Some thoughts about generalizing and particularizing.

August 31, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

People tend to generalize. (That’s a generalization, of course, so forgive me in advance.) The human mind cannot contain and process every nuance on the thousands of bits of information that come at us, and the brain’s natural wiring is to look for and create patterns. Over time, patterns of thought are reinforced, not eroded, by additional evidence.

On the good side, we are able to get through the day without becoming paralyzed by every stimulus and input. On the bad side, we stereotype, we form prejudices, we cling to bigotry (which can highly individualized or as broad as a social and community or cultural prejudice that resists re-examination at all costs!). And we generalize about things somewhat indiscriminately. We take a particular bit of evidence—a news report, a bad experience, a friend passing on hearsay, and we turn it into a generality. For example:

• One Bernie Madoff allows a new generation to blame and despise Jewish people for their greedy and crooked ways.
• One Willie Horton allows a generation of people to fear and despise African-Americans as criminal and violent (and the electorate to assume that Michael Dukakis wasn’t fit to be President).
• There are voices out there still saying, and influencing thousands of others to believe, that all homosexuals have AIDS. Even the CDC has published generalizations which are particularly damaging.
• Sensational gossip about NAMBLA—a fringe group—allows a broad swath of people to think that all homosexuals are child molesters.
• A few Republican lawmakers who are corrupt allows Democrats to say that all Republicans are evil. Depending on which party you belong to, if any, you may be highly susceptible to believing that.
• A few Democratic lawmakers who are corrupt allows Republicans to say that all Democrats are evil. Depending on which party you belong to, if any, you may be highly susceptible to believing that.
• A handful of high-profile Christian evangelists, or the Pope, doing something hypocritical leads a generation of people to reject the Christian faith because they generalize that ” Christians are hypocrites.”

It is really difficult to reverse this pattern because of another generality: that people are drawn toward bad news, selfish motivations, etc..

St. Paul certainly was given to generalities, and because of his enormous influence, his particular comments have had power over human thinking for centuries. For example, in his letter to the Romans, 3:23, he generalizes about the human race: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” In Paul’s thinking, all human beings are deficient in God’s eyes. In other words, Paul’s God is given to generalities. What part of “all” don’t we understand?

Here’s what bothers me. I am most troubled that the faith I live by, and teach, is tainted, through the process of corporate generalization, with the stains that other Christian faith groups have left behind. Recently novelist Anne Rice left the Catholic Church. “Today I quit being a Christian,” she said, for the sake of Jesus. Yes, Rice was generalizing from her particular experiences and her perceptions of the church’s dark side. But other Catholics I know —who see and hear the same problems and issues such as the present Pope’s medieval clericalism and sexist, homophobic views, or priestly sexual abuse, etc., see those problems as specific problems and not as evidence that God does not exist or that all Christians are hypocrites or the Church has nothing to offer.

Also recently, the documentary film “8: The Mormon Proposition” detailed the role of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in covertly promoting and raising funds to ensure the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Along with other right-wing fundamentalist groups— and the Catholic Church— the Mormons generalized about what opening civil marriage to gay or lesbian couples might do to destroy marriage as an institution. “Save Marriage!” became the highly generalized battle cry. And on the side of tolerance, thousands more people who have seen the film will go away with another generalization fixed in their brains: Organized religion sucks!

We have joked in our local congregation that we’re okay because we’re not that organized. But the truth is, Christ’s message is damaged by Christians who are hypocritical, unethical, abusive, manipulative, and prejudiced. It is harder to put the positive message out there that we, and thousands of other local churches, are doing good things in the name of God, when those good things usually are that new or news-worthy, when a few things which grab the news headlines show that some bad things are also being done in the name of God.

This is where particularizing comes in. Most human beings can’t do much about bad generalizations (although Benedict XVI could go a long way by moving his own thinking into the 21^st century). But we can particularize the grace of God, one life at a time. We can clean up our own acts. We can show kindness and compassion to one other individual. And we can even save the institution of marriage by attending to the quality of our own marriage rather than blaming it on generalizations about society.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Homophobia, Catholic matters, HIV and AIDS, Bible & Interpretation, LGBT Christian, Fundamentalism, Public Affairs | Print | 1 Comment »

Personal ethical failures.

