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 »

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 »

If we don’t tell we don’t exist.

June 22, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

This is a couple of weeks old but it’s worth reading, and participating in the survey (Link is below) — P.D.

Friends,

When I heard the news yesterday, I couldn’t believe my ears.

Rep. Ike Skelton, a Democrat from my home state of Missouri and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he was against the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because he is worried it would force parents to explain homosexuality to their children and would open up a national discussion. “What do mommies and daddies say to their 7-year-old child?” Mr. Skelton asked reporters at a news media breakfast. [1]

It would be bad enough if Ike Skelton were just pretending that DADT still makes sense. But based on his comments yesterday, Skelton wants to pretend that LGBT people don’t even exist!

From anyone, these comments are uneducated and unfortunate; from a U.S. Congressmen, those kind of statements are simply unacceptable. That’s why we’re calling on Skelton to offer a full public apology to the LGBT people in his district, and across the country. Join us in demanding a public apology!

http://www.getequal.org/missouri.php

Sadly, Ike Skelton has a history of actively working against our civil rights. He was one of the original authors of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation 17 years ago. [2] And it’s long been clear that the law needs to end. In fact, a 2010 poll found that 60% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans believe that being gay or lesbian “has no bearing on a service member’s ability to perform their duties” and 73% say it is “personally acceptable to them if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military.” [3]

That’s why I’m asking you to sign this petition to call on Rep. Skelton to apologize for his remarks. Democrats and Republicans alike need to understand that our community is everywhere, and it is not okay to continue with this type of political homophobia.

I hope you’ll join me in signing this petition. Help us hold Rep. Skelton (D-MO) accountable by demanding that he represent the full diversity of his community and of communities across the country.

Sign the petition here! http://www.getequal.org/missouri.php

Get out, get active, GetEQUAL!

Thanks for your support,

Ed Reggi

Co-founder, Show Me No Hate

St. Louis, Missouri

[1] “He’d Rather Not Talk About ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/us/09brfs-HEDRATHERNOT_BRF.html

[2] “Skelton opposes repeal of ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’” http://thehill.com/homenews/house/76427-skelton-opposes-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell

[3] “Bi-Partisan Poll of Iraq & Afghanistan Vets” http://www.vetvoicefoundation.com/new?id=0002

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

Transgander passports.

June 10, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

[This news comes to us from the National Center for Transgender Equality, by way of Lutherans Concerned/North America. — P.D.
Last night [July 9, 2010] the US Department of State announced new guidelines for issuing passports to transgender people. Beginning today, applicants for a gender marker change on their passports will need to submit certification from a physician that they have received “appropriate clinical treatment” for gender transition. Most importantly, gender reassignment surgery is not required under the new policy.

The new rules will also apply to changing a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) for US citizens who were born outside of the United States. CRBA’s are the equivalent of a birth certificate.

For years, NCTE has been advocating with the State Department to change their rules about gender markers on passports and CRBA’s. Previously they had required proof of irreversible sex reassignment surgery before the gender marker could be changed, although there were exceptions for temporary, provisional passports to allow someone to travel for surgery.

NCTE and other advocates have stressed with the State Department that this policy unnecessarily called attention to transgender travelers whose appearance and gender marker were at odds. In some destinations, this had the potential to create an extremely dangerous situation when a traveler is outed as transgender in an unwelcoming environment or in the presence of prejudiced security personnel.

Fortunately, the new rules represent a significant advance in providing safe, humane and dignified treatment of transgender people. There are details in the guidelines about what information a physician must provide and we will communicate those to you as soon as possible. However, the State Department notes that applicants will not need to supply any additional medical documentation and that there is no SRS requirement.

“We want to extend our thanks to the Obama Administration, and particularly to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, for understanding the need for this change and then responding to make travel safer for transgender people,” commented Mara Keisling, Executive Director of NCTE. “This shows how changes in government policy directly impact people’s lives, in this case, for the better.”

In the next few days, NCTE will be issuing a definitive resource that fully explains the new guidelines and outlines the ways in which transgender people can make changes to their passports and CRBAs.

