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 | 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 »

Boycott Target and Best Buy!

July 30, 2010 by Dan Hooper.

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

$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 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.

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

Is DOMA doomed?

July 19, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

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

Different histories in moving forward.

July 18, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

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

New victories, more recycled prejudice.

July 16, 2010 by Dan Hooper.

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.

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 10^th 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.”

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, Homophobia, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, History | Print | No Comments »

Party of No reveals true prejudice.

July 8, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

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.

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 | Print | No Comments »

Those crazy heartlanders.

April 3, 2010 by Dan Hooper.

It’s so nice to know that out here on the lunatic fringe we uphold traditional values (such as serial polygamy a.k.a. repeated divorce and remarriage), while back there in the hotbed of Lutheranism, their ho-hum ahh shucks brand of social values now seems to have taken same-sex marriage in stride. Even Governor Chet “Protect Marriage” Culver has backed way off his theat to stop gay marriage via the state constitution.

—Dan HooperAttitudes change in Iowa as marriage equality marks 1 year

By Ruth Schneider, 365gay.com • 04.03.2010 7:00am EDT

“Midwest rebel state Iowa marks the one-year anniversary of marriage equality in the state on Saturday. And state gay rights groups are looking to the future, hoping to mark many more anniversaries.”

Read the entire article here.

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

Faithful discernment in reactionary times.

March 30, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

There is little doubt that America and the world are going through “reactionary times.” The whole human race seems to have a “knee-jerk” response to every stimulus, from fundamentalist Islam to fundamentalist Christianity on several continents. Then there is politics, in which it seems every commentator strives to become a loudmouth, and every loudmouth strives to run for office.

We might like to walk away from all this, but the apostles of reactionary thinking hunt us down, invade our privacy, and badger us with inflammatory and indignant dichotomies. If I hear one more person, secular or religious, who declares that the current state of affairs is an “Armageddon” I think I will puke.

(Armageddon, by the way, appears only once in the entire Bible in one measly verse, Revelation 16.16. Its place and meaning are fraught with interpretive pitfalls, but I think it’s interesting that the folks who insist that the entire Bible must be taken literally take this one verse symbolically. If Armageddon is an actual geographical place where the final battle between God and Satan will take place, then that will be in the Holy Land—if anybody can ever figure out where Mount Megiddo is. Even crazier, Rev. 16:16 indicates “the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon,” but alas there is no such word or place in the Hebrew Bible or Hebrew language. Hmmm.)

One thing seems certain to me ~ the final battle between good and evil is not likely to happen in New Brighton, Minnesota (home of the reactionary Word Alone club) or any of the dozen odd places around the U.S. where conservative Lutherans have their shorts in a knot over last summer’s decision by the churchwide assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to allow the ordination of lesbian and gay clergy.

As we have observed in recent months, there are sub-armagiddish battles going on in Lutheran congregations over whether they should stay in the national churchbody or instead run to . . . wherever they think that queers are least likely to turn up, I guess.

Even I have to rethink my time-honed prejudices about red and blue states, open and closed minds and the progressive or retentive expressions of ideas about God and human sexuality. I was delighted to read that as group of 18 current and retired/emeritus faculty from one of our seminaries —not one I had considered “progressive” by any stretch— have decided to speak up in favor of the ELCA’s churchwide decisions, in other words, in support of its discernment that LGBT people are also children of God and full brothers and sisters to other Christians. Faculty from Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary in Columbia, South Carolina have issued the Columbia Declaration, with an entire web site publishing various resources in support of the ELCA’s actions, including materials with biblical, historical, confessional, practical and missional focus.

Some of these resources tread over well-worn liberalizing paths, but one can hope that perhaps some new people will walk these paths and discover new territory. If you want fresh material to think through these controversies today, I commend the articles published here.