August 23, 2010 by Dan Hooper.

Dr. L. Schlessinger was at it again a few weeks back, and we could hope it is the last. To have gotten into a tit-for-tat argument with a caller to a radio show is typical, but to use the “n” word 11 times in five minutes is pretty exceptional. Dr. L. However seemed to want to bait the caller and to rant about whether it’s okay to use the “n” word because she hears it on HBO.

The Los Angeles Times editorial on August 20 re: Dr. L. Was right on. She had complained after the “n” episode that she had to quit in order to get her First Amendment rights back. “The First Amendment is just fine. Schlessinger exercised her right to use a racial slur when criticizing a caller, and offended listeners exercised their right to criticize her for it. That’s America.”

Schlessinger is just another nag who is trying to stoke indignation in our society. It would have been pathetic and nasty enough if she had simply used the racially-charged “n” word, but to argue with the caller about whether she should have the right to use it reveals a deep well of racist antipathy which lay below her surface. It makes me wonder, if she now quits broadcasting in order to get her free speech back, if she wants to use the “n” word a whole lot more in private.

I am not using her first name here, BTW—only the “L” abbreviation—because her name is just as offensive to me as the “n” word is to African-Americans. Dr. L. also has a deep well of homophobic sentiments which caused a backlash, thanks largely to John Aravosis and others who beat the drum over her bigotry. The “Stop Dr. L…” campaign 10 years ago didn’t let loose of Dr. L.’s calling homosexuals “biological errors.” Dr. L. has also repeatedly slammed women as a class. It seems the broader the audience that one of these social commentators gets, the more likely they are to sweep more and more people into their vitriolic dustbins. Think Rush Limbaugh.

According to the Times on August 20, Laura was defended by Sarah Palin, another sassy individual with a firearm mouth who is fighting her political failures by trying to stoke more indignation. Palin, according to the Times, tweeted to Dr. L.: “Don’t retreat … reload.”

Makes me wonder if people like Rus, Sarah and Dr. L. should be labeled as “personal ethical failures.”

— Dan Hooper

Posted in wingnuts, Homophobia, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

Let the game continue!

August 12, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

If you’ve been following the “ping-pong” match in the courts between lawyers for and against same-sex marriage in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, here is the latest shot: Judge Vaughn Walker has lifted the stay as of the close of business on Wednesday, August 18. We of course will have to watch the news to see if an appeal by the losing Defendant-Intervenors for a stay is sustained by the 9^th Circuit Court, which is the next level up for this ping-pong match. – Dan Hooper

At 1:15 pm Marriage Equality USA posted the following information and appeal:

¶

Marriage Equality USA has just received word that Judge Walker has denied the stay and marriages can begin on August 18th at 5pm, but that decision is subject to an appeal.

“None of the factors the court weights in considering a motion to stay favors granting a stay. Accordingly, proponents’ motion to stay is DENIED. The clerk is directed to enter judgement forthwith. That judgement shall be STAYED until August 18th at 5pm…at which time all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8.”

We can’t say it enough. It is crucial that as we continue to move through the courts, we build support with the court of public opinion.

Lifting the stay and allowing marriage equality has the support of both conservatives and liberals. The California Governor and the Attorney General both asked for the stay to be lifted, saying they have no reason to continue discriminating against gays and lesbians and denying them the fundamental right to marry.

Remind fellow Californians that 18,000 same-sex couples married and no one was harmed when the gay family down the block was able to receive the happiness, dignity and protections that come with marriage.

If you hear 7 million Californians voted for Prop 8 and one judge overturned that vote, remind them that 14 times the US Supreme Court has ruled marriage is a fundamental right for all Americans. We shouldn’t vote on who can and cannot marry, just like we shouldn’t vote on whether Fox News should have the right to free speech or women should have the right to vote.

