Archive for July, 2010

Boycott Target and Best Buy!

Friday, July 30th, 2010

Date: Fri 7/30/2010 3:06 PMFrom: “Joe Solmonese, Human Rights Campaign” hrc@hrc.org
Subject:  Target and Best Buy!  Make it right!

Human Rights Campaign

 

$250,000 in donations to a rabidly anti-LGBT candidate?

Tell Target and Best Buy: You need to make this right.

Add your name!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Daniel,

One candidate for Governor of Minnesota has promised to veto marriage equality legislation and has ties to a Christian rock band that advocates death to gays.

Target and Best Buy, both based in Minneapolis, have donated $250,000 to a political committee supporting his campaign.

But they still have a chance to make it right. We’ve drafted an open letter calling on the companies to donate an equal amount to support fair-minded candidates. We’ll publish it in a full-page ad in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Will you help us ratchet up the pressure by adding your name?

Tell Target and Best Buy to make it right. Add your name now.

By signing on, you’ll help make it clear that Target and Best Buy are risking the business of millions of pro-equality customers – and show the rest of corporate America, which is watching this situation very closely, that support for hateful and intolerant candidates won’t go unnoticed.

But don’t stop there. Print out our letter, take it to the manager of your local Target and Best Buy, and let them know how disappointed you are.

Here’s the backstory: Earlier this week, reports surfaced that Target had donated $150,000 to the political committee MN Forward. Best Buy pitched in another $100,000.

MN Forward’s mission? Elect as governor an anti-LGBT state representative with a long history of attacks on LGBT Americans. This representative’s campaign even donated to a controversial “punk-rock Christian ministry” whose leader has advocated executing gays and lesbians!

After all these two companies have done to build a fair and equitable workplace, it’s a slap in the face. In years past, Target and Best Buy consistently received 100 percent ratings on the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s Corporate Equality Index.

They need to make this right – by donating an equal amount to support candidates who will fight for equality. But they won’t do it just because we ask. They need to see that hundreds of thousands of customers across the country are upset and disappointed.

Add your name now.

I hope Target and Best Buy will do the right thing. But it’s up to us to show that fair-minded consumers are paying close attention to what they do next.

Let’s make this happen,

Joe Solmonese
Joe Solmonese
President

 Share on Facebook  Share on Twitter

This link is specific to you, so please take action on this campaign before you forward to your friends. Having trouble clicking on the links above? Simply copy and paste this URL into your browser’s address bar:
https://secure3.convio.net/hrc/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=911
© 2010 The Human Rights Campaign. All rights reserved.
Human Rights Campaign | http://www.hrc.org/
1640 Rhode Island Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-3278
Phone: 202/628-4160 TTY: 202/216-1572 Fax: 202/347-5323
Do not reply to this email. This inbox is not monitored on a regular basis. Replies to this email will not be read or responded to.
If you would like to unsubscribe from a specific Human Rights Campaign list, or update your account settings, you can visit your Subscription Management Page.

Well, I was pretty outraged by this, and I have to assume it is accurate, even if Human Rights Campaign did not entrust us with the actul facts.  I frequently shop in both of these chains, especially the Target store in, of all places, West Hollywood, California. 

When I reflect back just a few years ago when people were fired or had a criminal record just for associating with a known homosexual, such guilt by association was assumed to be justifiable.  Politicians continue to use this practice to discredit and shame the other candidate and the other party.  Why then, if the public mind accepts the reasonable conclusion that association with bad is bad, should businesses be able to duck every blemish on their carefully-groomed public relations skin?

Fox News (!) reports that Republian candidate Tom Emmer doesn’t like the flap over the campaign contributions because “I thought we were supposed to be able to exercise our rights of free speech.”   Well, it is about free speech, so everybody is free, thanks to the Supreme Court decision earlier this year, to buy all the speech that their corporations want to pay for.  But that’s not the issue, Tom.  We are just as free to tell Target and Best Buy not that they don’t have a right to speak with their campaign dollars, but that we think what they’re saying is disgusting.

ap_target_donation_100728_mn.jpg

Am I being cynical about the Supreme Court?  Hardly.  The same Fox News story explains it in detail:

Target and other Minnesota-based companies, including electronics retailer Best Buy Co., Red Wing Shoes and snowmobile maker Polaris Industries Inc., donated to MN Forward after a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed companies to spend money on elections. The decision overturned prohibitions on corporate campaign spending in about half the states, including Minnesota.

