Archive for the ‘Lesbian/Gay Marriage’ Category

Prop 8 Defenders Have Standing?

Thursday, November 17th, 2011

This news item is just in from Lutherans Concerned/North America:

Today, November 17, the California Supreme Court handed down its decision that the proponents of Proposition 8 had the right to appeal the August 2010 decision of Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, U.S. District Court, that the law was unconstitutional.

This ruling answers the question asked of the California Supreme Court by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, when the proponents of Prop 8 submitted an appeal to the 9th Circuit following the refusal of the then Governor of California and the State Attorney General to appeal the decision of the District Court.

In its ruling the California Supreme Court said, “The inability of the official proponents of an initiative measure to appeal a trial court judgment invalidating the measure, when the public officials who ordinarily would file such an appeal decline to do so, would significantly undermine the initiative power.” The court was unanimous in its decision. The court said that it made this ruling solely on the issue of process, and not on the merits or issues of Proposition 8 itself.

Both sides of the action before the 9th Circuit have said that they fully expect the appeals court to accept and abide by the ruling of the California Supreme Court as to the standing of those bringing the appeal.

Though some LGBT advocacy groups have expressed disappointment with the California ruling, the lawyers who brought the original suit by two same-sex couples and are directly involved in the case before the 9th Circuit have expressed confidence. In press reports, Theodore Olson, former U.S. Solicitor General during the Bush administration, has said, “This frees up the 9th Circuit to go ahead and decide the constitutional issues on the merits. We’re anxious to get to a decision on the merits that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

The case has already been briefed and argued before the 9th Circuit; so, on that basis, the court could move to deliberation and decision. However, the proponents of Prop 8 have raised the issue of Judge Walker’s being in a long-term, same-gender relationship at the time of the trial and his ruling as grounds for overturning because of presumed bias. This argument was previously made to Chief U.S. District Judge James Wade and rejected earlier this year. His ruling has now been appealed to the 9th Circuit, as well.

The saga that is Prop 8 moves now to and through a 9th Circuit decision, since those who are unhappy with whatever the 9th Circuit says about the case will undoubtedly take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Phil Soucy
Director Communications LC/NA
communications@lcna.org

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Not all are negative on same-sex marriage.

Wednesday, August 31st, 2011

Thanks to Elizabeth for this link. The Atlantic Wire (Atlantic Monthly Group) has a brief article on American attitudes on same-sex marriage ~ they call it “gay marriage” ~ that shows that not all religious people are of the same mind.

Well, duh! We knew that but it’s helpful when the general public is given information to help them separate the sheep from the goats on this issue.

breakdownongaymarriage.jpg

According to the chart, based on a study from the Public Religion Research Institute (based on data collected in July 2011), Catholics and “White Mainline” churches line up as slightly positive on the issue (52 and 51% in favor), and Black Protestant and White Evangelical church people decisively negative on the issue (60 and 76% opposed respectively).

Three years ago in the post mortem hand-wringing as to why Proposition 8 passed in California, you will remember, it was these two groups which helped to push Prop 8 to victory. the LGBT community in California was especially dismayed that we had not communicated our core message effectively to the Black churches. That reality appears to prevail today, even while general attitudes and even “White mainline” Christians have been moving steadily into our column.

Read the article linked here, because the most important finding is not represented in the Atlantic chart:

” the main theme of the study was that younger people are supporting gay rights at much higher rates than their elders. It found “at least a 20-point generation gap” between 18 to 29 year olds and adults over 65 on every public policy issue concerning gay rights. And seven in 10 people in that younger age bracket say that religious groups that come out against homosexuality are alienating them.”

This last sentence confirms a finding from the Barna Group published four years ago. See Indwelling Spirit comments here, which was based on a September 2007 Barna news article.

Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is “anti-homosexual.” Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a “bigger sin” than anything else. Moreover, they claim that the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching on homosexuality to their friendships with gays and lesbians.

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Justice delayed, again and again.

Thursday, June 23rd, 2011

It is more than a mere “cliff-hanger,” that the New York state legislature went home for the night without voting once and for all on the same-sex marriage bill. It is justice denied.

William Gladstone, the 19th century British politician is attributed with the quote “Justice delayed is justice denied” —something that politicians forever have simply ignored. But again tonight, the citizens of New York are being denied justice while the Neros of the Senate fiddled with funding and financing and pensions and economic matters over which the two major parties love to disagree.

It is becoming quite clear that the Republican lawmakers want the clock to run out on the legislative session (which was supposed to have adjourned last week) without having to take a vote either way on Governor Cuomo’s bill. The last count was that 31 of the necessary majority of 32 Senators would vote for it. The rest of them apparently don’t want to vote for it, and don’t want to identified as being against it either. So the bill could die again because justice was delayed.

