00.005-06:00

A FOX News blog by the Rev. Jonathan Morris published Dec. 4 warns of rampant atheism out to re-write history. This tired tirade is another seasonal installment in the effort to counteract the alleged hostage-taking of Christmas by the atheists and agnostics among us. While this may appear irrelevant to the issue of same-sex marriage, it is not, because the Rev. Morris uses an ironic argument to warn of these irreligious revisionists by doing a bit of history revision himself.

“Thanks to the wisdom of our God-fearing founding fathers and their respect for the sacred dignity of every human being in this great country of ours, we will continue to defend the right of non-believers to express their opinion, as reasonable and considerate, or silly and disrespectful, as the case may be,” asserts the Rev. Morris.

Ah yes, those God-fearing Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, who once proclaimed: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Gosh, those darned deists mixed with the theists among our Founding Fathers. Especially the ones that held respect for the “sacred dignity of every human being” by owning slaves. Like Jefferson and Washington and others. Got a point to make but history won’t quite let you make it? Just restate history. After all, most people won’t even know you did it because they don’t know their own history.

Understanding how the anti-marriage crowd so unctuously slips into revisionism, particularly when they speak of the "traditional definition of marriage", is important in propelling the cause of equal marriage rights.

The blame game

2008-12-07T11:36:00.003-06:00

There’s an Op-Ed piece in today’s New York Times that takes a stab at explaining why Prop 8 succeeded. It examines the issue of race, which others have brought up as the critical issue that contributed to Prop 8’s passage (Bill O’Reilly in particular). Others added evidence for blaming the blacks as well as the Mormons. In today’s Times, authors Caitlin Flanagan and Benjamin Schwarz seek to discredit these assertions. Their argument is persuasive, but still misses the point. Keith Olbermann I think has been the only commentator to get the issue at least partially right, and that is if blacks did play an important role in Prop 8’s success, it was not because of antipathy toward gays within the black community (though it exists within the religious subsets of all groups), but because of an incredibly ignorant blunder by the gay lobby to barely spend any of its millions within that community. At least Hendrik Hertzberg’s article in the New Yorker gets it partly right by addressing this issue.

“(The gay lobby was) complacent: early polls had shown Prop. 8 losing by double digits,” Hertzberg wrote in his Dec. 1 article. “Their television ads were timid and ineffective, focussing (sic) on worthy abstractions like equality and fairness, while the other side’s were powerfully emotional.”

Not to forget outright mendacious. If we are to succeed – and don’t kid yourself, there is no guarantee of success – we must learn that we need to raise and spend more money than the other side and directly address the issues it presents. This is not about fairness; that calumny is worthless to our struggle. The point that needs to be clearly made loudly and often is we are the ones who are pro-marriage, while the other side is truly the side that is anti-marriage.

Civil Unions are bad for marriage!

2008-12-06T19:21:00.003-06:00

Even some of my most liberal straight friends, individuals for whom I have a great deal of respect, balk at the thought of same-sex marriage. And when I question them, they inevitably reply with the same, sheepish answer: marriage should be reserved for mixed-sex couples.

I nod my head and say, “Uh-huh, uh-huh,” being empathetic, turning on my empathic listening skills with just a slight tone of irony as if Jack McFarland really meant it, then query, “So why is that? Why should marriage be reserved for mixed-sex couples?” They know I’ve caught them because just as they are about to answer, they stop, look at me, and their faces redden with embarrassment. And then the coy child in them comes out as they admit they have no other reason beyond the fact they cannot get over their Judeo-Christian upbringing.

As reluctantly as they admit it, admit it they must: they believe marriage to be sanctified by God, and the great Yaweh has issues with moes getting married.

But then they’ll nod their heads like some happy mutt and quickly say, “But I’m OK with civil unions. I think you should have all those benefits. Just don’t call it marriage.”

Oh sure, I have straight friends who will tell me to my face that they believe gays ought to be able to marry. But I really wonder how they voted when the state constitutional ban was on the ballot in Michigan, or wherever.

Well, lately I have a new response to that. The jig’s up. News flash! Civil unions are bad for marriage!

And no where have I read a more convincing argument supporting this assertion than in a book co-written by David G. Myers and Letha Dawson Sconzoni – “What God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay Marriage.”

But why, you may ask, is it so wonderful that this person Myers wrote this book? Others have written tomes advancing the idea that gays ought to be able to marry.

Because Myers is a tenured psychology professor, with exceptional publishing credentials, at Hope College, a private college operated by one of the most conservative Christian denominations in the country: The Reformed Church in America.

I had the wonderful opportunity to interview Mr. Myers in 2004 just before his book was published. When the college learned of the book, officials there quickly distanced themselves from the book, noting that Myers is an academic of great repute and what he writes is his opinion, not the college’s.

One of the largest financial contributors to the college was less kind. Jack DeWitt, who is a board member of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, resorted to the most sophomoric cliché when he told me that allowing two men to marry each other, or two women to marry each other, was the equivalent of allowing two dogs to marry or two ducks to marry. DeWitt, however, recognized that Myers was held in very high esteem in academic circles, so DeWitt acquiesced somewhat and said as long as Myers’ book wasn’t used as a text in a Hope College class, he would continue to support the college financially.

Gee, how magnanimous of him.

You ought to read Myers’ book. His essential premise is that extending marriage opportunities to same-sex couples strengthens marriage rather than weakens it. Sociological data shows that the creation of civil unions has the opposite effect that was intended: rather than preserving and strengthening marriage, having the option of civil unions weakens marriage because you have to offer it to both gay and straight couples.

His voice is very important to the debate. Because he is not gay, but a religious conservative, he speaks to the audience that won’t listen to us gays: religious conservatives. We can rant all we want until we’re blue in the face and the religious folk will just shake their heads and close their ears. But someone like Myers is an E.F. Hutton among religious conservatives: When he speaks, they listen.

Bogus boycotts

2008-12-06T18:55:00.002-06:00

Welcome to the lunacy! There’s plenty of it to go around these days. Whether it may be a group of gays picketing in front of a movie theater whose owner contributed to support passage of Proposition 8 when that same theater is scheduled to show a gay positive film, or keeping tabs on misinformation being maliciously spread by organizations that profess to be pro-family. If we are going to be successful in attaining equal marriage rights in this country, we need to face our own demons and foibles as well as those who oppose us. And what better place to start than with a misguided picket line a couple weeks ago in Evanston, Ill.

My partner and I went to see “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas” at the Century Theatre in Evanston on Nov. 22, and outside was a crowd of picketers with signs proclaiming that the theater’s owner was some kind of anti-gay bigot. Time Out Chicago had a bit on the picket as well. I was confused about what the point was, especially after I saw a preview to the new Sean Penn movie “Milk.” It was through the TOC article that I learned that Alan Stock, the CEO of the Cinemark movie chain that owns the Century Theatre, donated $9,999 to support Prop 8 in California. So the protesters attract all this negative attention to a theater in Evanston managed by someone other than Stock and which will be showing a pro-gay movie. Nice move.

More silly tactical errors from well-meaning gays and the people who support us, such as what I wrote about at ChicagoPride.com. Boycotts are pointless. It’s money spent on an effective message that wins these things. Besides, how many other people went into the theater that night and saw the same preview for “Milk” as I did and wonder, what the heck are those people complaining about? A better strategy would be to stop calling our foes anti-gay or bigots or haters or whatever, and start identifying them as anti-marriage. That would be a twist in their panties! And besides, it’s true. I will be spending time explaining this concept in future posts.