If you can’t stand Fox News, catch the story on ABC News.

 

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs, Uncategorized, Violence, wingnuts | No Comments »

Is DOMA doomed?

Monday, July 19th, 2010

Another thing I’m slow to assess is the decision of the U.S. District Court judge in Boston to declare the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. According to Boston.com On July 8, Judge Joseph Tauro “struck down” the law which passed the Republican-controlled Congress in 1996—and to which Bill Clinton put his signature.

The Boston court is clearly the right venue to talk back to Congress on one of the two major issues which Tauro’s decision apparently addresses: that DOMA violates the rights of the individual states to control their own marriage laws. Massachusetts, afer all, legalized same-gender marriage in 2004.

One of the murkiest swamps in our national legal history are these periodic fights between the federal government and the states over who has jurisdiction on something. The present fight between Arizona and the Obama administration over immigration law is the current issue. The states and the feds have been doing this almost since the founding of the nation, and perhaps it will never all get settled, partly because every few years the control of Congress and the state houses flips back and forth between two political parties that seem to despise each other passionately.

Tauro drew on history in his ruling, writing that the states have set their own marriage since before the American Revolution and that marriage laws were considered “such an essential element of state power” that the subject was even broached at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Tauro noted that laws barring interracial marriage were once at least as contentious as the current battle over gay marriage.But in Loving vs. Virginia (1967), the federal Supreme Court that said its opinion trumps the states’ rights to regulate marriage, and so opened the doors to interracial marriages in a single stroke.John Corvino has an interesting reflection on the Tauro decision, in contrast to some poor assumptions on the part of Roman Catholic Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz, who chairs the U.S. Bishop’s “Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage“. (I stand by my remarks about “protecting marriage.” I told a reporter in June 2008 that “if you want to protect marriage protect your marriage. Buy your wife flowers, and listen to her when she talks to you.”)Marriage can no more be “defended” by keeping gay and lesbian couples away from it than a house can be defended from termites with a concrete block wall around it.Anyway, Corvino’s comments include three reasons why Archbishop Kurtz is wrong: ” . . . Third, and perhaps most interesting, there is an emerging social institution of marriage that includes gays. It’s time for the law to catch up to that.Last month I participated in a same-sex wedding for some dear friends. The Presbyterian church hosting the ceremony called it a ‘holy union,’ but just about everyone else called it a wedding—including the grooms’ families. There were tuxedos and champagne and cake and presents and all the other usual markers, including teary-eyed families witnessing solemn vows.The state where this event occurred (Michigan) forbids legal marriage for gays and lesbians. But each groom’s parents have begun referring to their son’s partner as their ‘son-in-law, and everyone around them understands why they do so.It’s not a legal reality. But it is a personal and social one.”Given the rejection of same-sex marriage by the Presbyterian assembly on July 9, I found Corvino’s personal observation of the Presbyterian “holy union” to be very compelling. Neither church delegates nor a partisan, sharply-divided Congress, can hold back the tides of change.But of course, Tauro’s decision could itself wind up before The Supremes, who have been pretty good at slowing the tides.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Catholic matters, History, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | No Comments »

Different histories in moving forward.

Sunday, July 18th, 2010

A couple of weeks ago (okay, I’m slow to process everything. I have a life and a “day job.”) the Presbyterians met in the same city as the Lutherans did 11 months ago, to conduct their periodic denominational business and to change their “gatekeeping” control over their clergy—specifically their LGBT clergy.

The Presbyterians aren’t getting as much press on their decision for a variety of reasons. For one thing, the Unitarians/Universalists, United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have beaten them to it, so the media become less interested. Secondly, this didn’t go as far as the Lutheran decisions, and this may not stick at all.

The action of the General Assembly is similar, in fact, to what their denomination attempted to do several years ago. On the up side 53% of the convention delegates decided to approve policy changes to permit same-gender clergy who are not abstinent—they are sexually active—to still serve as clergy.

