On Obama, Gay Marriage, and Prop 8

A Quick Hit:

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn’t have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead.

Now their son opposes Gay Marriage.  Prop 8 has been struck down, but this battle brings the fight to White House.  Obama must weigh in, and his backward, incoherent and irrational opposition to marriage for some US citizens but not others will once again be brought into the light.  His ironic position is that of “separate but equal”.  The only equality he is defending to place the demands of theocratic bullying on the same level as the rational, compassionate, popularly supported desire for true equality for people of any sexual orientation.

As Keith Olberman said:

This is about the… human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not… understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don’t want to deny you yours. They don’t want to take anything away from you. They want what you want — a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Well Mr President?  Will you step up to the ethical plate and take a swing for equality?  Or will you continue to cower and let theocrats – who harbor no intentions of ever supporting you or your party electorally – dictate the policy we all have to live with?

Opposing Gay Marriage in a Recession

One of the best arguments against Gay Marriage I’ve heard from Rob Thomas (emphasis mine):

Still, I’m amazed at the audacity of a small, misdirected group of the ultra-conservative Christian right wing, to spend millions of dollars, in a recession, on advertisements to stop two men or women who love each other from being able to be married, but when you present any opposition to them, they accuse you of attacking their religion.

I had not thought of that angle.  What does it say about those pouring money into opposing gay marriage, during a recession, that they’d rather prevent people from enjoying equal rights than reach out to the poor and the meek and help those in need?

As an added bonus, he adds:

Isn’t it funny that the people who are the quickest to take someone’s basic rights to happiness are always the loudest to scream when someone attacks their right to do so?

Amen.

One of thehttp://melinda.toomojo.com/

Invasion of Love and Privacy

The people who brought you prop hate have decided to go after existing gay marriages:

The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.

The religious right is literally tearing families apart.  How many of these married couples have kids together?  What will there status be?

That doesn’t matter at all to the theocratic  freaks who would rather force the government stop anything not approved by their interpretation of the Christian Bible.  (And these are the types of people Obama is trying to reach out to).  They aren’t pro-family, they are pro-theocracy.

They need to be stopped.  They do not have the right to ruin lives because they think their God disapproves of homosexuality.  While I approve the irony and creativity behind the initiative to ban divorce in California (petition and more details here), I think we need to come up with a sharper plan of attack.  We need to find a way to make areas of discourse that have been regarded as politically safe, dangerous.  We need to shift the overton window of religion’s role in public life to expose the ridiculousness of allowing irrational faith of some to dictate the rights of all.

Theocrats: Don’t Tread on Me

I’ve got a post over at Revolutionary Act on Republicans, Gay Marriage, Palin, and Theocracy.  You are all warmly encouraged to drop by and share your voice.

GodTube: Sex Before Marriage

The video itself isn’t remarkable.  It compares marrying someone who has had pre-marital sex to getting an order in a restaurant a previous patron has already eaten.  Would that make marital sex like eating the same order over and over again?  While the endless cycle of regurgitation and ingestion hinted at does provide some mirthful moments, the comments section is a fascinating read.  Most of the comments express disgust with the video with a few “yay let’s be holy and chaste” shout outs sprinkled throughout.  This one comment really stood out (emphasis mine):

Just so you know, this vid is circling the net right now, garnering ridicule and outrage from folks who are intelligent, compassionate Christians. No, the circulation of this vid will not help you “spread your message”…if anything it will harden even more hearts, and probably turn more hearts against God. We are fortunate that one of the creators of this has explained himself (comments below) and is even intelligent enough to understand the flaw of his work. He even sums up the major problem with most “Creative Arts Ministries” in America; There is too much interest in condemnation and reinforcing negative prejudices. It is created solely for shock value (the “shock” aspect being questionable at best, and regarded by most young people as “lame” at worst). There is little or no interest by the people using the creative arts to present God’s message in showing/exploring the teachings of love, the railing against hypocrisy, and the values of compassion…these are the cornerstone of Christ’s teachings. Instead, these folks capitalize on kid’s fears and insecurities. The more intelligent young people who view this vid will see it for what it is: a desperate attempt by people who claim to “get it” to maintain the status quo. Your arrogance will drive them away. The more easily swayed will, sadly, take these values more to heart. They will take a condescending stance towards those they can easily label as sinners. They will place themselves higher than others, because you teach them it is right to do so. I ask you: If call yourselves Christians, how do you have ANY right to judge others?