Many people-from elected officials to LGBT advocates-have worked for years to change these policies and deserve credit and thanks. Particularly important work was done by Rep. Barney Frank as well as Rep. Steve Israel in the House of Representatives; Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), which represents LGBT employees and their families working in foreign affairs offices for the US government; all of our allied LGBT organizations who have been committed to this work, including the Center for Global Equality, The Task Force, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign; and those working on medical policies, including the American Medical Association and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).

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

Further information is found at www.ncte.org.

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

We are not criminals.

May 29, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

I know “criminals.” They are people who have been convicted of crimes. All of us break laws, but criminals are those who are caught.

I recently learned (where have I been?) what a RAP sheet is.  It is an acronym for Record of Arrests and Prosecutions. It is part of my continuing education about crime and justice, especially in light of our congregation’s emerging Mariposa Ministry, its outreach to prisoners and parolees. We have developed relationships with more than a dozen current and former inmates in California prisons. And this year we expect to help –spiritually and tangibly– at least three men who will be paroled in Los Angeles County.

So I know criminals. But what I also know is that many ordinary people, who break laws, are never arrested or prosecuted largely because of privilege or good luck. It is sad to admit that the world is not divided between “good” people and “bad” people, but between privileged and lucky people and under-privileged and un-lucky people.

Decades ago, when I was dating, it was still a crime for two persons of the same gender to have sexual relations. This was long before Lawrence v. Texas, and the sodomy laws in almost every state had the authority to put decent, upstanding people behind bars. I was one of the privileged and lucky ones. Knowing my gay brothers who are in prison, I realize I could have been in prison myself in the 1970s and 1980s, simply for being who I am.

But our entire world is still struggling to enlarge its understanding of human diversity and to stop using laws as a moral bludgeon to punish or destroy what it does not understand or does not want to see.

This spring, as we have watched the blunt force of African nations, specifically Uganda, trying to blame perceived social ills as a Western degradation, with a proposed death penalty for homosexual acts, I have been encouraged that sane voices have spoken up world-wide.  Thank God for the likes of Anglican Bishop and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Desmond Tutu for leading this fight in Africa (see: Desmond Tutu leads fight to halt anti-gay terror sweeping Africa.”

The battle is not over. But at least two gay men in Malawi have now been spared a near-certain death sentence (14 years of hard labor) for pledging their love to one another.  Their pardon came about, apparently, because of world moral pressure in the form of a meeting of the Malawian President Bingu wa Mutharika with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

The CNN story released today quotes the White House as saying that gay people are “not criminals and their struggle is not unique.”

We are still mid-struggle in America for LGBTQI rights, and one of the battles we fight is with other oppressed peoples (including but not limited to African-American people) who don’t want to bestow the honored label of “civil rights struggle” on our movement. All it would take, I know, for our Black brothers and sisters to stop being protective of their struggle is for more Black gay men and lesbians to come out to their families and their communities. African-American sexual minorities, who have very little to fear by way of criminal conviction in this country for their sexual orientation or gender identity, could put their faces on the world-wide struggle for dignity, purpose and freedom. I hope the example two brave gay men in Malawi, Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, will encourage them.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Ecumenical Issues, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs, Coming Out, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Milk on the Capitol steps.

May 24, 2010 by Dan Hooper.

I am passing this on from my colleague Kerry Chaplin. I’m sorry I couldn’t be in Sacramento for this. – Dan Hooper

You honor Harvey Milk’s memory on what would have been his 80th birthday. Harvey Milk would be proud of your courage. And yes, I believe God is proud of you too.

— Pastor Wilk Miller, First Lutheran Church of San Diego

Sacramento faith leaders, Rev. Brian Baker, Rev. Jason Bense, Rev. Doretha Flournoy, and Rev. Lindi Ramsden, mark the legacy of California’s first Harvey Milk Day on the Capitol steps.

What a meaningful weekend!

Over 30 congregations, from Riverside and San Diego to Vallejo and Stockton, honored the legacy of Harvey Milk in their worship services to mark California’s first ever Harvey Milk Day.

In San Diego, East and Downtown Los Angeles, Fresno, San Jose, San Francisco, and Sacramento, clergy inspired canvassers and activists to take Harvey’s message of hope to the streets.

In Los Angeles, Rev. Neil Thomas met with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, emphasizing the unique role that people of faith play in our LGBT Movement.

I believe Harvey would be proud of our work. And as Rev. Miller has said, our Divine Power(s) is proud of us too.