But I’m not excited yet for my Presbyterian colleagues. This convention action doesn’t take effect unless a majority of the presbyteries (groups of local churches) agree. Two years ago, 94 of the 173 local presbyteries voted it down (54%). Weeks later, by the way, and that news was off the front page.

The other issue is that unlike the Lutheran decision, the Presbyterian one on July 9 was not connected to a thorough study and official statement about human sexuality that recognized the validity of same-sex intimate relationships. According to Associated Press, the Presbyterian delegates ” decided not to redefine marriage in their church constitution to include same-sex couples.”

Well, the Lutherans didn’t “redefine marriage” either but made some room for an understanding that gay or lesbian couples may have valid relationships. For all the years that Lutheran activists “belly-ached” about the ELCA dodging the decisions by sending out our lives for another study, the last study process actually paid off. It involved more people at more levels of the church in a sincere attempt to understand what LGBT people are about, and especially why we can be people of faith just like heterosexuals can be. In fairness, it’s important to know that many denominations, including Lutherans and Presbyterians, etc. have conducted studies of human sexuality and homosexuality. (Many of them take up chunks of drawer space in my filing cabinets because they were done before you could download them as a PDF file.) But it has been repeatedly observed that the only minds changed by sexuality studies are those who actually participated in them—usually the commission members who read, interviewed, debated and drafted the reports, not the official board which received the reports.

Although it now seems that the ELCA is more progressive than the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. or the United Methodist Church (which rejected gay marriage 15 months ago) continues to dig in its heels for similar reasons—there are thousands of country churches or small town churches that do not want to look at the sexuality issues at all), progress can be a double-edged sword. The partly-approved new Presbyterian policy would allow non-celibate (a misnomer for sexually active) individuals to be ordained and serve as clergy and presumably elders of the church. The ELCA action was more intentional in opening its gates to clergy who are either sexually abstinent or in a lifelong PALM or publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous relationship—a far cry from sexual libertinism.

In effect, the Lutheran decision means that by recognizing the validity of committed same-gender relationships the church expects gay or lesbian people to be held to an ethical standard which is identical, except for the gender of the partner, to a heterosexual marriage. The Presbyterian measure apparently doesn’t go that far because the delegates didn’t want to affirm a redefinition of marriage.

So my gay Presbyterian colleague across town, if this policy is not rejected by 87 local presbyteries who shudder and wince at the thought of a West Hollywood or San Francisco, could be “recognized” as a non-celibate pastor. Since he is single and not coupled let alone married, he would slide into a normalized status without having to cross his fingers behind his back. But my Lutheran colleague across town who is officially “single” but sexually-active in a series of short-term, no commitment, quick-but-not-deep relationships, would likely be scrutinized carefully about his sexual expression and his non-permanent boyfriends. But since I am in a publically-accountable, lifelong monogamous relationship (monogamous for 34 years; the public accountability wasn’t possible until Domestic Partnerships became legal a few years ago) ??  I have nothing to fear from such scrutiny, which doesn’t afford me any smugness. Homophobic people wouldn’t care one whit about the distinction I have raised.  

Change has its costs as well as benefits. Plainly, if LGBT people want to be treated with respectability and to be able to not keep their sexuality and their relationships in a stifling closet, they have to get used to the idea that there are other ethical standards in the community which are broader and more important than the gender of one’s “significant other.”

So while the LGBT/Presbyterian activists may be disappointed that the marriage redefinition failed in convention, and may be further disappointed if the local presbyteries don’t support the one positive decision in Minneapolis, they may have two or more years to get used to additional levels of public accountability.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Doctrine, Ecumenical Issues, ELCA, History, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Christian, Sex | No Comments »

New victories, more recycled prejudice.

Friday, July 16th, 2010

Yesterday was a pretty big day on my news radar, with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals turning back the homophobic forcers that wanted a fall ballot measure to get rid of same sex marriage.