The “Columbia Declaration” (obviously dubbed in distinction from the so-called Manhattan Declaration last fall) says in part,

We believe that the ELCA’s Assembly actions are consistent with the biblical and Lutheran confessional tradition. We therefore support the opening of the roster of the ELCA to qualified and approved candidates for ministry who are in lifelong, committed, publicly accountable, monogamous same-sex relationships. We also support the actions of the Assembly that create the possibility for individual congregations who so choose to bless same-sex unions.May I just quote and echo the concluding remarks of Rev. Dr. Harold F. Park from Southern Seminary: After instituting the Lord’s Supper, Jesus said to the eleven disciples, “I give you a new commandment, that you LOVE one another, just as I have loved you.” Jesus did NOT say, “that you AGREE with each other.” Then in His prayer to the Father before being crucified for OUR sins, Jesus prayed, “…that they may all be ONE, just as we are one . . . completely one.” (John 17: 21,23)In reading and applying the Bible, I give much more importance to the words of JESUS than to the words of Paul or the Old Testament writers.Amen.— Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Doctrine, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Bible & Interpretation, LGBT Christian, Ministry, History, ELCA | Print | No Comments »

Left at the altar or before the bench?

March 15, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

Somebody recently asked me to clarify what is going on with the Federal Proposition 8 case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger . So I’ve been web surfing for information.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights doesn’t seem to be updating its site. Bill Moyer’s Journal has no new entries since February 26. We thought that Judge Walker as going to issue a ruling by now. Matt Coles of the ACLU has posted his analysis on Huffington Post as recently as March 11, but he seems to ignore the significance of a plaintiff’s win in federal court because of the 99% likelihood that the case would be appealed all the way to the Supremes.

Cole thinks “he’ll conclude like most constitutional lawyers that discrimination based on sexual orientation shouldn’t be treated as generally permissible. If it isn’t, it is very difficult to come up with a credible argument for excluding same-sex couples from marriage.”

The lawsuit, in case you’ve forgotten, is asking for the federal court to strike own the state constitutional amendment as discriminatory. Plaintiffs’ attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies are conservative and liberal—they argued on opposite sides in the U.S. Supreme Court case in 2000 that gave the Presidency to George W. Bush. But on this case, they are working together.

Before the attorneys has finished presenting their case, it came out that the U. S. District Court’s Chief Judge Vaughn Walker is himself gay, but any scandal about that one doesn’t seem to have traction. If it did, what would prevent plaintiffs form crying foul if the judge was heterosexual? Does whom the court judge sleeps with, if s/he even has a partner, really affect his/her judicial reasoning? Walker, by the way, was appointed by President Bush #1 in 1989. According to the San Francisco Chronicle coverage, NCLR’s Kate Kendall isn’t worried about bias, or for that matter, reverse bias.

The Senior Policy Counsel for the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center published an update in the March 2010 Vanguard from which I quote:

Walker’s decision seems likely to be favorable. Either way, it will almost certainly be appealed, first to the Ninth Circuit and then in all probability to the U.S. Supreme Court. A final decision is likely two or more years away.A Supreme Court victory could strike down all marriage bans across the country and allow same-sex marriages everywhere in the U.S.A.; a defeat would establish an adverse federal precedent, but it would not affect marriage equality in states where it already exists. And although such an adverse ruling could well make some ongoing -state-by-state efforts for marriage equality more challenging, it would not in any way stop those efforts from going forward.

This means that there is a lot riding on this case, and the conservatives mighty have much more to lose that the liberals. But he continues: Ultimately, though—with a conservative Supreme Court with at least two justices hostile to LGBT equality—the prospects for a winning outcome there are uncertain at best. We cannot relent for a single moment any of our other efforts to advance LGBT equality in general, and marriage equality in particular, at every opportunity.Unfortunately, the article segues, as all Vanguard articles seem to do, into a request for money for the Center.After District Court on the road of appeals is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If our side wins, the win would very likely be “stayed” until the appeal is completed, and that means two more years. Cole goes into the internal wiring of the Circuit courts and how unlikely they are to make any sweeping decision on anything, even though the Ninth Circuit, which rules the western U.S. is more progressive than most others. Conservatives hate it for that reason.