Most importantly, share your personal story. If you wanted to marry and couldn’t, share why you want to get married and the emotional roller coaster you are riding. If you were one of the 18,000 couples to marry, talk about how that experience made you feel. And share how we as a community will be stronger when we live in a world where a child who is born gay can dream about falling in love and getting married…and have that dream come true.

Stay engaged with Marriage Equality USA. Join our facebook page, get involved with your local chapter, and volunteer. It’s a marathon, we know… But we need your help and together we will win…

Founded in 1998, Marriage Equality USA is a national grassroots organization whose mission is to secure legally recognized civil marriage equality for all, at the federal and state level, without regard to gender identity or sexual orientation. For more information go to www.marriageequality.org.

¶

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

ADF misrepresents Yale study.

August 6, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

After the previous post’s review of the Alliance Defense Fund’s participation in Perry v. Schwarzeneggar, the landmark case decided earlier this week by Judge Vaughn Walker, I looked further into ADF’s web site. The ADF is self-described as ” a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith.”

As we know, the argument to “save the children” from the scourge of knowing about homosexuality and therefore opening the possibility—they think—that some children will grow up with open minds about homosexuality, figures prominently into the highly inflammatory rhetoric about gay and lesbian couples.

Never mind that many of the same-sex couples who wish to, or have already, wed are not raising children, the “save the children” mentality assumes that civil marriage is primarily about procreation and nurturing the young. So, of course the social conservatives wish to pull in every bit of evidence they can to bolster their view that two moms or two dads either can’t do a decent job of parenting or homosexual parents will harm the children. That argument, by the way, failed to be presented convincingly in Judge Walker’s court room, for lack of evidence.

But look what I found on the ADF’s web site (the right-wing Christian legal outfit who put up at least 8 attorneys to fight back against Olson and Boies): In the press release announcing that ADF will enter an appeal of Walker’s ruling, it said this:

“A recent study conducted by Yale University supports the position that children, all things being equal, should be raised with their own mom and dad: 81 percent believe that society should do everything possible to encourage the ideal of children being raised by their mom and dad, 57 percent believe the law should encourage that children be raised by a mom and a dad, 68 percent worry about the decline of the traditional family, and 70 percent believe that a man-woman relationship is important in teaching children about how men and women interact.”

Since such an 81% finding would seem to be quite the opposite of reports I have read elsewhere suggesting that no harm is being done to the kids, I wanted to know what Yale University said that “supports the position.” This 17-page report from the “Cultural Cognition Project” are actually preliminary findings of a survey on people’s attitudes, not on whether the children are actually alright or are being harmed by gay or lesbian parents. Event at that, what is “summarized” on the ADF page is grossly misleading. The Findings reported on page 4 reveal that 57% said “the law should encourage that children be raised by heterosexual couples wherever possible.” It also reported:

• 56% said that when a court decides whether a person should be allowed to adopt their partner’s children, the court should not be allowed to consider the person’s sexual orientation.
• 58% said Gays and lesbians should be allowed to legally adopt children.
• 59% said Gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve as legal foster parents.
• 59% said Lesbians should have access to sperm banks on the dame terms as heterosexual women.

In fact, the 81 % figure shows up only on page 9 in the Yale report where it is used to label “Liberals.” But the report’s authors say, “Those who oppose gay and lesbian parenting generally view it as a threat to the ideal of the biological family.” They are not reporting data which show that biological families are harmed in any way, or that children are harmed in any way, but that gay/lesbian parenting is “a threat to the ideal of the biological family.”

Apart from the fact that heterosexual divorce and remarriage should be seen similarly, or for that matter, the orphaning of children, etc., what exactly is a threat to an ideal? Is a alleged threat to an ideal sufficient basis to deny civil rights to real people? Is an ideal, any ideal, sufficient reason to shape public policy in a manner which categorically treats an entire class of people as inferior to others? And for that matter, weren’t the anti-miscegenation laws for a big part of American history trying to protect “an ideal family” as all one color?