You gotta feel for those “forcers” (it was a typo but I kinda like it!). They are trying to expunge us and our movement for justice and equality before the law by force because they see it and us as something like a dangerous infection to their values. Gert out the disinfectant, spray, clean and wipe, meaning: get rid of any evidence that gay tolerance and acceptance is “breaking out”. Forcefully overpower it with squeaky-clean-strict morality, and with money and law and lobbyists and anything else they can to intimidate it. Force shame upon us with righteous indignation, and push us back into our miserable closets.

10countriesgaymarriage.jpg

Thank God it isn’t exactly working, even if Proposition 8 is still on the books in California (its Day will come in court—either Judge Walker’s court or another). Yesterday the world-wide movement for justice and equality got another big victory when the upper house of Argentina’s legislature legalized same-sex marriage, the 10th nation to do so according to a very thorough BBC article on line.

The church continues, however, to get its shorts in a knot about these infectious signs of progress. According to the Human Rights Campaign story on the DC Court decision, “While Bishop Harry Jackson, a pastor in Maryland, has been the public face of this litigation, the truth is that outside groups like the National Organization for Marriage and the Alliance Defense Fund are the driving force behind these anti-equality measures.” Rev. Jackson (is he a so-called or self-styled bishop?) is clearly a front for money from Focus on the Family, the National Organization for Marriage, and Family Research Council, who coughed up $200,000 to put the initiative on the DC ballot. NOM, incidentally, is on an anti-gay marriage “tour” in New Hampshire right now. Relentless scrubbing of the American people trying to get rid of this infectious minority!

Money spent in DC is now money squandered, because the Appellate Court decision trumps the P.R. blitzes with which big money saturates the media. HRC reveals that “more than $40,000 to Schubert Flint Public Affairs, the firm behind the Yes on Prop 8 deal in California and the Question 1 deal in Maine, “similar fear-based strategies in each to spread misinformation and narrowly win both votes.”

argentinagaycouplekissing.jpg

The Latin American church has its shorts in a knot, too, about the decision in Argentina. According to the AP story,

The approval came despite a concerted campaign by the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical groups, which drew 60,000 people to march on Congress and urged parents in churches and schools to work against passage. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio led the campaign, saying “children need to have the right to be raised and educated by a father and a mother.”This is just recycled prejudice. If it worked in California, maybe it will work in Argentina. Just spread misinformation about LGBT people and stoke indignation and maybe it will expunge the gay thing from the land!I am surprised the blowback in Argentina isn’t worse, given the fact that the law specifically allows gay/lesbian couples to adopt children. And the law will take effect in a matter of days.But what angers me about the Cardinal’s rant is that children continue to be pawns in adult relationships, even when just in concept. There is plenty of evidence that children are not harmed by having two moms or two dads, and in fact grow up remarkably well with only one mom or one dad. It is the quality of the relationship between parent and child that matters, not the gender or the sexuality.

Worse yet, same-gender couples do not all have children or desire children. This recycled prejudice tries to prevent all loving same-gender couples from having a civil and legal relationship with one another by shrieking about children. By my lights, I think we should start a national or global organization to protect the children from homophobia.

— Dan Hooper

Posted in Catholic matters, History, Homophobia, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights | No Comments »

Interesting times.

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

365 Gay: News

California trial opens on military gay policy

Associated Press • 07.13.2010 2:34pm EDT

(Riverside, Calif.) An attorney for the nation’s largest Republican gay rights group has told a judge he will use a statement by President Obama as part of a federal court lawsuit challenging the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

In his opening statement Tuesday at the trial in Southern California, attorney Dan Woods said he would enter as evidence Obama’s comments that the policy has weakened national security.

Woods is representing the Log Cabin Republicans. The group wants the judge to halt the policy that prohibits military members from acknowledging they are gay and requires them to be discharged if they are discovered to be gay.

The case puts the government in the position of defending the policy while Obama is pushing Congress to repeal it.

Soooo . . . .  while we’re still hanging on the decision in the federal trial over Proposition 8 (Judge Walker, where are you?), now comes a new trial over Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  As with the Prop 8 case, this seems to be coming out of left field, if not stranger quarters.  My suspicion is that the Log Cabin Republicans —still using a closeted name from a bygone era when it was important to have an identity that didn’t say “GAY” in big letters—needed an issue to keep their own group alive.