This is our legal system in America, folks. This is our court system, too, because legislators (not judges) hold the cards on appointing judges. Dozens and dozens of federal benches sit empty because the U.S. Senate refuses to confirm the nominees—another political maneuver to deny justice by postponing it.

Lawsuits take years to work their way through the courts, because attorneys afford themselves all the time in the world (someone else is paying them by the hour at prices they set without any form of regulation) to argue over technicalities. All the time in the world is justice denied while justice is debated, deferred, derailed, in courtrooms full of detached parties. In California, neither the state courts nor the federal courts seems to be able to get to the core issues raised by the ludicrous manipulation of our voters’ initiative system to shove Proposition 8 into the state constitution. While New York Senators fiddle, no one is taking charge over the clearly unconstitutional denial of fundamental human rights for gay and lesbian people because they have to think about whether outside parties—who are not harmed in any way by my marriage or yours— have the legal standing to defend the proposition in court. If the legal issues about “standing” aren’t clear by now, is it unfair of the citizens to ask, “what the hell have you attorneys and judges and legislators been doing with your time for the last century or more?”

The filibuster is another device with which everybody is familiar. It ought to be outlawed—absolutely and forever—but the bastards who filibuster are the bastards who write the laws, and do it to favor themselves rather than justice. But the filibuster is a blatant and intentional abuse of the democratic process to delay and therefore deny justice.

It isn’t that New York’s legislative “good night” this evening at 11:00 p.m. is so awful in and of itself. But it is simply one more nail in the coffin of democracy. What’s been holding up the vote for weeks? Republican lawmakers want to argue some more over whether there are enough legal protections for religious groups who don’t want to perform same-sex marriages. Was that an issue with Loving v. Virginia, that religious groups who didn’t believe that interracial marriage was moral wouldn’t be compelled to perform them? To my knowledge, no minister, rabbi, imam or other religious figure is ever compelled to preside over a marriage ceremony of any kind. We all have the freedom to say no. So the Republican misgivings about the bill in New York is an obvious stalling maneuver—to suggest that there are just too many unresolved issues to move forward. I’m not buying it.

—Dan Hooper

A June roller coaster.

Tuesday, June 21st, 2011

This is an unusual month so far for “gay pride,” even by the unusual standards of contemporary life. The President of the United States formally proclaimed it as LGBT Pride Month ( a first). Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa declared June as the city’s first LGBT Heritage Month and the City Council had a special (and amicable) pre-session observance on June 3.

But the word “pride” doesn’t convey both the challenge and the agony we face. HIV/AIDS turns 30 this month (the first identified cases were labeled in June 1981) and AIDS is still a curse on the world, especially to minorities and nations where medications are not readily available. I will post my article on AIDS in the prison system separately.

In the meantime, both a federal Bankruptcy Court and U. S. District Court made decisions to bolster the appropriate legal recognition of gay people. The Bankruptcy Court (Central District of California) basically found that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed into law by our friend Bill Clinton—during a senior moment when he forgot to be our friend?—is unconstitutional. This ruling comes down beside the Justice Department’s announcement that they aren’t going to defend DOMA in court cases any more, so it will be interesting to see how an appeal plays out.

Meanwhile the original federal Proposition 8 is still working its way through the appeal process, but Judge Walker’s finding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional will not be tossed out because of Walker’s personal prejudice. “Protect Marriage” [sic] had argued that, since Walker is himself gay and did not reveal he was in a same-sex partnership for ten years until after the trial was over, his decision was somehow tainted. The conservative fringe has trouble understanding that if their “logic” was sustained it would eliminate white, Black, Asian, married, single, or indeed all human judges from deciding all cases because their own existence would somehow prejudice their view of the law.

We thought, too, that New York’s state legislature was about to legalize same-sex marriage by June 17, but that hasn’t happened yet. June 17, 2008 was the date that same-sex marriages briefly became legal in California, before Proposition 8 blew then out again that November. Reuters reported last night that we should look for a vote by mid-week (in a hold-over legislative session), which may make New York the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage, … or not.

— Pastor Dan Hooper

One vote away from a slender majority?

Tuesday, June 14th, 2011

The New York Times is reporting this afternoon that the New York Senate is only one vote away from passing the bill that would legalize same-gender marriage in that state, making it the sixth state and the largest state to do so. It is important in the larger struggle for rights and recognition because it will come as a result of legislative action, not court opinion.

Lawmakers are fond of counting their chickens before they hatch, and the vote count stands at 31 out of 62 votes. Only one more is needed for passage by simple majority. Two Republican lawmakers are already behind the bill.