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Family, wingnuts, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights | Print | No Comments »

The Legal Playing Field on the morning after.

August 5, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

It was this morning’s top headline: “Ban on gay marriage overturned.” I expected that. The Los Angeles Times article [updated 7:42 a.m.] reviewed much of the same ground that yesterday’s on-line commentaries did. I have already downloaded the decision and read the back-end completely, from page 109–136, so I’m already somewhat familiar with Judge Walker’s careful legal reasoning in dispensing the Pro-Prop 8 arguments one by one under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the federal 14^th Amendment.

After dispensing with other pro-prejudice arguments (two moms or two dads aren’t good for the children, etc.), and underlining the complete lack of supporting evidence for those arguments, Judge Walker concludes that the State of California has no compelling reason to deny lesbian and gay couples the fundamental legal right of marriage. “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples,” he wrote.

Still, it is interesting to see what others have to say about the quality of the decision, especially authoritative minds. Shannon Price Minter was quoted in the Times, for example. She is the legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) a major player in the larger LGBT movement for many years. Said Minter: “This is a tour de force—a grand slam on every count. This is without a doubt a game-changing ruling.”

(The game that changes is because of a judicial ruling which goes beyond the close-in arguments about the meaning and scope of civil marriage, to rather help build a case in support of full equality before the law for sexual minorities.)

It did not surprise me that the defense counsel had little to say–the guys hired to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8. At least in what they were quoted a saying, there was no counter-argument (e.g. that Judge Walker had erred in legal reasoning, that there is solid evidence that gay marriage will wreck heterosexual marriage, damage children, destroy the institution and sink the State of California, etc.) except the one which attempts to stoke right-wing indignation: How dare the judge decide against the 52.3% majority of voters who [having been intentionally mislead in the fall of 2008 by a blitzkrieg of anti-gay advertising paid for largely by members of the Mormon religion] said they don’t like gay or lesbian couples. The Times quotes Andrew Pugno (General Counsel for Protect Marriage) as saying that Walker’s “invalidation of the votes of over 7 million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process.” The Alliance Defense Fund is calling Judge Walker’s ruling “dangerous.”

(Pugno has a tendency to puff and bluff, which is understandable because that is the posture of the organization which pays him. For example, this is what Pugno said about the lawsuit filed the day after Prop 8’s passage by the ACLU and Equality California: “The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California’s constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People’s decision to enact Proposition 8.” As it turned out, the arguments advanced against Proposition 8 are certainly not frivolous, and Pugno’s “vigorous defense,” at least in Judge Walker’s court room, turned out to be a total dud.)

On “being intentionally misled” I think Protect Marriage sums it up for me:

“In the campaign, voters were told clearly that voting YES on Proposition 8 would do 3 simple things: . . .

• It would protect our children from being taught in public schools that ‘same-sex marriage’ is the same as traditional marriage, and would prevent other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.”And binding legal precedent is a valid concept. But it generally means that lower courts must abide by the decisions of higher courts. The whole concept of judicial review, which has been with this American republic for two centuries, is meant to, yes, have the authority to overturn legislation—whether written by elected lawmakers or by the initiative process—which is inconsistent with and in conflict with America’s highest principles. That’s what declaring a law “unconstitutional” is all about. The pro-Prop 8 attorneys, by the way, failed in Judge Walker’s courtroom to demonstrate that there is binding legal precedent for forbidding same-sex couples to have civil marital rights. For example, here is the Protect Marriage blog page for Pugno’s Closing Argument before Judge Walker 7 weeks ago:

Hmmm.  Whether pugnacious Pugno’s whimper has any muscle remains to seen. Judge Walker has given the defense counsel until tomorrow, August 6, to submit more papers for a follow-up hearing about whether Walker’s Order should be “stayed” until the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals has a chance to consider it. According to Times writers Maura Dolan and Carol Williams, “To win a permanent stay pending appeal, Proposition 8 proponents must show that they are likely to prevail in the long run and that there would be irreparable harm if the ban is not enforced.”