I didn’t know LCR had the kind of resources to make a federal case out of DADT. But Woods’ take on this case could be fascinating.  But again I’m left wondering if the Log Cabin (fiscal conservative) Republicans are banking on the case becoming moot if the Pentagon self-study of the policy which excludes gays and lesbians from the armed forces–which is due to be completed in December—allows the Congress to move forward on repealing the law anyway.  Federal trials move equally as slowly as Congress.

And as I caught in the Los Angeles Times coverage of the efforts to repeal DADT, our wonderful Senator John (“Arizona Mindset”) McCain has threatened a filibuster to keep the Senate from considering the House-passed repeal bill.

Old Chinese curse:  “May you live in interesting times.”  Now it’s the Republicans who are keeping our times so interesting.

– Dan Hooper

Posted in History, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | No Comments »

Oh my God, when?

Saturday, July 10th, 2010

Blythe, California

“I was in prison, and you visited me.” – Matthew 25:36

I used to think that we could paraphrase Jesus from this parable, “I was gay/lesbian, and you did not reject me.” Wouldn’t that suffice for my social conscience purposes? To identify with the oppressed because I too was one of the oppressed.

And after all, the “I was hungry/thirsty” thing we have covered okay with church pot-lucks—nobody goes hungry or thirsty. (Well, I personally never did really do much of the cooking, but, … you know what I mean.)

And then there is “I was naked…” But, c’mon, Jesus, when did we see you or anybody else really naked because they didn’t have any clothes? . . .   I remember one mentally ill man with incredibly thick and dirty blond hair, who used to wander the streets of Silverlake barefoot, winter and summer.  I actually saw him, repeatedly (“When did we see you?”) so I am guilty of not having done a damn thing abut it.  I wonder what ever became of him.

But, Lord, he was mentally ill, after all. What do I know about any of that?

Last winter, the conservative folks over at Silverlake Presbyterian found the frozen body of a homeless man on their front lawn one extremely cold January Sunday morning. He was naked. They guess that he gave up, and took his clothes off to make an unmistakable statement.  And it did.

Oh my God, where was I? We’ve tried to take care of homeless people for years–living in our church parking lot, under the front porch, even in the Narthex, the Tower landing, the Library and an unused choir room. But Silverlake Presbyterian Church is within sight of my own home. I mighty have seen him. “Lord, when did we see you?” I didn’t see him, and knew nothing about this until I read it in the newspaper.  Was it the man with the bare feet?

Of course, we visit the sick. We bring flowers and communion, and get well cards. We try to do all the right things, well—some of the right things— as often as we can, with our consciences reminding us how important these merciful acts are to a Christian. But there is one thing that almost all of us overlook—the part that says “I was in prison, and you visited me.” No, I can’t say I ever pictured Jesus or anybody else in prison. Prison just wasn’t on my radar. I didn’t know any prisoners.

Jeffrey’s court date was February 12 several years ago.  I sat with his parents and the public defender attorney when, because of a parole violation, he was sent up for another 3½ years in state prison. This was a man who was homeless when I met him at the gay A.A. meeting in our church basement. We tried to help him and his partner over the course of many months. So I was there when the bailiff took him away in handcuffs.

“I saw you, Lord.” I saw him. I saw the injustice. I prayed and counseled with his family outside the courthouse that day. But what else could I do? I am just one person, and one without a lot of “street smarts” at that.

Last night, four of us from the church came to Blythe, on the edge of the state line with Arizona. After weeks of paperwork, letters and delays to get our security clearances, and then a 240-mile drive into this God-forsaken piece of arid real estate, we waited in three different lines for nearly two hours just to get into the Visiting Room. It was 115 degrees under a relentless July sun.

cvsp_cropped_shadow.jpg

You can see the guard tower and 16′ foot high razor-wire encrusted fences more clearly here.

I started to get weepy when I saw him coming in.  Thank God Jeffrey was in a good mood or I would have been a basket case. “Only 267 days left,” he said, “but who’s counting?”