I keep the reactions to videos like this in mind when considering national politics.  There’s always that segment of the population who could care less what specifically a candidate says so long as they believe in Reagan as their lord and savior.  For them the concept of truth boils down to “does it reinforce my beliefs?”.

Posting this again for “cooket” since he is so “high and mighty” This video was done for our youth group a couple years ago and was for total shock value. The message was covered with Grace and love and truth. Looking back, I don’t think I would have changed anything about the video, but I think I would have make a part 2 showing the Grace side. Blessings, Vince

In addition to turning people off to the compassionate activist side of Christianity, the thinking exposed by the reactions to this video show a very watered down concept of truth and identity.  How many of the children in that youth group who tone down their faith to sane and have sex before marriage will internalize the video’s message?  If their concept of self and correct action always comes down to an argument from authority, its no surprise the religious right is cannon fodder for this nation’s fascist tendencies.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention I got wind of the GodTube item from my friend Brad.  Doh!

Thoughts on Family

Family is a very full word.  It carries most of our memories, aspirations, relationships and identity.  Defining family is the closest we can come to approaching but not reaching the act of defining self.

When I think of the division between conservatism and liberalism (as strange and twisted as both definitions have become in American politics), I cannot think of a starker difference in opinion than on the nature and significance of family.

On the one hand, you have organizations like the fundamentally ugly quiverfull, and the people their brand of thinking inspires (via inmate1972):

So I’m in this cafe with the Super Breeding Quiverfull Family of 14 and while some people giggled at the father trying to remember one his daughters’ first name, I focused instead on the incredibly sad look on the girl’s face and she corrected him no less than three times. But who is this kid to expect to feel special when she exists soley as a fullfillment of a mission?

That’s heartbreaking.  But I think its a mentality that plays out in many right wing positions.  In the war that grinds through a generation of soldiers, leaving some dead, and more deeply wounded in both mind and body.  In posititions on birth control that have led to preventable deaths.  The idea that a child is a punishment for having sex outside religiously acceptible terms is best viewed through the lens of people who have made the conscious decision to have children.  When you see the effort, love, and weird transformations (“I’m comfortable with picking another person’s nose now” – Rich) involved, you can’t help be see the child who is viewed as a weight as a victim of the cruelest loss.  And of course there is health care.  Any political idealogy that counts uninsured children as a necessity has embraced a cold and detached violence that replaces compassion with psychotic indifference.

On the other hand, there is the liberal view of family.  Blonder than You wrote this incredibly moving post on her accompanyment of a friend to the Emergency Room:

i kept playing it over in my head….you are not family…you are not family….

what the hell do these people know about family???? they dont know him they dont know me..they certainly dont know about our “family”….they dont know:

that his parents are assholes and kicked him out of the house when he told them he was gay

that i moved in with him for several months a few years ago when he first got cancer…to take him back and forth to chemo and to care for him after the treatments left him a mess…

that he gets realllly scared at hospitals… i mean you really only have to go through cancer treatments once for hospitals to leave a bad taste in your mouth…three times… and well…. you’ll pretty much freak out when they try to put an iv in your arm too…

that when i needed it..he offered to let me live with him…rent free… for as long as i needed (seriously… isnt THAT family)

Family is more than a social unit.  It is a level of connection that reaches compassionately into our deepest weaknesses to offer support.  Its knowing you can call and share your latest ideas, fears, passions and triumphs.  It leans over the line where the terms “close friend” and “best friend” sit as close as they can to each other.

Defining family is powerful:

but i swear … the whole thing…. made me agonizingly aware of the magnitude of not allowing gay partners to marry…i know that gay couples go through this kind of thing often… and … its awful… i cant really imagine it…two hours and i was near crazy…

step back folks…it isnt about having two dudes or two chicks on the top of a cake…. it isnt just about having a “wedding” …..it isnt about what “your god” preaches…..its about being legally defined as family….. not having to explain to a 17 year old receptionist who cant even tie her shoes..(she was born in the age of velcro) … what FAMILY is… cause reallly… its none of her business…

It is a way of defining who we are.  The battle for gay marriage is often viewed “merely” as a civil rights struggle of a particular group of people.  It goes far beyond that.  It is simply one front in the battle over a fundamental question.  Do we posses the liberty to determine our own relationships?