Help us to continue to make sure LGBT seekers know that they are supported by people of faith, and to make sure Californians know that Divine Power(s) and equality for ALL people are symbiotic.

To Harvey’s Legacy,

Kerry Chaplin, Interfaith Organizing Director

Posted in Ecumenical Issues, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

More professional misleaders.

April 18, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

These are threads of dialogue based on an article link forwarded by Billy Glover from the Bilarico Project.

Posted: 07 Apr 2010 12:00 PM PDT

“With the far right and the professional Christian set all in a dither about the possible upcoming vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, I guess it is no surprise that the faux experts at the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) - a Christian right affiliate intended to dupe the unwary - are stepping up a new campaign based on the old “choice myth” as I call it. Desperate to convince voters - and more members of Congress - that sexual orientation is a choice and changeable, a new webpage with purported ‘facts’ has been trotted out that regurgitates the same old worn out lies. In a letter to school superintendents ACP endeavors to frighten school administrators into resisting any sort of gay affirming policies or programs. The propaganda piece starts out in part as follows:

Continue reading The Only “Choice”: Coming Out of “Situational Heterosexuality” …

“In this regard, former ‘ex-gay’ evangelical minister Anthony Venn-Brown calls it like it is. Brown, now one of Australia’s leading LGBT activists, has a much more honest approach to the issue of changing one’s sexual orientation. Namely, that it is impossible unless one is engaged in ‘situational heterosexuality’ which he equates with gay men in heterosexual marriages. The phenomenon is the opposite of the situational homosexuality found in prisons and other all same gender settings.”

Nice phrase, “situational heterosexuality.” As a “vocational extrovert” I can testify that people can fake pretty much anything —including sexual attraction and even sexual performance. After generations of homosexuals who, when entrapped or blackmailed would vehemently insist they were not homosexual, is it any wonder than social conservatives would take that at face value because it would seem to confirm their prejudice that everybody is/has to be/should be heterosexual? One comment posted in response to the above quotes:

I will say that while I think sexual orientation as well as gender identity are not changeable for most or at least many of us (neither were or are for me), I do think it is a mistake to think that LGBT rights should stand or fall on the mutability / changeability issue. Religion is mutable / changeable, clearly a “lifestyle choice,” yet is protected.

To me the mutability issue is an utter red herring and it would be a serious mistake to frame the debate in those terms.

very respectfully, ~mina

Mina [who posted the comment April 8] is absolutely point on! This “change/can’t change” argument was something I always tried to engage sincerely until somebody pointed out the obvious that religion is a choice. Why should “choice” be considered a deal-breaker for civil rights? Need we be reminded of the First Amendment to the Federal constitution?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [Wikipedia has a good solid entry on this amendment and all its legal case history; see especially the gay angle under Freedom of Association.]

Religion is a personal choice in America. Freedom of religion in this country is therefore freedom of choice. Speech is also a choice, and free speech is protected. Ditto on freedom of association. If the constitution protects these freedoms to choose, why should not gender identity and sexual orientation — indeed sexual preference be another choice that one can make with complete freedom and enjoy the equal right to make that choice?

The American College of Pediatricians, by the way, seems to be a bonafide organization of doctors, established only 7 ½ years ago.  (See the Right Wing watch Infopedia page above.)  It is not a sham organization or front for social conservatives. It’s just a bunch of social conservatives who view the world through lenses twisted sharply to the right. And yes, it seems as if the ACP’s professional label was calculated to confuse and co-opt the name of the more highly respected American Academy of Pediatrics. Certainly, the ACP letter to educators seems calculated to deflect professional educators from doing their own search for authoritative facts and research on homosexuality.

The ACP is not in step with the mainstream of professionals who know and work with children. For example, Pediatrics in Review has an abstract of published research that would completely counter the right-wing view (but we knew that already) that children raised by gay parents are not going to come out as well as with heterosexual parents:

There are no data to suggest that children who have gay or lesbian parents are different in any aspects of psychological, social, and sexual development from children in heterosexual families. There has been fear that children raised in gay or lesbian households will grow up to be homosexual, develop improper sex-role behavior or sexual conflicts, and may be sexually abused. There has been concern that children raised by gay or lesbian parents will be stigmatized and have conflicts with their peer group, thus threatening their psychological health, self-esteem, and social relationships. These fears and concerns have not been substantiated by research. Pediatricians can facilitate the health care and development of these children by being aware of these and their own attitudes, by educating themselves about special concerns of gay or lesbian parents, and by being a resource and an advocate for children who have homosexual parents.