Meaning: the don’t-like-gay-marriage side must immediately convince Walker and/or the 9^th Circuit that when all the legal dust has settled, the anti-gay view will have won; and that permitting any more same-sex marriages in the meantime would cause “irreparable harm.”

The second half of this is easier for non-experts to analyze. For starters, can attorney Pugno prevent evidence now (that he couldn’t produce during the trial phase) showing that there was irreparable harm caused by the existing marriages of some 18,000 same-sex couples who wed between June and November, 2008? I don’t think so.

The first half is of course open to much debate. Will the anti-gay forces ultimately win? A lot of commentators still fear that the United States Supreme Court, if and when this case comes before them, and if they choose to review it, is so conservative it will make a decision that reinforces anti-gay prejudice in America for many years to come. That’s mostly a political guess based on attitudes which can and do shift. For example, the Lawrence v. Texas decision (2003) which decriminalized consensual sexual activity between persons of the same gender surprised many of us because we thought the right-leaning Supremes would echo the reactionary Bowers v. Hardwick decision (1986), a grossly prejudicial decision even for the times.

I can’t speak to the legal procedural issues on this, but it would seem to me that Pugno and his forces can’t argue for a “permanent stay” of Walker’s ruling on the assumptions that (a) this case will one day be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, (b) that they will accept the case, which they don’t have to do, and (c) that they will overturn the lower court. What comes in between is the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, a noticeably more liberal court that could very much agree with Judge Walker’s legal conclusions.

So my suspicions are that Pugno and company (Texas attorney Austin Nimrocks representing the Alliance Defense Fund is another attorney being quoted, but there were a total of 11 attorneys listed on the Closing Arguments filing) will not be able to get a “permanent stay” against the Walker decision until the appeal process winds through the 9^th Circuit Court–which could take a year or two. This would mean that Walker’s Order (on page 136) would have to be given full force—Proposition 8 would not be enforceable and marriage licenses would begin to be issued again for same-sex couples. We should have an answer to this within days.

The Christian reactionary Alliance Defense Fund (founded by leaders of Campus Crusade for Christ, Focus on the Family and Coral Ridge Ministries among others), you will remember, is also opposed to hate crimes legislation. ADF also seems quite nervous about the Walker decision, if its website is any indicator, especially about the apparent intentions of the American Bar Association to endorse same-sex marriage later this week! See: ABA to Consider Same-Sex Marriage Measure” The ABA is meeting in San Francisco, beginning today (what timing, what synergy!).

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Family, wingnuts, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Change looks like this!

August 4, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

Reaction has been swift to Judge Vaughn Walker’s sweeping decision that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it violates both the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution’s 14^th Amendment.

But it is “all the usual suspects” who have weighed in during the last few hours — the Roman Catholic Bishops, the Mormons, the “Family Research Council” and the attorneys who “defended” Prop 8 in Walker’s federal court.

It is interesting that–in Judge Walker’s view and in the eyes of most independent observers—because the defenders of Proposition 8 made such a weak defense of the proposition, their official statements this afternoon do not take issue with Walker’s legal reasoning or conclusions, but instead try to throw the whole case back into the court of public opinion even while they vow to send the appeal to the 9^th Circuit Court.

The public opinion, of course, to which Alliance Defense Fund’s attorney Austin Nimrocks and attorney Andrew Pugno refer, is that the people voted for Prop 8 just as they had voted for Proposition 22 a decade ago. This is from the L.A. Now site of the Los Angeles Times:

Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund who fought to uphold Proposition 8 in Walker’s court, said they would appeal. “We’re obviously disappointed that the judge did not uphold the will of over 7 million Californians who made a decision in a free and fair democratic process.”Nimocks added that “tens of millions of Americans across this country” as well as Congress have expressed the belief that marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples. “To say that there is no reason whatsoever to define marriage as one man and one woman is not something that we expect to be upheld on appeal,” he said of Walker’s reasoning.Andrew P. Pugno, one of the lawyers who defended the Proposition 8 campaign in the trial in Walker’s San Francisco courtroom, referred comment on the judge’s decision to a spokeswoman for ProtectMarriage.com, who said the group opposed to gay marriage would later post a statement on its website. More than an hour after the ruling was issued, the group had yet to comment on it.