When you take your dear friend to the hospital, and you are the only one there, you are family.

When Obama wins office, one of the key points his platform advocated (as did Clinton, Edwards, and every other Democrat), was the idea of furthering patient’s rights.  The definition of “family” ought to be a part of that.  Hell, if the campaign was really smart, they’d make it a cornerstone.  Because nothing takes the hypocritical punch of “Family Values” out of right wing discourse like shoving real family values into the spotlight.

But on a more personal level, as I reflect back on the conversations I’ve had over the past few weeks, it reminds me how dearly I love the people in my life.  And how no matter how close a friend you are, it is never expected that you would take time to listen to my worries or my adventures, and always flooring to know that I could be the object of such caring.  And it always moves me that I am ever able to be the same sort of person for you.  So I owe some people a very big thank you.  And I am reminded how much is as stake, whether during an election cycle or not.

So I invite you, dear readers, to make politics personal.  Politics isn’t an abstract and filthy thing politicians do to keep the country running.  It is the energy that builds the world we live our lives in.  So it is by nature personal.  And what is more personal than how we are allowed to define family?

Gays in the Military: Allowed to Die but not to Marry

Its encouraging that 75% of Americans reject McCain’s dangerous stand against Homosexuals serving in the military.  Temper that with the knowledge that the majority of Americans oppose Gay Marriage.

Allowed to die for your country, but not marry the one you love.  A large chunk of my fellow Americans have the polar opposite of “make love not war” shoved ironically up their collective asses.

CA: Liberty Counsel and Marriage for Christians Only

The Liberty Counsel has issued a brave and bold call for marriage to be limited to opposite sex couples (via Pandagon):

The desperation of the wingnuts to stop the launch of legal same-sex marriage in California next week is now laughable at this point.

Today Liberty Counsel is filing a petition requesting the California Court of Appeal to stay the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

…This case is far from over. We will not give up. The people will have the final say on marriage.

In the interests of preserving the sanctity of marriage, believers in the one true religion have taken the extra step of adding in a measure to the ballot to limit all marriages to Christian Marriages.

Right Reverend Matthew Staver was blunt in his assessment of the “Heathen” problem:

“We’ve been polite long enough.  I think we’ve established, with majority support in California I might add, that we can base the rights of all on the religion of the majority.  The next logical step is to stop pretending that Jewish, Muslim, or even (have mercy) Hindu marriages are not sanctified by our lord Jesus Christ.  The fact is nonbelievers are committing a sin even more deadly than sodomy by rejecting God’s only son, and the one path towards salvation.  Frankly I’m not even sure they should be allowed to adopt.”

Matt was confident his efforts would pay off, and with echoes of Virginia in 2006, those about to lose their marriage rights seemed to concur:

“The Tanakh clearly states sodomy was punished by He on Most High.  If we have to avoid marriage to keep gay people from getting married, meh” said Ben (declined to give last name).  “The Koran forbids homosexuality.  That is the most important thing.” said (asked not to be named).

Is California poised to unite Church and State in holy matrimony?  The Liberty Counsel is down on one knee…

Biblically Justified Rape

Neil has very cleverly titled post, and I was perusing it when a line struck me sideways (emphasis mine):

Aside from the verses below and the fact that the Bible never claims perpetual virginity for her, it would have been a sin for Mary not to have sex with Joseph.

Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

1 Corinthians 7:5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Sex in marriage is not sinful!  To put such emphasis on the myth of her perpetual virginity is to be make Puritans look downright worldly.

I think Neil is dead on in his interpretation here.  The Christian Bible is clearly stating that once married one must have sex if one partner wants to.  Even if one partner does not want to.  How is that not Rape?

Now imagine the separation of Church and State dissolving, and the Bible becoming a legal text.  Would a theocratic United States amend laws against rape to exclude married couples?

How Purity Invites Murder

The word theocracy is a powerful one.  It brings to mind the prospect of a religious authority ruling people.  And religious control of politics is always that: rule.  It is a single authority exercising its will on the people.