Sadly, the ACP’s “fact sheet” called “What You Should Know About Sexual Orientation of Youth” is a one-page bulleted list of unsubstantiated opinions and misrepresentations. The worst three: the homosexual lifestyle, especially for males, carries grave health risks; sexual reorientation therapy has proven effective for those with unwanted homosexual attractions; regardless of an individual’s sexual orientation, sexual activity is a conscious choice.”

Again, we’re all entitled to our own opinions, but we’re not entitled to our own facts.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Health, Public Affairs, Ex-Gay, Uncategorized | 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 »

The “core” of the faith: not about sex.

February 25, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

Associated Press had a feature story yesterday on the dissenters who are leaving the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America because of its increasingly liberal agenda. The story, which is even-handed if not totally sympathetic, highlights the experiences of several Lutheran churches—some small and some large— and pastors who have taken action to abandon their membership in the ELCA.

This kind of thing is not new. From time to time for decades thee have been individual congregations who get exercised over one or another issue and cannot countenance having organizational relations with people who do not agree with them on whatever pressing issue of the day is causing a stir.

You can read the full story here: Lutherans seeing fallout over gay clergy issue.

Statistically, the division is insignificant. Only a couple hundred congregations out of the ELCA’s 10,000+ have taken any steps to leave because the ELCA is now on a path to officially welcome lesbian/gay clergy in same-sex intimate relationships. Here in Southern California, we’ve seen a couple of these couple hundred, and most of them have been small congregations, and one or two very large parishes that are full of themselves and must feel a certain economic and egotistic independence.

The thrust of the AP story is that not all these conservative congregations are moving in the same direction. They are splitting off into several different little splinter groups which have formed in the last decade or so as receptacles for them.

The one that has any significance is called Lutheran CORE, headed by one Rev. Mark Chavez. CORE hopes to form a new denomination by August called North American Lutheran Church. By my count off their web screen, they have 135 congregations in the U.S. and 4 in Canada, plus some overseas. Hardly a counter-Reformation.

CORE posts some theological statements, among which stuff on traditional views of marriage and family figures prominently. But they also had this article that intrigued me, “The Diminution of God as Father (And his Holy Pronouns)” written by the Bishop Emeritus of the ELCA Virginia Synod. (Ahh, Virginia again: think Falwell, think 3/5 of a human being…) Turns out that author Rev. Richard Bansemer is exercised about contemporary prayer language that tires to diminish he, him, and his in referring to God the Creator. His 1,900 word essay (about the length of a typical Sunday sermon for me: a 12-minute listen) has a couple dozen quotes from the Bible, and nothing from any other Christian scholar ancient or modern. So it’s a light weight argument that implies that the ELCA is going under because we have diminished the God-our-Father language.

Will these men ever get it? A good place to start is the scholarly work by Gail Ramshaw, God Beyond Gender [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995] and her chapter, “Pronouns and the Christian God.”

Bansemer and his ilk in CORE, I guess, wouldn’t be interested in Ramshaw’s finding that the brilliant ancient Cappadocian Fathers of the 4^th century (St. Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, St. Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus and St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa) wrote and taught that God is not male in the way that human beings are male and female. These guys were as orthodox as you could get, and triumphed at the Council of Constantinople in a.d. 381 over Arianism. Ramshaw notes Gregory of Nazianzus “ridiculing those who would draw from the gender designation in language a notion of actual sexuality within God.”

That God is consistently referred to in the Bible with masculine is above all an effort to distinguish the Hebrew and Christian faith(s) from the pagan goddess worship in the ancient world, a religious paradigm which was very obsessed with fertility and therefore with sexuality.

Why bring all this trivia up? Much of CORE’s theological statement seems obsessed not only with gender but with the same relentless masculine privilege that has plagued the Christian faith almost since the day they crucified our first feminist: Jesus Christ. CORE’s Advisory Council, for example, is made up of 17 men and 2 women.

Counter reformation: you can have the CORE.