A Senate vote is likely to come up this week in the Senate. The lower house of the legislature has passed this bill twice before and is considered likely to pass it again if the Senate comes through. Governor Cuomo had introduced the bill in both houses simultaneously. If passed by both houses, the law would take effect in 30 days.

Catch the New York Times story here. The Human Rights Campaign, which has delivered 25,000 postcards to New York law makers in support of this bill, is also offering instantaneous voting results directly to your cell phone: “Be the first to find out the result! Text “NY” to 30644. You’ll join HRC’s Mobile Action Network – and we’ll let you know as soon as the vote tally is in.”

If the New York vote happens by Friday, it will make an interesting and bittersweet historical footnote in the struggle for marriage equality. It was on June 17, 2008 that the first same-gender marriages were performed in California (and the last ones were performed in early November when Proposition 8 passed on the general election ballot—by a slender majority).

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Is there a trend going?

Monday, May 23rd, 2011

Just weeks after the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. finally opened its doors to lesbian and gay clergy, today’s breaking news is that the Church of Scotland is doing the same.

The British Guardian reports the story, which also touches on the issue of same-sex marriage.

The Church of Scotland is the largest Protestant body in Scotland (although not large, only some 450,000 members). Since the Reformation four centuries ago, the Church of Scotland has been a part of the Reformed movement which is essentially Presbyterian in polity.

church-of-scotland-007.jpg

“The church’s general assembly, its law-making body, voted on Monday to lift that moratorium, officially allowing gay ministers to take on parishes for the first time since its formation 450 years ago.”

The story, however, dies not indicate whether the Church of Scotland voters were in any way influenced by the ratification of changes in policy in the PCUSA earlier this month.What is fascinating in the Guardian story are the competing predictions of potential disaster (before the vote was taken by the church’s general Assembly): the number of ministers and congregants who would leave the church if homosexual clergy are permitted, and the number of ministers and congregants who would leave the church if homosexual clergy are not permitted. It seems human nature cannot resist the making of polarizing threats.For the record, there were hundreds of clergy and thousands of believers in my own Evangelical Lutheran Church in America who never promised to leave or threatened anything for the decades it took to shift the thinking of the entire churchbody. Although we have certainly not won over every heart and mind, the scale tipped in favor of openness and tolerance in August 2009, and all efforts to rescind this new liberal policy have thus far failed miserably.

Although the Guardian story is too brief and vague, it notes that “In addition, the church has set up a commission to investigate the theological issues raised by the acceptance of gay clergy.” In contrast, the ELCA studied the issues almost to death, including the adoption of a comprehensive statement on Human Sexuality, before it recommended action two years ago.

churchofscotlandhome1.jpg

We shall stay on the look-out for more information coming directly from the Church of Scotland.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Is this story for real?

Monday, May 9th, 2011

I often am reminded, in the Peanuts comic strip, of Lucy pulling the football away at the last second when Charlie Brown goes for the kickoff. I guess it’s been a defining symbol of our times, that if something sounds too good to be true,… it probably is.

In this case, the intersection of two of the high profile LGBT topics of our times: same-sex marriage and the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

I am not familiar with CNS News, so I’ll keep scouting to see if other news outlets run this story. But tonight CNSnews.com is running this headline: “Navy Authorizes Chaplains to Perform Same-Sex ‘Marriages’ in Naval Chapels.”

sailorsg.jpg

My suspicion started with the headline that puts “Marriages” in quotation marks. This is typically the sign that the publishers means “so-called” instead of authentic. A little Wiki-search reveals that CNS News now means Cybercast News Service, but it was launched in 1998 as Conservative News Service, funded entirely by “private donations.” According to Wikipedia, CNS’ editor for 7 years was Scott Hogenson, who simultaneously worked for the Republican National Committee for a time.

This is not a gay marriage story lifted from the pages of The Onion. According to a 2-page April 13 memo from Rear Admiral M. L. Tidd (bio here) linked CNS, this is a genuine article.