A subtler form may also take root.  This unfortunate news via Pandagon:

I suppose this was inevitable, but the growing movement of doctors and pharmacists who decide that you’re not worthy of medical treatment if you’re female and engaging in sexual behavior they disapprove of has reached the point where some doctors are refusing to perform Pap smears on unmarried women. I guess you probably don’t really need one if you’re a virgin, because they’re looking for cervical cancer, which is linked to HPV, which is sexually transmitted. For the people who think unwanted pregnancy and STDs are just the proper punishment for unmarried, sexually active women, it follows that death from cervical cancer should go on the “punishments for sluts” list.

Make no mistake about this.  Doctors are refusing to perform a vital medical test on women they personally do not believe should be having sex.  From the article:

To look for answers, I turned to Patricia LaRue, Executive Director at Canadians for Choice, to see what she could tell me if doctors have the right to refuse ANY procedure that they see as going against their religion.  She reminded me that doctors have a “conscience clause,” allowing them to refuse prescriptions for birth control, abortion, and now pap smears.  The conscious clause is put in place by the Canadian Medical Association so that physicians are not forced to act in any way that goes against their personal beliefs.

If a women is denied a vital medical service, and then dies, the doctor is directly responsible for her death.  This is no different than a doctor refusing to help a gunshot victim or test the swollen lymph nodes of a patient because of the color of his skin.

For me, this goes beyond the question of whether or not a person may cite religious objections when going directly against the Hippocratic Oath. I wonder, what kind of religion comes from such a place of cold arrogant judgment that its adherents believe they have the right to commit murder?

The obsession over purity is really an obsession over a lack of control.  A control that should be forever beyond the reach of governments and churches.

How long until doctors claim the right to refuse to treat homosexuals?  Until people of other faiths are off-limits?  Will everything from the Ten Commandments to the most obscure line in scripture become justification for refusing to stand by the Hippocratic Oath?

McCain: No You Can’t

Hot on the heals of discovering one McCain satire music video, I find another one at WriteChic Press:

Barely Political put this parody together today with the help of the extraordinary Lee Stranahan and Alan Bernhoft. It’s edgier than the parody put out by the LA comics.

It makes its point with a lot more power:

This will be something to refer back to in the general election.

• Can I get affordable health care?
• Can I use medical marijuana if I’m in pain?
• Can I pay my mortgage?
• Can I get married if I’m Gay?
• Can I come home from Iraq?

With John McCain as President you know the answer, if not the reason why: “No You Can’t“.

How do we Argue with Christianists?

The Huckabee crowd doesn’t dig on reason, or rational discourse.  So how do we penetrate the wall?

Well, maybe that conventional wisdom isn’t that spot on.  Take this fellow (I am the son).  In one post, he writes on Gay Marriage:

We need a correction in society, much like the correction Wall Street is seeing. I am not suggesting discrimination, violence or anything like that. I am saying that any similarity to a man/woman relationship in respect to legal and social benefits should not be tolerated pr given to the gay for obvious reasons. If it is given, I demand my five wives.

The same poster writes in another post:

Maybe it is time that all this stuff we consider sacred is re-evaluated and tested for truth.

The spirit or being that we refer to as God that we credit with creating this planet and the beings on it,  may not be what is described at all.  Some of the books that they rejected as part of the bible tell a somewhat different story.  Were they rejected over politics, or did they threaten the business of religion at that time?

Catch that?  There is more of that out there, I guarantee it.  A desire to poke and prod is innate.  No matter how forcibly we are indoctrinated into an organized religion, our minds do not perish, do not give up.  In other words, progressives are not facing a blank wall against which our arguments fall flat.  We are facing a tough audience.

I believe we can break through, and I believe the way to do so is by directly engaging the core beliefs that influence and move that audience.  It is not a matter of discussing Gay Marriage directly (although this is integral), but of discussing the nature of spirituality and holiness, and moving the debate onto ground once thought safe, and showing it to be hollow and untrustworthy.  For all the animus against the shock-jock wave in modern atheism, I think its a damn good start.  The key is to fight out of love and be strong enough stand and deliver.

We can save the saved.

Huckabee’s Lies on Marriage and Submission

Ladies and Gentlemen!  We have a wonderful treat for you tonight, a sparkling example of a man covering his bible beater with a rhetorical flourish.  An attempt, ladies and gentlemen, to hide the kind of President he will be.

The show begins with Huckabee’s masterful performance during the debate.  When asked (Sanctification) about his endorsement of a Southern Baptist Convention mandate on marriage, he responds with three main points.

1. I’m proud of my faith, and every little piece of it, and will practice it no matter what.
2. My faith will not inform how I govern.
3. We were actually saying men and women are equal, and must submit themselves to each other (awwwwww).

Where shall we begin ladies and gentlemen?  I’m raring to tear into the fleshy parts of these arguments.  Let’s start by taking a look at the actual mandate Huckabee was asked about (Majikthise):

Here’s what Huckabee said the SBC was right about:

XVIII. The Family

God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society.

It is composed of persons related to one another by marriage, blood, or adoption.

Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is God’s unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel of sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race.

The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God’s image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation. [The Baptist Faith and Message]

Am I the only one disturbed from the segue from “the family” to “sexual expression” to “submission”?  If family the forum for Christian sexual expression, and wives are supposed to submit to men on “family” matters…

Frankly this piece “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.” really took me aback.  But this text is plainly not about the equality of men and women in a relationship.  When Huckabee stood up and said his religion views men and women as equals, he was bearing false witness.  It is about a woman’s place in a marriage, and the unbreakable nature of that marriage.  Which leads me to the lifetime aspect of marriage endorsed here.

Having scratched out point #3, let’s take a stab at point #1.  I will argue passionately that any religious belief that hurts people is something to be ashamed of, and more, something to stop practicing immediately.  We got beyond sacrifice people, why not other harmful practices?  Where, in that view of the lifelong covenant supported by God, is there room for divorce?  What about in the case of spousal abuse?  And then there’s Linday’s observation about the linking of sex to submission to the husband, and suddenly issues of spousal rape crop up.  This is not a life affirming aspect of the Christian religion.  It is the controlling and patriarchal dark underbelly.

Finally there is point #2:

I’m not the least bit ashamaed of my faith, or the doctrines of it.  I don’t try to impose that as a governor, and I wouldn’t impose it as a President.

Mike Huckabee opposes a woman’s right to choose, and gay rights.  He wants to introduce creationism into the schools.  The above statement, transcribed from his answer during the debate, is demonstrably false.  Huckabee is flat out lying.  His brand of Christianity will drive his Presidency, and he will most certainly work to impose his beliefs on the American public.

Homosexual’s Can’t Consent to Marriage

It’s so blindingly stupid it’s effing brilliant.  Why didn’t I think of this before?  Pam at Pandagon catches a mensa worthy quote from the Family Research Council:

In Rhode Island, a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts is seeking a divorce; because their marriage was not recognized in R.I., when they filed for divorce, it is now in the courts to decide whether it can be dissolved there.

FRC decided to weigh in on the matter by filing a brief to argue that the marriage cannot be recognized (even though there is no law in R.I. banning same-sex marriage), citing this unhinged thinking:

“Following the logic of the appellants and their supporters, man/animal marriage and man/deceased woman marriage must be permitted under Rhode Island law simply because the General Assembly has not expressly prohibited it.”

Tony and Co., when you are able to explain how animals and corpses can grant consent to enter a union of any kind, please let us know.

That’s the genius of it!  You can’t explain how animals and corpses grant consent.  Because they can’t!  And neither can Gay people.  This is also why Gays can’t serve in the military.  They can’t consent!  Why, this forward thinking logic just might lead us to a brave new America where Gays cannot enter into binding contracts of any kind.  Thanks Family Research Council, for setting us all straight.

Are Democrats Afraid of Christians?

Why won’t any of the front runners support gay marriage (The Guardian)?

Just two of the candidates, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, said they thought gay couples should be allowed to marry just as heterosexual couples can.

Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama, Mr Edwards and the New Mexico governor, Bill Richardson, argued that civil unions were sufficient.

This isn’t a tough issue. You either support equality, or you do not. You either support separation of Church and State, or you argue that marriage is “sacred” and the state has a say in what constitutes a “sacred” marriage.

“Civil Unions” are a piss poor attempt at having it both ways, a return to the “separate but equal” bullshit that the civil rights movement knocked out of the water.

So why not just take the right position on an issue for once? Why not stand up and say “I am for equality”, and mean it?

Are Democrats that afraid of the response from Conservative Christians?

Forget soccer moms and nascar dads. This year’s buzz demographic are the sunday heteros. The one’s whose bigoted interpretation of the bible is so powerful, that the resulting hate won’t let them vote for anything other than inequality before the law. That’s who the leading Democrats pandered to during the debate. That’s who the Democrats are letting define them as a party.