But worse, CORE looks like an effort to keep beating a drum which is small and bent: the idea that there are deep and fundamental theological issues over which no compromise with the ELCA is possible, and those fundamental issues are all about gender and human sexuality. Somebody should tap the CORE people on the shoulder and point out to them that there is not much in the ancient creeds and confessions about gender and not a word about human sexuality. The faith of the church—the ancient church, the modern church, the ELCA, is our faith in God and in Jesus Christ, not our faith in marriage, family, gender, sexuality, homosexuality, gender role models or the proper way to bring up children in a home with one mom and one dad. In short, CORE has staked out its uniqueness in the same sand trap used by most other contemporary indignational movements that represent the right wing of the so-called Culture Wars.  As for me and my house, we will keep the faith.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Doctrine, Sex, Bible & Interpretation, LGBT Christian, ELCA, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Sudden acceleration.

February 24, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

I am reading and watching politics more often lately, and I am absorbed by the similarities between the Religious Reich and the political right wingnuts.

Yes, I know they are in bed together, or they are really the same people. We’ve known that since the days of the Moral Majority (Hmmm. They still have a website is up but it hasn’t been updated in 2½ years! See highlightd above.) and the politically opportune ascent of a B-rated actor named Ronald Reagan to become Governor of California as his first public elected office.

But what fascinates me is that religious, social and political conservatives use the exact same technique to promote their views, as if they are all reading the exact same playbook. Is there a modern-day Machiavellian book like The Prince that the entire right wing is circulating? (See this cynical reference; don’t bother to scroll down.)

What I refer to is this 24/7 streaming of public outrage, which seems to be rapidly accelerating in our society. We “get it” that outrage achieves results. People love to get over-excited, as if their dreary daily lives offer no rewards whatever, and it takes an interactive, 3-D action film to get them out of bed in the morning.

But the media, including blogs etc. also exaggerate the effectiveness of outrage. A few weeks ago, the election of Scott Brown as a darling conservative to replace the late Senator Ted Kennedy, the “Lion of the Senate” was supposed to prove that independent voters were outraged with the Obama administration. Now with less than three weeks in office Senator Brown has voted with the democrats on an Obama jobs bill and the right wing is outraged against their own darling.

The outrage I see is more than Rush Limbaugh’s putrid opinions calculated to “stoke indignation” as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow observed. But probably the easy access to media, the explosion of blogs and Twitter, etc., have all aided and abetted noisy anger over everything. The new American paradigm is one continuous, relentless confrontation which continues to accelerate with no responsible “recall” in sight. 

• Road rage on public streets, highways and freewaysguy slams his Toyota vehicle directly into a Toyota dealership, claiming the vehicle had an episode of sudden acceleration which Toyota should have fixed.
• “Light up the Border” outrage (not outage) over illegals coming into America.
• Outrage over the fact that McCain lost and Barrack Hussein Obama is president of the United States.
• Fred Phelps & co.
• Neighborhood gangs who take offense at the slightest slight.
• Making everything into a culture war. (incidentally, www.culturewar.com is probably for sale if you want to trivialize, market, and profit from it. And www.publicoutrage.com is definitely for sale.

• Making people’s private lives (right to marry, adoption of and caring for children) into a a public fury, Armageddon-moment.soggy-brained tea-party Republicanswhite supremacists, neo-Nazis, NRA, and hothead/ red-faced rednecks
• The noisy derision and resistance of the 2010 Census because, after all, it is being done by The Government.

(I don’t count Dick (”heart attack”) Cheney among the professional stokers of indignation. He seems to be more proficient at sneering than stoking anything.)What I find especially ironic, of course, is that the vast majority of this outrage and indignation in American society is coming from what social and religious conservatives still insist on labeling as a “Christian nation.” Is there something about being Christian, or about Christian doctrine, which is inherently angry, indignant and outraged? Did I miss something when I got the message that God is love, and that we are to love one another as a sign of following Jesus? Help me out here, folks.

—Pastor Dan

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

This “new look.”

February 15, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

Indwelling Spirit looks different again — I’m still looking for a satisfactory template from my blog provider which looks vaguely spiritual, and doesn’t screw up the layout of these columns.

My apologies if you thought you were in the wrong place.