Walker’s “Conclusions of Law” [beginning on page 109] in contrast, quickly dispense with the popular vote and cite legal precedent that fundamental rights are not subject to the vote of the people.  Here are more stories and commentary:

The State Column “Prop 8 Ruling: Ban is Unconstitutional” www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/08/prop-8-ruling-ban-is-unconstitutional/

The Wall Street Journal http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/08/04/breaking-news-sf-judge-shoots-down-proposition-8/Now 

Now Public www.nowpublic.com/world/prop-8-ruled-unconstitutional-protests-celebration-2647312.html  “US District Judge Vaughn Walker Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional”

USA Today : Faith & Reason http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/08/prop-8-proposition-8-california-gay-marriage-vaugh-walker/1 ”Prop 8 ruling drives strong religious reactions: Outrage to joy”

The Washington Post On Faith : Religion Roundup http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/08/proposition_8_ruling_in_california_religion_roundup.html ”Proposition 8 ruling in California: religion roundup”

Los Angeles Times “L.A. Now / Southern California —This Just In http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/gay-marriage-foes-vow-to-appeal-prop-8-ruling.html ”Gay marriage foes vow to appeal Prop. 8 ruling [Updated 3:00 pm]”

— Pastor Dan Hooper

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

Another tipping point today?

August 4, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

I don’t know quite what to think or hope for this afternoon’s decision. Whether Judge Walker’s opinion is for us an with us, or against us (which is highly unlikely given the low level of intelligence during the trial coming from the Prop 8 defenders), it is not the last word, since the decision is more than likely to be appealed by either side.

The last word, since this is a federal case, is likely to be several years off before the U.S. Supreme Court. But given the current court, all we could hope for there is several more retirements and an Obama administration still in place to push through some nominations that will fairly judge our issues. The present nominee, Kagan, certainly trumps people like Scalia, Thomas, etc., but time after time we’ve seen a majority of the court who did not consider the entire scope of justice issues or found a way to elevate some values over others. I am still smarting from the Supremes’ decision last winter that corporations can legally spend as much money as they please to influence elections—and they called that a first amendment free speech right! (Treating the legal fiction that a corporation is a “person” in the eyes of the law of course.)

Bottom line: I don’t trust the Supremes to rule in our favor even though they certainly did in Lawrence v. Texas.

According to my e-mail, California Faith for Equality joins Community Prayer for Social Justice at 8pm tonight, August 4, at Father Serra Park on Olivera Street across from Union Station, with Latino Equality Alliance, Metropolitan Community Church Los Angeles, Moral Compass to Justice, and other faith leaders from across the city.

More interesting to me, California Faith for Equality will be holding a Statewide Faith Leaders conference call with Lambda Legal’s Senior Counsel, Jenny Pizer about the decision. Alas I have no details yet.

According to Marriage Equality USA, Judge Walker will issue his decision in the Federal Prop 8 case on Wednesday, August 3, 2010 between 1-3pm. The decision will be posted at www.cand.uscourts.gov and at www.marriageequality.org.

A huge amount of preparation has gone into responding/reacting to the decision. How we respond/react will depend on whether we feel vindicated or screwed by Judge Walker. I’m not sure that a huge amount of street demonstration power is a useful thing, but of course it will happen. It’s nice to see a show of strength in the streets, but our opponents don’t both with that and they keep right on raising enormous sums of money to fight us every way they can.

Here are a few more links:

Rex Wockner’s column

American Foundation for Equal Rights

GetEqual.org – site is current

Robin McGehee’s blog

California Faith for Equality - for some reason Google was identifying this as an unsafe site with “malware” this morning, so use your own judgment. But there’s nothing posted there about today’s decision. Hmmm.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

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