Citing “additional legal review” by Navy attorneys, the admiral said the Navy “has concluded that, generally speaking, base facility use is sexual orientation neutral.”"If the base is located in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, then the base facilities may be used to celebrate the marriage,” the admiral’s directive states.Tidd has been Chief of Navy Chaplains since last August, according to his official bio. But it surprised me I had not seen this story on mainstream news wires. I went digging and, well, it has, sort of. Yahoo News is running the Reuters version of the story, also with today’s date. And MSNBC is running it tonight. The only real question, then, is where was Tidd’s memo since April 13?The Family Research Council is lamenting this and crying foul, because it believes that DOMA still prohibits same-sex marriages on federal property. That, I am sure, will be open to interpretation. (see pro-DOMA or anti-DOMA sources.) The Obama administration announced more than two months ago its finding that DOMA is unconstitutional and that it will no longer defend DOMA in court. If this is the conclusion President Obama came too, and he is (ahem) Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, wouldn’t that settle this issue? But according to the MSNBC story, “Representative Todd Akin, chairman of a U.S. House subcomittee that oversees Navy and Marine Corps programs, said the new Navy guidance violates a federal law that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The Missouri Republican and 62 other members of Congress have sent a letter to the Secretary of the Navy calling for the service to obey the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.”Nothing I could find says that any Navy Chaplain has actually performed a same-sex wedding since April 13. So as of this minute, the news still falls in the category of “probably too good to be true.” At least it gives our partisan political system something else to chew on. I wouldn’t send out your invitations just yet.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Are anti-gay prejudices falling like dominoes?

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

Don’t hold your breath, but at least we’re seeing anti-gay legislation tumbling in our lifetimes.

After the U.S. Supreme Court (which has Supreme Clout) decriminalized consensual sex between same-gender couples in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, and now that the notorious “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law, used against sexual minorities in the armed forces, has been repealed, DOMA is the next big domino.

obama-grappling.jpg

Jay Carney, White House spkesperson

Although Obama himself is still struggling with the legitimacy of our relationships, it is heartening to hear from NPR today that Attorney General Holder will no longer defend DOMA in court. Holder issued a well-reasoned statement Wednesday that again tilts the legal landscape in favor of sexual minorities, specifically, lesbian/gay couples:

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

eric-holder-400.jpg

Holder is very aware of the landscape. He has to also be aware that homophobic conservatives will not take this lying down. Speaking of DOMA, Holder says, “this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court” and of course he speaks only for this Administration. If Republicans have their way —which is truly not certain even after last November’s surge for their party—the Obama Administration would be turned out in January 2013. If DOMA is not repealed by Congress (not likely, given the surge) during the coming months, today’s Justice Department decision not to defend DOMA will be yet another way for the conservatives to beat their drum in the 2012 campaign. Remember: the run for the Presidency is already underway, and begins to obsess the media a year before the election itself.

Wait 24 hours and see what the conservatives say about this news. (Speaker of the House John Boehner is already talking.)  But for today, it is great news.

— Dan Hooper

A step to rectify the past.

Saturday, February 12th, 2011

It is wonderful to read that Hawaii may have finally said “welcome” to a community it had shunned a decade ago.

Hawaii’s Supreme Court was the first in the nation to say, in the Baehr v. Miike case, that it was unconstitutional to deny the right to marry to same-sex couples.  But because it was so far ahead of its time, the backlash was severe, and the citizen’s voted it down.

Now the Hawaii Legislature is rectifying the small-minded mistake of a generation ago.  By a vote of 31 to 19, the House passed a Civil Unions bill already passed by the state Senate and set to be signed by the new governor.  (Is it any wonder that an Abercrombie would side with gay people? — probably concidence, I know.)  See the Advocate story here.

This is not likely to trigger a wave of romances going to Hawaii to get married, however.  LEgal marriage is not yet on the horizon.  Too bad, because it would be fun to stuff a piece of wedding cake in former Governor Linda Lingle’s mouth for vetoing the same bill a year ago.

— Dan Hooper

The mile high club reaches new altitude.

Monday, December 20th, 2010

You gotta love it. You know that same-sex marriage is being normalized (no matter what the Family Research Center says) when it gets commercialized. SAS offered the world’s first in-flight gay marriage ceremonies earlier this month as part of its “Love is in the Air” advertising campaign.

Here’s the international twist: On SAS flight SK903 from Stockholm to New York, a lesbian couple and a gay couple exchanged vows (legal in Sweden and wherever Swedish marriages are legally recognized): a German gay couple and a Polish lesbian couple. Germany and Poland do not allow same-sex marriage, but there isn’t a heckuva lot they could do to stop these, short of an anti-gay hijacking of the flight.

loveisintheair-2couples.jpg

The story and the photos are all gushy and cute on 365Gay.com.

And since the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden said OK to gay marriage more than a year ago, the flight must have truly been blessed.

— Pastor Dan Hooper

An internal conflict of values.