 The last template, with the spreading tree, seemed to generate huge problems for no particular reason (kind of like many other things in our society, such as government regulations, prices going up, most of the doors on public buildings locked during business hours, and people texting/yakking/putting on lipstick while driving insanely.  Tonight, for example, we had to wait a full 10 minutes to get a table in a chain Mexican restaurant while I count easily count 11 empty tables from the entraway, and the officious-looking host did everything except seat people.  Problems for no reason.  Perhaps I expect too much from society…)

Very little of the American life style actually makes sense.  I am reminded of that frequently when I meet a visitor from elsewhere in the world, such as Nepal last week or Germany last fall.  Visitors are usually polite about enjoying their visit to America, but if the conversation lasts more than 3 minutes I find myself feeling apologetic for the inanities of 21st century America.  This country doesn’t make any sense to anyone I think, but since I was born here and live here, I am routinely oblivious to it.   But what can I do when I am vastly outnumbered by the totally insane disciples of pop culture, pop politics, pop religion, pop prejudice and pop economics?  And they call me a a nerd!

Anyway, I am testing this new layout and template and main graphic (”Key visual” — 1and1.com won’t let me upload my own) to see if I can live with it.

Please use this site, and comment when you can.  I’d like feedback on links, pages, and especially on the issues you struggle with.  They’re probably a lot more important than screen layout and color scheme.

— Pastor Dan

Posted in Go figure!, Environment, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

One screwball after another.

February 1, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

Why didn’t I think of it? Queerty, who is more than a little irreverent over LGBT things, is still working on why the Chinese evangelical Christian known as Hak-Shing William Tam wants to get out of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial (Proposition 8). Could it be that as a defense witness he is doing more damage to the defense of Prop 8 than their already-weak case can stand?

Why Does William Tam Want Out of Perry? Because His ‘Sex With Kids’ Claim Is Hurting the DefenseHak-Shing William (”Bill”) Tam, who has, hilariously, so far not been granted his request to leave the Perry Prop 8 lawsuit, which he volunteered to join as an intervenor, became the star of yesterday’s courtroom when his public letter to Chinese-Americans church groups — arguing gay marriage was only a stepping stone in the radical homosexual agenda to get to the ultimate goal of legalizing sex with children — was presented.

And if California didn’t pass Prop 8? Then “other states would fall into Satan’s hands,” the letter read, as footage of Tam giving a deposition last month played for the court.

David Thompson, representing the defendants ProtectMarriage.com, argued that Tam wasn’t part of the official Prop 8 campaign, and thus his letter wasn’t valid to attach homophobic animus to the case. You know, notwithstanding that ProtectMarriage.com handily added Tam to the list of five defendants- intervenors in Perry.

Oh, so it’s Tam’s ridiculous characterization of the gay agenda that has the defendants looking to remove him? Got it.

Forty-eight days before the election, Tam sent this letter, according to Queerty, to Chinese -American Christians. It is utterly amazing. Dear Friends:This November, San Francisco voters will vote on a ballot to “legalize prostitution”. This is put forth by the SF city government, which is under the rule of homosexuals. They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda — after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children. I hope we all wake up now and really work to pass Prop 8. We have only 48 days left. Even if you have church building projects, mission projects, concert projects, etc, please consider postponing them and put all the church man/woman power to work on Prop 8. We can’t lose this critical battle. If we lose, this will very likely happen……

1. Same-Sex marriage will be a permanent law in California. One by one, other states would fall into Satan’s hand.

2. Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex. More children would become homosexuals. Even if our children is safe, our grandchildren may not. What about our children’s grandchildren?

3. Gay activists would target the big churches and request to be married by their pastors. If the church refuse, they would sue the church. Even if they know they may not win, they would still sue because they have a big army of lawyers from ACLU who would work for free. They know a prolonged law suit would cripple the church. They had sued the California government many times before. They sue until they win. They would not be afraid to sue a church. The church would have to spend lots of money in defending the case. The court fight would be long and the congregation would be discouraged and leave — how long are they willing to shoulder the law suit costs. The church may give in and accept them, their membership would grow and take over the church. Then a righteous pastor would have to leave. Such scenarios have happened in Scandinavian countries. At that time, churches would keep quiet, hoping that they won’t be picked as the next target.

If your church is sued, don’t expect others to help your church. You would be in the battle alone, and chances are you would lose. If that happens, whatever nice building your church have built now would become meaningless.