The food is terrible, he admitted. Medical care is poor, and delayed as long as they can do it.  He has to defend himself from slurs and innuendos for being gay in an overwhelmingly heterosexual cell block. It’s a pressure cooker environment (he’s lucky to be over 6′–1″) with 360 men stacked in triple-high bunks in a “cube.” The whole prison has 3,600 men – it was designed for a capacity about half that number — and the courts and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation are still arguing about the overcrowding. Chuckawalla Valley State Prison is only one of 33 prisons up and down this great Golden State that are nowhere near anybody’s “back yard.” Remember NIMBY? It’s another way of saying “Lord, when did we see you? We sent you as far away as we possibly could!”

What little money we’ve sent to him in prison Jeffrey uses for cosmetics from the prison store.  The state doesn’t provide deodorant.

It also doesn’t provide any hope for a better life. The rehabilitation part is extremely limited. California spends an average $42,000 per inmate per year and over 95% of it is used just to lock them up and guard them.  The California prison guards union is a potent political force.

Jeffrey said he hadn’t had a visitor since January when his grandmother came to visit. I don’t even remember January anymore. It flew by like every other month when you’re busy. I felt shame that it had taken me over two years to get over my fears or blindness and come out here to see him. “Lord, when did we see you?”

And did I mention it was 115 outside? Doesn’t that constitute “cruel and unusual punishment? Lord, when did we notice how hard NIMBY makes it for families to see their loved ones? When did we see the inhumanity in our justice system? When did we see the real people? When did we go blind?

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Bible & Interpretation, Faith, Health, LGBT Christian, Ministry, Public Affairs | No Comments »

Party of No reveals true prejudice.

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

The veto of House Bill 444 by Hawaii’s Republican governor Linda Lingle does not surprise me. The bill would have allowed civil unions in lieu of civil marriage for same-gender couples.

Remember that the state of Hawaii started all this marriage mess in America when in 1993 its supreme court found no reason under the current constitution to forbid same-gender marriage. The people of Hawaii then took it upon themselves to amend the constitution to make sure it couldn’t happen. The actual procedure differs from other states’ bans, but it has the identical affect. Take your gay/lesbian family elsewhere.

California has its own special issues, but I can’t help seeing a pattern in states where there are large concentrations of retirees as well as Relephantitis (the affliction of the Party of No): Arizona, Florida and Hawaii come to mind.

lingleveto.jpg

On the Party of No, the Governor’s own web site, http://hawaii.gov/gov brags on July that she has vetoed 32 bills. Her veto statement is here.

According to Associated Press, Lingle explained her veto: “There has not been a bill I have contemplated more or an issue I have thought more deeply about during my eight years as governor,” she said. ” have been open and consistent in my opposition to same-sex marriage, and find that House Bill 444 is essentially same-sex marriage by another name.”

Lingle’s prejudicial view may actually strengthen our case in the long run. Opponents have frequently said it is the name “marriage” that they want to protect but that they’re not against lesbian and gay couples from having legal protections which are similar or the same, as long as “tradition” marriage of “sacred” marriage are not involved. But Lingle has called the spade by its real name: prejudice. She doesn’t think our relationships and families should have any legal protections by any name.

There is no way that a minority (LGBT people) can affect the thinking of the majority without exposing prejudice every time it is involved.

It is also obvious to me that the battle will probably stay in the courts for some time, because all it takes is a prejudiced governor with Relephantitis to veto the work of many legislators who have already worked through an issue such as this as a political issue. Lingle is a lame duck but has an eye for her party’s chances in the midterm election only four months away. As Governor—think Schwarzeneggar—she doesn’t have to engage individual voters and their views or concerns, but she has to engage the media. So whatever she thinks will play well in the media is what she will do.

Lingle also commented in her press conference that voters, not politicians, should decide the fate of civil unions. Ahh, the eternal triangle between electorate, legislators and courts. But voters–as long as they are allowed to decide things by majority vote—will typically not vote for anything that benefits the minority. A bill or an initiative constitutional amendment is never framed to advise the voters to think and vote on behalf of persons other than themselves, i.e., for the good of the larger community, or for the good of a minority. Clearly, only a court or a representative) legislative group is charged to think and act on behalf of all citizens and not just a majority of citizens.

In the meantime, Lingle’s prejudice lingers in Hawaii.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Homophobia, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | No Comments »