But the whole appeal and counter-appeal thing strikes me as a game that children play to get the best of each other— whether by manipulation, trickery or even violence— while each side knows that the parents could step in at any moment and end the game. Both sides in the equal rights movement have reason to fear “the parents” on the Supreme Court—not because they would necessarily be right in their decision, but because they seemingly have the legal right to make a final decision at least for a generation or more. As we have seen in far too many cases in the last decade, the legal reasoning of U.S. Supreme decisions often comes down to “because I said so.”

This is why court watchers are so diligent. Add to this mix the fact that President Obama does not have a blank check to appoint more liberal voices to the Supreme Court. He himself had a constitutional law background as an attorney, but his power to appoint open-minded justices to the high court and ease the court into a more liberal mind-set rests on a couple iffy situations: one, if one of the sitting justices retires or dies in office during Obama’s term; two, whether the first Justice to retire or die on the bench is identifiably conservative or liberal; and three, if OBama doesn’t lose his grip on the Senate before a Court vacancy occurs.

Tonight Associated Press has reported that Justice John Paul Stevens, who was appointed by President Ford in 1975, has indicated he will definitely retire in the next three years and will soon if this term will be his last. Stevens, who turns 90 in April, is considered the leader of the court’s “liberals.”

And on number two, we have to seriously consider that Congress could flip back to being controlled by the conservatives in the midterm elections. It is not merely possible, it’s likely that a conservative-controlled Congress would introduce a federal constitutional amendment to ban all same-sex marriage.

— Pastor Dan Hooper

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

Are we individuals or couples before the law?

March 12, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

I am no attorney, and I often try to talk law students out of their intended career. But after working in law offices for more than 15 years it is impossible not to attempt to think legally. And it is less dangerous to blog about law than to practice amateur medicine; no one will die if I’m wrong.

But on this same-gender marriage issue that will not go away for years to come (it first burst into our consciousness in 1997 when the Hawaii Supreme Court saw no reason to people of the same gender shouldn’t have the right to a civil marriage), sometimes it is hard to express a legal reasoning that even makes senses in the court of public opinion. After all, the public doesn’t follow anything which is too complex or convoluted, so if you want to change public opinion you have to keep it simple. But that’s how Proposition 8 slipped by the voters in the first place.

Anyway, it occurs to me that all LGBT people already have the right to get married! As individuals, we can get married in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Just not to each other except in a handful of states. In other words, as individuals we can always marry heterosexually. We can marry someone of the opposite gender.

So by my reasoning we are not fighting for individual rights. (Well, I know we really fighting for the right to marry the human being of our choice without some wingnut insisting that it would lead to bestiality.) My reasoning is that it is lesbian or gay couples who are fighting for equal rights. My fundamental question is, Does the concept of justice and equality before the law extend to couples, period, not just to individuals?

We’ve already seen corporations given enormous legal rights, including the recent Supreme Court decision that gives corporations the right to buy candidates for public office and sell them to the voters (but that’s another issue). So it isn’t a stretch to begin analyzing this issue by arguing that lesbian couples and gay couples are entitled to legal rights.

Is that hair-splitting or unimportant? No, it’s central, because in fact American marriage laws grant rights to couples. Federal law, it has been determined, grants 1,049 distinct rights to married couples which are given to them through the vehicle of civil marriage. Most of these rights, I think it can be argued, are grant to the couple, not to the individuals who are in the marriage.

If that can be satisfactorily explained, then it makes perfectly clear sense to me that, under “due process” and a lot of other legal theorizing which make up the stuff of civil rights cases being argued in courtrooms, gay couples and lesbian couples cannot rightfully be discriminated against and heterosexual couples be given carte blanche.

Okay, that much is clear in my mind, but so what? Well as we watch the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case play out in the next 2-3 years, I want to watch how couples are treated legally. Do lesbian couples, for example, have the same rights under domestic partnership law as they would have under marriage law? Do gay male couples have identical rights under a civil union as they would automatically receive in a civil marriage?

Good questions. Check back often for answers.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

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