In order not to let this happen, we better team up at the current battle to defeat same-sex marriage. Collectively, we have a chance to win. Right now, each church sacrifice a little. For 48 days, delay your projects, put your resources ($ and manpower) into Prop 8. We’d have great power if we pool our resources together. Let’s win this battle. After victory, your congregation would be energized and go back to the original projects with joy and cheer. They may want to give more and build a bigger building to thank God. Our God would be pleased and bless us more. But if we lose, our congregation would lose heart. They might not want to work as hard. Our opponents would be overjoyed. They would do more and change more laws so as to persecute us easier. Churchs would have a much much harder time to survive. We would be collecting offerings to fight law suits instead of building new buildings. I pray that day would not come. The choice is yours. Talk to the leaders of your church. Your actions would change the history in either direction.

Thanks for your efforts,

Bill Tam

Traditional Family Coalition

June 16, 2008, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon became the first lesbian couple to wed legally in California. (Heterosexual) San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom looks on from behind the camera. Who would have guessed that these women, who were together for more than half a century, really wanted to have sex with children?

What can I possibly do to dismantle the right wing’s flaky case any more?

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Go figure!, Sex, History, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Pink Mountain? How’d I miss this?

January 31, 2010 by Dan Hooper.

This one really twists the mind. A communist legislator?… advocating for gay tourists?… to get married? It gives a whole new meaning to “commie pinko.” (And for the record, the full insult is “commie pinko fag” – there’s a site where you can purchase mugs, t-shirts andmagnets!) If you’re interested, you can read the U.S. State Department’s overview on Nepal (which hasn’t been updated since October). The world she is a changin’. – P.D.

Nepal to legalize gay marriage, offer weddings on Mt. EverestBy Ruth Schneider, 365gay.com .  01.29.2010 2:24pm EST

Want to get married on top of the world? Not a problem, says a travel agency promoting gay marriage in Nepal.

In May, the country is set to ratify a new constitution that legalizes same-sex marriages, according to a report in The Telegraph.

Sunil Babu Pant, a Communist legislator and leader of the country’s gay rights movement, launched Pink Mountain, a travel agency offering wedding ceremonies on Mount Everest, the world’s tallest peak.

Pant’s company will offer regal, elephant-back processions and wedding ceremonies at the mountain’s base camp.

“Most Asian countries don’t welcome gay visitors, so we can have the maximum benefit for the Nepal economy which is fragile after years of war,” Pant told the Telegraph. “The government is hoping to increase the number of tourists from 400,000 to one million next year and has taken a positive attitude to welcoming gay and lesbian visitors to help meet their ambitious target.”

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

Pastors, polygamists and beastialists, oh my!

January 30, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

Proposition 8: Pastors Say Prop. 8 could lead to Polygamy, Bestiality

Huffington Post sometimes has bad or misplaced headlines, but this one, posted January 25, is a doozy. Apparently, though, conservative clergy are worried about polygamy. For the record, Proposition 8 cannot lead to polygamy, and what Huffington should have said was overturning Proposition 8 could.

Or at least in the views of the pastoral wing-nuts out there:

Earlier Monday, a team of lawyers led by prominent litigators Theodore Olson and David Boies rested the plaintiffs’ case after spending more than nine days presenting evidence on the meaning of marriage, the nature of sexual orientation, and the role of religion in shaping attitudes about both.The last volley in their attempt to prove Proposition 8 was a product of anti-gay bias and served no legitimate public interest was videotape of a simulcast in which supporters of the ban said gay marriage would lead to polygamy and bestiality.The footage was shown as an example of the work of San Diego pastor Jim Garlow, who helped organize evangelical Christian support for the ballot measure.In one video rally led by Garlow, an unidentified pastor warned “the polygamists are waiting in the wings, because if a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman, the polygamists are going to use that exact same argument, and they probably are going to win.”

It appeared the lawyers were introducing the material to demonstrate the campaign for the ban appealed to religious-based, anti-gay bias to scare voters into supporting the measure.

Proposition 8 sponsors objected to the video, saying the content of the simulcast was not controlled by campaign managers or leaders.

However, Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker allowed the material to be put into the record because the coalition of religious and conservative groups behind Proposition 8 paid for Garlow’s work.