Friday, September 24th, 2010

Love keeps no score of wrongs; does not gloat over other men’s sins, but delights in the truth. There is nothing love cannot face; there is no limit to its faith, its hope, and its endurance.” – 1 Corinthians 13:5–7 [New English Bible]I do not like to gloat over other people’s sins, and yet the news keep putting them in front of my nose. They wind up in this blog for pretty much the same reason each time — not because another person’s failings make such delicious gossip, but because the people whose failings and egregious acts catch my eye are the ones who have claimed to be so sanctimonious. They have in fact been the enemies of the truth, especially in areas of sexual truth.

longphotos.jpg

“Bishop” Eddie Long in Atlanta is making news today not for pastoring an independent mega-church of 25,000 (hence his self-appointed status as bishop), and not for wearing expensive jewelry and claiming that God wants such wealth for his followers, but because of allegations from some young men in his congregation that he seduced them into sexual acts. As of this afternoon, four men have stepped forward, and I think each of them was 18 or younger at the time the sexual incidents took place. As of today, two lawsuits have been filed against him.

According to the Associated Press coverage, Long has preached against same-sex marriage and prodded his youth to be sexually responsible. If the allegations are true, the word hypocrisy comes to mind once again.

“Bishop Eddie Long’s boys’ academy guided teens through their “masculine journey” with lessons on financial discipline and sexual control, right down to a little card the students had to carry in their wallets reminding them why they shouldn’t have sex.”Long himself, though, has been accused of contradicting those virtues. The bishop — who’s been an outspoken opponent of gay marriage in the past — is being sued by two young men who attended the LongFellows Youth Academy and say Long used the program to groom them for sexual relationships.”I wrote this on February 2: “But what are the credentials of Christian ministers, period? Many well-known preachers have run through Bible colleges while others have advanced degrees. The procedure by which any particular local church, or national denomination, certifies one to be competent to lead Christian churches and to speak for God, are vastly different form place to place, denomination to denomination. The lack of a uniform high standard doesn’t merely allow the wing nuts to use the title “Reverend” with their name. It has also allowed unqualified people who are also sexual predators to gain access to the vulnerabilities of innocent people, and who are manipulators and thieves to help themselves to huge sums of money.”Okay.  I would guess that most conservative religious figures who rant and work against gay and lesbian people are not sexual hypocrites.  They probably are heterosexuals who live in stable heterosexual marriages. But there are a lot of prominent figures who keep popping into the news, and this is because of “contradicting the virtues” they publicly preach. Hypocrisy.

These particular religious leaders who turn out to be closeted homosexuals or bisexuals “on the down low” may feel compelled to preach the evangelical, right-wing party line about homosexuality, and preach it more loudly to keep the veil of respectability pulled taught over internal conflicts which are badly frayed.

But if I am loving toward others, and do not “gloat over” their sins, yet delight in the truth, how should I or any other thoughtful LGBT Christian react to this? (It would be easy to ignore; Georgia is a long way from Los Angeles.) What is truth, spiritually, when it can be manipulated by respectable appearances? When it can be “handled” through publicists and attorneys? When it can be explained away, as Ted Haggard tried to do when his homosexual hypocrisy was exposed?

Most important, as I raised on February 2, is the palpable lack of accountability in many “indynondy” (yes, I coined this for independent non-denominational) churches the first slip on the slippery slope of truth?

 Long is not the first indynondy pastor who has lived lavishly without the financial accountability of a parent denomination or a genuine bishop overseeing what the congregation and its leaders are up to.

The bigger problem—obfuscating the truth—is when clergy found and cultivate a personality cult. Rev. Long must have some strong personality traits to take a congregation from a few hundred to 25,000 in two decades. But when you have a significant following which hangs on your magnetic personality, then almost anything you seek to do will get an enthusiastic “yes” out of your fan club. After all, you built your congregation out of those who admire or are drawn to your personality.

But this is where truth becomes difficult to discern. Long’s parishioners who really support him are now questioning what is the real truth of his personality. charges of hypocrisy is only one facet of these questions. It is one thing to set high values and then fail to achieve them, such as preaching generosity and then being greedy. It is quite another to preach heterosexuality and sexual responsibility and then live a secret life. That is more than mere hypocrisy, it is a Lie. Who is the real Rev. Eddie Long?

One AP news story quotes someone from Long’s church:

“I wish the bishop would come out and make a comment and speak to us,” said Lance Robertson, a longtime church member. “We want to hear from him. I think the world wants to hear from him. Right now, in the court of public opinion, it does not look good.”

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Some thoughts about generalizing and particularizing.

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

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 21st 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

Let the game continue!

Thursday, August 12th, 2010

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 9th 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.

ADF misrepresents Yale study.

Friday, August 6th, 2010

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

The Legal Playing Field on the morning after.

Thursday, August 5th, 2010

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 14th 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:

pugnoclosingarguments.jpg

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 9th 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 9th 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 9th 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 9th 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