Garlow wants to project an aw-shucks kind of attitude. His 2,500 member Skyline Church is really in La Mesa. He has a Protect Marriage link on his site, but doesn’t plaster it with anti-gay or pro-marriage materials. According to the Los Angeles Times article he barely mentioned the gay marriage issue when Proposition 22 was on the California ballot. but in June 2008 he took the lead to enlist a thousand conservative pastors and call for a 40-day fasting period to stop gay marriage.

Even more fringy, Garlow is trying to keep himself in the limelight—on health care reform! On Right Wing Watch, watch this:

Prayercast: Jim Garlow .  Submitted by Kyle on December 17, 2009 - 9:36amPastor Jim Garlow explains how health care reform legislation violates just about every one of the Ten Commandments:

On Wednesday December 16, Reps. Michele Bachmann and Randy Forbes and Sens. Jim DeMint and Sam Brownback will be joining forces with the likes of Lou Engle, Tony Perkins, Jim Garlow, and Harry Jackson for a “prayercast” organized by the Family Research Council during which they will seek God’s intervention to prevent the passage of healthcare reform. . . .

I‘m still looking for details on what Garlow was paid, and whether that is a violation of the church’s non-profit religious exemption under law.

But the last word in the 2008 story seems to underscore the point that was being made in the Perry courtroom in the last few days:

The dueling messages of the state’s clergy reflect passionate divisions in many faiths about the question. But in the political arena, there is no question that opponents of same-sex marriage will rely heavily on religious leaders to carry their message about marriage and to mobilize their congregants to vote.Civil marriage has been taken away because one specific religious point of view decided to enforce it’s concept of marriage. My constant question is why don’t open-minded and open-hearted clergy have the same energy to organize their voices?

—Pastor Dan Hooper

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

More weight tipping the scale.

January 12, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

On the heels of the no vote in New Jersey (where they only needed 4 or 5 more votes in the Senate), little by little, the objections to same-gender legal marriage continue to wither in other countries. This past week, the Parliament of Portugal voted to permit gay marriage, according to an Associated Press story.

This unites the Iberian peninsula, because Spain already did this five years ago. Although both are heavily Roman Catholic countries, they have not fallen off into the Atlantic for their left-leaning liberalism! At what point will the international change reach a tipping point for the United States too? Why are we so, well, anal?

Last summer, according to the Huffington Post, Portugal’s highest Constitutional Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage and rejected a suit by two lesbians, Teresa Pires and Helena Paixao. the high court considered the appeal brought from a lower court, and “the Constitutional Court said in a statement posted on its Web site that the constitution does not state that same-sex marriages must be permitted.”

But catch the prophetic outlook of one of the plaintiffs, which seems to anticipate this week’s shift:

The court said the question before it was not whether the constitution allows same-sex marriages, but whether the constitution compels them to be accepted, which it does not.       Paixao told The Associated Press by telephone she regarded the decision as “a victory” because the split decision demonstrated that attitudes are changing in Portugal. “It shows there’s a change coming. Bit by bit people will come around” and accept gay marriage, she said.www.Change.Org carries Michael Jones’ commentary from last Wednesday, “Portugal, Gay Marriage, and a Visit By Pope Benedict XVI“: Prime Minister Socrates made legalizing gay marriage a big component of his re-election campaign last year. When he won, in September, gay marriage activists saw the marriage equality writing on the wall. By the end of this week, the writing may be all over the country’s laws.       Meanwhile, even the Catholic Church is Portugal is sounding a bit conciliatory. Lisbon’s Catholic Cardinal Patriarch Jose Policarpo weighed in and said that same-sex marriage was “parliament’s responsibility,” and not something that Portugal’s Catholic Church should focus on. Ah, would that this philosophy spill over to the U.S. Catholic Church. Instead of leaving marriage up to state legislators, the U.S. Catholic Church gets involved regularly (hello Maine, hello California, hello New Jersey) in the same-sex marriage debate.

Meanwhile, Australian Catholic Cath News notes that the parliament rejects allowing gay couples to adopt children. And further meanwhile, Aljazeera (!) notes that it was as recently as 1982 that homosexuality was a crime in Portugal. Is there any doubt that we are clamoring to a tipping point when (a) decriminalization to legal marriage is only 28 years apart; (b) Aljezeera news carries an objective news story on this without calling for death to the “infidels”?

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Catholic matters, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Ecumenical Issues, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »